"Roman" Culture?

[sulla felix]

I think much of the confusion here comes from the way Archaeologists and Historians like to classify material culture. Just exactly what is "Roman" material culture and if identified within the archaeological record, then does that automatically mean that this is a "Roman" settlement/person etc.

There is huge debate about "Romanisation", a mysterious process whereby previously "non-Romans" become "Romans" because the material culture excavated indicates that this is the case (see Millett's work on this for Roman Britain for example).

During the writing of my Master's thesis I concentrated upon how public space in settlements changed from pre-Roman to Roman periods. Being "Roman" is more a state of mind for the people that used those public spaces (towns, cities etc.), and the architecture that defines those public spaces emphasizes political, social, and religious ideologies. For an example of this note how Augustus (Octavian) set about creating, or re-establishing the "Roman" identity and values after a long period of political and social instability - religion (new deities, including Julius Caesar and himself in the provinces), culture (Virgil's Aeneid for example), and architecture. I would recommend the work by Paul Zanker (in particular his work on power and images in the age of Augustus) as a good place to start.

Sorry if I seem like I am preaching here but this really is a very important topic I feel.