|
humanitas
; the combination of cities, political and economic
institutions, technology and literary heritage is precisely what
modern imperial powers believe they have to offer to the rest of the
world.
23
The encounter between the Romans and their conquered
subjects is therefore interpreted in terms of the meeting of culture
and barbarism, or even culture and non-culture; the superiority of
one system is taken entirely for granted, and the Roman Empire
is evaluated in terms of the degree to which different regions
conformed to the Roman template. The failure of some groups
or regions to Romanise adequately is regarded as the result of the
deficiency of the natives, what Haverfield referred to, tellingly, as an
‘atavistic’ reversion to the ways of their ancestors; the same line of
rhetoric applied to the failure of contemporary Indians or Africans
to appreciate the benefits of European manners or knowledge. There
is no consideration of alternative interpretations, such as a failure
to adopt Roman manners being understood in terms of resistance,
since the natives are regarded as having no culture that could be
defended or valued in the face of superior Roman civilisation.
24
In
the eastern provinces, in contrast, the explanation of the relative
lack of change under Roman rule is simply that the Greeks and their
colonies were already in possession of a culture that was recognised
as superior, one of the roots of Roman (and European) civilisation,
and so there was no need for them to be Romanised.
This over-valuation of Roman culture supported a tendency to
identify with those who brought it to the barbarians, and hence to
excuse their ‘excesses’ in the process of conquest and to take an
overly positive view of their motives. It also meant that the issue
of agency in the processes of cultural change was largely ignored.
‘Romanisation’ is an ambiguous term that can be understood either
as a policy or as a process – as the result of a deliberate attempt
by the Romans at civilising their conquests, or as the unintended
result of the incorporation of a region into the political, social and
economic structures of the Empire, or as some combination of the
two. Many writers in this tradition saw Rome as a self-consciously
civilising power, focusing on the various texts (such as the passage
of Tacitus quoted above) and inscriptions which showed Roman
Morley 01 text 110
29/04/2010 14:29
ThE dynamIcs of culTural changE
111
governors and emperors intervening to promote their ‘culture’ in the
provinces. They were generally conscious enough of the limitations
of Roman power, above all the small number of Roman officials in
the provinces, to recognise that Roman culture could never have
been imposed wholesale on the entire Empire; rather, the role of
Roman officials was to embody their culture, to begin the process of
urbanisation through the foundation of colonies and development
of military camps, and to provide occasional encouragement and
finance. The superiority of Roman civilisation, it was assumed, was
such that it would spread through the provinces through a natural
process of osmosis; it was enough for the natives to be brought
into contact with Romans, whether soldiers, officials, colonists or
traders, to recognise their superior status and wish to imitate them.
The close connection between these assumptions and the
discourses of modern imperialism, which similarly see the colonised
natives as uncultured or culture-free primitives in need of civilising,
and as passive consumers overwhelmed by the superior power
of European civilisation, is obvious. In recent decades, these
modern discourses and ‘white mythologies’, the means by which
non-Europeans are represented as inferior and hence in need of the
benevolent intervention of European powers, have been fiercely
criticised by various post-colonial theories, whose arguments have
also been introduced into the study of the Roman Empire.
25
Several
recent studies of Romanisation have therefore adopted what might
be termed a ‘nativist’ perspective, emphasising the equal claims to
attention of pre-Roman culture – it was not intrinsically inferior to
Roman civilisation, simply different – and hence insisting on the
active role of the provincials in choosing to adopt Roman culture,
or elements of it, for their own purposes.
26
Cultural change is not
the result of a natural process of osmosis or diffusion, but rather
the product of decisions made by individuals in their own interests,
above all in the pursuit of social status and position. Even before a
region was conquered, the consumption of Roman goods, such as
wine in Gaul, might be employed by the elite (or would-be elite) as a
means of differentiating themselves from the mass of the population;
the significance of such goods was that they were exotic and relatively
rare.
27
After the conquest, such goods became more widely available,
so that more people could seek to emulate their social superiors
by changing their habits of consumption. More importantly, the
elite could gain significantly greater power, and access to wider
networks of power, through collaboration with the Romans; the
adoption and adaption of an ever wider range of Roman practices
Morley 01 text 111
29/04/2010 14:29
112
ThE roman EmpIrE
and forms was a crucial element of their strategies of negotiation
and accommodation, seeking to establish themselves as acceptable
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
