Romanization and Empire

Introduction and key questions to Romanization

One definition of Romanization, or acculturation understood within its broader scope, is

the process of heavily influencing the adoption and application of key concepts (i.e. language,

architecture, and politics) from a “superior” culture into an “inferior” culture. This trend of

suggesting that a militarily (and to a lesser extent, culturally) superior culture is completely

active and the culture under its control is completely passive is, presently, a largely devalued

viewpoint which gained momentum in the late nineteenth and early twentieth-centuries (Millet

1992: 1-2). Francis Haverfield and his professor, Theodor Mommsen, are both largely

responsible for educating many influential nineteenth and twentieth-century scholars about the

patterns of one-directional cultural matriculation (McGeough 2009: 300). As such, they are also

generally regarded as the primary proponents of Romanization. Romanization is understood

here as studying and documenting alterations in a native culture (i.e. pre-Roman Britain) in favor

of noticeably Romanesque “material changes and historical processes (Millet 1992: 1).”

Haverfield and Mommsen’s keen observances of cultural variance within provinces and cultural

subgroups have cast a large shadow because current scholarship (archaeology, history,

linguistics) is still weighing its academic significance against its modernist theory undertones—

Haverfield’s major publications came in 1905, 1913 and 1924.

In addition to Romanization, we also need to attempt to define “culture” as it is repeated

throughout this argument. Culture is widely considered to be one of the most complicated words

in the English language (Williams 1983: 87). Culture, much like Romanization, is frequently

used and rarely given much persistent, purposeful thought. Morely attempts to provide a

defining focus to “culture” by identifying key archaeological concepts relative to its

interpretation, “In archaeology, the term primarily refers to particular material assemblages, the

distinct combination of forms, motifs and types of artefact that can be used to distinguish

between different groups both over time and over space (Morely 2007: 105).” I use this

interpretation as the scope by which both culture and Romanization is comprehended through

evaluating multiple ethnic assemblages.

It is against this backdrop that I will attempt to answer the following questions which, I

argue, will help weigh Romanization’s appropriateness as a useful concept for thinking about the

past via current historical and archaeological discourse: 1) what is Romanization; 2) how is

Romanization perceived in modern society in relation to other acculturation processes; 3) did

Romanization ever actually exist, or was it constructed as a singularity by scholars in the

nineteenth and twentieth-centuries; and 4) what is the relationship between Romanization and

nineteenth-century imperialism? These questions, some of which will be tethered to larger,

overarching portions of questioning, will be addressed through, but not limited to, ancient

accounts (Juvenal’s Satires and Josephus’ Jewish Wars), modern interpretations (Saur and

Millet) and empirical remains (Greco-Roman architecture present in the Levant in the early first-

century CE).

What is Romanization

In order to fully grasp the way in which Romanization became, and remains, a part of

modern academia, it is first necessary to appreciate how and why the term was realized in order

to recognize its modern perception and application. Mommsen first used the term

“Romanisierung” (which Haverfield translated as “Romanization” in 1909 in contrast to W. P.

Dickson’s 1886 “Romanising” translation) in his Romische Geschichte first published in its

original German in 1865 (Hingley 2008: 217).

Before Mommsen’s writings of the late nineteenth-century, Romanization, as a theory, was

sparsely studied and paled in comparison to the study of Hellenization as a “self-fulfilling

paradigm (Mattingly 2013: 207).” Mommsen and his students recognized seemingly apparent

cultural differential patterns in texts, coins, and inscriptions (Mommsen 1865: 176), and ascribed

the novel discourse a term to help with its comprehensibility. Zeitgeist (mid nineteenth-century)

and Übermensch (1883) are other German examples of philosophical perceptions which were

given designated linguistic expressions around the same time period. Romanization, as a

phenomenon explaining social modification, primarily noticeable in the provincial Roman

Empire (i.e. Britain and Gaul), was largely undocumented in the ancient world, but the ancients

were acutely aware of foreign ethnic infiltrations into traditional Roman norms. Juvenal (a

Roman poet who wrote in the late first and early second-centuries CE) satirized the infiltration:

Quae nunc divitibus gens acceptissima nostris et quos praecipue fugiam, properabo fateri, nec pudor opstabit. Non possum ferre, Quirites, Graecam urbem; quamvis quota portio faecis Achaei (Juvenal Sat III: 58-61)? 

But Juvenal’s discerning and documenting foreign (in this case Greek) permeation into a

“superior” culture, stands as a contradiction to Mommsen and Haverfield’s centripetal (fixed

central point usually causing circular, outward motion) cultural flow. Instead, according to

Juvenal, the Roman provincial territories are bringing their ethnic customs into Rome and the

Roman ethos in a sort of centrifugal (fleeing from the center) ethnic pattern. This pattern

recognizes that Roman behaviors were fleeing from Roman cities with the void being replaced

by foreign activities. A few pragmatical studies of Greek influences on Roman culture, which

will be further explained below, include entertainment, religion, and architecture.

