Throughout the past two centuries, excavations in Romano-Celtic settlements on both Britain and the European Continent have turned up a number of representations of a hooded deity interpreted to be cult objects of the genius cucullatus.   Providing a case for the origin and identity for the cult has been a challenge for archaeologists because, as with many topics in the study of Celtic culture, the only information available is  encoded in the relief carvings and votive objects depicting the deities.  Often, these objects have been long disassociated with their original context and have suffered heavy weathering.  This essay intends to give an overview of the topics that have concerned scholars of the genius cucullatus including the general attributes of the deity, its origin, the regional variation in the representations, and a list of  genii cucullati found thus far.

I.  Identification
Hoods, eggs, and parchment scrolls
        The genius cucullatus takes on a general form that is modified and embellished according to localized interpretations of the deity's power.  To draw up a list of features each figure displays would be short; they wear thick hooded cloaks and are found in pontentially sacred contexts. The cloaks vary in length, number of folds, extent of body coverage, and hood shape.   Although no pattern has been determined among the different cloak styles, other differences between the figures are partly linked to the regions in which they were found.  Most scholars agree that the genii cucullati of Britain predominantly appear in triads, are small of stature, and often carry eggs, or other fertility attributes (Heichelheim 192-3).   In contrast, the cucullati of the European continent appear singularly, as giants and dwarves, and occasionally imply phallus worship(193).  In both regions the deities are often found clutching parchments or scrolls, which may signify wisdom (Jenkins 88) or the secrets of healing lore (Toynbee, 1957 158).

      Most figures are clearly male although in a few objects wear on the physiognomy has obscured the features to the extent that the gender is ambiguous.  In particular, members of a genii cucullati triad discovered in Housesteads of Northumberland on Hadrian’s wall, as well as the one of the two extant figures of the Netherby triad have been labeled female (Green, 1989 185; Heichelheim 187).  Taking into account the fertility attributes of many cucullati with association of some British cucullati with mother goddesses, the appearance of a female hooded deity along side the genius cucullatus does not seem implausible.  Opposed to such speculation, Toynbee  considers the sex of the cucullati to be invariably male (1957, 458).  On the other hand, the possibility that the softer or more delicate features and body frame depicts youth instead of femininity cannot be ignored.  Instead of enhancing the interest of the hooded diety in fecundity, the span of ages of the diety in one relief may refer to the different phases of life the deity watches over, such as birth, maturity, and death.   In the end the gender of the figures is a matter of opinion.

Proximity and association
     In addition to the attributes such as eggs, fruit, and scrolls that have aided the constructions of the metaphysical arena in which the hooded deity participated, the contexts of finds and other deities appearing with the genius cucullatus provide additional clues.  In Celtic thought, mysterious sources of water were seen as entrances to the Otherworld or sources of healing (Stewart 23).  Subsequently, it has been surmised from several cucullati finds near natural springs like Kent and Bath that the cucullatus was a god of health because these thermal baths had soothing capacities (Green 1989, 185).  Similarly, one may interpret the votive tablets found in the deep well at Cirencester to link the deity to the Otherworld (187)    Presentations of unknown figures with deities of well established reputations also clue us in to the realm of the unknown figure, because often deities of similar interests were presented together.  As we find the cucullatus with mother goddesses in Cirencester (Corinium)  and a trio near the gods Mercury and Rosmerta on a pottery shard at Colchester one infers the hooded deity may have had powers over fertility and prosperity, respectively (185).
     Unfortunately, the cucullus or cloak, the most obligatory aspect of the Celtic deity, has lead to misidentifications of several objects and unresolved debates because it  is the common costume of genre subjects such as pilgrims, peasants, children, and adults, and more importantly,  the identifying attribute of the god Telesphorus.  The child god and son of Asklepios, Telesphorus bears a number of characteristics in common with the cucullati.  Cloaked and of small stature, Telesphorus has powers within the worlds of sleep and dreams and is considered a protector of infants and fertility (Deonna 54-5).  Although his arms are 
often concealed beneath the thick cloak, when unveiled, his arms may hold attributes such as scrolls or a tablet.  Both of these objects may symbolize wisdom.  Significantly, Telesphorus wears no shoes and his bare feet may be a ritualistic feature, perhaps for mourning (39-40).  Resolving the origin and nature of the genius cucullatus involves the study of Telesphorus because the two cults overlap in time and territory.

