Creolizing the Roman Provinces: A Critique of Romanization and a New Framework for Multicultural Change r19

Core Concepts and the Critique of Romanization

• The Dominance of Romanization: Since Francis Haverfield introduced the concept in 1905, "Romanization" has been the reigning model for understanding intercultural change in the Roman provinces.
• Thesis Statement: Jane Webster argues that while Romanization (essentially acculturation) describes how provincial elites adopted Roman symbols, it is fundamentally flawed when applied to the majority of the population.
• The Creolization Alternative: Drawing from Caribbean and American historical archaeology, Webster proposes "creolization" as a more effective framework. This term, originally linguistic, denotes multicultural adjustment and the merging of traditions in non-egalitarian contexts.
• Bottom-Up Perspective: Unlike Romanization models that focus on elites, a creole perspective offers insights into post-conquest identity negotiation from the "bottom up."

Roman Viewpoints on Cultural Interaction

• Humanitas (Civilization): By the first century B.C., Roman cultural values crystallized into the concept of humanitas. Imperialism was viewed as a "civilizing mission" to spread this to others, tempering barbarian practices and establishing the pax Romana.
• Pliny the Elder’s Perspective: In NH $3.39$, Pliny refers to Italy as being chosen by the gods to gather scattered realms, soften customs, and unite discordant tongues into a common speech to "give civilization to mankind."
• Political Pragmatism: Romans recognized that cultural assimilation was essential for a unified ruling class. Fostering Roman values among provincial elites was a strategic tool for administration.
• Cultural Repertoire vs. Ethnicity: Provincials could "become Roman" not necessarily through ethnicity or enfranchisement, but by wielding a specific set of cultural symbols and practices.
• Elite-to-Elite Interaction: Webster stresses that Roman efforts to naturalize values were directed by the metropolitan elite (Rome) toward provincial elites, leaving the experience of the lower social levels largely unaddressed by Roman sources.

Theoretical Shortcomings: Romanization as Acculturation

• The Problem with Acculturation: Non-Romanist Leland Ferguson defines acculturation as the "adoption of traits of another group," which in social science typically means non-Europeans adopting European patterns.
• Eurocentric/Romancentric Bias: Romanization is a one-sided model. It presupposes a linear transfer of ideas from the center to the provinces, where provincial society becomes "cumulatively more Roman."
• Richard Reece’s Definition: Reece defined Romanization simply as "foreign influence," noting that despite rhetoric of "interchange," it is viewed as a unidirectional process.

Historical Models of Provincial Culture Change

Haverfield’s Romanization ($1905$–$1960s$)

• Civilizing Process: Haverfield (1923) argued Rome maintained its empire by fostering "internal civilization," giving non-Romans new language, material culture, art, and urban lifestyles.
• Uniformity vs. Persistence: He concluded that Romanization extinguished the distinction between Roman and provincial in material culture, yet did not immediately destroy tribal sentiments.
• Cultural Homogenization: His focus on uniformity led to a tendency in scholarship to look for homogenization rather than the creation of cultural difference.
• The "Peasantry": Haverfield noted that Romanization was least successful among the peasantry, where native culture survived. He attributed this to "latent persistence" or dormant "superstitions," viewing non-elites as passive in history.

Collingwood and "Fusion" ($1930s$)

• Romano-British Hybridity: R.G. Collingwood challenged Haverfield, arguing that the culture was neither purely Roman nor British but a "fusion" (Romano-British) into a single, different thing.
• Neglect of Power Dynamics: Webster critiques Collingwood for viewing fusion as a "problem-free" process that ignored the fundamental inequalities between the colonizer and the colonized.
• The Five-Percent Rule: Collingwood still viewed the provincial population as having a civilization that was "about five per cent Roman to ninety five Celtic."

The Nativist Counterattack ($1970s$–$1980s$)

• Inversion of Haverfield: Nativist scholars introduced the idea of active resistance to Roman culture.
• North African Influence: The model emerged first in the Maghreb (influencing scholars like Laroui and Benabou), where European colonization was met with skepticism.
• The "Roman Veneer": British nativists (e.g., Richard Reece) argued that Romanization was merely a "surface gloss" or "veneer" applied to "Celtic woodwork."
• The "British Way": This school posited that most Britons followed a native way before, during, and after the Roman occupation, largely ignoring the Roman way rather than resisting it.
• The Africanism Parallel: In the Americas, a similar trend sought to identify "Africanisms" (survivals) in slave communities as proof of resistance, which later evolved into creolization studies.

