This chapter traces the travels of Flavius’ sculpture from Rome, via Paris and New York, to Indianapolis. The artwork’s movements reflect changing historical tides, and also took on different meanings as it passed through each context and historical moment.

As part of an “object biography” of Flavius’ sculpture, this chapter traces reactions to its discovery and subsequent exhibition in the Palazzo Barberini, which raises issues related to the collecting of ancient art in Early Modern Rome and the sculpture’s role in presenting the Barberini family and its history to visitors to the palace.

This chapter takes stock of Flavius’ worldview as presented by his funerary ensemble, noting especially the close nexus of dining, death, and philosophy. Since Flavius’ outlook contrasts with Flavia’s potential beliefs as an adherent of Isis, the chapter assesses the phenomenon of “mixed marriages” in the Roman world.

This chapter reconstructs Flavius Agricola’s life and analyzes his self-presentation across a variety of different lines: the poetic form and references within his verse epitaph, his representation as a reclining diner, the apparent disjuncture between his youthful physique and older face, and the vessel he cradles in his hand.

This chapter considers the experience of visitors to Flavius’ tomb after his death, particularly as they drank alongside Flavius while he was portrayed doing the same.

Of the fifteen lines of Flavius Agricola’s epitaph, seven grant a subbiography of his wife of thirty years, Flavia Primitiva, and her son, Aurelius Primitivus. This chapter considers Flavia’s characterization, particularly as a chaste worshipper of the Egyptian goddess Isis, and weighs the potential appeal of this cult.

The emerging tribes of LPRIA in southern and eastern Britain had a long history of contact with the Roman world and were heavily influenced by Roman attitudes and actions because Rome saw all her neighbours as within her sphere of influence. Whether or not the British tribes still paid tribute, some of them had been subject to Roman control following the invasion of Julius Caesar in 55 and 54 BC (DBG V.22). This precedent meant, for the Roman emperors, that the island lay within their legitimate sphere of interest. This interest had already been shown by both Caligula (Suetonius, Caligula 44, 46) and Augustus (Dio 49.28, 2; 53.22, 5; 53.25, 2), who had contemplated and prepared for invasion. Such direct intervention following a long period of indirect contact had precedents, for the general pattern of Rome’s expansion saw her first taking an indirect interest, then a successively more active role before assuming absolute control. In the case of Britain this process was slow, since annexation had been delayed first by the civil wars, next by Augustus’ interests in Germany and elsewhere, then by Tiberius’ static frontier policy and finally by the troubles of Caligula. Notwithstanding this, the question should not be why Claudius invaded Britain, but why it had not happened earlier.

Rome’s activities in other provinces and the way she acquired her overseas territories indicate how she worked towards circumscribed self-government in provincial administration. In the western and north-western provinces the development of the civitas system enabled Rome to fulfil her requirements by the incorporation of conquered tribes in a way analogous with the polis. Although the geographical areas covered by these civitates were larger than those of the territories of the Mediterranean city states, they could be treated like units of government with each civitas representing a unit of population, inhabiting a territory. This was administered by a council (curia), comprising landowning aristocrats (decuriones), which met at a town within the territory. This settlement was the administrative capital, and thus the focus for the population. The essence of the concept of the polis was thus also the essence of the civitas: town and country were subsumed within the same constitutional concept which, in the case of Britain, was normally equated with the tribe.

Later Roman Britain saw a series of significant changes in the pattern of settlement which indicate a transfer in the emphasis of activity from the cores of the civitates to their peripheries. Whilst these changes affected urban settlements and industrial production, a series of alterations can also be observed in the rural settlement pattern. In the Principate, we saw rural Romanization characterized by the development of villas, and this pattern was shown to be deeply rooted in the existing settlement system. In the later Roman period a series of developments can be observed which reflect a radical deviation from that established in the early Empire. We see an increase in the number of villas, together with alterations in their character, the emergence of nucleated settlements (which may be described loosely as villages) and finally a diversification of production involving innovation in agricultural methods. Taken together with the changes already described in chapters 6 and 7, we may characterize these as representing a flowering of the countryside and the culmination of Roman Britain’s achievements. To be understood, they must be examined within the context of the structural alterations we have already described.

The economy of later Roman Britain, as seen through the archaeological evidence, shows a series of differences from the earlier system. In summary, the pattern shows first an increasing regionalization of exchange at the expense of the inter-provincial trade dominant in the early Empire, and this greater emphasis on trade within Britain is accompanied by a change in industrial location, as rurally located production centres expand at the expense of those productive units near the civitas centres which had been most significant in the early Empire.

In the previous chapters I have reviewed the archaeological evidence for the Romanization of Britain within its historical context and in relation to the social organization of the population. This exercise has inevitably ranged widely and raised a series of sometimes contentious interpretations, but it has shown that there is a set of coherent strands which allows a reasonably consistent interpretation of the archaeology as a reflection of the competition between and within the societies in the province. Romanization has thus been seen not as a passive reflection of change, but rather as an active ingredient used by people to assert, project and maintain their social status. Furthermore, Romanization has been seen as largely indigenous in its motivation, with emulation of Roman ways and styles being first a means of obtaining or retaining social dominance, then being used to express and define it while its manifestations evolved.