Hellenization vs Romanization

Foreign influences found in the Roman Empire’s largest cities survive in texts, as

Juvenal related above, and as empirical remains. Suetonius, the Roman historian writing in the

McDonald’s near Pantheon in Rome. http://blogostoso.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/delicias-para-saborear-em-cartaz-doces-delicias-do-mcdonalds/

late first and early second-centuries CE, recounts how Augustus brought in Greek athletes to

perform as part of a program which included gladiatorial games and chariot races (Suetonius

Julius Caesar 39).  The Hellenic games were a part of the program, but the gladiatorial games

(native-Roman munera) took up the majority of the agenda.  The first emperors adopted the

eastern-style games as supplementary to traditional munera, but παιχνίδια (Hellenic

games) were never fully embraced until the reign of Domitian in the years 81-96 CE. It seems

it took a few years before wide-spread Hellenic acculturation (Hellenization) was accepted as

part of Roman mos.  Despite the relatively early systematic adoption of Greek philosophy and

literature, which was largely spread through Greek tutors and slaves (Duiker, Speilvogel 2006:

103-109) in Rome by the time of Augustus, it was the emperor Domitian, a philhellene more

despised and feared than Nero, who made Greek athletics a part of the Roman scene by

establishing the Capitoline Games in CE 86 (Miller 2004).

The ebb and flow of acculturation was further experienced when the Neronian Games

(established in CE 60) collapsed after only being held twice. In addition, the Capitoline Games

lost much of their “Greekness” (to hellenikon) when Domitian died (Livy 5.50.4). Pliny the

Younger, before Domitian’s death, said he applauded the abolition of the “gymnicus agon” in

Vienna and wished the games at Rome would be stopped too (Pliny the Younger Letters 4.22). 

The odeon which Domitian built to hold music contests and the stadium which he built to hold

equestrian events, as well as women’s running events in the Campus Martius (Aupert Fouilles de

Delphes II: Topographie et Architecture 1979; Suetonius Domitian 4.4; Dio Cassius 67.8 in

Jacobelli 2003, 18), were soon transformed to hold gladiatorial bouts and naumachiae

(Humphrey 1986).  This trend of instituting “Hellenic” structures which progressed to hold

Roman games is not restricted to Rome; it is apparent throughout the Roman Empire and its

provinces including the Levant.

Romanization, as an overarching catch-all term referring to an apparent break of native,

ethnic traditions in favor of Roman customs, is an exceedingly broad label and does not take

centrifugal cultural patterns into account. Mattingly describes Romanization as an overly

simplistic practice which fails to account for complex realities, thus creating pseudo

homogeneity (Mattingly 2011: 207). Though Roman homogeneity may not have existed as a

universal truth spanning the Mediterranean world, Mommsen did succeed in creating a standard,

of sorts, which continues to generate a scholarly debate about Rome’s impact in the ancient and

modern world. Present-day historians and archaeologists must now, at least to some degree,

acknowledge Romanization’s potential for explaining cultural variances which did seem to

spread geographically along with the expansion of Roman military influences starting in the mid

fifth-century BCE. While it may not be the self-fulfilling paradigm which explains all changes

in the vast Roman world, Mommsen’s “Romanisierung” demands the need for a well-developed

counter-argument in order to develop a deeper understanding of complex social patterns. In

order to better appreciate how general acculturation is assessed, it is worth taking a brief look at

localized ethnicities that seemed to adopt foreign norms which helped establish a different self-

identity. Because ethnic identities are social constructs, they are susceptible and non-impervious

to external and internal factors causing a continual ebb and flow of applied (etic) and self-

distinctiveness (emic), respectively (Ewin 2003: 69-71). 

Speaking in greater detail about ostensive, novel self-distinctiveness, Hellenic cultural

traits permeating into non-Hellenic sites are noticeable in Augustan Rome, the caput mundi

(Lucan 2.136), and have been well documented and explained by Paul Zanker (Zanker 1990,

1995, 1998, 2010).  The newly adopted, Augustan slogan of the first-century CE, “Nothing is too

good for the gods,” demonstrated the new, centripetal ideological approach Rome seemed to take

by implementing foreign ethnicity into Roman cities and provinces (Zanker 1990: 106). But

following and employing the newest and most exciting cultural traits encountered through trade

and war (empirically evidenced primarily through traceable, ethnic architectural styles) was

Roman in and of itself. Before Rome’s Hellenistic architectural preferences, Roman architects

synthesized native Latin and Etruscan designs to fit a coveted Roman tone. Most substantial

architectural features (the temple of Voltumna in Volsinii for example) before the early-Republic

—which is generally accepted as starting circa 450 BCE with the aggressive expansion of

Roman boarders and assimilation of nearby townships (Grant 1979: 33)—seem to portray an

Etruscan variance.

