Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-07T02:58:02.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

D. J. MATTINGLY, IMPERIALISM, POWER, AND IDENTITY: EXPERIENCING THE ROMAN EMPIRE. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2011. Pp. 342, illus. isbn9780691146058. £27.95.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2014

Louise Revell*
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2014. Published by The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 

This book presents a collection of papers by Mattingly on the archaeology of Roman imperialism. Its genesis was the inaugural Miriam S. Balmouth lectures at Tufts University in April 2006, supplemented with additional papers either published elsewhere, or delivered in other contexts. The papers are arranged into four themes: imperialisms and colonialisms; power; resources; and identity. They are bookended by a newly written preface and afterword.

The opening section introduces M.'s arguments about the nature of Roman imperialism. The first chapter is the first of the Balmouth lectures, and represents a highly personal view about the violent character of Roman imperialism and parallels with modern imperialism. It concludes with a point-by-point repudiation of Romanization as a paradigm. This chapter is likely to provoke extreme reactions amongst its readers (possibly M.'s objective) depending on their view of Rome. Some of the modern analogies are rather clumsy, and the use of mortality figures is problematic. More reasoned is the second chapter, a reprint of a 1996 paper considering Roman and modern imperialism in North Africa. As M. states in the footnote, it was the point where his approach to the Roman Empire changed. It forms an interesting pair with the first paper, in that it illustrates many of the questions he raises in the first.

The second section deals with power, and is the least convincing of the four sections. The first chapter deals with the nature of Roman imperialism in the first century a.d., whilst the second deals with sexual violence as part of imperialism. M.'s discussion of the relationship between Britain and Rome adds little to the work of John Creighton (2000; 2006) and David Braund (1996). His discussion of sexual relations in Rome and the sexual violence which may have formed part of the conquest is provocative, but to my mind rests on a problematic interpretation of the textual evidence, and an androcentric reading of the possible scenarios. The discussion of women and the army focuses on women as prostitutes and concubines, using modern imperial contexts as a paradigm for thinking about the army and sexual exploitation. This opens an alternative and valuable view of Roman conquest, but reduces women to mere objects, denying them the ability to react and accommodate imperialism, an ability which he foregrounds for others in his sections on resources and identity.

The third section on resources is the strongest section within the book. The focus is on M.'s fieldwork in Africa and Jordan, and the impact of Rome on the economic production of these areas. Ch. 5 deals with the demands of the imperial authorities on the provinces, and the nature of knowledge they might have. Ch. 6 covers the agricultural productivity of Tripolitania and contrasts it with Greece. Finally, ch. 7 addresses the metal production of the Wadi Faynum in Jordan. The last chapter most eloquently expresses the impact imperial demands had on a single landscape, with an outline of the ecological destruction wrought on the vicinity of the mines and the impact on the health of the workers. The section as a whole demonstrates well the complexity of Roman economic imperialism and the impossibility of boiling this down to a single picture. Instead, M. fully justifies his argument for discrepant economies.

The final section is entitled identity, and sets out his argument for discrepant identities. The first chapter of this section is a reprint of his article in the Journal of Roman Archaeology, with an addendum dealing with discrepancy in Tripolitania. The second, his paper on funerary art at Ghirza, with minor amendments. The afterword represents a short but sweet articulation of M.'s central theses. To a large extent, they are a response to the reviews of his previous book, An Imperial Possession, some of which focused on his apparent lack of appreciation of ‘what Rome did for us’. They concentrate on the difficulties of providing a simple position on Roman imperialism, whether it is due to the way in which ancient and modern imperialisms are so intimately entangled, or the complexity of possible responses.

Whilst overall M.'s work fully illustrates his stated themes, there are three aspects which jar slightly. The first is the question of identity and agency. M. acknowledges the overlap between his work and the theories of agency and structuration, but does not necessarily acknowledge the agency of all the players within his account. Women, where they appear, are a somewhat downtrodden and homogeneous group to whom imperialism happens. Secondly, Rome is rarely set in the context of contemporary geopolitics, such as the neighbouring empires of the Hellenistic successor kingdoms and Parthia. M.'s arguments raise the question of whether Rome was exceptional at the time, and if so, in what ways. The third is a more fundamental problem in recasting the paradigm of Romanization, which is not unique to M.'s work. Whilst we have deconstructed the ‘native’ part, we have not yet fully come to terms with where this leaves the ‘Roman’ half of the pair. In discussing cultural forms, M. still retains the idea of an homogeneous and unchanging ideal of Roman culture, such as in his discussion of funerary art in ch. 9. He sets out the apparent differences between ‘Roman’ art and art from Ghirza; the problem is that it is possible to find parallels between them, such as the liberti epitaphs at Rome as parallels for the size difference in family members in fig. 9.9. In evaluating the non-conformity to Roman cultural norms as the basis for discrepancy, the question is raised of what such Roman norms were.

Nevertheless, this is an excellent read. M. is one of the leading archaeologists of the Roman provinces, both in the quality of his fieldwork and his interpretive thinking. This book demonstrates why that position is fully deserved.