While the acquisition and administration o f the Roman Empire has been seen as largely a political process, there were obviously economic and cultural ramifications as well. The study o f cultural change in the Roman Empire has for some time been tied with the concept o f
“Romanization” (for recent works and critiques see for example Mattingly 1997b, 2002, 2004;
Freeman 1997; Barrett 1997; J. Webster 1996, 2001; Macmullen 2000) However,
Romanization is beset by problems that result from the origination o f the concept within a context o f European and American imperialism (Freeman 1997). In addition, there are problems o f definition. The term is one that is commonly used but rarely defined and misleading in what it implies (Downs 1996; J. Webster 1996). The scholarship on it is consequently clouded by the vagueness o f the term itself, and some recent works have
recommended its total abandonment (Webster 2001; Mattingly 2004). As Mattingly (1997b, 8) stated, the term has created a “great deal o f heat, but not much light.”
The best place to start a discussion about Romanization is with the definitions used by scholars. As mentioned earlier, there is great discussion as to what exactly is meant by the term.
Downs (1996, 39-40), who recognized the lack o f a consistent definition, describes
Romanization as the process o f cultural change by which non-Romans adopted the social, political, and cultural life o f Rome as reflected in changes in social, political and economic organization. She asserts that it is often identified by material attributes such as colonies and towns, political offices, villas, roads, and aqueducts. MacMullen (2000, x-xi) defined
Romanization as the process in which new material goods, thoughts, and patterns o f behaviors like those in Italy appeared in the provinces o f the Roman Empire. Despite using the more generic term “acculturation,” Jones (1997, 195) defined it as the process by which social and contingent economic patterns were transferred from one cultural group to another, thus still implying a unilateral transfer o f culture.
However, these definitions alone are misleading. They indicate that the process was unidirectional, something that Downs conceded but MacMullen did not. Because o f this fact, the term itself is openly attacked by some scholars. As Syme (1988, 64) pointed out,
“Romanization is a term ugly and vulgar, worse than that, anachronistic and misleading.” G.
Webster (1996a) agreed that the whole concept is misleading when it is clear that the cultural exchange was bi-directional, which is supported by other recent scholarship (see for example Wells, 1999).
The unilateral nature o f the term itself, with its emphasis on the diffusion o f Roman culture has much in common with the rhetoric o f the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century justifications for modem imperialism (Hingley 1997, 82-4). The idea o f spreading civilization was used both in the historical scholarship on the Roman provinces and justification for some fairly brutal acts by the modem European and American imperial powers.
This displays an ethnocentric bias that Western Civilization (whether it be ancient Rome or modem Europe and America) is naturally superior and has helped further civilization by spreading it to “backwards” and “uncivilized” peoples o f the world. Even as late as the 1950s, Childe (1958, 70) described Romanization as “eradication o f European barbarism by Oriental civilization.” Jones (1974, 6) claimed the people o f the empire had a “natural desire to
assimilate themselves to the superior civilization o f Greece and Rome.” This bias continues in scholarship today as scholars have “an inherent sympathy (empathy) for Roman civilization in much writing on Roman material culture” (Mattingly 1997b, 9). Wells (1999, 127) points out that the bias o f the researcher comes into play since “we have been trained to look for [elements o f Roman culture].”
Recent post-colonial scholarship empowering the indigenous voice has created a new need to recognize that there was a power relationship that must be contended with in the process o f Romanization (Mattingly 1997b). It is in this context that the process termed Romanization exists. The discrepancy in the power relationship has led some to look for resistance by the conquered against the influence o f Roman culture. Reece (1988) claimed that the indigenous British population maintained significant amounts o f their pre-conquest culture throughout the period o f occupation and after Roman withdrawal. Alcock (1993; 1997) examined how Greeks
maintained their local loyalties and identities in the face o f Roman influence. Indeed, she claimed that the early imperial period in Greece marked a “retrenchment” o f Greek culture (Alcock 1997, 103). The depth to which Roman culture penetrated the indigenous cultures in Western Europe may have been equally as slight. Forcey (1997) alleged that the native
population in the northwest provinces had only a superficial layer o f Roman culture over their Celtic culture and that Europe remained almost wholly indigenous in character. However, as Webster (2001) has pointed out, this approach fails to explain the diverse and heterogeneous nature o f evidence in some areas. MacMullen (2000) agreed and would argue, based on archaeological evidence, that the spread o f Roman culture beyond Italy increased dramatically between BC 63 and AD 14.