It was not until 509 BCE, nearly one-hundred and fifty years later, that Hellenistic tropes started

taking shape in Roman cities reflective by their empirical features and literary commentaries

(Colantoni in Thomas, Meyers 2012: 21-40). It was the ushering in of the early-Republic which

transported Hellenistic architectural and social influences into Roman practice which, in turn,

displaced, what Stamper describes as “Etrusco-Roman…architectural production and character

(Stamper 2005: 47-48).” Greece eventually came under Roman domination in 146 BCE after the

Model based on Vitruvius descriptions. https://bucks.instructure.com/courses/200544/files/2586260?module_item_id=1474359

Battle of Corinth, but Hellenistic preferences were largely apparent and practiced in Rome well

before the Corinthians’ defeat.

Shifting then, from Etruscan to Hellenistic cultural norms adopted in Rome and its

general sphere of influence, we can trace the transition from early Etrusco-Roman temples,

which left behind modest tufa masonry with heavy, cumbersome terra cotta ornamentation

(Stamper 2005: 19-49), to Greek-inspired temples. Vitruvius outlines Hellenistic-style temples

in the first-century publication, De Architectura.  The Greek-style temple, mimicked by Romans,

is noted for its use of shining marble and gold decoration and was negatively viewed by Roman

traditionalists such as Cato the Elder (Horace Carmina 3.6) and Juvenal (Juvenal Satire 6). They

perceived the new architectural constructions and patron’s interactions with them as contrasting

to Roman mos.  This trend of manifesting Greek architecture to express a progressive Roman

identity is further evidenced by Greeks flocking to Rome and finding employment to design and

build monumental buildings (both in size and importance), the likes of which are depicted on the

façade of the Ara Pietatis (Beard et al. 1998: 82-85).  This relief has the potential to elaborate on

the traditionalist’s literary interpretation mentioned above and perhaps express a more general,

popular assessment of how most Romans may have regarded and translated Greek architectural

designs. It may also support the theory for the widespread acceptance of foreign societal patterns

in Rome by extension, thereby, providing further examples refuting Mommsen and Haverfield. 

As such, it is worth briefly mentioning a few characteristics of Hellenistic temples in

Rome depicted in the Ara Pietatis because they are commonly synonymous with most modern

connotations of Italy’s capital city. Some of these Hellenistic-style temples are described by the

Roman aristocrat and friend to the emperor, Vitruvius, as having steep, freestanding stairs with

an engaged altar and situated before the podium.  There is often a dense row of tall columns

located behind the staircase on the podium that were frequently in the Corinthian style.  The

Corinthian-style column may have been introduced to Greece circa 430–420 BCE in the Temple

of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae in Arcadia that featured a single Corinthian column (Anderson et

al. 1903: 68-74).  Vitruvius says the Greeks did not distinguish the Corinthian-style column as its

own order in the fourth-century but instead used it in conjunction with Ionic columns.  The

Corinthian column came into its own under Roman architects who were seemingly influenced by

Greek engineers and their architectural partialities. Roman architects went so far as to feature

the Corinthian column style in the temple of Mars Ultor in the Augustan Forum—the cornerstone

of Augustan ideology (Luce in Edmondson 2009: 399-416; Eder in Raaflaub and Toher 1993:

Ara Pietatis Augustae. it.abctribe.com/Wiki/archeologia_romana_sperti_ca_foscari_cons_beniculturali/il_tempio_di_apollo_palatino_protettore_dell_imperatore/_gui_2307_5

71-122). The use of the Corinthian-style columns in the Augustan Forum serves as illustrations

of both etic and emic social constructs. The image can be construed as an outside culture directly

influencing the aesthetic appetites of a native culture, or the temple’s columns can be seen as

spoils of war being taken from a conquered civilization and taken back for the general public as a

symbolic gesture of domination—spolia opima (Flower in Richardson and Santangelo 2014:

285-320). Both points of view can be interpreted as either valid or false, but I argue that each

are valid. Augustus’ employment of Hellenistic architecture in his principle temple is a complex

suggestion which requires more than casual discernment; I argue the Roman aristocracy would

have understood the allusion to the Greek architecture as part of an illustrious past, but also as

part of Rome’s ability to assimilate other ethnicities’ achievements into their own.

Romanization and Cynicism

Shifting focus a bit leads to viewing Rome’s influence through a different discourse:

Romanization’s academic impact is greatly comparable to cynicism. Cynicism was originally an

ancient Greek philosophical movement in the late fifth-century BCE promoting the rejection of

everything contrary to nature (i.e. money, fame, laws) which inspired our modern, skeptic

connotation. The modern philosophical movement, loosely based on the fifth-century BCE

teachings of Diogenes, had to be addressed before it could be laid to rest as a main-stream

academic trope. The French philosopher, Rene Descartes (1569-1650), is generally understood

to be the father of modern philosophy (Stokes 2002: 71-73) and was a major player in optics (a

branch of physics involving light and its interactions with matter (Osler 2010: 147-148)). He

based his optic observances largely on rationalism while he was facing our modern form of

cynicism which questioned the reality and reason of most everything. “How do you know if

what you are seeing is real?” is a question Descartes and his contemporaries regularly faced.

