Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T01:05:32.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding objects in motion. An archaeological dialogue on Romanization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2014

Miguel John Versluys
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay argues that Romanization revolves around understanding objects in motion and that Roman archaeologists should therefore focus on (1) globalization theory and (2) material-culture studies as important theoretical directions for the (near) future. The present state and scope of the Romanization debate, however, seem to prevent a fruitful development in that direction. The first part of this paper therefore briefly analyses the Romanization debate and argues that large parts of ‘Anglo-Saxon Roman archaeology’ have never been really post-colonial, but in fact from the mid-1990s onwards developed a theoretical position that should be characterized as anti-colonial. This ideologically motivated development has resulted in several unhealthy divides within the field, as well as in an uncomfortable ending of the Romanization debate. The present consensus within English-speaking Roman archaeology ‘to do away with Romanization’ does not seem to get us at all ‘beyond Romans and Natives’, and, moreover, has effectively halted most of the discussion about how to understand and conceptualize ‘Rome’. The second part of the article presents two propositions outlining how to move forward: globalization theory and material-culture studies. Through this focus we will be able to better understand ‘Rome’ as (indicating) objects in motion and the human–thing entanglements resulting from a remarkable punctuation of connectivity. This focus is important as an alternative perspective to all existing narratives about Romanization because these remain fundamentally historical, in the sense that they reduce objects to expressions (of identity) alone. It is time for our discussions about ‘Rome’ to move ‘beyond representation’ and to become genuinely archaeological at last, by making material culture, with its agency and materiality, central to the analyses.

Keywords

Romanizationpost-colonial Roman archaeologyglobalizationmaterial-culture studiesthe object turnmaterial agency
Type
Discussion Article
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , June 2014 , pp. 1 - 20
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

Alcock, S. (ed.), 1997: The early Roman Empire in the East, Oxford.Google Scholar
Alexandridis, A., 2010: Neutral bodies? Female portrait statue types from the late Republic to the second century AD, in Hodos, T. and Hales, S. (eds), Material culture and social identities in the ancient world, Cambridge, 252–79.Google Scholar
Appadurai, A. (ed.), 2001: Globalization, Durham, NC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, W., 2000: Rome in the East. The transformation of an empire, London.Google Scholar
Bénabou, M., 1976: La résistance africaine à la romanisation, Paris.Google Scholar
Bhabha, H., 1994: The location of culture, London.Google Scholar
Bloch, M., 1953: Apologie pour l'histoire, ou le métier historien, Paris.Google Scholar
Böhme, H., 2006: Fetischismus und Kultur. Eine andere Theorie der Moderne, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Boivin, N., 2008: Material cultures, material minds. The impact of things on human thought, society, and culture, Oxford.Google Scholar
Braudel, F., 1966 (1949): La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II, Paris.Google Scholar
Butcher, K., 2003: Roman Syria and the Near East, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Cannadine, D., 2013: The undivided past. History beyond our differences, London.Google Scholar
Carey, J.W., 1989: Communication as culture. Essays on media and society, New York.Google Scholar
Dench, E., 2005: Romulus’ asylum. Roman identities from the age of Alexander to the age of Hadrian, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupont, F., 2002: Rome ou l'altérité incluse, Rue Descartes 37, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, C., and Woolf, G., 2003: Rome the cosmopolis, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Flood, F.B., 2009: Objects of translation. Material culture and Medieval ‘Hindu–Muslim’ encounter, Princeton and Oxford.Google Scholar
Gardner, A., 2013: Thinking about Roman imperialism. Postcolonialism, globalisation and beyond?, Britannia 44, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, M., 2007: Culture and power. A history of cultural studies, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 2004: Archaeology and colonialism. Culture contact from 5000 BC to the present, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 2012: Post-colonial archaeology, in Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological theory today, Cambridge, 251–66.Google Scholar
Häussler, R. (ed.), 2008: Romanisation et épigraphie. Etudes interdisciplinaires sur l'acculturation et l'identité dans l'Empire romain, Montagnac.Google Scholar
Hicks, D., 2010: The material-cultural turn. Event and effect, in Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M.C. (eds), The Oxford handbook of material culture studies, Oxford, 25–98.Google Scholar
