Romanisation(s) in global times
1.1 The Romanisation debate
Romanisation, as well as its sister-concept of Hellenisation, is fundamentally a modern notion. It arose out of national and imperial ideologies born at the end of the 19th century, which first introduced the ideas of nationhood and empire. According to Greg Woolf, this worldview was built on two premises: a belief that not all the human races are equally civilised, and a profoundly Eurocentric vision of the world (Woolf 1998, 5). Some of these visions are still popular, although they have evolved throughout the 20th century, during which concepts like ‘civilisation’ or ‘just war’ are in fact present in current debates.
The first scholar who defined the concept of Romanisation or Romanising was Francis Haverfield in 1923. He built on the works of Theodor Mommsen, who had already explained cultural changes that had occurred across the empire using the word ‘Romanising’: for him, in fact, Roman territories showed a high degree of homogeneity, legitimated by the levelling action of Rome itself (Mommsen 1886, 193). In addition, Rome’s unification of Italy was a good model for German unification (Freeman 1997, 30). However, Mommsen considered this model to be inappropriate for the Greek East.
The romantic interest in the ethnic identities and the emphasis on race as a natural and immutable characteristic constituted the perfect background for the development of these ideas. Further support for these was found in the Darwinian theory of evolution, which led some to believe that biological inequality existed among humans (Hodos 2010, 5).
Haverfield developed Mommsen’s ideas, encouraged by the political situation of Britain at the early 20th century1. In fact, the desire to ‘civilise’ third world countries provided an excellent justification for Britannic imperialism (Wallace-Hadrill 2012, 111). The words of the British scholar are clear: ‘Here Rome found races that were not
yet civilized, yet were racially capable of accepting her culture’ (Haverfield 1923, 5). Roman terminology and symbols were adopted to create a moral legitimisation of colonisation; it constituted an idealised benevolent power, which carried its superior culture to other regions (Terrenato 2005, 64).
Romanisation was a general, progressive process which involved many, if not all, areas of life, including language, art, religion, architecture and material culture. It allowed the emergence of a common culture and the extinction of differences between Romans and provincials (Haverfield 1923, 18). Romanisation deleted pre-Roman cultures in barbarian Europe as well as the Europeans, in particular the British empire, expanded civilisation ideals among primitive countries. The concept of Romanisation, in fact, has many parallels with the idea of acculturation used in anthropology and sociology during the first half of the 20th century: both ideas developed from the same cultural framework (Jones 1997, 40 ff.). For the Mediterranean East, however, the significance of the term was less certain, because it was usually replaced by a similar term, namely ‘Hellenisation’. The concept of Hellenisation has been ascribed to Droysen, who used ‘hellenism’ and ‘hellenistic’ to characterise a period when Hellenistic culture spread, causing a fusion between East and West (Droysen 1836).
Both ‘Romanisation’ and ‘Hellenisation’ had been considered separate but similar phenomena. Haverfield himself made a clear distinction between the partially romanised East and the more romanised West (Haverfield 1923, 12–13). This approach is clearly teleological, reflecting views of social evolution from a primitive to a civilised state and making a direct connection between Western Europeans and classical Rome (Hingley 2000, 124; 2005, 39). Romanisation was considered inevitable due to the superiority of Roman values. Because of their supposed superiority, colonialist views considered it natural that the colonisers prevailed over colonised natives.
However, Haverfield was aware that the archaeological evidence shows a much more complex picture, including surviving pre-Roman remains (Haverfield 1923, 22; Webster 2001, 211; Hingley 2005, 35). Given this evidence of the enduring presence of native culture and, in some cases, of the revival of ancient tradition during the last phases of Roman dominion in Britain, in the 1930s Robin George Collingwood in the 1930s challenged Haverfield’s vision. In fact, he affirmed that the civilisation of Roman Britain was ‘Romano-British, a fusion of two things into a single thing different from either’ (Collingwood 1932, 92). For him, some natives had never embraced Roman culture and, instead, many country villages were romanised to a very low degree (Webster 2001, 212).
From the 1960s, archaeological excavation and surveys were undertaken throughout Europe. From them, archaeologists found a great variety of settlements testifying many different attitudes to the arrival of the Roman army. The significance of ‘Romanisation’ in the Eastern Mediterranean was also debated. Some argued that it was an individual choice made for advancing a political career (Welles 1965, 44), while other scholars were more sceptical about its use (Bowersock 1965, 72).
In response, the ‘nativist’ movement emerged during the 1970s and 1980s. For the first time, the notion of local resistance to Romanisation appeared clearly. Nativists considered the adoption of Roman elements as a mere façade, while the majority of indigenous people preferred to not become Roman. In this period, new thoughts entered in theoretic debate in archaeological and historical fields, causing the emergence of new historiographic perspectives, usually labelled as post-colonial views. It is not a coincidence that this reaction against Romanisation found a fertile ground in Britain, which was experiencing the effects of post-colonialism. This model, like the Romanisation model, although it has been important for having given attention to submitted people, failed to explain the development of new features that make unique every provincial experience.
The emergence of nativism created two distinct poles and did not let go beyond the dualism that was already evident in Romanisation thinking (Webster 2001, 213; Curchin 2004, 9–10). One of the better developed criticisms of colonial views was postulated by Edward Said. In his book Orientalism, he explained very well that colonial discourses created binary oppositions, favouring colonial cultures, depicted as civilised, dynamic, complex, modern, while depicting the others as inferior, passive, savage, lazy, simple and primitive (Said 1978). Said, in fact, has examined the ways in which the West saw the Orient, that is the Middle East, based on the ideas that European scholars have of eastern Mediterranean people.
From this first phase, other approaches to understanding the way colonised people have been represented were developed in the literature on colonialism and the nature of colonial identities. In particular, many studies about identities flourished, including those exploring the complexities of the relationship between conquerors and subjected people.
The dualism between the Romans and the native people was overemphasised by Martin Millett, who described Romanisation as a ‘dialectical process, determined on the one hand by Roman imperialist policy… and on the other by native responses to Roman structures’ (Millett, Roymans and Slofstra 1995, 2–3). Millett’s model was built on Haverfield’s theories, but attempted to reconcile his views with the nativists’ objections. However, unlike Haverfield, Millett considered local elites as active agents of Romanisation, claiming that the rapid adoption of Roman customs was the result of spontaneous challenge among natives, as Paul Zanker had already pointed out (Zanker 1990, 316).
The Roman empire, indeed, was able to successfully establish patron-client relationships with the local elite. In this way, the rule of very distant and different territories did not require a strong military and administrative intervention (Millett 1990).
Non-elites were ‘romanised’ second-hand through their emulation of the upper classes, who mediated Roman culture. The major weakness of these postulations is that they do not consider the possibility of grey areas. Lower classes appear only as passive recipients that experienced Rome through the mediation of romanised elites
(Webster 2001, 216). Furthermore, if Romanisation was primarily a matter of local elites who had to re-negotiate their authority with their new rulers, it is not clear why eastern elites were less romanised than those in the western Mediterranean. Romanisation studies have focused on the western provinces because they offer more visible evidence of changes in material culture, often forgetting that the meaning of objects is not fixed but changes when they pass from hand to hand (Morley 2010, 112–113).
However, according to David Mattingly, these approaches fail to consider how power dynamics operated, because ‘the Romanization paradigm is a classic example of a common tendency to simplify explanation by labelling complex realities with terms that exaggerate the degree of homogeneity’ (Mattingly 2011, 206–207).
From this brief analysis, it is clear that the term Romanisation assumed varied forms during the 20th century and it is still in use, assuming a number of different significances. Furthermore, it seems to be a debate that arose and spread, first of all, among Anglo-Saxon scholars. Miguel John Versluys has recently pointed out that the ‘individual scholar’s view of Romanization appears to greatly depend on the area that he/she studies, as well as on the historical and archaeological sources available for that particular region’ (Versluys 2014, 9). This assumption seems to be confirmed by the fact that Continental scholarship, unlike Anglo-Saxon scholarship, has not rejected the term ‘Romanisation’ at all.
Many of the studies in the 1900s, starting from divergent reactions to Millett’s theories, focused a new attention on the relationships between the imperial power and the local elites. In fact, the promotion of Roman life style was a concern of the Roman administration, yet local elites were not simply assimilated, but actively participated, in the creation of a new social order.
One of the main challenges to archaeology posed by post-colonial theories, there has been a reconsideration of how archaeologists represent the past. Historical archaeologists have often stressed the ability of material culture to give a voice to subaltern people, who are often underrepresented in historic texts. However, the Romanisation approach misreads material cultures, because it fails to take into account the different identities shown by archaeological evidence (Whittaker 2009, 199). As John Moreland has pointed out, ‘objects were actively used in the production and transformation of identities’ (Moreland 2001, 84). Indeed, during the 1990s, archaeologists gave more attention toward the responses of native people.
Among these scholars, Greg Woolf refined Millett’s assumptions, stressing that adopting Roman culture might be a status marker, not of political or ethnic identity (Woolf 1998, 239). He notes that the use of Roman materials did not mean a complete acceptance of all Roman values. The importance of Woolf’s account lays in trying to go beyond the dichotomy between the Romans and the natives, emphasising that Roman experience diverged greatly from one place to another (Woolf 1997, 341). Native people were not merely assimilated into an already constituted order; instead,
they actively participated in creating a new one (Woolf 1997, 347). Another important feature of Woolf’s book is the notion that Roman identity is a fluctuating concept that differs from time to time and from place to place and that it has been created in the local context through acts of accommodation.
Nonetheless, Woolf has continued to follow the path traced by Haverfield and Millett, as far as elites’ relationships are concerned. The majority of the inhabitants of the Mediterranean region consisted of lower social actors, like peasants or craftsmen, who showed a great variety of cultures and who were much more conservative than elites.