Cynicism’s effects on society are still being dealt with as Hillary Clinton (2003) and Sir Kenneth

Clark (1969) spoke on the dangers of cynicism and its potential for destruction on civilizations.

Descartes used the opposing abstract force (cynicism) and facilitated it as a lifting mechanism

causing his hypotheses to be more logically sound because he was forced to define and expand

what was generally unquestioned. By challenging the most minute, seemingly insignificant

details, cynics caused a re-evaluation of basic observations which in turn accounted for a greater

appreciation and cognition of advanced science in the eighteenth and nineteenth-centuries. It

was from this response to cynicism we get one of history’s greatest quotes, “cogito ergo sum

(Descartes 1644).” Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) would later challenge Descartes’ scientific

“rationalism” in favor of “empiricism” stating “rationalism” supported a deductive line of

reasoning while “empiricism” necessitated inductive cognitive skills (Stokes 2002: 71). This

relates to Romanization because both discourses, Romanization and Cynicism, force those who

do not subscribe to the theories to scientifically refute the philosophies by using sound, provable

logic. Descartes’ opposition to cynicism spurred Newton to do great things which are still

paying benefits. It is not completely accurate to assume Newton would not have accomplished

all he did without Descartes, however, there is no denying Newton was forced to counter

Descartes’ approach which aided in Newton’s approach to science (Leigh in Cronk 2009: 79-92).

Romanization exemplified by Practice

It seems Romanization, like cynicism, can be seen as a necessity which forces academics

to deal with minutia in order to ascertain a deeper, more developed analysis of an ethnic group.

Haverfield described Romanization as the disassembling of a native culture in favor of Roman

ethos (Haverfield 1912: 18). He did not go as far as saying Roman provinces’ culture was

completely eradicated at once, but Brendel progressed the argument by saying Roman culture

was a pluralistic synthesis from multiple ethnic groups which synthesized into a cosmopolitan

framework (Brendel in Millett 1992: 1). Roman culture then, was always changing and adapting

as it expanded across the known world. But, it seems that while conquered cultures adapted to

new Roman ways, Romans were including new provincial ways as well. This process is

demonstrated again in first-century Judea when a self-described cosmopolitan society is effected

by foreign cultures (Greco-Roman). These Greco-Roman influences sway Judea’s deeply

intrinsic Jewish way of living towards more of a contra-Torah lifestyle.

First-century Judean authorities were attempting to craft a new way of living by framing

their cultural development in accordance with Greco-Roman social characteristics. Even under

the Roman Empire and its mandated emperor-worship cult, most Jews living in Judea are

reported to have followed the teachings and laws presented to Moses as related in the Torah

(Schwartz 2009: 110-166; Smallwood 2001: 120-143). He is understood to have received the

Ten Commandments, and many others statutes exemplifying righteous living, from YHWH on

Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19. 3-25; 20. 1-26; 21 .1-36). This set of statutes, which can be interpreted as

their constitution, made up their perceived virtuous Jewish ethnicity from the day Moses stepped

off the mountain until now. Most scholars place the exodus in either the fifteenth-century BCE

(Shea 2003: 238-239) or the thirteenth-century (Finkelstein, Silverman 2002: 77-79; Hughs

1990: 40).

The Jewish monotheistic practices, which were literally set in stone, must have seemed

strange to the polytheistic communities surrounding the Jews (Tacitus Historiae 5. 2-5). There

are, however, many examples of Jewish negligence of YHWH’s law, suggesting cultures, no

matter how devout, are not able to escape variant cultural distinctions. For example, first-

century Judea was a time when the Jewish priesthood (Levites, sons of Moses’ bother, Aaron)

was in great favor with the Roman aristocracy. The good relationship between these two

administrations stands in staunch contrast to traditional Levitical Jewish norms (Josephus Jewish

Wars 2. 355-356; Leviticus 8. 15-19), but the association is consistent with Rome’s handling of

foreign affairs (Goodman 2008: 115-154). This may have stemmed from the nation’s Roman-

appointed king, Herod, and his ambitious inclinations toward more internationally-recognized

political power. These penchants for greater authority were demonstrated when Herod took a trip

to Rome in 40 BCE which he used to influence Augustus with the institution of an impressive

imperial (pagan) temple in a Mediterranean cosmopolis, Caesarea Maritima (Raban, Holum

1996: 454-468); Josephus Jewish Antiquities XV. 331ff; Jewish War I. 408ff). Josephus explains

Caesar was a great proponent of Herod’s ambition, so he gave Herod Rome’s assistance in

restoring order in Judea after its recent war with the Parthians (Josephus Jewish Antiquities

13.8.4. 249-253; Livy History of Rome 45. 12).

