Romanization or latinization (in the historical and cultural meanings of both terms) indicate different historical processes, such as acculturation, integration and assimilation of newly incorporated and peripheral populations by the Roman Republic and the later Roman Empire. Ancient Roman historiography and Italian historiography until the fascist period used to call these various processes the "civilizing of barbarians".
The acculturation proceeded from the top down, the upper classes adopting Roman culture first and the old ways lingering longest in outlying districts among peasants.[1] Hostages played an important part in this process, as elite children, from Mauretania to Gaul, were taken to be raised in Rome.[2]
Ancient Roman historiography and traditional Italian historiography confidently identified the different processes involved with a "civilization of barbarians". Modern historians take a more nuanced view: by making their peace with Rome, local elites could make their position more secure and reinforce their prestige. New themes include the study of personal and group values and the construction of identity, the personal aspect of ethnogenesis. These transitions operated differently in different provinces; as Blagg and Millett point out[3] even a Roman province may be too broad a canvas for generalizations.
The essential questions are, how, why, and to what extent did members of native cultures re-identify as "Romans" during the late Republic and the first two or three centuries of the Roman Empire?
Contents |
The very existence of a 'process' by which romanization can occur is a source of contention amongst modern archaeologists[4]. One of the first approaches, which can be regarded as the 'traditional' approach today, was taken by Francis Haverfield[5]. He saw this process beginning in primarily post-conquest societies (e.g. Britain and Gaul) where direct Roman policy from the top promoted an increase in the 'Roman' population of the province through the establishment of veteran colonies. These coloniae would have spoken Latin and have been citizens of Rome following their army tenure (See Roman citizenship) - Haverfield thus assumes this would have a 'Romanising' effect upon the native communities.
This thought process, fueled though it was by early 20th century standards of Imperialism and cultural change, forms the basis for the modern understanding of Romanisation. However, recent scholarship has devoted itself to providing alternate models of how native populations adopted Roman culture, whilst questioning the extent to which it was accepted or resisted.
Romanization is not a clear-cut process of cultural adoption. The paradigm is over-used and confused; different definitions prevent any useful application of the concept. The major criticism of this idea is that it is reliant upon the arbitrary allocation of labels such as Roman and Native to various cultural and material elements with little or no firm reasoning to do so. As it cannot be used to explain, Romanization should only be used as a theoretical tool with which to approach the Roman Provinces and not as an archaeologically verifiable process.
all this slowly culminated in many gradual developments:
In due time, the conquered would see themselves as Romans.
This process was supported by the Roman Republic and by its successor the Roman Empire.
The entire process was facilitated by the fact that many of the local languages had the same Indo-European origin and by the similarity of the gods of many ancient cultures. They also already had had trade relations and contacts with each other through the seafaring Mediterranean cultures like the Phoenicians and the Greeks.
Romanization was largely effective in the western half of the Empire, where native civilizations were weaker. In the Hellenized East, ancient civilizations like those of Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Judea and Syria, effectively resisted all but its most superficial effects. When the Empire was divided into two, in the east where Greek culture was centered, the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire was marked by the increasing strength of specifically Greek culture and language to the detriment of the Latin language and other romanizing influences, even though its citizens continued to regard themselves as Romans.
While Britain certainly was Romanized, its approximation to the Roman culture seems to have been smaller than that of Gaul, for example, and the Roman culture quickly collapsed after the Anglo-Saxon invasion. The most romanized regions of the empire were Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, Dalmatia and Dacia. Romanization in most of these regions remains such a powerful cultural influence in most aspects of life today that they are described as "Latin countries". This is most evident in those European countries in which Latin derived languages are spoken and former colonies that have inherited these languages and other Roman influences.
|