Centre and Periphery Comparative Studies in Archaeology Edited by T.C.Champion R London and New YorkFisst published in 1989 by Unwin Hyman Ltd ‘This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy ofthis or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf co.” First published in paperback 1995 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London ECAP AEE Simultancously published in the USA and Canad by Routledge 29 West 35th Sureet, New York, NY 10001 © 1989, 1995 Timothy C.Champion and contributers All rights reserved. No par of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic; mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafier sited, snchiding photocopying and recording, or in any ion storage oF retrieval system, without permission in ‘writing from the publishers, inform Brivsh Library Cataloguing iv Publication Data AA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Catsleguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book has been requested ISBN 0-203-98515-X Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-415-12253 -8 (Print Edition)10 Acculturation and ethnicity in Roman Moesia Superior BRAD BARTEL Introduction A welcome trend in archeology over the last decade has been the development of fieldwork approaches for both theory generation and cross-cultural comparison related to an archaeology of colonialism. A comparable set of research questions has also been developed for the study of imperialism, but there has been a lag in their application to archaeological data sets, In a scrics of articles (Bartel 1980, 1985, Bartel etal. forthcoming) my colleagues and I have attempted to establish a umber of research design priorities for this type of study. My own field research concerning the nature and degree of Roman colonialism in the province of Moesia Superior (what is now northeastern Serbia, Yugoslavia) is a logical extension of these concerns. An evaluation of recent and historical examples of colonialism and imperialism strongly indicates three distinct strategies for political and economic control of native populations. This matrix of six possible outcomes (Fig. 101), all to varying degrees archacologically detectable, rests as a methodological tool whose applicability is relative to our ability to detect both ethnicity and acculturation in the archacological record 1 will first present some thoughts about the closeness of fit between the social anthropological and archaeological perspectives on ethnicity and acculturation, These will be followed by a synthetic treatment of the colonial situation in Mocsia Superior as known through ethnohistory and recent archacological excavation, The theoretical model discussed herein represents how we have examined the archaeological record for Moesia Superior. This research is still in its firse phase; that of examining the synchronic relationships among natives and Romans, with hater projects looking at the region prior to and after Roman colonialism. Archaeological detection of ethnic groups Any investigation of coloniatism must begin with detection of identification markers for the indigenous group; either the whole society or a ‘part society’ such