The Barbarians Speak: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman

Europe (review)

Hugh Elton

Journal of World History, Volume 12, Number 2, Fall 2001, pp. 470-472 (Review)

Published by University of Hawai'i Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jwh.2001.0030

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/18409

Access provided at 4 Nov 2019 23:01 GMT from Missouri @ St Louis, Univ of
470 journal of world history, fall 2001

The Barbarians Speak: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped

Roman Europe. By peter wells. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1999. Pp. xii + 335. $29.95 (cloth).

Wells’ objective is to show how Roman Europe was a region in

which native cultures played a major part. Instead of looking at this
from the traditional Roman perspective, Wells focuses on natives, to
provide an interpretation of “the impact of native peoples on the soci-
eties and frontier” of Roman Europe (p. 127). This perspective, he
suggests, has not been achieved by several recent Rome-focused works.
Wells brings a deep knowledge of the archaeology of late Iron Age
Europe to bear on the problem. He admits that he is an anthropologist,
not a historian (cf. 149), which brings both strengths and weaknesses
to the work.
Wells’ scholarship of the archaeology of particular sites is a real
strength of the book; subsequent criticism should not overshadow his
deep knowledge and clear presentation of the archaeological evi-
dence. In particular, the sensitivity to pottery types of late Iron Age
Europe and their dating is exceptional (pp. 155–56, 200–201). Also
positive is the neutral view of the Roman Empire; Wells’ interpreta-
tions deal with people and societies and there is no great fuss about the
two sides of the Roman frontier (and Wells has read the appropriate
literature). The interpretation of the archaeology is, however, often
too confident. Thus the assertion that “we can speak of a true mone-
tary economy at the oppida” in the second century b . c . is based only
on the presence of coins, backed up by no data, and with no discussion
of the volume of coins in operation (p. 54). Romanists are still uncer-
tain of the degree of monetization of the Imperial economy. Similarly,
the Ilerup deposit (pp. 4, 256), a deposit of military equipment that
can be reconstructed as the panoplies of 300-plus soldiers, is presented
as an argument for much larger military units being deployed than at
any earlier time, though what makes this a “unit” is unclear.
Rome, however, provides many problems for Wells (though I say
this from a Romanist’s perspective). Permeating the whole book is a
fuzzy notion of what it might mean to be Roman. Wells seems to be
operating on a model that interprets Rome as a culture, not a state.
“As I have tried to show, when we examine the material evidence
closely, categories such as ‘Roman,’ ‘provincial Roman,’ ‘native,’ ‘Celt’
and ‘German’ do not stand up to critical scrutiny” (p. 264). Thus, Wells
asks who was more Roman, a Raetian farmer or a Danish aristocrat (p.
265), a model that seems to suggest that being Roman was merely a
matter of cultural attributes. Throughout, Wells is inclined to mini-
Book Reviews 471

mize the value of textual evidence (pp. 56, 101–3) and to privilege
archaeology, which helps to explain why he interprets ‘Roman’ in
terms of assemblages of material culture. But any such interpretation
entirely misses other, non-material, ways to define oneself, for exam-
ple, as a member of the state or as a member of a literate elite.
Politics are given short shrift, and sections that deal with the
Roman state are barely integrated into the archaeological discussion.
In terms of understanding the majority of assemblages, this is not a
problem, but when certain interpretations are drawn from these, the
lack of concern for politics becomes more worrying. Wells thus argues
for a rise of regional consciousness, with “active strategies aimed at
asserting local identity” (pp. 193, 194), at least for non-elites. “Many
native peoples reacted against the trend for uniformity by creating dis-
tinctive regional burial patterns, ritual practices and pottery styles” (p.
194). The uniformity perceived by the modern scholar could not be
seen by most ancient people, nor can we be certain that any regional
culture that existed was the result of a reaction “against the trend for
uniformity.” Similarly, assertions that continued use of Iron-Age arti-
facts “were active re-creations, not passive repetitions” of an indige-
nous culture (pp. 154, 170) need a lot more support than is provided
here. While it is possible to interpret the use of certain pottery styles
as consciously cultural choices, some consideration of the alternatives
should be considered. Consumers might have other reasons for acquir-
ing goods than demonstrating resistance or assimilation to the
Romans—cost, availability, or quality, for example.
Comparison between Wells and Greg Woolf ’s Becoming Roman:
The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul (Cambridge University
Press, 1998) is striking. Woolf, a historian with extensive archaeolog-
ical experience, makes effective use of literature and epigraphy to gen-
erate a very different perspective of the impact of Rome on native
societies, albeit from a Roman perspective. This, of course, is not
Wells’s concern, rather the reverse, but in trying to argue for anything
more than the obvious, that native culture had an effect on Roman
culture, he has to push too hard. Since Romans and natives did not
live in hermetically sealed zones, assimilation had to occur. Although
at times Wells seems to understand the processes of assimilation (pp.
172, 204), at other times, he appears to be curiously simplistic—
“change in indigenous societies can only be explained by reference to
the Roman Empire” (p. 119, but cf. 122).
The objective of the work is worth pursuing, and in this respect,
Wells’ achievement provides a different perspective from, for example,
Malcolm Todd’s The Northern Barbarians: 100 BC – AD 300 (London:
472 journal of world history, fall 2001

Hutchinson, 1975). The presentation of archaeological material is

both readable and thorough, though not always convincing when
extrapolated beyond the site itself. In the final analysis, the Roman
Empire was there, and must be dealt with comprehensively in a work
such as this. Some of my concerns come from differences in discipli-
nary perspective, but this, I think, makes it more important to high-
light them, not less.
hugh elton
Florida International University

God of Battles: Holy Wars of Christianity and Islam. By p e t e r

pa r t n e r . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998.
Pp. xiii + 310. $16.95 (paper).

Peter Partner’s well-written and engaging work of comparative his-

tory, God of Battles: Holy Wars of Christianity and Islam, convincingly
portrays holy war as one of the most influential and enduring elements
in the cultural traditions of the three great monotheistic religions of
the historic Middle East. The idea of holy war still has meaning as the
world’s powers struggle to reposition themselves for the post–Cold War
era and frequently invoke the crusading language of the past. Partner,
a British journalist who reported from the Middle East for many years
and who has written other well-received books dealing with medieval
Christianity, intends God of Battles in part as a response to disturbing
trends in the West that equate Islam with fanaticism and terror, and
assume Islam is a static entity, everywhere embracing the same beliefs
and goals.
Partner clearly disagrees with the arguments of prominent theorists
like Samuel Huntington, whose widely read Clash of Civilizations sug-
gests a deep and dangerous fault line separating the West and Islam.
Instead, Partner compellingly reminds readers of the way in which
holy war is rooted in the intertwined histories of Christianity, Islam,
and Judaism. By sketching the history of holy war and examining the
ways in which religion, morality, and political advantage have inter-
sected in its cause, Partner seeks to deprive the concept of its threat-
ening aura and to counter the tendency in the West to demonize an
Islamic enemy.
Wide-ranging in both geographical and chronological scope, God
of Battles surveys the concept and practice of holy war in Islam and
Christianity (with brief excursions into Judaism) from their inceptions
to the present. From the outset, Partner argues against imposing