Woolf also sparked debate about the Romanisation of eastern communities. In his view, Romanisation here involved both cultural and political elements. He was well aware of the semantic confusion and the difficulty in applying this common term to every region of the empire (Woolf 1994, 116–117). Susan Alcock, who completely avoided the use of the term in her valuable volume about the Roman Greece (Alcock 1993), some years later agreed with Woolf about the necessity to re-evaluate and reinterpret the evidence in order to better study the consequences of Roman actions (Alcock 1997, 2–3). However, scholars disagree on how to label the phenomenon surrounding the encounter between Romans and native peoples.
A number of archaeologists started to use the term ‘Creolisation’, taken from the American history, instead. This term indicates that Roman culture did not simply replace previous cultures, but they together created a new, mixed culture. As outlined by Jane Webster, creolisation is a process of negotiation between asymmetric power relations (Webster 2001, 218). The most important assumption of this theory is that it does not explain the adoption of new customs or material goods with the simple desire of a less civilised people to emulate another. On the other end, as noted by David Mattingly, the application of this model to the Roman world risks reading into the historical record a steady resistance through the use of material culture (Mattingly 2011, 41). Mattingly himself has preferred to use the concept of ‘Discrepancy’ to describe not only the existence of different identities in a Roman province, but the full spectrum of distinctive experiences of relationships among peoples (Mattingly 1997b, 12–13; 2011, 216). Scholars have disagreed on labelling this phenomenon, utilising a vast range of words. In fact, in addition to creolisation and discrepancy, many other terms have been used, such as hybridity, middle ground, mestizaje (or métissage), and so on. It appears clear that we are confronting a set of concepts that do not lend themselves an easy definition or consensus. They have been alternatively used for expressing the creation of new transcultural forms, a complex situation of mutual influencing and imitation.2 These new views have tended to recognise a sort of dynamism within cultural processes, which diverge over time and space. They have helped to destabilise boundaries by creating buffer zones where different cultures converge. The idea of a homogeneous and clearly-defined Roman culture, easily recognisable in all its aspects, has now been considered as a modern invention.
In this context, Chris Gosden has examined the interplay of people and material culture. In his analysis, he identifies three forms of colonialism, among which Roman Empire would belong to the second one (Gosden 2004, 31–32). These three models are:
1. Colonialism within a shared cultural milieu. In this case it is difficult to distinguish colonial and non-colonial types of relationship, because the societies involved shares cultural values.
2. Middle-ground colonialism. Cultural change results to be multilateral, because all parties think they are in control.
3. Terra nullius. It is the most violent approach, where pre-existing cultures are not recognised by colonisers, who instead destroy them.
In the middle-ground model, the dominant power does not necessarily displace pre-existing traditions and material cultures; instead, a new set of cultural habits emerges. However, Mattingly has outlined that the Roman expansion was much more complex, covering all the three models shared by Gosden. In the early stages of the extension of its imperium over Italian peninsula, we can talk of Roman colonialism within a shared cultural milieu. However, the terra nullius model would have been shared by many Roman writers, who, according to Brent Shaw, were unable to give a true picture of peoples outside the limes because of their prejudices against barbarians (Shaw 2000, 374).
These approaches have been criticised recently by a number of scholars: Nicola Terrenato, for example, has claimed that ‘some of its key concepts, such as resistance or creolization, assume colonial encounters in which ethnic factors have an overriding importance’ (Terrenato 2005, 70). He has sought to definitely overcome the old view of pre-modern empires as structurally different from the modern ones. From its inception, archaeology had a clear local perspective. Thus, the first target that a new generation of scholars is trying to go beyond post-colonial approaches and to analyse the concept of connectivity, influenced by modern global transformations.
Based on her studies about Roman Greece, Maria Papaioannou has suggested a good alternative, one that merits consideration. She has affirmed that we should find an alternative among the Greek-speaking context. For these reasons, she has proposed the use of synoecism to denote a variety of political and cultural combinations (Papaioannou 2016, 39).
1.2 Globalisation and the Roman world
As Andrew Gardner has recently pointed out, beyond the many theories among postcolonialist scholars, there is a broader debate about the value of globalisation and its spatial and temporal limits (Gardner 2013, 6).
Approaches to globalisation have their origins in Immanuel Wallerstein’s World Systems theory. He believed that the first enduring and stable world economy started
during the 16th century (Wallerstein 1974). His claim was challenged by Andre Gunder Frank and Barry Gills, who dated the phenomenon of World Systems back to 5000 years (Frank and Gills 1993).3 These concepts derived from the World History have constituted the base for globalisation theory. Under this theory, globalisation does not describe a single universal period of universal history, but has been present throughout history and touched all peoples (Jennings 2011, 13). Furthermore, globalisation is not identical in every historical period and place. However, the interactions and integrations among different peoples are a clear and consistent aspects of globalisation.
Antony Gerald Hopkins has given a good explanation of what globalisation means: ‘Globalization involves the extension, intensification, and quickening velocity of flows of people, products and ideas that shape the world. It integrates regions and continents; it compresses time and space; it prompts imitation and resistance’ (Hopkins 2006b, 3). Indeed, globalisation does not represent a singular phenomenon, but it is the result of many processes working together. The presence of interconnectivities and networks is one of the most important features of globalisation theories. In this sense, as Manuel Castells has pointed out, globalisation ‘appears to have happened not only in the 19th century of the common era, but thousands of years ago’ (Castells 2006, 158). The principal role of connectivity in the past has already been outlined in the book of Peregrine Horden and Nicholas Purcell, who depict the Mediterranean as a set of micro-regions traditionally interdependent (Horden and Purcell 2000).
For Martin Pitts and Miguel John Verluys, the Roman Empire was a perfect model of an interconnected world (Pitts and Versluys 2015b, 17), one that provided many opportunities for an economic expansion. Each individual identity is the product of this social interaction. In this view, the Roman Empire is a jumble of local groups, a very heterogeneous society, in which individuals operated differently for becoming Roman, on the one hand holding their inherited identity and, on the other, following a centralising imperial culture. This process is particularly emphasised by Michael Sommer, who, following the words of Aelius Aristides, has found that the effects of Rome’s power were mainly felt in three areas: space, law and belonging. The Mediterranean, depicted by Greeks as a sea full of alien and fantastic worlds, was transformed in a ‘globalised’ area. Furthermore, throughout its institutions, Rome gave a standard of legal security previously unknown. Although diversities continued to exist, many Graeco-Roman features in activities such as architecture, cuisine, bathing, entertainment and religion changed the provincial world, not only in the West Mediterranean, but also in the Semitic world (Sommer 2015, 176). Nevertheless, we cannot forget that the integration happened not only at a vertical level – namely between Romans and natives – but also at a horizontal one. In a globalising world, in fact, communities had much more opportunities to contact each other. It seems that Rome never attempted to interrupt this process in favour of homogenisation (Naerebout 2014, 278). In this sense, being Roman means being a part of a larger community, in which it was possible to preserve one’s own identity.
Conversely, even under Roman rule many areas were left out of this process and indigenous elites ruled their communities with a substantial degree of continuity from the pre-Roman period (Downs 2000, 209; Hingley 2005, 115). Such a persistence of local features is another aspect of globalisation, sometimes defined as ‘global localisation’ or ‘glocalisation’. In this way, Rome was both globalised and globalising, as Jan Nederveen Pieterse claimed, which makes clear the need to decentralise Rome in studies of ancient history, and sheds light on the Eurocentric perspective of modern history (Nederveen Pieterse 2015, 333).4 Robert Bruce Hitchner has outlined that the Roman Empire was global in the sense that it was able to replace a highly fragmented system of states with a system of interdependent provinces. This integration was particularly favoured by investments in military institutions and transport infrastructures (Hitchner 2008, 3–4). The provincial societies reformulated their own identities, in a different process for each province. Therefore, the global system itself enhances cultural differences, hybridisation and even the marginalisation of those civilisations who are unable to participate in new global perspectives, because global and local are two faces of the same movement (Pitts 2008, 494). At the end of the 1990s, Zygmunt Bauman already noted that ‘globalization divides as much as it unites’ (Bauman 1998, 2). The introduction of new features into an existing culture, in fact, can even be seen as part of the diversification, and not as homogenisation of the indigenous pattern (Naerebout 2014, 276–277). It is therefore impossible to identify a unique and uniform Roman culture, because it probably has never existed in a ‘pure’ state, but only as a set of diversified cultures.
The main differences between the ancient and modern worlds are linked with the scale of networks, the speed of communications and the politic and economic relationships (Pitts 2008, 494). If we look at an economic level, it appears clear that a single world market emerged only at the end of the 18th century and not before. A number of authors refuse to adopt the term ‘globalisation’ if applied to eras before modern times, when the phenomenon has become truly global (Naerebout 2006–2007, 156; Greene 2008, 80). The Roman Empire obviously could not have the modern highspeed technologies that led to the time–space compression. Accordingly, globalisation is seen as an empty concept, utilised instead of older concepts like colonialism or imperialism in the context of pre-modern societies. For some global historians, like Helle Vandkilde and Richard Hingley, globalisation is a characteristic of all human societies because social, cultural and economic systems have always been present in human societies (Vandkilde 2004; Hingley 2005). However, Frederick Naerebout criticises this view and considers globalisation as a strictly recent phenomenon, because time–space compression and interconnectivity are possible only during our era (Naerebout 2006–2007, 165–167). Certainly, such communication was unknown in the Roman world.
The doubts which have emerged recently merit careful consideration, and the risk of replacing Romanisation with another generic term is high. I am more inclined to talk of ‘globalising attitudes’ that involved human kind in all his history, more than
globalisation per se. It is undoubted that a certain kind of interconnectivities have always existed and that modern technologies have favoured the time–space compression. In this way, a globalising aspiration, namely the desire to have relationship and comparison with the other, has always been present in human actions. Rather than replacing the term ‘Romanisation’, this aspiration needs to be clarified and better explained, thus erasing old connotations of colonialism and imperialism and in the light of the new social and historical instances brought by World History.