Origins of Telesphorus and the Celtic genius cucullatus
     Although archeologists had documented reliefs of  hooded figures presumed to have been objects of a hooded deity cult independent of Telesphorus since the mid nineteenth century, the existence of the formal cult following was not substantiated until the discovery in 1931 of two altars in Wabelsdorf, a town in the Austrian province of Carinthia (Egger).  Inscribed with the dedication, ‘genio cucullatio,’ which translates, “to the hooded deity” the altars instigated a quest for archaeologists to determine which hooded figures belonged to this newly named cult.   One of the first archaeologists to discuss the implications of the discovery, R. Egger,  speculated that the hooded deity was actually the same as Telesphorus, whose worship had spread through Greece in a Hellenized form of the originally Celtic construction of the Galatians of Asia Minor (Egger).  Egger’s initial conclusions on the relationship between Telesphorus and the hooded deity have been subject to considerable debate which is summarized to the best extent in Waldemar Deonna’s article, 'De Télesphore au ‘Moine Bourru.’

Galatian Hypothesis
    Among the theories Deonna discusses, there are two main hypotheses.  Supporting Egger’s Galatian hypothesis are those who believe that the genius cucullatus and Telesphorus were originally the same; Telesphorus is a Hellenized version of the Celtic deity.1  Evidence favoring Celtic antecedence includes a coin of the Segusiavi that was found northeast of Lyons dated to 57-27 BC.2  The reverse of the coin bears an image a small hooded figure on a platform to the right of the larger, muscular Hercules.  Greek money featuring Telesphorus did not appear until the first century CE.  These greek coins never paired Telesphorus and Hercules and appeared at least one hundred years after the Segusiavi coins (Deonna 48).  So, although this theory considers the origin of the cloaked deity to be Celtic, the worship spread in a Hellenized form and, consequently,  that was the form that reached Gaul.

Greco-Roman Hypothesis
    On the other hand,  it has been argued by Kerényi  that Telesphorus is of Greco-Asian origin with the cult’s origins in Greece and Rome.  Thus, the Celtic cloaked deity would have been known by the barbarians through the influence of the Roman occupation of Gaul (Deonna 66).  Heichelheim supports this non-Galatian origin theory in light of his opinion that there exist objects that could have been linked to neither the worship of the Telesphorus figure that would have reached the European continent via Greek and Rome nor the Gallo-Roman Mercury (who also wore a cucullus)(Heichelheim 190-1).
    Deonna, himself, tends to support what he considers an intermediate position with an argument based primarily on statements of Saloman Reinach (Deonna 66-7).  In this scheme, the genius cucullatus is native to Gaul, but identified as Telesphorus by the Roman invaders because of the similarities in their mythological attributes (66-67).   In the words of Reinach, “Télesphore a pris pied en Gaule, parce qu’il existait chez les Gaulois une conception analogue á celle de l’enfant Télesphore” (Deonna 59,66).
     Even these two theories do not encompass all of the possible interpretations of the largely circumstantial evidence thus far discovered.  Moreover, some of the theories hinge on objects of disputed identities.  For example, quite a few coin catalogues identify the hooded deity on the Segusiavi coin as Telesphorus.3  While a triad of the hooded deities may clearly be considered a Celtic cult image, a lone clay figure can be more difficult to categorize and the possibilities include: a native genius cucullatus, the Romanized Telesphorus, a Celticized Telesphorus, or some other combination of influences (65).

The Obstacle of Inconsistency
     Deonna discusses whether it is  possible to outline straightforward criteria for identifying the genius cucullatus using the only constant feature, the cloak.  Instead, his effort produces a list of details that are inconsistent among the known images such as the cloak’s length, number of folds, the extent of body coverage, and the shape of the hood (65).  As shown by the preceding arguments, the true nature of the relationship between the genius cucullatus and Telesphorus is indeterminable.  While we know from the Latin inscriptions on the Wabelsdorf altars that there existed a hooded deity on the European continent separate from any Roman version of Telesphorus,  assigning the label of genius cucullatus must be done with the understanding that the hooded votive figures and reliefs found in Romano-Celtic territory could have been the result of an amalgam of native Celtic, Roman and Hellenistic beliefs.

