Romano British - Is there really such a thing?

[Jack]

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

Oh no.....I agree! - sort of. But I still think their is merit in the term Romano-British when describing the people who are in the process of creolization....................as long as those reading the term understand what your getting at.

But I do agree that we are still suffering from Roman propaganda.............what did they actually do for us other than give more favourable trade deals but then rape the country of its natural resources.........hmm sounds a bit familiar?

[mpoole]

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.

That's my job, because I forget where to use 'u' and 's'. I come over here and take your consonants and vowels and still misuse them!

[mpoole]

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...).

Prior to the Roman invasion, Roman goods were imported by choice. Afterwards, the imposition of cultural norms in areas overseen by the Romans might have been a bit less welcome when it was done wholesale.

Garum, the precursor to lutefisk! Vile in any culture.

[Wax]

Surprisingly the fish sauce actually works. I have tried a few Roman recipes using anchovy paste or sauce instead of Garum. I even had a go at using it in a pear puree. It real does work, in an era short of condiments I can see how it would be in demand.

[Kel]

Afterwards, the imposition of cultural norms in areas overseen by the Romans might have been a bit less welcome when it was done wholesale.

But imported Roman foodstuffs would still have been an expensive commodity, even after the invasion. For example, you couldn't impose the drinking of wine on a local population wholesale, unless you were prepared to give it away for free to those would couldn't afford it.

Just because the Romans invaded/occupied, doesn't mean that their commodities suddenly became cheap and freely available to everyone. It's probably still just the local toffs - those most likely to have been pro-Roman in the first place - with their snouts in the Imperial trough, otherwise we'd be tripping over piles of amphorae on every post-AD43 site in south-eastern/central southern British site, and we're not.

[Dinosaur]

Maybe there was a deposit on them? (and I don't mean the carbonised variety!)