Jan Nederveen Pieterse, in fact, has already affirmed that ‘Romanisation is Globalisation’ (Nederveen Pieterse 2015, 233). This idea is quite old: in 1934, Fritz Schulz proposed that the spread of Roman citizenship should lead the Mediterranean to be considered as a unique nation rather than a set of different peoples (Schulz 1934, 96 ff).
1.3 Identity and ethnicity
Globalisation itself has, in many cases, revived interest in ancient traditions and identities. Recently, there has been an explosion of interest in issues of ethnicity, nationalism, race and religion, arising from a renewed concern with defining and affirming collective identities. However, defining these terms is very difficult, and such definitions are often lacking. As recalled by Geoff Emberling, in fact, many scholars have preferred to avoid discussing these terms altogether (Emberling 1997, 300).
The question of so-called ‘collective identity’ is recurring in ethnic and migration studies. This view of identity best answers questions such as ‘Who are we?’, ‘What distinguishes us from other groups in this society?’, ‘Where do we draw the lines (or boundaries) between our group and others?’
Bernard Knapp outlined that identity designates a broad category, of which ethnicity is a factor (Knapp 2008, 31). ‘Ethnic identity’ is often used to refer to a particular group’s shared sense of belonging. This connection is based on certain experiences and notions deriving from group-members’ perceptions of their common cultural heritage and their common geographical and/or ancestral origins (Harland 2009, 6).
Ethnicity even involves tradition: the claim to authority of its ‘roots’ makes a group stronger.5 However, we do not have to forget that identity is also a cultural construction, with both an endogenous and an external conception. Establishing history, culture and tradition means making a choice, excluding other possibilities (Aime 2004, 103). The intersection between different types of identities makes them multiple (DiazAndreu and Lucy 2005, 2). Active kinship is often central to the definition of ethnicity, alongside the historical subjects’ notions of a common history and a shared homeland.
During the 1920s, Max Weber postulated that modernisation would erase from our minds such primordial phenomena as ethnicity and rationalism (Weber 1980). On the contrary, collective identities seem to emerge from resistance and opposition to the cultural homogenisation (Castells 2010, 56–63). In addition, the practice of classifying groups has recently re-emerged in several countries (Mateos 2014, 10).
On the other hand, our era is characterised by the phenomenon of massive migrations of people, which has increased in intensity and complexity compared with previous centuries. It can be said that the increasing multiculturalism of our cities or nations has required flourishing contacts among different groups, emphasising differences and renewing a sense of collective local identity. In this sense, we can assume that even the Roman conquest must have provoked two different reactions: one more ‘global’, one more ‘local’. It is probable that groups were prompted to find differences from others, looking for their own traditions so as to preserve a sort of independence.
Ethnicity, in fact, has always been a basic attribute of self-identification not only because of the shared history it embodies, but because ‘the others’ remind a group constantly that they are likewise ‘others’ themselves (Castells 2010, XXV). This generalised ‘otherness’, whether it is defined by skin colour, language, culture or religion is a distinctive trait of human society. It is found not only in our modern multicultural world, but also in past societies, where living closely led people from different cultures to distinguish themselves in terms of ethnicity. In this way, an individual could find solidarity, refuge and even defence within his group against the prejudices of other factions. When oppression and repression induce revolts, ethnicity often provides the material basis that constructs the common resistance. However, the definitions of ethnicity and race are controversial because they are subjective, multifaceted and variable concepts, lacking a clear consensus on what constitutes an ‘ethnic’ or ‘racial’ group. At the core of ethnicity is a subjective belief of common origins without necessarily any proof of a genetic link or physical similarity.
It appears difficult to define these concepts precisely, because each society varies the range of criteria for defining its own ethnic characteristics. However, there are some benchmarks frequently applied by many ethnic groups. They usually identify themselves with a shared ancestry and speak a mutually intelligible language. They differ from families or clans for their larger size and from states of the kinship of their members. Physical appearance, but most importantly, geographical and ancestral origins, cultural traditions, religion and language are the certain shared characteristics for a perception of self-identity. According to Philip Harland, the term ‘ethnic group’ is commonly used to describe a group that is perceived first by its members and, secondarily, by outsiders as sharing certain distinctive cultural characteristics associated with a particular geographical origin (Harland 2009, 10–11). Therefore, at the core of the concept of ethnicity is the question of an individual’s identity, defined by the characteristics of the ethnic group with which they identify, understood in a contextual rather than essential way. The social context defining the ethnic group is therefore key to understanding its identity. However, the creation of ethnicities is also due to the need of people to classify the other. Ethnicity, indeed, simplifies the vision of the foreign world. In fact, new ethnic identities develop when a group conquers foreign territories or when people are obliged to migrate elsewhere. In other words, if there is no contact with other groups that are perceived as ‘culturally
different’, the identity of an ethnic group does not emerge. The need to differentiate the other has always stimulated ethnic constructs. The desire of purity seems to be essential in the genesis of ethnic groups. It is only through the suppression by supposed foreign elements that an identity could arise.
1.4 Archaeological approaches toward ethnicity
Ethnicity is still considered one of the most problematic phenomena studied by social scientists. The myth of race, developed during the 19th and the first part of the 20th century, seems to be definitely overcome, but it has been replaced by the concept of identity (Remotti 2010, XIV). The differentiation and supremacy of a culture has contributed to the propaganda of nationalisms. The ‘White-European race’ was always claimed to be on the top of the rank, which justified colonialism and white hegemony.
For many years, archaeological studies were influenced by beliefs about different races and western supremacy. Material culture was attributed to a precise people. More than one hundred years ago, Gustaf Kossinna systematically delineated cultures on the basis of material culture of a particular region, so identifying many prehistoric ‘ethnic’ groups, such as the Germans or the Celts (Kossinna 1911). Sixteen years later, Gordon Childe, taking inspiration from Kossinna’s work, emphasised the importance of material assemblages more than single findings. Archaeologists tended to consider identity like individuals, with their own life and development. They were seen almost as proper ethnic groups, especially after the Second World War (Diaz-Andreu and Lucy 2005, 3). Indeed, identity was considered as objective and primordial.
During the 1960s and 1970s there was a shift in the analysis of the concept of cultural boundaries. The presence of minority groups, together with the processes of decolonisation, challenged the ideas of acculturation and homogenisation. Ethnic groups were no longer seen as isolated units with fixed boundaries. On the contrary, these boundaries would have defined a group, not its culture (Barth 1969, 11). The fundamental work of Fredrik Barth has outlined the importance of understanding and studying the formation and maintenance processes of ethnic boundaries, instead of aiming to find unique cultural traits. During these years, it has appeared clear that ethnic groups were fluid, creating a break between the notions of ethnicity and culture (Jones 2007, 48).
During the 1980s, post-processual archaeologists looked with interest at ethnicity, trying to connect anthropological and archaeological studies.6 The theories of some anthropologists constituted important bases for the archaeologists’ work. In particular, Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus was used in archaeology to explain that the world operates on the base of common practice, and not on cleared rules (Bourdieu 1977). For him, social actors possess a sort of subliminal disposition and perception toward things and practices, which at the same time shaped the habitus itself. Shared habitual dispositions provide the basis for the recognition of commonalities of sentiments and interests.
In particular, two principles became central in the study of archaeological ethnicities:
1. Change in material culture is a gradual and regular process that occurs in a uniform manner throughout a spatially homogeneous area;
2. the prime cause of variation in design is the date of manufacture. Ian Hodder described material culture as an active agent in social relationships; for understanding the meanings of the things, it becomes important to understand their entire context.
In the 1990s, the discussion evolved. In his important study about Greek ethnicity, Jonathan Hall affirmed that ethnicity is always an artificial construct, one that is based more on internal markers than on fixed criteria. Hall was very sceptical about attempting to identity a group based only on the archaeological record, since he considered literary and epigraphic evidence as much more relevant (Hall 1997, 142). He has later reiterated the same concepts (Hall 2002). These conclusions, of course, led him to accept the primacy of writings above all other evidence. However, written sources often are evidence of elites, and cannot be used as the only tool for reconstructing entire cultures or groups. Pascal Ruby has proposed an intermediate position, based on the distinction between the emic and the etic levels. Even if literary sources should be considered of a primary importance, Ruby has outlined the fictive character of genealogies and kinships and the importance of the context (Ruby 2006, 44–45).
However, not all share this point of view. Sian Jones, for example, emphasises the active role of the communities in choosing their material culture. He has claimed, following Bourdieu’s theory of practice, that ‘the construction of ethnic identity is grounded in the shared subliminal dispositions of the habitus which shape, and are shaped, by commonalities of practices’ (Jones 2010, 226). Material culture, indeed, has been seen as a conscious, not arbitrary, selection.
During the last years, a broader debate about the necessity for archaeologists to study non-observable processes has developed. Together with more traditional approaches, renewed visions about the problem of ethnicity have risen. Some have believed that archaeology be useful only in a very detailed context, with the help of other disciplines (Jones 1997; Mac Sweeney 2009), while others are more optimistic, believing that it is possible to reconstruct part of ethnic processes.7 It is a truism affirming that we cannot be certain of past actors’ intentions or definitively reconstruct their experiences, but material culture could offer clues about their social interactions.
1.5 Roman ethnicities
In archaeology, many material elements (like pottery, architecture, textiles, food, body ornaments and so on) denote differences among ethnic groups. However, it
is not easy to identify material markers of ethnicity. Bernard Knapp claimed that archaeology would have to shift its focus to how ethnicity was constructed, rather than seeking to define an ethnic group (Knapp 2008, 63). Ethnic identity is not completely arbitrary, but it is delineated by different criteria such as kinship or descent and territorial homeland. However, according to David Mattingly, it was not constant in time and space (Mattingly 2011, 210). In fact, an ethnic group is not static and is often subject to processes of assimilation or differentiation when it meets other groups (Hall 2002, 9–10).
