I agree completely with you, though, that they are Greek gods rather than Greco-Roman. Roman gods were their ancestors. Greco-Roman gods are Latin names for statues which had no great meaning to Romans themselves.
Then, statues that became important to Romans were the statues of their kings, though, not as gods, but as pictures of important kings ... Not much different than the big A. Lincoln statue in Washington, DC, or Brasilian head of Getulio Vargas, here & there (...).
Hi Gus
I'm a little surprised by your response.
From the research I have read, gods such as Saturn, Ceres, Minerva, Mars, and Pluto were bonafide Roman gods with qualities that were sometimes significantly different from the Greek gods they later became equated with.
Minerva, for instance, eventually became equated with Athena, but Minerva obviously did not start out as the patron goddess of Athens (I think she was yet another Latin agricultural deity).
My reading concurs with your statement that the Romans had a strong cult of the ancestors (concrete examples are the household lares). But for you to completely erase the impact of such gods as Mars (who became eponymous for "martial" adjectives) may be a mis-reading.
I've read similar to what you are saying about the fate eventually of the "state gods" who evolved into symbols, much like our statue of liberty, than into gods people had personal relationships with.
On the subject of statues of their kings--by "kings" do you mean "emperors"? Or are you referring to ancient practices that came before the expulsion of the Tarquin Etruscan kings? (As you know, Romans were allergic to the term rex / king to the extent that Julius Caesar called himself "Dictator in Perpetual" and Augustus called himself "Princeps" (first citizen/leader) but not king.
-Tim