Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorWoolf, Greg
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-31T23:10:53Z
dc.date.available2015-05-31T23:10:53Z
dc.date.issued2014-06
dc.identifier.citationWoolf , G 2014 , ' Romanization 2.0 and its alternatives ' , Archaeological Dialogues , vol. 21 , no. 1 , pp. 45-50 . https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203814000087en
dc.identifier.issn1380-2038
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 120047914
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 39d24b06-65b2-4b91-ad4e-4533574adbd9
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84901008754
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000336496400006
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/6716
dc.description.abstractThis 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 mid1990s onwards developed a theoretical position that should be characterized as anticolonial. 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.
dc.format.extent6
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofArchaeological Dialoguesen
dc.rights© Cambridge University Press 2014en
dc.subjectRomanizationen
dc.subjectPost-colonial Roman archaeologyen
dc.subjectGlobalizationen
dc.subjectMaterial-culture studiesen
dc.subjectThe object turnen
dc.subjectMaterial agencyen
dc.subjectCC Archaeologyen
dc.subjectCB History of civilizationen
dc.subjectPA Classical philologyen
dc.subject.lccCCen
dc.subject.lccCBen
dc.subject.lccPAen
dc.titleRomanization 2.0 and its alternativesen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.School of Classicsen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Centre for the Study of Ancient Systems of Knowledgeen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203814000087
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.date.embargoedUntil2015-06-01


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record