Roman identity is very problematic, since it changes in each province. Globalisation studies surely stimulate a proliferation of multiple and hybrid Roman identities and localising tendencies throughout the Roman Empire. It was probably a strategy for asserting their status within the new political reality (Alcock 2002, 96–98; Witcher 2017, 646).
If we take into account what the Romans, and particularly the Romans during the principate, thought, we find that the concept of an ethnic identity does not seem to be present among them. At least, it was given less importance. The concept of purity, an important feature for an ethnic group, is not present in the Roman origin myths. On the contrary, the Roman group was a mixture of different peoples since the dawn of their history. Eric Gruen has brilliantly pointed out that the idea of autochthony held no great attention for the Romans (Gruen 2013, 3). Indeed, they were the descendants of Aeneas, a Trojan prince, who wed the daughter of Latinus, the king of a local population in Italy. As clear from the account of Livy, the Aborigines and the Trojans quickly formed a new people (Liv. I, 2,4).
Furthermore, when the city was founded, the first act of Romulus was to give the right of asylum to everyone. Next, the Roman king authorised the rape of the Sabine women, which led to the mixture between the Romans and the Sabines.
On the contrary, the Greek world tended to show a number of different ways to express membership of a group by reference to descent from heroes or gods. Fictive genealogies, related with claiming of autochthony, were the bases of Greek identity. In fact, not only were the Athenians affirmed to be ‘unmixed’, but the Thebans and the Arcadians were declared to be autochthonous as well (Dench 2005, 244–245).
The origin traditions of Rome allowed Roman citizens to distinguish themselves not by blood, but by their ability to accept foreigners and newcomers under their law. The integration was the first recognizable Roman characteristic, as already outlined by King Philip V, who, in 215/214 BCE, wrote a letter to the people of Larisa inviting them to act like the Romans, who had given the Roman citizenship to the freed slaves (Syll3; IG IX. 2. 517, 30–38). This view was later confirmed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who stated that Rome became the greatest nation also because it shared the rights of citizenship with all the conquered populations (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. I, 9,4). Both lauded this attitude, considering it one of the causes of Roman prominence.
The Roman empire in fact was able to extend participation in political and social life through the establishment of patron-client relationships with local
elites, creating a web of interactions. This web of interactions let the Romans rule a huge territory with minimal military and administrative involvement. From the perspectives of an individual, the limitation of their freedom would have been reasonably compensated by the expectation of a social promotion, connected with the chance to attain Roman citizenship and to become an integral part of the empire. This citizenship was the basis for Roman ethnicity, such that the community was firstly political and then ethnic (Woolf 2001, 316). Because of this, the eastern part of the empire saw the spread of the phenomenon of the ‘dual citizenship’; in this way, the inhabitants of a city were probably pushed to join in the political activity of the empire.
The Roman world was constituted by many different souls and it seems difficult to recognise specific traits that would characterise the Roman ethnicity. In her valuable work, Emma Dench has claimed that ‘not all Roman identities were the same’ (Dench 2005, 35) and that ‘defining Roman identity by reference to a single, imagined out-group was only a mode of self-perception, and it was one that never remotely attained the prominence of dividing the world into two categories, as Greeks usually did’ (Dench 2005, 31). The Greeks, in fact, divided the world between themselves and the barbarians, creating a sort of closed sphere in which barbarians could not become Greeks, whereas the Romans tended to divide the world between barbarity and humanity, but the doors of ‘Romanness’ were open to all. The word ‘humanitas’ (humanity), in fact, has represented the real limit between those who belonged to the Roman Empire and the others.
With the territorial expansion of their rule, Roman self-consciousness about their ruling position in the world increased. This made it necessary to construct traditions about what it meant to be Roman. Humanitas was, to this end, the principal component of the great vision that late Republican aristocracy had of herself (Woolf 1994, 119). In this sense, a letter of Cicero to his brother Quintus, written when the latter was governor of Asia, is illustrative: Cicero explains here that the Romans are obliged to give their good office to wild and barbarous people – like the Africans, the Spanish or the Gauls – and to return humanitas back to the civilised regions, such as Asia Minor, where it first spread (Cic. QFr. I, 1,27). It was at the end of the civil wars that the civilising mission of Rome became ascertained and was directed foremost to western non-Greek peoples. This universalistic mission was indeed a peculiar character of Roman identity, and even after Cicero, many scholars continued to advocate for Rome in the same scope. For example, Pliny the Elder was sure that Italy had to give humanitas to mankind (Nat. Hist. III, 39).
The idea of ‘humanitas’, then, developed during the principate together with the idea of ‘romanitas’ (Romanness). It is no coincidence that the first reference to the term ‘romanitas’ is relatively late; Tertullian, in fact, is the first known writer to use it, although the context is not really clear, because Tertullian asks the Carthaginians why they are inclined toward the Greeks, if Romanitas is to the benefit of all (Tert. De pallio 4,1). The moral and cultural values of piety, austerity, self-control and discipline
were all characteristic of the Roman self-consciousness or, in a broader sense, of the Roman’s perception of belonging to the Roman community.
This sort of universal, globalising tendency, became a key element of the Roman identity. Every study about Roman identity, however, is further complicated by the fact that its plural and relatively permeable quality discourages enquiry and evades definition (Dench 2005, 30). The study of Roman identity is made even more difficult from the fact that Rome has often been an important reference point for the construction of the political self-image of many modern societies. As we have seen above, the concept of Romanisation developed alongside imperialism and theories about ‘race mixture’ and has played a significant role in explaining the rise and fall of Rome.
1.6 Integration and prejudices
Roman society appears to be more tolerant than others. However, in some cases a sort of prejudice against different uses and customs emerges from literary sources. Attitudes about the integration of defeated nations is an ambiguous phenomenon, because not all of them saw it as good. Livy reported the words of the consul Publius Sulpicius Galba, who in 200 BCE recalled the desertion of many populations of South Italy during the wars against Pyrrhus and then Hannibal. In Galba’s speech, those peoples would never fail to revolt from the Romans, except when there would be no one to whom they could go over (Liv. XXXI, 7,10–12). During the imperial period, Tacitus reported the hope of the Britannic king Calcagus that the Germans, the Gauls and the Britons would abandon the Roman army (Tac. Agr. 32).
In both these views, ‘being’ or ‘becoming’ Roman was not an easy choice. The aim of the Roman ideological project was not to create homogeneity amongst all the subjected populations, but to establish loyalty through the empire. For this, it was unnecessary to destroy the diversities. Rome did not generally seek to remove native religions and cults or to impose her own traditions (Beard, North and Price 1998, 314) and Roman culture itself was constantly reinterpreted.
Roman attitude toward their adversaries was not without some conflict, of course. The presence of pockets of resistance is a normal consequence of an occupation, even one that is peaceful. Furthermore, abuses by governors did take place and not all the conquered nations were ready to lose their freedom.
In the East, the Romans confronted more sophisticated societies, already unified by Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic kings, with a long and glorious past and pride in their advanced technology and culture. Because of their view of civilisation, the Romans tried not to interfere so much with these traditions, in particular with the Greeks. There, they found a good system of urbanised states and had no need to create new cities or coloniae. Pompey was the only Roman general who carried out a policy of new foundations, in direct continuation with the work of Alexander the Great. Imperial policies were more focused on increasing the power of older cities or developing previous villages into cities, creating a sort of network to facilitate
local rule. For their attempts, Roman emperors supported old civic institutions and traditions, without trying to export their own cults. Given the extent and heterogeneity of the Mediterranean countries, the Romans did not adopt a single model, but they followed their pragmatic needs. However, as outlined by Greg Woolf, although they were respectful of Greek culture and past, the Romans were aware that the Greek world was in a period of decadence, especially from a moral perspective (Woolf 1994, 121).
Roman prejudices towards the others were an important part of their thinking and born out of beliefs about their superiority, as has been noted by Benjamin Isaac, who speaks out of their ‘proto-racism’ (Isaac 2004; 2006). The need to classify foreigners is a typical human need attested among both ancient and modern societies. It is prompted by the desire to sort everything, even people. However, this prejudice has not always become racism or a need to see the others as subordinate. It is undoubted that the civilising mission assumed by the Romans shows that they considered themselves as the only population able to unify the entire world. This thinking led them to a pejorative view of foreigners, especially of those who did not live according to their laws. Judging enemies as degenerate, evil and lawless is obviously a way to confirm their inferiority.
Roman prejudices affected almost all the subjected populations, in particular those in the Eastern Mediterranean. We have already seen how the Romans, while respectful towards them, often considered Greeks to be in a period of moral and cultural crisis, affected by the flaws common to other eastern nations (Isaac 2004, 493). According to Roman writers, the biggest difference between the Greeks and other eastern Mediterranean peoples was that the Greeks had no desire to be slaves. Cicero, for example, affirmed that the Syrians and the Jews were born to be slaves:
Thus, he delivered the miserable tax collectors as slaves to the Jews and the Syrians, peoples born to be slaves – I am also miserable because of the miseries and the pains of those men who have well deserved at my hands (Cic. Prov. Cons. 5,10. Trans. author).
Additionally, the Syrians were often targets of dislike. Livy stated a shared opinion, when he affirmed that the Syrians were usually considered to be no good fighters, because they lived in a luxurious way and tended to prefer baths rather than exercises:
In fact, various kinds of weapons and many names of nations never heard – Dahae, Medes, Cadusians and Elymaeans – these were all Syrians, whose servile disposition makes them slaves much more than warriors (Liv. XXXV, 49,8. Trans. author).