II.  Regional variation
Britain and Triplism
      Although there have been single figures of the genius cucullatus discovered in Britain, at least eight triadic groupings of the cucullati have been uncovered in Britain4 and only one triad on a non-British clay group from Kärlich (Toynbee, 1957 458).  Such multiplication of images is a distinctive feature of Celtic iconography and design.  The Celts might multiply all or part of an object in order to convey the subject's inherent power or divine nature (Green 168).  Repetition afforded more than a simple intensification of the subject’s identity insofar as the numbers themselves could communicate the level of power depicted (169).  In fact, certain numbers possessed inherent significance.  The number five in the form of the four cardinal points and the center may represent wholeness or totality (169).  Threeness, triplism, or triadism had a exceptional symbolic significance in the Celtic culture.  “Such triads assume a particular interest in the light of M. Deonna’s own researches on ‘trois, superlatif absolu,’” asserts Toynbee on the subject.5  Often a triplicate representation of a deity might refer to the three realms of his power, or the three groups that worshiped him.  The triplication of the genius cucullatus not only lends a particularly Celtic flavor to the depictions, but provides insight into aspects of the cult worship.
      Unlike other deities, the significance of the number three specifically for the genius cucullatus has not been documented.  The potential significance of the number for the cult may be considered using the example of the three sisters Brigit that has been derived from Celtic vernacular literature.  For this deity, the triad signified the three professions devoted to her: poets, smiths, and doctors as well as her three roles.  She was simultaneously a mother, a guardian of childbirth, and a goddess of prosperity (Green, 1989 170).
      If, similarly, the cucullatus had tripartite domains in which he reigned, it can only be constructed from the contexts of the finds and the figure's attributes.  For example, two votive tablets with triads of cucullati were uncovered deep in a Romano-Celtic period well of Lower Slaughter of Cirencester, in a site that had the appearance of a native agricultural community (McWhirr 67).  Commonly votive offerings have been recovered from wells, or other springs, natural or ritually dug, because of the mythological significance of mysterious sources of water as entrances to the Otherworld or sources of healing (Stewart 23).  Coincidentally, the votive tablet has two birds on the pediment of the carving, that Ross suggests are ravens, often symbols of  death and the triad is accompanied by a warrior god, a god of healing (Ross, 1967 188).  In the absence of literary evidence, find spots such as this well of Lower Slaughter might help us interpret what  symbolic roles of the deity the triplicate form might have enhanced, such as a power to heal or position as guardian of the otherworld.

Rhine-Moselle area
     A number of hooded dwarves have been discovered in the area where the Rhine and Moselle rivers intersect.  This area includes the sites of Trier, Jagsthausen, and Dhronecken.  Unlike the triplistic stone reliefs of Britain, these clay figurines are lone figures of particularly dwarf like proportions (Jenkins 89).   At  Kärlich, Jagsthausen, and Cologne, a connection with the Otherworld is suggested by the appearance of the figures in Roman grave goods (89).  These figures are often seen with scrolls, as well, with presumably the same implications of wisdom or knowledge as is believed for Telesphorus.  Curiously, a clay hooded dwarf of local manufacture resembling these continental genii cucullati was discovered in the Reculver site at Kent, providing one of the few examples of a singular cucullatus in Britain (86).  Jenkins speculates that the Rhine-Moselle region created this manifestation of the deity and the Reculver figure was imported in the second century CE (89).

