ThE dynamIcs of culTural changE
113
subject is defined in terms of significant changes in material culture
and that is where the changes are visible; if, however, the question
were refocused on the nature and
dynamics of the encounter
between Roman and provincial cultures, it would be essential to
consider the divergent experiences of regions across the whole of
the Empire. One crucial question is whether the divergence visible
in the material record (the number of villas and inscriptions, the
persistence of indigenous burial customs and so forth) is the product
of variations in the intensity of exposure to Roman culture – in other
words, whether the countryside becomes less ‘Romanised’ than the
cities because its inhabitants are more isolated from exposure to
Roman culture and the incentives to adopt it – or whether different
groups in provincial society and different regions of the Empire were
presented with quite different incentives and pressures, concealed
under the homogenising term ‘Romanisation’.
Some of the most far-reaching criticisms of the new orthodoxy
of self-Romanising natives have indeed been based on questioning
the whole concept of Romanisation; not only the dynamics of
its development, but its ontological status.
31
Underpinning both
the original and the modified theories is the nineteenth-century
conception of a culture as an integrated system, closely related to
the special qualities of the race or nation that created it, in which
every aspect of life reflects as well as constitutes the whole.
32
When
an object or a practice associated with Roman culture is identified
in a provincial context, therefore, it is interpreted by archaeologists
as either an indication of the presence of Romans or as an example
of provincials adopting elements of Roman culture. However,
objects have no fixed, intrinsic meaning; we actually have no way
of knowing whether, for example, a Gaul drinking wine in the first
century CE thought of himself as consuming a Roman drink rather
than a prestigious drink, or whether mosaic decoration in a country
residence was associated with Romanness by provincials to the same
extent that it is by modern scholarship. Certain objects must, we
may imagine, have been difficult to disassociate wholly from their
origins – the toga, for example – but even then, we cannot know
whether the primary motivation of a Briton wearing a toga was to
assert his identity as a Roman and emulate his rulers, or rather to
mark himself out from his social inferiors through a distinctive form
of dress. The progressivist view that all manifestations of ‘Roman’
goods and practices in the provinces must represent a movement
towards the wholesale adoption of Romanness may in fact conceal
a wide range of different reasons for changes in material culture.
Morley 01 text 113
29/04/2010 14:29
114
ThE roman EmpIrE
In
addition, the idea of ‘Roman culture’,
conceived as a
homogeneous and
clearly-defined set of social,
material and
intellectual practices, is itself an invention. In part, it was invented
by the Romans themselves, seeking to define their own identity, from
the development of a Latin literary tradition in the second century
CE to the furious arguments about what it was to be Roman (or a
‘proper’ Roman) in the vast literary and artistic output of what is
sometimes called the ‘Roman cultural revolution’ under Augustus.
33
There was no single model of ‘being Roman’ which a provincial
could have imitated, even if he had full information about the
debates going on in the metropolis, rather than, we might imagine,
developing a partial and idiosyncratic image of what was involved
from his encounters with Romans in his locality and from different
media of communication like coins, literature and sculpture. Rather,
the adoption of certain practices can be understood as an attempt at
defining what it is to be Roman, part of an empire-wide discourse
on the subject, as much as an assertion of Roman identity.
34
The
different conceptions of Romanness found in different regions of
the Empire were not imperfect copies of a pure Roman identity
established in the centre; on the contrary, the cosmopolitan nature of
the capital, drawing in influences from every corner of the Empire,
meant that Roman identity was arguably a far more problematic
concept there than in any individual province.
35
Looking over the
Empire, there was clearly no such thing as ‘Roman identity’ or
‘Roman culture’; better to think of multiple ‘Roman identities’ and
‘Roman cultures’, all hybrids, sharing some elements in common
but with significant differences, all undergoing a constant process
of development and debate.
The modern conception of Roman culture is much broader than
the Romans’ own definitions; inspired by the wish to look beyond
the culture of the elite, it incorporates practices such as the use of
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
