ROMAN MONUMENTAL-EPIGRAPHIC PRACTICE: ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH

Drawing on the recent reevaluations of the monumental-epigraphic practice, the aim of the paper is to emphasize diverse and multilayered meanings and uses of this particular social phenomenon. Instead of treating inscribed monuments as a monolithic cultural form, the author tries to argue the possib...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Vladimir D. Mihajlović
Format: Article
Language:deu
Published: Faculty of Philosophy Novi Sad, Department of History 2012-12-01
Series:Истраживања
Subjects:
Online Access:http://epub.ff.uns.ac.rs/index.php/istr/article/view/441
id doaj-7ae1cc5c0a0b48dd9d33a5b6a50a8018
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7ae1cc5c0a0b48dd9d33a5b6a50a80182020-11-25T02:56:39ZdeuFaculty of Philosophy Novi Sad, Department of History Истраживања0350-21120350-21122012-12-0123233350436ROMAN MONUMENTAL-EPIGRAPHIC PRACTICE: ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACHVladimir D. Mihajlović0Univerzitet u Novom Sadu Filozofski fakultet Odsek za istorijuDrawing on the recent reevaluations of the monumental-epigraphic practice, the aim of the paper is to emphasize diverse and multilayered meanings and uses of this particular social phenomenon. Instead of treating inscribed monuments as a monolithic cultural form, the author tries to argue the possibilities of more narrowly defined approaches that take into account time-, space- and social contexts. The usage of epigraphic monuments was dependent on diverse social settings and strategies that were utilized by various individuals and social groups in different and specific ways. This circumstance points to the existence of a number of particular monumental-epigraphic cultures, which are suited for the researches of the separate parts of the roman society. Therefore, epigraphic monuments can’t be used as an index of Romanization in the provinces either, since they were not the outcome of one strictly defined “roman culture” that was linked only to the “most Romanized” sections of the population. Whereas the spread of the Roman Empire was not the process of a simple one-direction acculturation, but the constant adaptation, re-contextualization, refusal or adoption of various social ideas, practices, and objects, inscribed monuments could have been subjected to the range of peculiar usages that had nothing to do with the notion of “becoming Roman”.http://epub.ff.uns.ac.rs/index.php/istr/article/view/441rimski period, spomeničko-epigrafske kulture, rimska provincijalna arheologija, romainzacija
collection DOAJ
language deu
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Vladimir D. Mihajlović
spellingShingle Vladimir D. Mihajlović
ROMAN MONUMENTAL-EPIGRAPHIC PRACTICE: ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH
Истраживања
rimski period, spomeničko-epigrafske kulture, rimska provincijalna arheologija, romainzacija
author_facet Vladimir D. Mihajlović
author_sort Vladimir D. Mihajlović
title ROMAN MONUMENTAL-EPIGRAPHIC PRACTICE: ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH
title_short ROMAN MONUMENTAL-EPIGRAPHIC PRACTICE: ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH
title_full ROMAN MONUMENTAL-EPIGRAPHIC PRACTICE: ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH
title_fullStr ROMAN MONUMENTAL-EPIGRAPHIC PRACTICE: ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH
title_full_unstemmed ROMAN MONUMENTAL-EPIGRAPHIC PRACTICE: ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH
title_sort roman monumental-epigraphic practice: anthropological approach
publisher Faculty of Philosophy Novi Sad, Department of History
series Истраживања
issn 0350-2112
0350-2112
publishDate 2012-12-01
description Drawing on the recent reevaluations of the monumental-epigraphic practice, the aim of the paper is to emphasize diverse and multilayered meanings and uses of this particular social phenomenon. Instead of treating inscribed monuments as a monolithic cultural form, the author tries to argue the possibilities of more narrowly defined approaches that take into account time-, space- and social contexts. The usage of epigraphic monuments was dependent on diverse social settings and strategies that were utilized by various individuals and social groups in different and specific ways. This circumstance points to the existence of a number of particular monumental-epigraphic cultures, which are suited for the researches of the separate parts of the roman society. Therefore, epigraphic monuments can’t be used as an index of Romanization in the provinces either, since they were not the outcome of one strictly defined “roman culture” that was linked only to the “most Romanized” sections of the population. Whereas the spread of the Roman Empire was not the process of a simple one-direction acculturation, but the constant adaptation, re-contextualization, refusal or adoption of various social ideas, practices, and objects, inscribed monuments could have been subjected to the range of peculiar usages that had nothing to do with the notion of “becoming Roman”.
topic rimski period, spomeničko-epigrafske kulture, rimska provincijalna arheologija, romainzacija
url http://epub.ff.uns.ac.rs/index.php/istr/article/view/441
work_keys_str_mv AT vladimirdmihajlovic romanmonumentalepigraphicpracticeanthropologicalapproach
_version_ 1724712940238536704