Hicks, D., and Beaudry, M.C. (eds), 2010: The Oxford handbook of material culture studies. Oxford.Google Scholar
Hingley, R., 2000: Roman officers and English gentlemen, London.Google Scholar
Hingley, R. (ed.), 2001: Images of Rome. Perceptions of ancient Rome in Europe and the United States in the modern age, Ann Arbor (Journal of Roman archaeology, Supplementary Series 44).Google Scholar
Hingley, R., 2005: Globalizing Roman culture. Unity, diversity and empire, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hingley, R., 2014b: Post-colonial and global Rome. The genealogy of empire, in Pitts, M. and Versluys, M.J. (eds.), Globalisation and the Roman world. Perspectives and opportunities, Cambridge, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2012: Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff, M.C., and Rotroff, S., 1997: The Romanization of Athens, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hölscher, T., 2004: The language of images in Roman art, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Horden, P., and Purcell, N., 2000: The corrupting sea. A study of Mediterranean history, Oxford.Google Scholar
Jones, A.M., and Boivin, N., 2010: The malice of inanimate objects. Material agency, in Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M.C. (eds), The Oxford handbook of material culture studies, Oxford, 333–51.Google Scholar
Knappett, C., and Malafouris, L. (eds), 2008: Material agency. Towards a non-anthropocentric approach, New York.Google Scholar
Laurence, R., 2001: Roman narratives. The writing of archaeological discourse – a view from Britain?, Archaeological dialogues 8, 90–122 (with comments by A. Snodgrass, M.J. Versluys and D. Krause).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Bohec, Y., 2008: Romanisation ou romanité au temps du principat. Question de méthodologie, Revue des études latines 86, 127–38.Google Scholar
Leerssen, J., 2007: Imagology. History and method, in Beller, M. and Leerssen, J. (eds), Imagology. The cultural construction and literary representation of national characters. A critical survey, Amsterdam, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Roux, P., 1995: Rome ou l'acculturation permanente, Crises 5, 125–31.Google Scholar
Le Roux, P., 2004: La romanisation en question, Annales. Histoire, sciences sociales 59 (2), 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leveau, B., 1984: Caesarea de Maurétanie. Une ville romaine et ses campagnes, Rome.Google Scholar
McCaskie, T.C., 2012: ‘As on a darkling plain’. Practitioners, publics, propagandists, and ancient historiography, Comparative studies in society and history 54 (1), 145–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malafouris, L., 2004: The cognitive basis of material engagement. Where brain, body and culture conflate, in DeMarrias, E., Gosden, C. and Renfrew, C. (eds), Rethinking materiality. The engagement of mind with the material world, Cambridge, 53–62.Google Scholar
Maran, J., and Stockhammer, P.W. (eds), 2012: Materiality and social practice. Transformative capacities of intercultural encounters, Oxford.Google Scholar
Mattingly, D.J. (ed.), 1997: Dialogues in Roman imperialism. Power, discourse, and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Mattingly, D.J., 2004: Being Roman. Expressing identity in a provincial setting, Journal of Roman archaeology 17, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, D.J., 2006: An imperial possession. Britain in the Roman Empire, 54 BC–AD 409, London.Google Scholar
Mattingly, D.J., 2007: What did the Romans do for us?, History today 57 (6).Google Scholar
Mattingly, D.J., 2010: Imperialism, power and identity. Experiencing the Roman Empire, Princeton.Google Scholar
Merryweather, A., and Prag, J., 2002: ‘Romanization’? or, why flogging a dead horse, Disgressus 2, 8–10.Google Scholar
Millett, M., 1990: The Romanization of Britain. An essay in archaeological interpretation, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mol, E.M., 2012: The perception of Egypt in networks of being and becoming. A thing theory approach to egyptianising objects in Roman domestic contexts, in TRAC Proceedings 2012, Oxford, 117–31.Google Scholar
Morris, I., 2005: Mediterraneanization, in Malkin, I. (ed.), Mediterranean paradigms and classical antiquity, London, 30–55.Google Scholar
Osborne, R., 2008: Colonial cancer, Journal of Mediterranean archaeology 21 (2), 281–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pippidi, D.M. (ed.), 1976: Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien, Paris.Google Scholar
Pitts, M., 2007: The emperor's new clothes? The unity of identity in Roman archaeology, American journal of archaeology 111, 693–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitts, M., 2008: Globalizing the local in Roman Britain. An anthropological approach to social change, Journal of anthropological archaeology 27, 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reece, R., 1990: Romanization. A point of view, in Blag, T.F.C. and Millett, M. (eds), The early Roman Empire in the West, Oxford, 130–40.Google Scholar
