Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorRomano, David G.en
dc.contributor.authorElls, Shannon Marie
dc.creatorElls, Shannon Marieen
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-26T20:44:46Z
dc.date.available2016-09-26T20:44:46Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/620700
dc.description.abstractIn recent years, archaeologists have proven that Roman provinces such as Gaul successfully underwent the process of Romanization, where the archaeological evidence showed that native populations culturally assimilated to Roman life. Likewise, Romans accepted local populations into Roman life and oftentimes syncretized aspects of their own culture with that of the locals. This process was usually stimulated by the creation of Roman cities throughout the province from which Roman culture emanated. However, Dacia's capital city, Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa, which was founded in 106 CE under Trajan after the Second Dacian War (105-6 CE), doesn't exhibit these qualities of Romanization. The material culture, including architecture, ceramics, inscriptions on stelae, and other artifacts, expresses a purely Roman aesthetic in terms of style and construction. The evidence suggests that native Dacians were not successfully Romanized, either because of a conscious rejection of Roman life or a refusal by the Romans to successfully incorporate the locals into the new Roman province. Due to the violence of the two Dacian Wars and the speed with which Rome begins to colonize the province, I suggest that both scenarios are possible for why Romanization failed in Dacia and if Romanization did occur, it didn't emanate from the capital city but from rural settlements closer to the limes, many of which have not yet been excavated extensively.
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en
dc.subjectDaciaen
dc.subjectRomanizationen
dc.subjectClassicsen
dc.subjectArchaeologyen
dc.titleRefusal to be Romanized?: Identity and Romanization at Sarmizegetusa, Daciaen_US
dc.typetexten
dc.typeElectronic Thesisen
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen
thesis.degree.levelmastersen
dc.contributor.committeememberSoren, Daviden
dc.contributor.committeememberRomano, Irene B.en
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen
thesis.degree.disciplineClassicsen
thesis.degree.nameM.A.en
refterms.dateFOA2018-09-11T14:53:02Z
html.description.abstractIn recent years, archaeologists have proven that Roman provinces such as Gaul successfully underwent the process of Romanization, where the archaeological evidence showed that native populations culturally assimilated to Roman life. Likewise, Romans accepted local populations into Roman life and oftentimes syncretized aspects of their own culture with that of the locals. This process was usually stimulated by the creation of Roman cities throughout the province from which Roman culture emanated. However, Dacia's capital city, Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa, which was founded in 106 CE under Trajan after the Second Dacian War (105-6 CE), doesn't exhibit these qualities of Romanization. The material culture, including architecture, ceramics, inscriptions on stelae, and other artifacts, expresses a purely Roman aesthetic in terms of style and construction. The evidence suggests that native Dacians were not successfully Romanized, either because of a conscious rejection of Roman life or a refusal by the Romans to successfully incorporate the locals into the new Roman province. Due to the violence of the two Dacian Wars and the speed with which Rome begins to colonize the province, I suggest that both scenarios are possible for why Romanization failed in Dacia and if Romanization did occur, it didn't emanate from the capital city but from rural settlements closer to the limes, many of which have not yet been excavated extensively.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
azu_etd_14710_sip1_m.pdf
Size:
2.789Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record