Romano British - Is there really such a thing?

[Wax]

So is Romano British a simple label for that period of time when there was open access to the Roman cultural package for those inhabitants of these islands who wanted or could afford it ? As there does not appear to be a record of what they thought of or called those times it's just a handy if not strictly accurate label.

[Kel]

So is Romano British a simple label for that period of time when there was open access to the Roman cultural package for those inhabitants of these islands who wanted or could afford it ?

Maybe not quite that simple (I wish!). There were areas of southern Britain in the Late Iron Age, pre-AD43, where Roman cultural gubbins was available. Using the above definition, we'd have to do away with the term "Late Iron Age" as a stand-alone reference and substitute it with some kind of local label e.g. "Late Iron Age/Romano-British: Colchester Phase".

I'm still not certain that adopting aspects of a foreign culture, fundamentally alters an indigenous culture. I like a saag aloo as much as the next man, but I'm not Anglo-Indian.

[Wax]

I think as archaeologists we are missing the point " Romano British", Viking, Saxon, Medieval etc are all handy ( though inaccurate) labels that give the general public a quick way in to grasping what period we are talking about. As archaeologists we find the phrases almost meaningless. However the general public have through the education system and the use of the phrases in the media, come to understand them as a chronological sequence that might have more significance to them than BP or BC/AD. Not ideal and leading to many misunderstandings but still away for the average man in the street to get a handle on the past.

[Dinosaur]

On that basis 'Roman' would be a much better label than 'Romano-British' - in my experience the latter usually just elicits a blank look from members of the 'public', but they've all heard of the Romans, Hadrian's Wall, forts, villas, mosaics etc, if only from school projects and Time Team. After all, we as archaeologists generally only apply the 'Romano-British' label to the exact same period (43-410) covered as 'Roman' in schools

[Jack]

I think as archaeologists we are missing the point " Romano British", Viking, Saxon, Medieval etc are all handy ( though inaccurate) labels that give the general public a quick way in to grasping what period we are talking about. As archaeologists we find the phrases almost meaningless. However the general public have through the education system and the use of the phrases in the media, come to understand them as a chronological sequence that might have more significance to them than BP or BC/AD. Not ideal and leading to many misunderstandings but still away for the average man in the street to get a handle on the past.

Then surely its our duty to teach better (or batter the media industry over the head until they listen - e.g. one day they'll stop using meaningless Richter scale quotes and use the measured wave magnitude)

[P Prentice]

i have been using roman period instead of romano british for some time although i would rather have another frame of reference - i dont like the other labels either

using rb seems to me to perpetuate the idea that things were improved by the roman occupation and in the most unpalatable patronising way - the superiority of the classics pervades far too much of popular understanding and i think it is used to remind people that they are lesser than those in power that wield it

[mpoole]

I think the point that P Prentice was making is that 21st century Britain has the full cultural package from America, but that doesn't make the inhabitants American. For 'bread and Circuses, wine, minging fish sauce, straight roads, decent crockery, aquaducts, troops in skirts',read 'McDonalds and Friends, Coke, Lady Gaga and USAF bases'.

There's a difference between selectively importing bits of another culture and having it foisted upon you willy-nilly, so I don't see how it can be a valid comparison.

[Kel]

There's a difference between selectively importing bits of another culture and having it foisted upon you willy-nilly, so I don't see how it can be a valid comparison.

Back to the Saag Aloo Theory then. What about the food? You can't "foist" foreign food on a population, unless you cut off supplies to the indigenous stuff that surrounds them.

Before AD43, some Southern Brits were *choosing* to knock back imported Roman wine, olive oil and - lordelpus - garum, amongst other imported delicacies like the exotic chicken. And they were drinking/eating it out of Samian. Not only that, but they had the economic wherewithal to obtain it in the first place.

In the Late Iron Age, parts of Britain were indulging in plenty of Roman pleasures, without having a gladius pointed at their guts. They were being every bit as selective about the bits of Roman culture they imported, as we are with American culture (although I'd argue that we're not selective at all, but that's a different socio-economic discussion...).

[Marcus Brody]

There's a difference between selectively importing bits of another culture and having it foisted upon you willy-nilly, so I don't see how it can be a valid comparison.

I didn't say it was a valid comparison, I simply said that it was the comparison I thought that P Prentice was making, rather than Dinosaur's interpretation that it was an attack on him/her for using overly American phrases.

[P Prentice]

........foisted upon you willy-nilly........

explain please