III.  Major Sites
     The intention of the following section is to provide a summary of existing genii cucullati.  Where possible, provenance, current location, and a brief description information are provided.   Geographical distribution will be the organizing factor for the presentation and each region will be preceded by an overview of the geography of the find spots.
    According to archaeological evidence, the worship of the genius cucullatus in Britain was concentrated in a northern region of Hadrian’s Wall and Gloucestershire in the southwest (Toynbee, 1957  457).  While the northern objects are more likely to have been influenced by Roman soldiers, the southern carvings probably represent a more rural and native cult.   In  1957, Toynbee published a catalogue containing the fifteen objects discovered in Britain attributed to the cult of the genius cucullatus from these two areas and the rest of Britain.   His catalogue aimed to correct and append to all previous publications including Egger’s article of 1932, Heichelheim’s Archaeologia Aeliana article of 1935, and Deonna’s monograph of 1955, the three most comprehensive of all previous listings of British cucullati.   Each archaeologist finds faults in the other’s lists.  Heichelheim criticizes Egger’s initial list for disregarding objects that did not support his Galatian hypothesis and Deonna finds Heichelheim’s list to include too many obvious genre pieces and figures of dubious identities (Heichelheim 44; Deonna 64).  Toynbee finds Deonna’s work extensive but incomplete, as many objects had yet to be published at the time of his monograph (Toynbee, 1957 456).   Toynbee, of course, missed some objects, as well.  This list will not be complete either because many genius cucullatus discoveries remain unpublished. Nevertheless the list intends to show the variety of objects found in order to draw attention to both singularity and trends.

