ABSTRACT
If there is one thing that ignites Roman archaeologists it is the subject of cultural change, or what has become known as ‘Romanization’. It owes its origin to Francis Haverfield's book The Romanization of Roman Britain published in 1906, a book that owes its inspiration to Theodor Mommsen and historical scholarship from the 19th century (Freeman 2007). For Roman historians delving into Roman archaeology, there is a need to step carefully when it comes to discussing Romanization. It is a topic that will produce strong opinions, groans of depression and frustration, and an understanding that draws on Roman historical research but sets itself apart from it. This chapter seeks to set out some (but certainly not all) of the key areas of debate regarding Romanization and to relate these to the concerns and conceptions of historians. It should be noted at the very outset that this is a two-way street – archaeologists are deeply influenced by the work of ancient historians and may implicitly or explicitly reproduce concepts developed by ancient historians. In fact, in this chapter, I would suggest that the work of Moses Finley, setting out an economy at diametric odds to the work of Michael Rostovtzeff (discussed in the previous chapter), underpins the modern conception of Romanization (see Greene 1986 for a view of Finley's work from within archaeology prior to 1990, and Greene 2000 for a view ten years on from the publication of Millett's 1990a The Romanization of Britain).
