Editing Mithraism (section)

===Altars, iconography, and suspected doctrinal diversity===
Each mithraeum had several [[altar]]s at the further end, underneath the representation of the tauroctony, and also commonly contained considerable numbers of subsidiary altars, both in the main mithraeum chamber and in the ante-chamber or [[narthex]].<ref name=Clauss-2000/>{{rp|style=ama|p= 49}} These altars, which are of the standard Roman pattern, each carry a named dedicatory inscription from a particular initiate, who dedicated the altar to Mithras "in fulfillment of his vow", in gratitude for favours received.

Burned residues of animal entrails are commonly found on the main altars, indicating regular sacrificial use, though mithraea do not commonly appear to have been provided with facilities for ritual slaughter of sacrificial animals (a highly specialised function in Roman religion), and it may be presumed that a mithraeum would have made arrangements for this service to be provided for them in co-operation with the professional ''[[Glossary of ancient Roman religion#victimarius|victimarius]]''<ref name=Price-Kearns-ODCMR>{{cite book |editor1=Price, S. |editor2=Kearns, E. |title=Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion}}</ref>{{rp|style=ama|p= 568}} of the civic cult. Prayers were addressed to the Sun three times a day, and Sunday was especially sacred.<ref>{{cite book |author=Tripolitis, Antonía |year=2002 |title=Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |isbn=978-0-8028-4913-7 |page=[https://archive.org/details/religionshelleni00trip/page/n65 55] |url=https://archive.org/details/religionshelleni00trip |url-access=limited}}</ref>

It is doubtful whether Mithraism had a monolithic and internally consistent doctrine.{{efn|
"Nevertheless, the fact that Porphyry and / or his sources would have had no scruples about adapting or even inventing Mithraic data to suit their arguments does not necessarily mean that they actually did so. It is far more likely that Mithraic doctrine (in the weak sense of the term!) really was what the philosophers said it was ... there are no insuperable discrepancies between Mithraic practice and theory as attested in Porphyry and Mithraic practice and theory as archaeology has allowed us to recover them. Even if there were major discrepancies, they would matter only in the context of the old model of an internally consistent and monolithic Mithraic doctrine.<ref name=Beck-2006>{{cite book |last=Beck |first=Roger |year=2006 |title=The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire |location=London, UK |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-921613-0 |pages=16, 85–87, 288–289}}</ref>{{rp|style=ama|p= 87}}
}}
It may have varied from location to location.<ref name=Beck-2004-InPlcLion/>{{rp|style=ama|p= 16}} The iconography is relatively coherent.<ref name=griffithlecole/> It had no predominant sanctuary or cultic centre; and, although each mithraeum had its own officers and functionaries, there was no central supervisory authority. In some mithraea, such as that at [[Dura Europos]], wall paintings depict prophets carrying scrolls,<ref>{{cite book |editor=Hinnells, John R. |year=1971 |title=Mithraic Studies |volume=2 |publisher=Manchester University Press |at=plate&nbsp;25}}</ref> but no named Mithraic sages are known, nor does any reference give the title of any Mithraic scripture or teaching. It is known that initiates could transfer with their grades from one Mithraeum to another.<ref name=Clauss-2000/>{{rp|style=ama|p= 139}}