Region of Hadrian’s Wall
      The genii cucullati  found along Hadrian’s Wall appeared in the dwellings near or in Roman military forts.  While the fort of Housesteads is situated about halfway along the wall,  Netherby, Carlisle and Birdsowald are considered outpost forts, traditionally meaning that they were designed to compensate for deficiencies in the northern section of the wall.  These outposts overlooked the Brigantian territory beyond the wall in Northern England (Johnston 57).  Housesteads and Birdsowald are two of the grander forts and military sites such as these were often  associated with surrounding civilian settlements called vici.
     Triads prevail in the finds of this region.  In contrast to the more symbolic representations in the south,  a few objects contain relatively naturalistic elements such as the legs of the Netherby triad and the faces of the Housesteads triad.  In spite of this stylistic correlation to art objects of the mediterranean region, in most cases the carvings lack the naturalness and smooth finish of classical sculpture.
1.  Netherby (Castra Exploratorum), Cumberland, now in Netherby Hall, Cumberland
This sandstone votive tablet shows three identical genii cucullati in a high relief.  The modeling is rough.   The cloaks are waist length and each figure carries objects considered to be eggs or parchment scrolls.6
2.  Castle Yard, Carlisle (Luguvalium), Cumberland, now in Netherhall Collection, Maryport, Cumberland
Two genii cucullati remain on this small votive plaque of sandstone.  An arch finishes off the top of the plaque.  The cloaks close in the front conceal the feet and arms.  The hoods are tall and pointed.  Heichelheim considers the left figure to be female, but Toynbee disagrees.7
3.  Housesteads (Bercovicium), Northumberland, now in Housesteads Museum. 
This relief was found in a small domestic shrine in the Housesteads vicus.  Five Roman denarii presumably offered to the deities date the object around 220 CE to 229 CE.  The figures wear identical cloaks that fasten in the front and fall in four folds.  The feet are shod and stand on a ledge. Originally these three were considered women (“Third Report” 190-191), and while contemporary scholars such as M. Green concede the ambiguity, in opposition Toynbee considers them male.8 
4. Birdsowald (Camboglanna), Cumberland, now in Tullie House Museum, Carlisle (Carrick Collection)
The only hooded statuette found in Britain, this single figure may simply be a mortal dressed in a cucullus, but Toynbee believes it should be classed along side the crudely rendered triad reliefs of Housesteads and Netherby.9
 In the late Iron Age the tribal kingdom of the Dobunni occupied the area now belonging to the county of Gloucestershire.  Within this area, at the southeastern end of the Cotswold Hills, was the Roman fort of Cirencester or Corinium, built at the time of Claudius (McWhirr).  At the end of the second century CE, Cirencester became the capital of one of the provinces into which Britain became divided.  McWhirr imagines that a visitor approaching the city of Cirencester at the start of the third century would have seen, “a town surrounded by an earth bank, monumental stone gates spanning the main roads and stone towers spaced regularly along the rampart”
 (35).  Near Cirencester is the Roman city of Gloucester which was founded during the reign of Nerva (96-98 CE)(22). Large farming settlements in close proximity to these two cities included Lower Slaughter, Wycomb, Whittington and Daglingworth.  These settlements do not necessarily owe their existence to pre-existing Roman forts and all of the ones listed have turned up genius cucullatus figures (61).  At Lower Slaughter there is evidence for pre-Roman occupation and the Wycomb excavations have turned up three Dobunnic coins near the large Roman settlement that might have been populated to the extent that they built a theatre (66-67, 73).
     The Dobunnic genius cucullatus  are frequently associated with a single mother goddess which in one case from rustic Daglingworth might be identified as Cuda by an inscription.   While this association indicates the deity may have had power over fertility other figures in this area are associated with warrior gods, who often had healing powers.  In another case, sword bearing hooded deities seem to protect a mother goddess which is a situation that seems to connect healing and fertility, or even, the health of mothers.
5.  Cirencester, Gloucestershire, now in Corinium Museum, Cirencester No. C. 2750
Made of local limestone, this triad is carved in low relief and walk to the right.  All detail has worn away from the figures that are presented in a highly schematized manner.  Toynbee considers the work to be of the most simply and unclassical kind produced locally  (Toynbee, 1957 461).  The center figure holds a round object that could be a patera.10
6. and 7.  Lower Slaughter, Gloucestershire, Gloucester Museum
These two reliefs are purely two-dimensional and considered the most unclassical and native of the British cucullati. (Toynbee, 1964 177) .  Both were uncovered from a Roman well at Farnsworth, Gloucestershire.  One of them is quite unfinished with the cloaks reaching to just below the three deities’ knees (Ross, 1967 fig. 62b).  The other shows three hooded deities to the right of a warrior god beneath a rosette in the center of a pediment (Ross, 1967 fig. 62a).  Birds sit on either side of the rosette and Ross interprets these birds as ravens.  The raven is associated with war in Celtic mythology ( 242).11
8. Cirencester (Corinium), Gloucestershire, now in Corinium Museum, Cirencester
This house shaped stone votive tablet is carved with a low relief of four figures. The figures stand below a dome with that has six petal-like divisions.  The two flanking genii bear swords which allow the interpretation that they are protectors.  As the figures seem to face a mother goddess, it is possible that the deities guard against barrenness and disease.12
8. Cirencester (Corinium), Gloucestershire,  now in Corinium Museum, Cirencester No. B 2048
What remains of this votive plaque shows a hooded genius holding an egg and to his right what is presumed to be a mother goddess as she holds what seems to be a pile of fruits.  The genius wears a hood that falls in a short cape just below his shoulders, which also occurs in number 11, although the carving styles of these two pieces are very different.13
9.  Cirencester (Corinium). Gloucestershire,  now in Corinium Museum, Cirencester No. C. 744
These jet figures are carved in three dimensions.  Although the hood of the presumed genius cucullatus is cast down to his shoulders, the nudity of his male may serve to elevate the couple to  divine status (Toynbee, 1957 462-3).
10.  Daglingworth, Gloucestershire, now in Corinium Museum, Cirencester No.  A. 197
A plough turned up this tablet of local yellow oolite in a field near the foundations of an ancient building.  A woman sits with a large oval object which may be eggs or fruit and receives a larger object from a man who faces her. He is part of a trio of cloaked males.  Inscribed below the quartet is the word “CVDAE” which is presumed to be the name of the mother goddess.14
11. Daglingworth, Gloucestershire, now in Corinium Museum, Cirencester
 Near the spot where no. 8 was found, archaeologists discovered this fragment of the same material.  A thick, vertical fold of material at the right side of the figure’s neck is decidedly the base of the hood of a genius cucullatus (Toynbee, 1957 464-5).
12. and 13.  Wycomb, Gloucestershire, now Whittington Court, Gloucestershire
Two plaques of local oolite have been discovered at Wycomb which Toynbee suspects were the work of the same native carver.  The style of each is very simple, stylized, and without embellishment and are regarded as clear illustrations of the completely native background of the cult in this region (Toynbee, 1957 465).  In both reliefs, the genii cucullati interact with hoodless males carrying large oval objects.  Like the Daglingworth reliefs, these were probably dedicated in a house shrine or country temple.15