Aerial view of ancient Caesarea Maritima. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea_Maritima#mediaviewer/File:Caesarea.JPG

In addition, Augustus and Herod seemed to have enjoyed, and mutually benefited from, a

pragmatic business relationship after a Roman conflict in Egypt involving Antipater (Herod’s

father) and Marc Antony’s fall from authority following the Battle of Actium (Josephus Jewish

Antiquities 14.14.4). Inscriptions (OGIS 414 for instance) have been found on the Acropolis in

Athens which gives further evidence to Judea’s positive communications with infusing Roman

values. Much like Augustus’ temple to Mars Ultor in Rome, the implications of inscriptions

found in remote national boundaries suggests a complex relationship between Rome and its

territories. The establishment of philo-Roman features outside Rome and the territory relative to

Roman influence (Judea in this case) may be Roman propaganda, but, as with most everything

pertaining to Rome, appearances are usually more complex and generally go beyond a strictly

literal interpretation—Virgil’s multifaceted reading and omni-cultural considerations involving

the Aeneid is another example of this (Conte 2007: 23-57, 150-169; Smith 2013). Patterns like

the pro-Roman provincial inscriptions must have been crucial in terms of Mommsen and

Haverfield’s Romanization rhetoric. The first of these inscriptions (OGIS 414) is on a statue

base carved from Eleusinian marble where Judea’s king is honored as a philo-Roman for the

admiration he showed toward Athens. The second example (IG 2.2.3441) also comes from the

Athenian Acropolis which refers to Herod as a philo-Caesar. This too honors a Roman

province’s king (probably better understood as a governor) by way of his ability to adapt to

Roman pragmatism and pietatis. Another fragmentary inscription, carved from Hymettian

marble and found in the Athenian Agora, appears to be similar in form to IG 2.2.3441 and has

been restored with Herod’s name. No context for any of these inscriptions was found. However,

it is clear that Herod was among those honored by the city, both for his policy as a supporter of

Rome and for specific, although unnamed, benefactions (Roller 1998: 76-99). Herod appears to

have been internationally recognized for his ability to implement and promote, on an

international scale, what Mommsen referred to as “Romanisierung.”

Romanization in modernity

Moving from seemingly textbook examples of Romanization’s influences in the

provinces guides us back to more post-modern interpretations widely brought to light by Martin

Millett. Millett relates what I made mention to earlier as an initial standard—a mark by which

all other studies could be measured. This standard (Romanization) was introduced by Mommsen

then greatly developed by Haverfield which, in turn, propitiated a wave of academic discourse

dedicated to better understanding migratory acculturation patterns. This innovative appreciation

for social configurations proved to be ground-breaking in the archaeological world because the

early goings? of the field (specifically the seventeenth-century) were little more than treasure

hunters (antiquarians) selling relics to the highest bidder (Dyson 2006: 1-64). Mommsen and his

students realized the need to enhance archaeology scientifically, thus appreciation was given to

cultural living styles instead of just “Small Things Forgotten (Deetz 2010).”

As stated above, Millett describes Romanization as a progression of dialectical

modifications instead of the overlaying of one culture on top of another (Millett 1992: 1). This

model of one culture being placed neatly over the top of another is accepted by one of Millett’s

contemporaries, Richard Hingley, who goes on to explain Romanization’s effects on the

provinces using the same base model—Keith Hopkins’ taxation and trade in the Roman Empire

synthesized with Immanuel Wallerstein’s world systems analysis in the modern world (Pitts in

Pitts and Versluys 2014: 69-98). The crux of Hingley’s argument rests on the Roman Empire’s

implementation of imperial taxation practices onto Iron Age societies. This “from the top down”

matriculation theory suggests local, native authorities would have, first accepted the Roman

mandated system, and secondly forced it onto the general civitates (Hingley 2005). These

monopolistic trade practices, which directly and significantly impacted global economics to a

lesser extent, and localized economics to a greater extent, would have urbanized the villages,

towns and cities at a much faster rate leaving the largely subsistence-based country-side barbara

to fall behind in terms of cultural advancement (Laurence, Trifilo in Pitts and Versluys 2014:

103-104). Juvenal again proves himself as a useful source as far as a potential popular point of

view regarding those who resided outside townships:

ite, quibus grata est picta lupa barbara mitra! rusticus ille tuus sumit trechedipna, Quirine, et ceromatico fert niceteria collo… (Juvenal Sat. 3. 66-68). 

Romanization’s direct impact on current academic discourses

Romanization, as a recognition of complex distinctions between native and seemingly

Roman-influenced historical processes, has proven itself to be the source of major contentions

within the field of classical archaeology in the late twentieth and early twenty first-centuries

(Mattingly 2004: 5-26).

The term brings about connotations like imperialism and fascism while also ostensibly

Roman copy of Greek vase. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greek-Vase-Replica.jpg

substantiating stereotypic expressions like country bumpkin and barbarian. Our post-modern

society is vigorously attempting to eradicate un-politically correct sentiments such as these.