Here there were Macedones and Thraces and Illyrians, all very aggressive nations, here there are Syrians and Greeks from Asia, the most insignificant peoples among mankind and born for slavery (Liv. XXXVI, 17,5. Trans. author).
Finally, Tacitus attributed to the Batavian leader Civilis the same prejudices towards Eastern people of Roman writers:
Let Syria, Asia and the East, subdued to kings, be slave; many people born before tribute still live in Gaul (Tac. Hist. IV, 17. Trans. author).
Climate and geography played a very important role in defining the characteristics of a population. The idea of a natural slavery had developed since Aristotle and the belief that over time slavery caused deterioration spread in Rome. People subjected for more than one generation were believed to no longer be able to rebel against their conquerors any more.
Amongst eastern nations, the Jews were probably the most derided: Romans were often hostile toward them, as is clear in the words of Cicero (Flacc. 67), Seneca (in August. De civ. D. VI, 11), Tacitus (Hist. V, 8)8 and Quintilian (Inst. III, 7,21). Most of the Latin scholars attacked the Jews for their religious practices, in particular the observance of Sabbath, the avoidance of pork and circumcision. For a Roman eye, they were followers of a dangerous superstitio. Furthermore, the Jews developed a reputation for preferring their own company and showing fierce hostility towards outsiders (Tac. Hist. V, 8). In conclusion, the Romans did not ascribe to themselves an exact ethnic profile; however, they did have general prejudices toward the nations under their rule.
1.7 Common ancestors
One of the conspicuous groups of subjected peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean was formed by the ‘Syrians’. In reality, many individuals coming from different and distant places referred to themselves with this term or were grouped in this category. The word certainly had a geographical meaning, but it is less clear if it also had cultural connotations: sometimes it is used to indicate a large area of the Near East, while other times it refers to smaller portions of land (Butcher 2003, 270–271). Flavius Josephus, mentioning the population of the Aramaeans, affirmed that the Greeks called them ‘Syrians’ (Joseph. AJ I, 144).
The Near East was one of the regions where Hellenistic culture flourished and developed, as shown by the fact that many of the contributors to Greek literature were born in this huge area. Greek became a sort of lingua franca for intellectuals and elites even under Roman rule. However, Hellenistic culture was not singular or unified (Sartre 2008, 28) and each region had many ways of being Greek and then Roman. Even among those who professed to be Greek, there were differences. For example, in a manuscript of the work of Photius (named Bibliotheke or Myriobiblos), a note made by a scholiast about the Neoplatonist philosopher Iamblichus was preserved stating that Iamblichus was a Syrian not because he was a Greek who lived in Syria, but because he was a native who knew Syrian language and customs (Phot. Bibl. 94, 40, n.1).
Thus, the term ‘Syrian’ was used for indicating both the natives and the Greeks, who represented a huge minority group, easily recognisable even during Late Antiquity.
For the creation of Near East identity, the figure of Alexander the Great was fundamental, because he invented and promoted kinship patterns. He forged close
links between his own person and his acts, as well as between ‘his’ heroic ancestors, such as Herakles or Achilles, and the regions he conquered (Stavrianopoulou 2013b, 182). He finally became a heroic ancestor for many cities. This is the case of some Decapolis cities, for example Gerasa and Scythopolis, which claimed him as their founder, even if he never visited their sites.9 Local communities were prompted to reformulate their positions and statuses, prompted by the globalising impulses following Hellenistic and later Roman arrivals. A certain degree of homogenisation was occurring amongst local elites. The roots of this process are probably found in the Hellenistic promotion of a cultural koine. The need to create connections developed the practice of inventing ancient ties in order to better accept the new political and cultural situation. At a local level, the creation of legends related to Greek heroes and cases of syngheneia – namely common ascendance – were locally adapted and used (Musti 1963). Many non-Greek communities accepted Greek characteristics, adopting standard Greek institutions and Greek political language. However, at the same time they modified these concepts and reformulated them in a new view. Andrew Erskine has claimed that kinship arguments were suitable frameworks for persuading local elites, but also for creating more stable relationships (Erskine 2002, 110), whereas Lee Patterson has seen them as facilitators of Greek political action to bring different people into a shared heritage (Patterson 2010, 3 and 163). As seen above, the Greeks usually divided the world into two categories. It appears clear that kinship connections helped them to interact with other populations, and to go beyond simply labelling them as barbarians.
With the coming of Pompey, the perception of Syrians changed, as they were circumscribed in a single province, west of the Euphrates. The previously strong ethnic distinction lost its importance and the citizens of the Greek cities were now both Greeks and Syrians, as well as the Syrians that earned citizenship in the Greek poleis (Andrade 2013, 8). Strabo, for example, considered the regions of Commagene, Seleucis, Coele Syria, Phoenicia and Judaea as parts of Syria, even if he knew that others were used to divide it in more ethne (nations):
We set down as parts of Syria, beginning at Cilicia and Mt. Amanus, both Commagene and the Seleucis of Syria, as the latter is called; and then Coele-Syria, and last, on the seaboad, Phoenicia, and, in the interior, Judaea. Some writers divide Syria as a whole into Coelo-Syrians and Syrians and Phoenicians, and say that four other tribes are mixed up with these, namely, Judaeans, Idumaeans, Gazaeans, and Azotians, and that they partly farmers, as the Syrians and Coelo-Syrians, and partly merchants, as the Phoenicians (Strabo XVI, 2,2. Trans. Loeb).
It seems very likely that many people were at least bilingual. Most textual evidence testifies that there was a high degree of bilingualism (De Jong 2007, 11). That Greek became a language for international relationships has been suggested in one letter from the so-called Bar Kokhba archive. In this text, in fact, it appears that the foreign sender, probably a Nabataean named Soumaios, had decided to write in Greek because he was not able to communicate in written Aramaic or Hebrew (Cotton 2006, 145–146).10
It seems even more remarkable that non-Greek communities thought that they were connected to Greek history and mythology. Eftychia Stavrianopoulou has well pointed out that this self-perception is clear evidence of a process of appropriation and re-contextualisation of foreign ideas and practices (Stavrianopoulou 2013b, 181). It is similar to what happened in Rome’s construction of her origin story and mythology, as seen before.
However, we know at least one case in which it appears clear that a Near Eastern population found an ancestral kinship with a Greek group. The Books of Maccabaeans and Josephus, in fact, reported that the relationships between the Judaeans and the Spartans were improved because both peoples were descendants of Abraham. This source reports that the Spartan king Areus would have sent a letter to the Judaean High Priest Onias, claiming to have discovered that they were brothers:
Areus, king of the Lacedaemonians to Onias the high priest, greetings. It has been discovered in a document that the Spartans and the Jews are brothers and that they are of the stock of Abraham. Now, since this has come to our knowledge, you shall do good actions if you will write us about your prosperity (I Mac XII, 20–22. Trans. author)
When he [Simon] also died, his son Onias was his successor in office and Areus, the king of the Lacedaemonians, sent to him an embassy with a letter, of which the subject is this: ‘Areus, king of the Lacedaemonians, to Onias, greeting. We have discovered a certain document from which we have learned that the Jews and the Lacedaemonians are of one race and they are related by the descendance from Abraham. Therefore, it is right that you, as our brothers, communicate with us about whatever you wish’ (Joseph. AJ XII, 225–226. Trans. author).
After this letter, other messages followed, all of them reporting the good relationships between them. The Jews considered themselves akin to the Spartans for their obedience to laws, but Flavius Josephus used the examples of Spartans to show the superiority of the Jews, who never abandoned their laws (Joseph. Ap. II, 225–230). Furthermore, the Jewish law was older, because Moses predated Lycurgus (Barclay 2007, 301, n. 924). According to Eric Gruen, it seems likely that the Judaeans tried to assimilate the Greeks in their own traditions, instead of taking on Greek mythology (Gruen 1996, 268–269).
Generally, the Jews were seen as special in the Roman empire, and their history is currently used to analyse ancient Judaism rather than as a basis for understanding the experience of other provincials under Roman rule. However, even within Judaism there were many different groups, as evident in Galilee, where the predominant Jewish group was interweaved with other different peoples. For other provincial societies, we primarily know about elites and their relationships with Rome, but little is known about local population, other than those hints that can be found in material culture (Mattingly 2011, 26).
1.8 Globalising attitudes
The Greek mythological narrative was deliberately very flexible and allowed changes, adaptations or alterations of the original prototype. A universal Syrian culture never developed, because local experiences brought to regional variations which interacted individually with the Greek culture, giving rise to hybrids. Imperial processes were an important instrument for shaping ethnic groups in the eastern area. The Roman empire diverged from Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms; they consequently dealt with different reactions to their politics. As has been analysed by Nathanael Andrade, Roman rule prompted the inhabitants of the Near East to integrate Greek elements in their own culture, making mixed communities in the Greek cities (Andrade 2013, 16). However, cultural changes were not the direct consequence of the Roman expansion, because they happened before the political annexation.
Purported kinship bonds helped new communities to find common ancestors. As revealed by Nicole Belayche in relation to Palestinian cities (Belayche 2009), many options were adopted by the cities. Many revived their own traditions in response to Roman rule, while others, like Scythopolis, developed a more complex system of origin tradition, probably to distinguish themselves from their non-Greek neighbours. The processes of middle ground were evident in Near Eastern cities more than in other places, where oriental elements interwove Greek and Roman features. We cannot know with certainty Near Eastern thoughts about their identity, but it appears clear that their sense of belonging to their past and their thousand-year-old culture survived, even changed.
The analysis made in this chapter has shed light on how all the terminology applied by scholars is a modern invention. We cannot forget that they are superstructures and they tend to generalise a complex reality in which several independent instances emerge. Clearly, there is no single word upon which there is a total agreement, but we should keep in mind that we look at the past with a 21st century eye and also that the use of modern terms for explaining the past seems to be appropriate. The use of the phrase ‘globalising attitudes’ helps us to better recognise a system of connections among different peoples, because it answers a natural human need to go beyond and to explore what is unknown. Concurrently, the Jews, the Arabs and even the cities that declared to be ‘Greek’ glocalised Greek culture, because they maintained their own peculiarities, although they actively participated to the new world. These attitudes have always existed among the human beings, as we are going to explain in the following chapters.
