Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T10:30:07.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Romanization 2.0 and its alternatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2014

Greg Woolf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It would be churlish (as well as difficult), when my own work is treated so generously in this article, to object to its thrust too strongly. But agreement does not make for much of a dialogue! Let me state my agreements briefly, then.

  1. 1. Versluys has nailed the terminological impasse: ‘Romanization’ is far worse than Romanization, because it has all the sins of the former without its conviction. But I have less sympathy for those TRAC speakers ‘ordered’ not to use the concept by their supervisors. If they can answer the many criticisms made of the concept, and make it work for them on their material, let them demonstrate this. If not, they need to find something better.

  2. 2. Versluys also seems to me quite correct that some postcolonial approaches have often ended up in an unsatisfactory anti-colonialism. Yvon Thébert (1978) made a similar objection when he asked whether Bénabou (1976) had decolonized the history of Africa in the Roman period or simply turned it on its head. Denouncing ancient imperialism, colonialism and racial and sexual abuse might make us feel more comfortable, but it does not improve our analysis. I would add that it has also allowed British Romanists to return to a very traditional preoccupation: rewriting the Roman chapters of ‘our island's story’ in dialogue with contemporary imperial preoccupations.

  3. 3. Versluys argues that we should ‘focus on “cultural transformation taking place in the context of empire” rather than on “imperialism and colonialism”’ (p. 8). This too makes very good sense. But I wonder what the word ‘cultural’ adds to this programme? Does it operate to exclude the study of other kinds of change (economic? technological? agricultural?). I doubt that this is what Versluys advocates and cannot see the advantage of arbitrarily demarcating one sphere of life as ‘cultural’ and excluding discussion of other changes. And I doubt that it would be possible to do this in any case. How would we talk about bathing without aqueducts, engineering and hydrology, as well as euergetism, notions of the body and foodways? Or about wine without thinking about techniques of agriculture, exchange systems and so on. If the abundant recent literature on entanglement – along with Hodder (2012) I am thinking particularly of Thomas (1991), Dietler (2010) and Garrow and Gosden (2012) – has taught us nothing else, it is that we cannot easily separate ‘the cultural’ from the rest of life. Or does ‘cultural’ give holistic accounts of change a particular flavour? Or does it designate some particular Schwerpunkte for study? I have more sympathy with this position, but I suspect that it now obstructs more than it illuminates our projects. Now that ‘culture’ is no longer the final chapter of a book which has already dealt with conquest, administration, politics, the army, agriculture, manufacture and trade, town and country, and late antique decline (the traditional format of volumes in the genre ‘provincial history’), perhaps we no longer need to signal so strongly that culture is all-encompassing and can simply study together the whole set of changes with which we are concerned?

All the same, I am wary of signing up at once to Romanization 2.0. My commentary is an attempt to articulate my reasons for this reluctance.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , June 2014 , pp. 45 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bénabou, M., 1976: La résistance africaine à la romanisation, Paris.Google Scholar
Derks, T., and Roymans, N., 2009: Ethnic constructs in antiquity. The role of power and tradition, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietler, M., 2010: Archaeologies of colonialism. Consumption, entanglement, and violence in ancient Mediterranean France, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.Google Scholar
Gallini, C., 1973: Che cosa intendere per ellenizzazione. Problemi di metodo, Dialoghi di Archeologia 7, 175–91.Google Scholar
Gardner, A., 2013: Thinking about Roman imperialism. Postcolonialism, globalisation and beyond?, Britannia 44, 1–25.Google Scholar
Garrow, D., and Gosden, C., 2012: Technologies of enchantment? Exploring Celtic art: 400 BC to AD 100, Oxford.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S., 2001: Being Greek under Rome. Cultural identity, the second sophistic and the development of empire, Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 2005: What do objects want?, Journal of archaeological method and theory 12 (3), 193–211.Google Scholar
Goudineau, C., 1979: Les fouilles de la maison au Dauphin. Recherches sur la romanisation de Vaison-la-romaine, Paris (Gallia suppléments).Google Scholar
Hitchner, R. B., 2008: Globalization avant la lettre. Globalization and the history of the Roman empire, New global studies 2 (2), 1–12.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2012: Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howgego, C., Heuchert, V. and Burnett, A., 2005: Coinage and identity in the Roman provinces, Oxford.Google Scholar
Martin, L.H., and Pachis, P., 2004: Hellenisation, empire and globalisation. Lessons from antiquity (Acts of the Panel held during the 3rd Congress of the European Association for the Study of Religion, Bergen, Norway, 8–10 May 2003), Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Mattingly, D.J., 2006: An imperial possession. Britain in the Roman Empire, 54 BC–AD 409, London.Google Scholar
Millett, M., 1990: The Romanization of Britain. An essay in archaeological interpretation, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Millett, M., 2007 (2003–4): The Romanization of Britain. Changing perspectives, Kodai 13–14, 169–73.Google Scholar
Morris, I., 2005: Mediterraneanization, in Malkin, I. (ed.), Mediterranean paradigms and classical antiquity, London, 30–55.Google Scholar
Pitts, M., and Versluys, M.J. (eds.), 2014: Globalisation and the Roman world. Perspectives and opportunities, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Roymans, N., 2004: Ethnic identity and imperial power. The Batavians in the Roman Empire, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Stock, B., 1983: The implications of literacy. Written language and models of interpretation in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Sweetman, R.J., 2007: Roman Knossos. The nature of a globalized city, American journal of archaeology 111 (1), 61–81.Google Scholar
Terrenato, N., 2005: The deceptive archetype. Roman colonization in Italy and post-colonial thought, in Hurst, H. and Owen, S. (eds), Ancient colonizations. Analogy, similarity and difference, London, 59–72.Google Scholar
Thomas, N. 1991: Entangled objects. Exchange, material culture, and colonialism in the Pacific, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Van Oyen, A., 2013: Towards a post-colonial artefact analysis, Archaeological dialogues 20 (1), 87–107.Google Scholar
Vlassopoulos, K., 2012: Greeks and Barbarians, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Webster, J., and Cooper, N. (eds), 1996: Roman imperialism: Post-colonial perspectives, Leicester (Leicester Archaeology Monographs 3).Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T., 2010: Local knowledge and microidentities in the imperial Greek world, Greek culture in the Roman world, Cambridge.Google Scholar