Roth, R., and Keller, J. (eds), 2007: Roman by integration. Dimensions of group identity in material culture and text, Ann Arbor (Journal of Roman archaeology, Supplementary Series 66).Google Scholar
Saurma-Jeltsch, L.E., and Eisenbeiß, A. (eds), 2010: The power of things and the flow of cultural transformations. Art and culture between Europe and Asia, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Slofstra, J., 1983: An anthropological approach to the study of Romanization processes, in Brandt, R. and Slofstra, J. (eds), Roman and Native in the Low Countries. Spheres of interaction, Oxford (BAR International Series 184), 71–104.Google Scholar
Slofstra, J., 2002b: Story-telling and theory. A reply, Archaeological dialogues 9, 55–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, M., 2012: Heart of darkness? Post-colonial theory and the transformation of the Mediterranean, Ancient West & East 11, 235–45.Google Scholar
Stek, T.D., 2009: Cult places and cultural change in Republican Italy. A contextual approach to religious aspects of rural society after the Roman conquest, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrenato, N., 2001: Ancestor cults. The perception of Rome in modern Italian culture, in Hingley, R. (ed.), Images of Rome. Perceptions of ancient Rome in Europe and the United States in the modern age, Ann Arbor, 71–89.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
Terrenato, N., 2007: The clans and the peasants. Reflections on social structure and change in Hellenistic Central Italy, in van Dommelen, P. and Terrenato, N. (eds), Articulating local cultures, Portsmouth, RI, 13–22.Google Scholar
Thomas, N., 1999: The case of the misplaced ponchos. Speculations concerning the history of cloth in Polynesia, Journal of material culture 4, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dommelen, P., 1998: On colonial grounds. A comparative study of colonialism and rural settlement in first millennium BC west central Sardinia, Leiden.Google Scholar
Van Dommelen, P., 2006: Colonial matters. Material culture and postcolonial theory in colonial situations, in Tilley, C., Keane, W., Kuechler-Fogden, S., Rowlands, M. and Spyer, P. (eds), Handbook of material culture, Los Angeles, 104–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dommelen, P., 2012: Colonialism and migration in the ancient Mediterranean, Annual review of anthropology 41, 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dommelen, P., and Knapp, A.B. (eds), 2010: Material connections in the ancient Mediterranean. Mobility, materiality and identity, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oyen, A., 2013: Towards a post-colonial artefact analysis, Archaeological dialogues 20 (1), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Versluys, M.J., 2010–11: Archéologie classique et histoire de l'art aux Pays-Bas. Des liaisons dangereuses, Perspective, 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Versluys, M.J., 2012: Cultural responses from kingdom to province. The Romanisation of Commagene, local identities and the Mara bar Sarapion letter, in Merz, A. and Tieleman, T. (eds), The letter of Mara Bar Sarapion in context, Leiden, 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Versluys, M.J., 2013: Material culture and identity in the late Roman Republic (ca. 200 BC–ca. 20 BC), in de Rose Evans, J. (ed.), Blackwell companion to the archaeology of the Roman Republic, Oxford, 647–62.Google Scholar
Versluys, M.J., 2014: Roman visual material culture as globalising koine, in Pitts, M. and Versluys, M.J. (eds), Globalisation and the Roman world, Cambridge, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Veyne, P., 2005: L'empire gréco-romain, Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A., 2008: Rome's cultural revolution, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Webster, J., and Cooper, N. (eds), 1996: Roman imperialism: Post-colonial perspectives, Leicester (Leicester Archaeology Monographs 3).Google Scholar
Weinstein, B., 2005: History without a cause? Grand narratives, world history, and the postcolonial dilemma, International review of social history 50, 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witcher, R.E., 2000: Globalisation and Roman imperialism, in Herring, E. and Lomas, K. (eds), The emergence of state identities in Italy in the first millennium, London, 213–25.Google Scholar
Wolf, E., 1982: Europe and the people without history, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Woolf, G., 1997: Beyond Romans and Natives, World archaeology 28, 339–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, G., 1998: Becoming Roman. The origins of provincial civilization in Gaul, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, G., 2001: The Roman cultural revolution in Gaul, in Keay, S. and Terrenato, N. (eds), Italy and the West. Comparative issues in Romanization, Oxford, 173–86.Google Scholar
Woolf, G., 2004: The present state and future scope of Roman archaeology. A comment, American journal of archaeology 108, 417–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, G., 2012: Rome. An empire's story, Oxford.Google Scholar
Zanker, P. (ed.), 1976: Hellenismus in Mittelitalien, Göttingen.Google Scholar