Martin Millett’s Model of Native-Led Emulation ($1990s$)

• Synthesis of Models: Millett attempted to reconcile Haverfield’s "given civilization" with nativist views of active indigenous roles.
• Elite Emulation: In his model, native elites emulated Roman material culture to reinforce their own social standing and power. This was a result of "accidents of social and power structures" rather than deliberate state policy.
• Trickle-Down Mechanism: The adoption of Romanitas was a "self-generating" process where lower social orders emulated their superiors to enhance their own prospects.
• Debate on State Intervention: Scholars differ on whether Romanization was a deliberate policy. Paul Zanker sees it as spontaneous competition; C.R. Whittaker argues for more deliberate intervention.
• The Limitation of Emulation: Webster argues Millett’s model still assumes non-elites were passive receptors, and it fails to explain why those with "nothing to gain" would adopt Roman symbols.

The Concept of Creolization in Archaeology

• Linguistic Origins: Creole dialects emerge when two languages merge; for example, West African slaves substituted some English words but kept a creole "grammar" for everyday discourse (Abrahams 1983).
• Multicultural Adjustment: Creolization denotes the process through which African-American and African-Caribbean societies were created through interaction with Europeans and Native Americans.
• Ambiguous Material Culture: Like language, creole material culture shows mastery of two traditions used differently according to context. It is an amalgam formed within asymmetric power relations.
• Anne Yentsch and Cuisine: Yentsch (1994) studied domestic slaves in Maryland, showing how African cooking techniques and foodstuffs were maintained and blended into a new creole ethnicity.
• Leland Ferguson and the "Grammar" of Culture: Ferguson (1992) argues that while artifacts (the "lexicon") may look European (e.g., from a master), they are used according to indigenous rules (the "grammar").
• Resistant Adaptation: Creolization is often a process of maintaining tradition in opposition to a dominant elite-sponsored culture, which involves risk.

Case Study: Creolizing Romano-Celtic Religion

• Interpretatio Romana vs. Creolization: Conventional studies see religious syncretism as a "problem-free" or "neutral" process where people spontaneously welcomed each other's gods.
• The Santeria Analogy: Santeria in Cuba fused Spanish Catholicism (saints) with Yoruba deities, created by the urban poor and slaves. It conveys a counter-cultural message despite using Catholic elements.
• Three Groups of Non-Classical Deities in Gaul:     1. Paired Deities: Celtic deities linked to Graeco-Roman ones (e.g., Apollo Moritasgus) or "divine marriages" (e.g., Mercury and Rosmerta).     2. Mass-Produced Clay Statuettes: Second-century A.D. pipe-clay figurines from the Allier region, such as the "Venus Pudica" type, used for indigenous fertility beliefs.     3. Anthropomorphic Indigenous Deities: Deities like Epona, Cernunnos, and Sucellus who are not based on classical exemplars.

The Case of Epona

• Characteristics: A horse goddess prominent in northern and eastern Gaul (Aedui and Mandubii regions). Popular with Gallic auxiliaries on the border of Germania Superior.
• Zoomorphism: Her identity is inseparable from the horse. Cernunnos is similarly semi-zoomorphic (horned). This reflects a continuation of Iron Age traditions despite the adoption of the human form.
• Resistance to Twinning: Unlike many Gaulish goddesses, Epona is never paired iconographically with a Graeco-Roman god. She resists the "married state" with classical deities.
• Epigraphic Absence: There is a notable lack of epigraphy associated with Epona. While over $300$ images exist, only about $26$ name-pairing inscriptions were noted by de Vries (1948).
• Naming as Resistance: Webster suggests non-elites may have accepted the "human form" of the god but resisted naming them alongside Roman gods (epigraphic interpretatio romana).

Conclusion: New Directions for Study

• Rejecting the Polarized View: Scholarly focus must move beyond the "Roman or Native" dichotomy.
• Shift in Focus: Webster advocates for shifting the study of intercultural contact away from elites toward the urban poor, the rural poor, and the enslaved.
• Domestic Materiality: The colonial experience for the majority was lived through everyday domestic life—verandahs, pots, recipes, and clay pipes.