The effects of the Roman conquest of Britain and the ensuing processes of Romanization have been studied for many years. The historical background to the development of the theory of Romanization has been widely discussed elsewhere (see Hingley 1996). Haverfield’s (1906) treatment of the topic was a major landmark in this development. He considered that the Roman conquest was a ‘good’ thing as it brought civilisation to the ‘natives’ who, recognising the superiority of Roman culture, willingly embraced `Roman-ness`. The theory of Romanization was further refined by Millett (1990) in The Romanization of Britain. The assumption that underlies Millett’s model is that cultural artefacts which to archaeologists look ‘Roman’ were perceived in the same way in the past. But need this be so? This paper will concern itself with looking at new approaches to culture change, especially relating to food, following the Roman conquest in Britain. It will aim to suggest methods of applying these new approaches to faunal remains, which will enable us to evolve a more subtle understanding of food in the Roman period.
Keywords: faunal remains, romanization, Roman
How to Cite:
Hawkes G., (1999) “Beyond Romanization: The creolization of food. A framework for the study of faunal remains from Roman sites.”, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 10(0). p.89-95. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/pia.134