Notes
1 For a complete review of Haverfield’s work on Romanisation in the context of British imperial discourse, see Hingley 2000, 111 ff.
2 Bhabha’s concept of hybridity has been central in the accounts of a number of archaeologists who were dissatisfied with the traditional view of colonialism. For further information, see
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Myth. Fable, tradition, legend; parable, invention, fiction, allegory; falsehood, lie.
A . Truth, fact, history, narrative, incident.
Nabob. Millionaire, Crœsus, viceroy, governor, Dives.
A . Beggar, suppliant.
Naked. Nude, bare; defenseless, unprotected, destitute; manifest, undisguised; simple, mere, plain; unclothed, undraped, denuded; uncolored, unvarnished.
A . Robed, draped, veiled, dressed, shrouded, muffled; protected, sheltered; colored, varnished, qualified.
Name, n. Appellation, denomination, cognomen, designation, surname, title, style, epithet.
Name, v. Call, indicate, designate, specify, mention, denominate, style, nominate.
A . Miscall, misname, misindicate; be nameless or anonymous; hint, suggest, shadow, intimate, imply.
Narrate. Relate, tell, recount, describe, detail, rehearse, report, recite.
A . Misrepresent, mistake; suppress, conceal.
Narrative. Narration, recital, account, rehearsal, relation, description, story, tale, history.
Narrow. Not wide, straitened, limited, without margin; bigoted, illiberal; parsimonious, niggardly, selfish; close, scrutinizing, exact; slender, spare, thin, contracted, cramped.
A . Wide, broad, ample, expanded, thick; generous, benevolent; unlimited; liberal.
Nascent. Embryo, rudimental, budding, incipient.
A . Grown, developed, mature; aged; confirmed, set.
Nasty. Filthy, foul, dirty, offensive, damp, disgusting, disagreeable, wet; indecent, obscene.
A . Pleasant, sweet, agreeable, savory, nice, pure.
Nation. People, race, stock; realm, community, state, commonwealth.
Native. Innate, natal, natural, original, indigenous.
A . Alien, artificial, foreign, unnatural, acquired, assumed.
Natural. Native; essential, normal, regular, intrinsic, cosmical, spontaneous, original, artless, ingenuous; kind, affectionate; genuine, unaffected.
A . Abnormal, monstrous, unnatural, improbable, adventitious, fictitious, coarse; artful, affected.
Nature. Creation, universe; essence, constitution; kind, sort, character, quality; temper, disposition, mood; mind, intelligence; vitality.
A . Thing, subject, object, man, being, creature, monstrosity, unnaturalness; art, fiction, romance, invention.
Naught. Nothing, cipher, zero.
A . Anything, everything, aught.
Naughty. Mischievous, perverse, froward; bad, corrupt, worthless, good-for-nothing; refractory, wicked.
A . Good, worthy, well-behaved, tractable, pure, docile, innocent.
Nausea. Seasickness, loathing, disgust, qualm; repugnance, aversion.
A . Enjoyment, taste, delight, relish.
Nautical. Marine, maritime, naval, oceanic.
Near, ad. Nigh, not remote, almost, nearly, well-nigh, intimately, closely.
Near, a. Nigh, close, adjacent, adjoining, approximate; imminent, impending, forthcoming, approaching; familiar, dear, intimate; immediate; literal, accurate; narrow, parsimonious; short; proximate, contiguous, present, ready.
A . Distant, remote, far; reserved, uncordial, cool, stiff; indistinct, obscure, future.
Nearly. Almost, well-nigh, intimately, closely, approximately.
A . Quite, entirely, distantly, remotely.
Neat. Trim, tidy, prim, precise, spruce, clean, cleanly, orderly, natty, dapper, nice.
A . Negligent, slack, slovenly, slouchy, dirty, soiled, disorderly, dowdy, untidy, rough, unkempt, rude, uncared for.
Necessary. Essential, inevitable, needful, infallible, undeniable, indispensable, required, requisite, unavoidable.
A . Optional, useless, contingent, worthless, casual, nonessential, needless.
Necessitate. Force, compel, coerce, make necessary, oblige, constrain, make, drive, impel.
A . Persuade, convince, induce, tempt, coax, allure; liberate, release.
Necessity. Need, requirement, want, compulsion, fate, fatality, requisite, destiny, essential, emergency, extremity, exigency, indispensableness, urgency, unavoidableness, sine qua non.
A . Choice, contingency, doubt, option, freedom, uncertainty, fortuity, doubtfulness, dubiousness, possibility.
Need. Exigency, emergency, extremity, strait, distress, indigence, penury.
A . Competence, affluence, choice, wealth, luxury, profuseness; superfluity, uselessness, dispensableness; casualty, accident; contingency, freedom.
Needful. Requisite, needy, necessitous, distressful, essential, indispensable.
A . Contingent, casual, unnecessary, unessential, discretional, optional, needless.
Needless. Unnecessary, useless, superfluous, groundless, gratuitous.
A . Needful, useful, helpful, obligatory. Nefarious. Wicked, abominable, iniquitous, execrable, atrocious, impious.
A . Noble, honorable, admirable, laudable; benevolent, generous, humane.
Negation. Denial, disavowal, disclaimer, contradiction.
A . Assertion, declaration, deposition, avowal, affirmation, allegation, protestation, claim.
Negative, a. Denying, indirect, unaffirmative, privative, disclaiming.
A . Positive, direct, assertive, attributive, affirmative, declarative.
Neglect, n. Negligence, failure, omission, disregard, oversight, indifference, remissness, slight, thoughtlessness, slackness, default, carelessness, disrespect, heedlessness, inadvertence, inattention, scorn.
A . Care, attention, notice, regard, esteem, consideration, respect.
Negotiate. Transfer, sell, pass, arrange, treat, bargain, trade, communicate, transact, effect, perform.
A . Stop, quash, mismanage, misconduct.
Neighborly. Kind, civil, social, friendly, near, adjoining, adjacent, neighboring, friendly, attentive.
A . Individual, solitary, personal, distant, remote, unkind, uncivil, unfriendly.
Nerve. Steadiness, firmness, fortitude, self-command, resolution, strength, courage, pluck, endurance, coolness, presence of mind.
A . Weakness, cowardice, timidity, feebleness, nervelessness.
Nervous. Excitable, agitated, annoyed, irritable, weak, fearful; strong, vigorous, spirited, nervy, forceful.
A . Self-possessed, self-controlled, poised, calm, composed; dull, inert, phlegmatic, sluggish.
Neutral. Neuter, undecided, indifferent, unpronounced, uninterfering, negative, impartial, unavowed, unaffiliated.
A . Interested, interfering, positive, partial, active, allied, avowed, declared.
Neutralize. Render neutral, invalidate, counteract, counterbalance, countervail, render inoperative.
A . Enhance, intensify, aggravate.
New. Fresh, modern, novel, late, recent, juvenile, upstart, young, new-fangled, youthful, new-fashioned.
A . Old, antique, ancient, old-fashioned, aged, elderly.
News. Information, tidings, intelligence, advice, word, report, account, announcement, rumor.
A . Ignorance, silence, nonpublication, suppression; misintelligence, misreport.
Nice. Exquisite, accurate, correct, precise, particular, punctilious, squeamish, finical, effeminate, silly, exact, critical, definite, strict, fastidious, cautious, scrupulous; discerning, discriminating; fine, minute, refined, delicate, dainty, pleasant, agreeable.
A . Coarse, rude, rough, inaccurate, blind, undiscriminating, unscrupulous, incautious, undiscerning, careless, negligent, disagreeable, nauseous.
Nicety. Fastidiousness, accuracy, scrupulousness, delicacy, precision, daintiness, subtlety, distinction, exactness.
A . Coarseness, roughness, inaccuracy, rudeness.
Niggardly. Avaricious, covetous, parsimonious, miserly, sordid, sparing, penurious, stingy.
A . Generous, bountiful, copious, ample, profuse, abundant, bounteous, plentiful, munificent.
Nimble. Alert, brisk, bustling, lively, prompt, quick, speedy, swift, spry, agile, sprightly, active.
A . Clumsy, dilatory, dull, heavy, inert, inactive, slow, unready, sluggish.
Nobility. Greatness, dignity, superiority, nobleness, eminence, elevation, worthiness; family, rank, title, birth; aristocracy, peerage, patrician class.
A . Obscurity, meanness, serfdom, paltriness, plebeianism.
Noble. Honorable, worthy, dignified, elevated, superior, sublime, great, eminent, stately. generous, liberal, free, aristocratic, patrician, illustrious, grand, lordly, renowned, magnificent, knightly.
A . Ignoble, plebeian, paltry, vulgar, baseborn, low-born, rustic, peasant, contemptible, unworthy, mean.
Nobody. No person, no one, not anybody, cipher, nonentity.
A . Somebody, notability, celebrity, colossus, star.
Nocturnal. Nightly, dark, tenebrose, gloomy.
A . Daily, diurnal, solar, brilliant, light.
Noise. Cry, outcry, clamor, din, clatter, uproar; rumor, report, rattle, tumult.
A . Music, melody, harmony; silence, hush, stillness, voicelessness.
Noiseless. Silent, quiet, inaudible.
A . Noisy, uproarious, turbulent, clamorous, boisterous, brawling, tumultuous, loud.
Noisome. Noxious, insalubrious, unwholesome, mischievous, destructive, nocuous, hurtful, pestilential, harmful.
A . Wholesome, salutary, salubrious, beneficial.