Classical archaeologists, however, are not quite ready to leave Romanization behind. Instead of

completely eliminating the controversial expression, classical archaeologists have attempted to

quantify it by fitting it into a larger acculturation, assimilation and integration process within the

even larger, general field of archaeology (or anthropology in North America). This

quantification method for better understanding the current Romanization discourses is broken

into four categories: 1) non-interventionist, 2) discrepant identity, 3) acculturation and 4)

creolization.

The first category, non-interventionist model, consists of native leaders being influenced

to bolster their Roman social position by means of their perceived relationships with the

dominant Roman elite through culture (i.e. clothing, language, architecture and food

consumption). Promoting Roman culture provided the native ruling class with a largely

superficial power which was contingent upon Roman authority. The establishment of a civil

administration system was quickly imposed to solidify the permanence of Roman rule (Millett

1990: 35-44). The non-interventionist model of Romanization could be applied to further

understand Herod’s reign of Judea previously discussed. Herod promoted Romanisms and

attempted to bring his constituency along based primarily on Roman munificence (Roller 1998:

85-100).

The second category, discrepant identity, displays no identical homogeneity which can be

definitively designated as traditionally recognized Romanization, as Mommsen first described it.

Essential dissimilarities within particular Roman provinces are visible through economic

structures, religious peculiarities and emically ascribed identity. Not all acquired Roman

territories willfully joined the Republic or Empire, nor did all non-Roman, native leaders

universally strive to seamlessly assimilate into the new Roman localized power classes

(Mattingly 2004: 13). This model is primarily applied to Rome’s presence in Britain. Mattingly

begins his argument by giving a broad, basic definition of empire as “rule of very large territory

and many peoples without their consent (Mattingly 2013: 75).”

The third category, acculturation, represents the characteristics of native and Roman

values that have apparently been synthesized. Acculturation can often be observed by Roman

reception, and acceptance of, non-classical religious rites and rituals. Some of the more

noteworthy examples include the presence of Isis (Egypt), Epona (northern-Europe), Britannia

(Britain) and Dolychenus (Britain) into the wider Roman pantheon (Webster 1997: 324-338).

Temple of Isis in Pompeii. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Isis_(Pompeii)#mediaviewer/File:Brogi,_Giacomo_(1822-1881)_-_Pompei_-_Tempio_d%27Iside_-_n._5038_-_ca._1870.jpg

The final category, creolization (understood here as the process of multiple cultures

coming together resulting in a new culture), implies that Romanization ensued because of

fundamental differences based the foundations of non-egalitarian cultures (i.e. Rome and

Britain). Empirical remains representative of a native, non-egalitarian culture are therefore

unclear (Webster 2001: 209-225). Creolization is currently employed by a number of disciplines

including anthropology, archaeology and ethnography as a conceptual framework for

multicultural adjustments in colonial and post-colonial areas (Palmie 2007: 433).

Romanization: unique to relative ethnicities

Millett progresses the argument by explaining Roman interactions greatly differentiates

itself based on geography, religious systems and governmental structures of ethnicities. This sort

of interactive variance, which is determinate on many natural factors, necessities a more complex

explanation than what Mommsen gives us. Modernity has much more material at its disposal by

way of the archaeological and literary record, so our investigations into, and analyses of, similar

points of interest must be more researched to do the site and our predecessors justice. At this

point in classical archaeology, Romanization is not, and has not been a credible explanation to

construe differing stages in a site’s stratigraphy since British imperialism dwindled toward the

beginning of the twentieth-century. That is not to say Romanization does not have a place in

current academia. It still must be addressed, if for no other reason than proving Romanization

false by delving deeper into a site and its overarching cultural significance understood within a

larger conceptual framework.

Conclusion

In closing, Romanization is not, and cannot be, employed as an unambiguous method for

understanding unique cultural variation. Much like national constitutions, some of which, were

written hundreds of years ago, Romanization must be constantly adapting to new theoretical and

adaptive approaches of classical archaeology if it is going to stay relevant. Some would argue

Mommsen’s verbal attempt to express an abstract concept has outlived its usefulness, however,

there some who still argue for its temporal exemption (myself included). The hypothesis has

become an over-used and confusing term which has spawned many diverse characterizations

which hinder a singular, worthwhile conceptual application. Along with adapting present

theories to combat Romanization, archeologists and anthropologists are now creating new

abstract concepts to combat this idea. The main criticism with Romanization, as a self-defining

paradigm, is that it is dependent upon the haphazard apportionment of firm titles (i.e. Roman and

indigenous) to countless ethnicities and empirical components with little, if any, understanding

of why it is being done. We, as a culture, need instant gratification, so we attribute this lifestyle

onto the processing and allocating of materials which usually do not lend themselves to this sort

of treatment. My closing thought is that Romanization cannot be used to explicitly explain the

finer distinctions of a site; if we are to use it, it must only be employed in a theoretical sense

which prompts further questioning and reason skills necessary to deepen our understanding

of Roman provinces and not as an archaeologically verifiable practice in and of itself.