Miscellaneous Sites
13.  Rushall Down, Wiltshire, now in British Museum
Due to the extreme simplicity of carving and design of this chalk slab rendering of a hooded man, Toynbee assigns this cucullati to a dedicator of the lowest stratum of society.     The carving is two dimensional, the head contributes to half the size of the entire body, and the body is a simple bell shape with no detail.  It was found in the Romano-British Settlement of Rushall Down.16
14.  London (Londinium), now in British Museum
Unlike the other finds, the three  genii cucullati on this relief are carved on Greek island marble.  The folds are quite angular, and patterned in a schematized manner common to Celtic artistry.  More specifically, the plasticity of the modeling suggests a Gaulish hand made this (Toynbee, 1957 467).  The heads are missing on all these figures and although the British Museum labels them as Deae Matres the telling folds at the base of each neck and flat chests suggest these are instead, genii cucullati (Toynbee, 1957 466; 1964).
15. Reculver (Regulbium), Kent, Royal Museum, Canterbury No. 1952/10)
 Only a fragment remains of this clay figurine clutching scrolls.  The figure is  identical in technique and material to the hooded dwarves found in the Rhine-Moselle region of Germany (Jenkins 87).  It is believed by Jenkins that this pieces was imported to Britain in the 2nd century CE (Jenkins 87; Toynbee, 1957 467).
16. Colchester (Camulodunum), Essex, now in Colchester and Essex Museum, The Castle, Colchester
Among the figures portrayed in the hunt scene on the body of this large en barbotine beaker from Colchester are four long cloaked and hunch-backed hooded dwarfs.  This is the only find of this kind with genii cucullati (Toynbee, 1957 468).
17. Aque Sulis (Bath), Roman Baths Museum, Bath
A  relief from Bath, a site near thermal waters, depicts three genii cucullati in a cult scene that also involves a horned god, a seated goddess, and a Ram (Ross, 1967 343, fig. 55a).  The two larger deities are speculated to be Mercury and Rosmerta.  Mercury was a Roman deity adopted by Gaulish and British Celts as a god of commercial property.  Rosmerta, was a Celtic goddess of fertility and prosperity (Green, 1989 56).  By association, the hooded deities may adopt some of these same attitudes.17
Rhine-Moselle region
     A number of hooded dwarfs have been discovered in Trier and the region surrounding it along the intersection of the Rhine and Moselle rivers (Jenkins 89).   I have chosen to summarize the more interesting examples in this paper and wish to refer to the work of Jenkins, who lists the clay hooded dwarfs from this region in his effort to link the region to the Reculver figure (86).
     The figure from Reculver resembles closely the clay figurine holding a scroll in his right hand while standing on a pedestal that was found in Jagsthausen, Würtemberg from a cremated burial site.    The examples from Kärlich, Jagsthausen, and Cologne were all found among Roman grave goods (89).  Contexts such as these suggest the figures had a connection with the Otherworld (89).
     Twenty-three examples of clay genii cucullati were found in a temple dedicated to Mars-Lenus, on the left bank of the Moselle river, near Trier (87).  Lenus was a Gaulish god of healing often associated with Mars (Ross, 1967 191).  This discovery may strongly associate the figures with simiilar healing powers.
      Many of the figures from the Moselle region, including Dhronecken and Trier wear mustaches and carry parchments (Green, 1989 185).  One clay figure, found in the sanctuary of the Xulsigiae, a local mother goddess, and  carries fruit and a scroll or money-bag (185).  Although we can only speculate on the hooded deity’s powers, these recurring symbols of fertility and prosperity can at least inspire the classification of the genius cucullatus  as a benevolent spirit.
     A number of statuettes of hooded figures have been found in Gaul, but it is particularly difficult to distinguish whether they represent Telesphorus or the distinct cult of the genius cucullatus.  Two particular objects found in Gaul illustrate some of the critical features that distinguish the two gods.  One figure, a hooded statuette found near Nîmes, in Moulezan, has been identified as Telesphorus and a genius cucullatus (Espérandieu no. 6806; Deonna  661)).  Although this figure does not show the youth of the god-child Telesphorus, if the lines on his feet do indicate toes, the figure does have the requisite bare feet of Telesphorus.   On the other hand, the physiognomy is decidedly Celtic and in particular resembles those on the Netherhall cucullati.  If Reinach’s theory on the Celtic acceptance of the Greco-Romain Telesphorus due to the preexisting Celtic god of similar attributes, this may be a result of the Celtic assimilation of Telesphorus into a genius cucullatus.
     A coin of the Segusiavi, found near Lyons, figured prominently into the theories on the origin of the two hooded gods.  Although some sources identify the figure as Telesphorus18,  The cloaked figure has also been attributed to the cult of the genii cucullati because the coin is dated to a period at least one hundred years before the appearance of Greek money bearing the image of Telesphorus (Deonna 48).  Standing on a pedestal, the figure certainly belongs to a cult.  In contrast to the Moulezan statuette, the facial features are naturalistic, the hood falls on the shoulders of the figure, and the cloak is embellished.  The style of all figures on the coin seem to be classical in influence.
     Both of these Gaulish objects have lost the context of the original find and neither bear attributes that contribute to the notions of what the hooded deity's powers were.  Instead they provide interesting examples of the style variation within Gaul.