Noisy. Loud, clamorous, stunning, boisterous, turbulent.
A . Noiseless, subdued, inaudible, whispering; melodious, tuneful.
Nominal. Literal, verbal, titular; formal, avowed, pretended, ostensible, supposititious.
A . Veritable, essential, intrinsic, actual, substantial, important, real, serious, true.
Nominate. Name, specify, appoint, designate, entitle.
A . Suggest, withdraw, reject, indicate, cancel, deprive, recall.
Nonsense. Folly, silliness, absurdity, trash, inanity, platitude, pretense.
A . Sense, wisdom, fact, truth, gravity, reason, science.
Normal. Regular, ordinary, natural, standard, usual, typical, recognized, common.
A . Exceptional, abnormal, uncommon, singular, unusual, monstrous, irregular, peculiar, rare, unprecedented, remarkable, unnatural.
Notable. Plain, evident, noted, noticeable, distinguished, memorable, extraordinary, conspicuous, manifest; notorious.
A . Ordinary, mean, commonplace, everyday, undistinguished, unimpressive, insignificant.
Note. Memorandum, comment, remark, record, scholium; account, catalogue, bill; heed, observation; reputation, distinction, celebrity, fame, repute, renown.
A . Misindication, misrepresentation, misleader.
Notice, n. Observation, regard, cognizance, information, advice, news, intelligence, intimation, announcement, premonition, instruction, warning, attention, consideration.
A . Oversight, disregard, neglect, slight, ignorance, connivance, omission, heedlessness, misinformation.
Notice, v. Mark, observe, note, heed, regard, perceive, see, remark, mention, comment on, attend, mind.
A . Overlook, disregard, misjudge, neglect.
Notification. Information, notice, declaration, publication, announcement, advertisement.
Notify. Intimate, declare, publish, announce, acquaint, warn, apprise, communicate, inform.
A . Withhold, conceal, suppress, misinform, misreport.
Notion. Idea, conception, apprehension, sentiment, judgment, opinion, belief, impression, estimation, conceit, conviction.
A . Misconception, misapprehension, frustration, falsification.
Notorious. Distinguished, conspicuous, remarkable, famous, celebrated, noted, renowned.
A . Suspected, reputed, reported.
Notwithstanding, conj. Still, however, although, but, nevertheless, howbeit, yet, though.
Notwithstanding, prep. Despite, in spite of.
Nourish. Feed, foster, cherish, nurse, tend, support, maintain, train, educate, promote.
A . Starve, blight, destroy, kill.
Nourishment. Nutrition, nutriment, food, aliment, provision, sustenance.
A . Poison, venom, bane, starvation, exhaustion.
Novel, a. New, recent, modern, fresh, strange, uncommon, rare, unusual, fantastic, odd, upstart, new-fangled.
A . Venerable, ancient, old-fashioned, time-honored.
Noxious. Noisome, injurious, hurtful, pernicious, unwholesome, deadly, poisonous.
A . Wholesome, salutary, beneficial, healthful, salubrious.
Nucleus. Kernel, core, center.
A . Exterior, face, appearance.
Nudity. Nakedness, exposure, bareness.
A . Clothing, dress, vestment, drapery.
Nugatory. Trifling, vain, insignificant, futile, ineffectual, unavailing, trivial, worthless, useless, null.
A . Important, potent, momentous, efficacious, successful, grave, serious, satisfactory.
Nuisance. Annoyance, plague, pest, affliction, bane, trouble.
A . Pleasure, delight, benefit, blessing, gratification.
Nullify. Revoke, annul, cancel, abolish, render void, abrogate, neutralize, repeal.
A . Enact, confirm, perpetuate, establish, stabilitate.
Numb. Enfeebled, destitute, torpid, benumbed, insensible, paralyzed, deadened.
A . Alive, alert, sensitive, keen, lively, animated, attentive.
Number, n. Aggregation, multitude, collection, numeral, numerous, quantity.
A . Scarcity, fewness, paucity.
Number, v. Count, enumerate, calculate, tell, compute, reckon, estimate.
A . Guess, hazard, conjecture; lump, mass.
Numberless. Innumerable, infinite, countless.
A . Few, scarce, rare, infrequent.
Numerous. Many, abundant, diverse, multifarious, manifold, sundry.
A . Few, scarce, rare, infrequent.
Nuptial. Wedding, marriage, hymeneal, espousal, connubial, bridal.
A . Bachelor, virgin.
Nurse, v. Nourish, cherish, foster, attend, manage, train, educate, teach, feed, nurture.
A . Starve, kill, destroy; neglect.
Nurture. Nourish, nurse, tend, cherish, educate, train, feed.
A . Neglect, deprive, disregard, slight.
Nutriment. Aliment, food, sustenance, nourishment, sustentation, subsistence, nutrition.
A . Starvation, detriment, exhaustion, poison, decay, inanition.
Nutrition. Nutriment, feeding, sustentation.
A . Poison, venom.
OOath. Curse, imprecation, profanity, swearing, adjuration, affidavit, anathema, ban, blasphemy, denunciation, execration, malediction, vow, reprobation, sworn statement.
A . Blessing, benediction, benison.
Obdurate. Firm, unbending, inflexible, unyielding, obstinate, stubborn, impenitent, callous, unfeeling, insensible.
A . Yielding, teachable, tender, docile, amenable, flexible, softened.
Obedience. Submission, duty, compliance, respect, dutifulness, subservience.
A . Resistance, rebellion, transgression, disobedience, antagonism, insubordination.
Obedient. Dutiful, respectful, compliant, submissive, humble, yielding, obsequious, modest, docile.
A . Disrespectful, undutiful, arrogant, hard, unyielding, obstinate, obdurate, stubborn.
Obesity. Fatness, corpulence, fleshiness, corpulency.
A . Leanness, thinness.
Obey. Submit, yield, comply.
A . Resist, refuse, disobey.
Object, n. Reality, fact, existence, phenomenon; aim, intention, end, purpose, appearance, motive, design, sight, view, goal.
A . Subject, idea, fancy, conception.
Objective. Outward, external, extrinsic, concrete, universal, actual, positive, real.
A . Subjective, intrinsic, abstract, notional.
Oblation. Offering, gift, sacrifice, contribution, presentation.
A . Spoliation, sacrilege, withholding, refusal.
Obligation. Responsibility, engagement, contract, agreement, bond, covenant, stipulation, necessity, debt, duty, compulsion.
A . Choice, freedom, assurance, promise, declaration, intention.
Oblige. Bind, please, gratify, accommodate, favor, constrain, compel, force, coerce, benefit, necessitate, obligate.
A . Release, acquit; persuade, induce; annoy, disoblige.
Obliging. Civil, courteous, complaisant, kind, considerate, accommodating, compliant.
A . Discourteous, inconsiderate, rude, disobliging, unaccommodating.
Oblique. Indirect, slanting, inclined, perverse, disingenuous, diagonal, divergent, angular.
A . Straightforward, rectilineal.
Oblivion. Forgetfulness, disremembrance.
A . Memory, reminiscence, remembrance, recollection, celebration, commemoration.
Obloquy. Censure, odium, contumely, reproach, gainsaying, reviling, calumny, slander, detraction.
A . Praise, acclamation, encomium, panegyric.
Obnoxious. Odious, detrimental, blameworthy, pernicious, offensive.
A . Pleasant, grateful, independent, wholesome, beneficial, salutary.
Obscure, a. Abstruse, deep, involved, difficult, hidden, profound, mysterious, ambiguous, unintelligible, cloudy, complex, complicated, dark, darksome, dense, dim, doubtful, intricate, dusky, indistinct, enigmatical, incomprehensible, muddy, turbid, shadowy, misty, unknown, secluded, unascertained, remote.
A . Clear, luminous, distinct, lucid, plain, plain-spoken, intelligible, prominent, eminent.
Obsequious. Servile, cringing, fawning, compliant, submissive, deferential, sycophantic, flattering.
A . Impudent, self-assertive, independent, arrogant, insubmissive, haughty, proud.
Observance. Observation, heeding, form, practice, custom, attention, celebration, ceremony, performance.
A . Inobservance, inattention, disuse, disregard, disrespect, omission, unceremoniousness, informality.
Observant. Observing, watchful, attentive, regardful, obedient, mindful, careful, heedful.
A . Unmindful, disobedient, disregardful, heedless.
Observation. Contemplation, remark, study, notice, view, conclusion, judgment, attention, comment, note, observance.
A . Inattention, oversight, silence, ignorance, inadvertence.
Observe. Remark, note, watch, heed, see, discover, attend, comment.
A . Overlook, misconceive, misunderstand.
Obsolete. Disused, ancient, neglected, antiquated, archaic, effete, past, old-fashioned, old, rare, obsolescent.
A . Fashionable, modern, current, customary, new, novel, extant.
Obstacle. Impediment, obstruction, difficulty, hindrance, barrier, check.
A . Course, proceeding, career, advancement, progress.
Obstinacy. Pertinacity, firmness, resoluteness, inflexibility, persistency, perverseness, contumacy.
A . Flexibility, docility, complaisance.
Obstinate. Perverse, obdurate, intractable, determined, stubborn, resolved, resolute, inflexible, unyielding, intractable, indomitable, unflinching, contumacious, decided, dogged, mulish, heady, headstrong, fixed, firm, immovable, opinionated, persistent, pertinacious, refractory, unconquerable.
A . Pliant, docile, submissive, dutiful, gentle, obedient, compliant, tractable, yielding, amenable, complaisant, irresolute, wavering, undecided, pliable, teachable.
Obstruct. Bar, barricade, hinder, oppose, impede, stay, stop, arrest, check, embarrass, clog, choke, retard, interrupt.
A . Aid, facilitate, accelerate, forward, promote, clear, advance, open, pave the way for, further, free, expedite.