City limit sign of Rhome, TX. http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=6c3ee926-92fe-4729-9ad2-52a14e7c50eb&gid=3

Bibliography

'Books 19-21' in Exodus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

‘Book 8’ in Leviticus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Anderson, W. & Spiers, R. 1903. 'The culmination in Attica and the Peloponnesus' in the Architecture of Greece & Rome: A Sketch of its Historic Development (1st edn). Cambridge: Harvard University, 68-84.

Aupert, P. 1979. Fouilles De Delphes II: Topographie Et Architecture. (Ecole française d'Athènes) (1st edn). Paris: De Boccard.

Beard, M., North, J. & Price, S. 1998. 'The temple and its uses' in Religions of Rome: Volume 2, A Sourcebook. (illustrated, reprint edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 82-85.

Colantoni, E. 2012. 'Straw to stone, huts to houses: Transitions in building practices and society in protohistoric latium' in Monumentality in Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture: Ideology and Innovation. (eds) M. Thomas & G. Meyers, Austin: University of Texas, 21-40.

Conte, G. 2007. 'The strategy of contradiction: On the dramatic form of the Aeneid' in The Poetry of Pathos: Studies in Virgilian Epic. (ed) S. Harrison, (1st edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 150-169.

Conte, G. 2007. 'The Virgilian Paradox: An epic of drama and pathos' in The Poetry of Pathos: Studies in Virgilian Epic. (ed) S. Harrison, (1st edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23-57.

Deetz, J. 2010. 'Small things forgotten' in In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life. (unabridged edn). New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 253.

Descartes, R. 1903. 'Preface' in The Meditations, and Selections from the Principles of René Descartes (1596-1650). (eds) L. Lévy-Bruhl & J. Veitch. Chicago: Open Court, v.

Dio Cassius 2003. 'Female gladiators' in Gladiators at Pompeii. (ed) L. Jacobelli, (illustrated edn). Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 18.

Duiker, W. & Spielvogel, J. 2006. 'The roman empire at its height' in The Essential World History. (3rd, illustrated edn). Independence, KY: Cengage Learning, 103-109.

Ewin, C. 2003. 'Materials analysis' in Artifacts: Volume 4 of Archaeologist's Toolkit. (illustrated edn). Washington D.C.: Rowman Altamira, 69-71.

Finkelstein, I. & Silberman, N. 2001. 'The conquest of Canaan' in the Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Sacred Texts (1st edn). Chicago: Simon and Schuster, 77-79.

Flower, H. 2014. 'The tradition of spolia opima: M. Claudius Marcellus and Augustus’ in The Roman Historical Tradition: Regal and Republican Rome. (eds) J. Richardson & F. Santangelo, (illustrated edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 285-320.

Goodman, M. 2008. 'Diversity and toleration' in Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (unabridged edn). New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 115-154.

Grant, M. 1979. in History of Rome. (illustrated, reprint, revised edn). London: Faber & Faber, 33.

Haverfield, F. 1912. in the Study of Ancient History in Oxford: A Lecture Delivered to Undergraduates Reading for the Literae Humaniores School, may 1912, (ed) H. Frowde. Berkeley: the University of California, 18.

Hingley, R. 2008. 'The roman occupation of Britain and our own occupation of India' in The Recovery of Roman Britain 1586-1906: A Colony so Fertile: A Colony so Fertile Oxford Studies in the History of Archaeology. (1st edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 217.

Holum, K. & Raban, A. 1996. 'The Halacha status of Caesarea as reflected in the Talmudic literature' in Caesarea Maritima. (1st edn). Leiden, the Netherlands: BRILL, 454-468.

Horace. 2012. 'Unveiling the bride: Nuptial traditions and roman social discourse  ' in Like a Bride Adorned: Reading Metaphor in John's Apocalypse. (ed) L. Huber, (1st edn). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 122.

Hughes, J. 1990. 'The priestly chronology of the world' in Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology.  . New York: A&C Black, 40.

Humphrey, J. 1986. 'Hippodromes and chariot races in the eastern provinces' in Roman Circuses: Arenas for Chariot Racing. (1 edition edn). Berkeley: University of California Press, 439-549.

Josephus. 1981. 'Book 2' in Josephus: The Jewish War. (eds) B. Radice, M. Smallwood & G. Williamson, (3rd edn). London: Penguin Books Ltd., 55-66.

Juvenal 1992. 'Book 3' in A. Persi Flacci Et D. Iuni Iuvenalis Saturae. (ed) W.V. Clausen, (revised edn). Oxford: Oxford Classical Text, 51.

Laurence, R. & Trifilo, F. 2014. 'The global and the local in the Roman Empire: Connectivity and mobility from an urban perspective' in Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. (eds) M. Pitts & M. Versluys, (1st edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 103-104.