      Although the 1931 Wabelsdorf altar discovery made great strides in bringing attention to the existence of the cult of the genius cucullatus, archaeologists will probably never agree on the identity and nationality of the first hooded deity and through what pathway the cult’s breadth of activity spanned the region between Britain and Asia Minor.  The nature of the deity has been described most generally as benevolent and more speficially as a god with powers over healing, fertility, and prosperity.   Deonna's monograph made significant progress in bringing attention to the different categories of hooded divinities, but to this day many more hooded statuettes and reliefs exist that remain unpublished due to their poor condition, insignificant size, and dubious identities.  What remains to be done is a careful mapping and analysis of all hooded dieties to discover if a pattern underlies the seemingly disparate and scattered representations.

1 According to W. Deonna, the following scholars follow Egger’s hypothesis: Cook;  Roesbruck;    Nolle, Bulle.
2 Deonna cites the following sources for listing the Segusiavi coin and/or the image:  Blanchet, De  la Tour, Schenk, De Telesphoro deo, 45; Wroth, in JHS, III, 287; DA, s.v. Telesphorus,   71, n. 12-13; Reinach, in RA, 1899, II, 57-8.
3 The following works cite the hooded figure as Telesphorus: Muret, Ernest. Catologue des   Monnaies Gauloises de la Biblioteque Nationale.  Paris: E. Plon, 1889; Ployart, Brigitte.    Biblioteque Nationale Phototheque: Chois de Monnaies Gaulois.  Paris: Biblioteque   Nationale, 1980.
4 Asserted by Toynbee, (1957 458); (1964 177).  Jenkins published the single figure in his paper (86-91).
5  On page 458, Toynbee refers to Deonna’s article in L’Antiquite Classique 33 (2): 1954, p. 403.   Green also explains the notion of Triplism in Symbol and Image, p. 169.
6 see catalogue, Netherby
7 see catalogue, Carlisle
8 Among the publications that have this image are:; ; Ross, 1967 380; Toynbee 1957 460;    Heichelheim 187; “Third Report” 190.
9 Among the publications that mention this relief are  Green, 1989 187; Ross, 1967 380; Toynbee,  1957 460.
10 see catalogue
11 Ross 1967, 188; Toynbee 1964; JRS xlviii, 1958, p. 53, no. 6, pl. 8 fig. 2 and no. 5, pl. 8, fig 1.
12 see catalogue
13 Ross, 1964 211, fig. 71a; Toynbee, 1957 464.
14 Green, 1989 185; Toynbee, 1957 464; Toynbee 1964.
15 Green, 1989 186; Toynbee, 1964; Toynbee, 1957 465.
16 Green, 1989 185; Toynbee, 1957 , 465.
17 Green, 1989 57; Ross, 1967 fig. 55a; Toynbee, 1964 158;  VCH Somerset, I, 1906, p. 259, fig.   33
18 see nos. 2 and 3