The concept o f Romanization also became embroiled with debates about Roman intentions and motivations in the process o f cultural change. Salmon (1970) examined the colonial foundation in the Republic. He concluded that early in its expansion Rome consciously and deliberately devised a method o f control whereby colonies were set up along specific
guidelines that were intrinsically Roman and provided a model for emulation. The idea originated in the conquest o f Italy but was soon exported to the provinces. This point was disputed by Saddington (1991), who argued that there is no evidence that the central government o f Rome had any policy to spread Roman cultural traditions or beliefs in the provinces. Millett (1990a; 1990b) agreed that there was not any organized effort but that the native people, particularly the elite, spontaneously sought to emulate the Romans to distinguish themselves from the rest o f society. Eventually the non-elite adopted selected elements o f Roman culture. MacMullen (2000) also saw the adoption o f Roman culture in the provinces as spontaneous on the part o f the indigenous populations, who envisioned a better life if they adopted Roman culture.
One o f the major shortcomings o f early approaches to Romanization was the absence o f the mass o f the indigenous population in the process, what Eric W olf (1982) has called the
“people without history.” This is a current point o f debate in the discourse but has a relatively long background. In an early departure from the diffusionistic and Roman-centered approach, R.G. Collingwood (1932) described the creation o f hybrid culture in Roman Britain that was a mixture o f Roman and Celtic but neither one nor the other. With this conclusion, Collingwood empowered the indigenous population in the historical examination o f the Roman provinces.
Studies have since progressed to include the native role in Romanization.
Empowering the indigenous voice in Romanization does not necessarily remove the tendency to look for homogenization. Millett (1990a; 1990b) claimed that the native population o f Britain willingly emulated the Roman ideal. The adoption o f Roman customs and lifestyles was driven by the political pragmatism o f the elite who used the symbols o f Rome to reinforce their social position in the new reality o f living within the Empire. Eventually the non-elite copied the elite and Roman culture became more prevalent. MacMullen (2000) also held that the adoption o f Roman culture was driven by a nativistic desire to live a better life if they adopted Roman customs, a process he compared to osmosis. The underlying assumption here and with Millett is that, while more native centered, the process resulted in a homogenized culture. However, this theory is contradicted by Alcock (1997) who contends that not only did the Greeks not emulate the Roman standard, the Romans did not push Greece to do so because they recognized the superiority o f Greek history and culture. Thus, MacMullen’s attempt to describe Romanization in a universal way falls short o f understanding the complexities o f the heterogeneous Empire as a whole.
Some recent studies have begun to question the whole concept o f Romanization (G.D.B.
Jones 1997; Reece 1988; S. Jones 1997; J. Webster 1996, 2001; Mattingly 2002, 2004). Reece (1988, 11) claimed that what we call Romanization never existed. He held that under Roman
rule Britain became “more Gaulish, more Rhinelandish, more Spanish, a little more Italian, a very little more African, and a little more Danubian.” Wells (1999, 264) called for caution when using ill-defined terms such as Romanization. He argued that “categories such as ‘Roman,’
‘Provincial Roman,’ ‘native,’ ‘Celt,’ and ‘German’ do not stand up to scrutiny.” Sian Jones (1997) furthered the attack on the concept o f Romanization in her examination o f the
archaeology o f ethnicity. She claimed that ethnicity is based on an individual’s self-
identification with an ethnic group in a situational context (compare with Social Identity Theory below). Thus the meanings attached to material culture are not fixed but rather fluid and do not fit well within the current construct o f Romanization. Examining Britain, she showed that there is greater variation in architectural forms than the standard approach to Romanization would predict.
More recently, Webster (1996a; 2001) has openly called for the complete abandonment o f Romanization. She argued that the construct is too fundamentally flawed because o f this linear implication. Rather, she favored the concept o f creolization “which offers a new way to approach provincial material culture in all its forms” (Webster, 2001, 223). In an effort to effectively break free o f the Romanization construct, she compared the cultural contact in the American Caribbean with cultural contact in the Roman Empire. In both places and eras cultural material (vocabulary) could be used in different ways (grammar) than that o f the dominant culture. Thus, artifacts may appear Romanized, but “operate according to a different, indigenous, set o f underlying rules” (2001, 219). As with W ells’ argument, she believes
indigenous people selectively adopted Roman goods but used them for their own ends and the artifacts came to represent a new and unique culture. Like Jones, Webster showed that our evidence is relative to the time, place, and people who used it.
Indeed, there is convincing evidence that the exchange o f culture was in fact bi- or even multi-directional. Bums (1994) has shown that Romans, elite Romans at that, had begun to
enter a religious cult o f native origins. Matronae worship, though Celtic in origin, began to take on several Greco-Roman elements while maintaining its native symbolism. When local high officials, both Roman and native, began to offer votive offerings, it becomes clear that the cultural influence was at least bi-directional.