Leigh, J. 2009. 'Voltaire and the myth of England' in The Cambridge Companion to Voltaire. (ed) N. Cronk, (illustrated edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 79-92.

Livy 1921. 'Ab urbe condita' in The History of Rome. (ed) W. Roberts, (4th edn). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.

Lucan 2010. 'The myth of the republic: Medusa and Cato in Lucan, Pharsalia 9' in Lucan's Bellum Civile: Between Epic Tradition and Aesthetic Innovation. (eds) N. Hömke & C. Reitz, (1st edn). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 138-139.

Luce, T. 2009. 'Livy, Augustus and the forum Augustum' in Augustus: His Contributions to the Development of the Roman State in the Early Imperial Period. (ed) J. Edmondson, (illustrated edn). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 399-416.

Mattingly, D. 2013. 'Identity' in Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire Miriam S. Balmuth Lectures in Ancient History and Archaeology. (1st edn). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 207.

Mattingly, D. 2004. 'Being Roman: Expressing Identity in a provincial setting'. Journal of Roman Archaeology. 17: 13.

McGeough, K. 2009. 'Major controversies and future directions in the study of roman civilization' in The Romans: An Introduction. (illustrated, reprint edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 300.

Millett, M. 1992. 'The nature of roman imperialism' in The Romanization of Britain:   an Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. (1st edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-2.

Millett, M. 1990. 'Romanization: Historical issues and archaeological interpretation' in the Early Roman Empire in the West. (eds) T. Blagg & M. Millett, (1st edn). Oxford: Oxbow Books, 35-44.

Mommsen, T. & Kiepert, H. 1865. 'Kapital XII' in Römische Geschichte: Bd. Bis Zur Schlacht Von Pydna, Mit Einer Militärkarte Von ItalienVolume 1 of Römische Geschichte, Heinrich Kiepert. (4th edn). Berkeley: University of California, 176.

Morley, N. 2007. ‘Myth and Reason’ in Theories, Models and Concepts in Ancient History. (2nd edn). Routledge: New York, 105.

Osler, M. 2010. 'Rethinking the universe: Newton on gravity and God' in Reconfiguring the World: Nature, God, and Human Understanding from the Middle Ages to Early Modern Europe. (illustrated edn). Baltimore, MD: JHU Press, 147-148.

Palmie, S. 2006. 'Creolization theory and its critics' in Creolization: History, Ethnography, Theory. (ed) C. Stewart, (1st edn). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 433.

Pitts, M. 2014. 'Globalization, circulation and mass consumption in the roman world' in Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. (eds) M. Pitts & M. Versluys, (1st edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 69-98.

Pliny the Younger 2012. 'Letter 4' in Reading the Letters of Pliny the Younger: An Introduction. (eds) R. Gibson & R. Morello, (illustrated edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 298.

Roller, D. 1998. 'The Building Program of Herod the Great' in The Building Program of Herod the Great. (1st edn). Berkeley: University of California Press, 76-99.

Schwartz, S. 2009. 'Roman values and the Palestinian rabbis' in Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society?: Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism (1st edn). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 110-166.

Smallwood, M. 2001. 'The Diaspora and Jewish religious liberty' in The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations. (illustrated, reprint edn). Leiden, the Netherlands: BRILL, 120-143.

Smith, R. 2013. 'Vidi, Vici: Vision's victory and the telos of narrative ' in the Primacy of Vision in Virgil's Aeneid (1st edn). Austin: University of Texas Press, 128-175.

Stamper, J. 2005. 'Etrusco-roman temples of the early republic' in the Architecture of Roman Temples: The Republic to the Middle Empire (illustrated, reprint edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19-49.

Stokes, P. 2002. 'The rationalists' in Philosophy, 100 Essential Thinkers. (illustrated, reprint edn). Brooklyn, NY: Enchanted Lion Books, 72-73.

Suetonius 2008. 'Julius Caesar  ' in Lives of the Caesars. (ed) C. Edwards, (illustrated, reprint, reissue edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39.

Suetonius. 2008. 'Domitian' in Lives of the Caesars. (ed) C. Edwards, (illustrated, reprint, reissue edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 280-294.

Tacitus. 1912. 'Book 5' in Tacitus, the Histories, Volume 2. (ed) W. Fyfe, (1st edn). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Vitruvius. 1960. 'Book VI' in The Ten Books on Architecture. (ed) M. Morgan, (reprint edn). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 167-189.

Webster, J. 2001. 'Creolizing the Roman Provinces'. American Journal of Archaeology. 105 (2): 209-225.

Webster, J. 1997. 'Necessary Comparisons: A Post-Colonial Approach to Religious Syncretism in the Roman Provinces'. World Archaeology. 28 (3): 324-338.

Williams, R. 1983. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. (revised edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 87.

Zanker, P. 2010. Roman Art. (illustrated, reprint edn). Los Angeles: Getty Publications.

Zanker, P. 1998. Pompeii: Public and Private Life. (illustrated edn). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.