Obstruction. Obstacle, barrier, bar, impediment, check, clog, hindrance.
A . Course, proceeding, advancement, progress, career.
Obtain. Attain, gain, procure, acquire, earn, win.
A . Lose, forfeit, surrender, forego.
Obtrude. Intrude, force, interfere, thrust.
A . Suggest, hint, insinuate; retire, withdraw.
Obtuse. Blunt, dull, stupid, unintelligent, stolid.
A . Keen, quick, sharp, intelligent, acute, clever.
Obverse. Opposite, facing.
A . Hinder, reverse.
Obvious. Opposing; plain, evident, clear, manifest, apparent, discovered, perceived, open, explicit, patent.
A . Remote, obscure, far-fetched, involved, latent.
Occasion, v. Cause, produce, create, induce, originate, furnish, compose, constitute, generate.
Occasionally. Sometimes, casually, rarely.
A . Always, constantly, regularly, frequently.
Occult. Secret, concealed, hidden, unknown, invisible, latent, eclipsed, unrevealed, mysterious.
A . Developed, plain, exposed, patent, clear, familiar, open.
Occupancy. Possession, occupation, tenury.
A . Eviction, ejection, dispossession.
Occupation. Occupancy, avocation, employment, engagement, vocation, calling, office, trade, profession.
A . Idleness, leisure, vacancy, vacation, abandonment, resignation.
Occupy. Possess, hold, employ, fill.
A . Abandon, release, desert, surrender, vacate, concede.
Occur. Happen, appear, meet, befall, betide, take place.
A . Threaten, pass, impend.
Occurrence. Event, happening, incident, affair, adventure, circumstance, transaction, episode.
A . Cause, antecedent, inducement, predisposition, tendency, contribution.
Odd. Quaint, unmatched, queer, unusual, eccentric, fantastical, droll, comical, singular, peculiar.
A . Common, usual, regular, normal, matched.
Odious. Hateful, detestable, disgusting, abominable, repulsive, forbidding, unpopular, invidious, loathsome.
A . Pleasing, pleasant, acceptable, agreeable, grateful, delectable, bewitching, charming.
Odium. Hatred, abhorrence, detestation, antipathy, unpopularity, offensiveness.
A . Welcome, acceptableness, popularity.
Odor. Scent, perfume, smell, fragrance, aroma, redolence; trail, effluvium, fume.
A . Inodorousness.
Odorous. Fragrant, perfumed, balmy, aromatic, odorant.
A . Scentless, inodorous; fetid.
Offend. Displease, affront, harm, pain, annoy, transgress.
A . Please, gratify, conciliate.
Offense. Umbrage, misdeed, delinquency, transgression, fault, affront, indignity, outrage, insult.
A . Defense, guiltlessness, innocence.
Offensive. Disagreeable, obnoxious, distasteful, impertinent, disgusting, rude, saucy, opprobrious, insulting, insolent, attacking, abusive, invading, assailant.
A . Defensive, pleasing, grateful, savory.
Offer. Propose, propound, tender, sacrifice, immolate, undertake, attempt, try, proffer.
A . Withhold, withdraw, retract, retain, alienate, divert.
Offhand. Instant, ready, extemporaneous, unpremeditated, unstudied, impromptu.
A . Premeditated, elaborate, studied, thought-out.
Office. Service, duty, custom, position, charge, authority, function, business.
A . Leisure, vacancy, sinecure, resignation.
Officer. Official, functionary, director, dignitary, manager, administrator.
A . Member, servant, private, employee.
Official, a. Administrative, authoritative, functional, professional.
A . Private, unofficial, unprofessional.
Officiate. Act, serve, perform.
A . Witness, retire.
Officious. Impertinent, meddlesome, interfering, forward, intrusive, pushing.
A . Negligent, backward, remiss; retiring, modest.
Often. Frequently, repeatedly, commonly, many times, not seldom.
A . Infrequently, seldom, rarely.
Old. Aged, ancient, primitive, pristine, antique, antiquated, oldfashioned, obsolete; senile; gray, hoary, olden, immemorial, timehonored, decrepit, elderly, patriarchal, remote, venerable, timeworn.
A . Youthful, childlike, young; recent, modern, fresh, newfashioned, current.
Omen. Prognostic, augury, presage, sign, portent, foreboding.
A . Fulfilment, event, occurrence, realization.
Ominous. Significant, portentous, unpropitious, threatening, inauspicious, foreboding, premonitory, suggestive.
A . Encouraging, auspicious, propitious.
Omit, v. Leave out, neglect, forbear, fail, miss, overlook.
A . Consider, observe, notice, attend, regard.
Omnipotent. All-powerful, irresistible, Almighty.
A . Powerless, inefficient, impotent.
Omniscient. All-knowing, infallible, all-wise.
A . Shortsighted, fallible, ignorant.
One. Single, individual, solitary, certain, undivided, common, united, unitary.
A . Many, several; few.
Onerous. Burdensome, oppressive, heavy, toilsome, difficult, laborious, responsible.
A . Light, easy, trivial.
Only, ad. Solely, singly, exclusively, merely, barely, wholly.
A . Among, amongst, together, collectively.
Only, a. Single, sole, alone, preëminent, chief.
A . Many, together, several, mixed.
Onset, Onslaught. Assault, attack, storming, aggression, invasion.
A . Repulse, resistance, protection, shelter, support, defense.
Onward. Forward, in advance, ahead.
A . Aback, astern, backward.
Opaque. Impervious, not transparent, obscure, unintelligible.
A . Pellucid, translucent, transparent, obvious, clear, intelligible, perspicuous.
Open, v. Unclose, disclose, expose, explain, begin, commence, initiate.
A . Close, shut, cover, conceal; conclude, terminate; misinterpret, mystify.
Open, a. Unclosed, uncovered, unprotected, exposed, plain, obvious, evident, public, artless, candid, free, available, accessible, undisguised, ingenuous.
A . Closed, barred, inaccessible, unavailable, reserved, shut, secreted.
Opening. Aperture, hole, space, breach, gap, fissure; start, inauguration, commencement, initiation, beginning; opportunity.
A . Obstruction, stop-gap, termination, enclosure, close, end, conclusion, inopportunity, unseasonableness.
Operation. Agency, action, exercise, production, influence, force, performance, result, procedure, effect, execution.
A . Failure, uselessness, futility, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, powerlessness, inaction, cessation, rest.
Opinion. Persuasion, idea, sentiment, view, conviction, judgment, notion, impression, estimation.
A . Evidence, argument, inquiry, speculation, investigation, pleading.
Opponent. Antagonist, foe, adversary, enemy, rival.
A . Helper, assistant, accomplice, ally.
Opportune. Timely, seasonable, convenient, ready, suitable, auspicious, meet, appropriate.
A . Untimely, unseasonable, inopportune, infelicitous.
Opportunity. Occasion, convenience, occurrence, turn, opening.
A . Lapse, omission, inopportuneness, contre-temps.
Oppose. Combat, withstand, contradict, deny, gainsay, oppugn, contravene, check, obstruct.
A . Aid, abet, support, advance, expedite.
Opposite. Facing, contrary, repugnant, antagonistic, adverse, counter, contradictory, opposed.
A . Agreeing, coincident, harmonious, conformable, suiting, fitting, accordant.
Opposition. Restraint, defeat, resistance, hostility, obstacle, obstruction, animosity.
A . Sympathy, harmony, concord, alliance, congeniality.
Oppress. Impose, weigh down, burden, grind, persecute, overwhelm, crush, overpower, subdue.
A . Encourage, assist, support, befriend.
Oppression. Cruelty, tyranny, hardship, injustice, severity.
A . Kindness, mercy, justice, clemency, leniency.
Oppressive. Heavy, oppressing, rigorous, tyrannical, unjust, extortionate, grinding.
A . Light, easy, compassionate, just, humane, generous.
Opprobrium. Disgrace, infamy, reproach, contempt, scandal, obloquy, odium.
A . Popularity, welcome, acceptableness.
Option. Choice, preference, selection, discretion, wish, election.
A . Compulsion, necessity, obligation.
Opulence. Wealth, riches, fortune, affluence, independence.
A . Poverty, impecuniosity, indigence, want.
Oracle. Revelation; prophet, angel.
A . Empiricism, pragmatism.
Oracular. Prophetic, ominous, portentous; authoritative, positive, dogmatical; wise, grave, sage; obscure, equivocal, ambiguous.
A . Cautious, modest, vacillating, diffident.
Oral. Verbal, unwritten, vocal, spoken, traditional.
A . Documentary, written.
Oration. Address, speech, discourse, harangue, lecture, disputation, declamation, effusion.
A . Reasoning, suggestion, insinuation.
Oratory. Eloquence, rhetoric, elocution, declamation.
A . Hesitation, stammering, dulness.
Orb. Sphere, globe, ball; circle, orbit, circuit; disk; revolution.
Orbit. Revolution, path, circuit, sphere.
A . Deviation, eccentricity, perturbation.
Ordain. Set, regulate, establish, appoint, decree, constitute, institute, prescribe, dictate.
A . Revoke, subvert, cancel, countermand.
Ordeal. Test, trial, experiment, probation, proof, scrutiny, assay, investigation.
A . Result, event; argument, evidence, plea, discussion.
Order. Arrangement, system, procedure, method, rule, regulation; command, mandate, rank, direction, grade, class, character, kind, management, injunction, prohibition, requirement, instruction.
A . Allowance, consent, leave, permission, permit, liberty, license.
Orderly. Regular, obedient, systematic, quiet, peaceable, methodical, well-regulated.
A . Disorderly, riotous, irregular.
Ordinance. Statue, law, edict, decree, rescript, regulation, institute, rule.
A . Custom, usage, tradition, fashion.
Ordinary. Normal, usual, common, customary, settled, frequent, wonted, habitual, indifferent, mediocre, plain, commonplace.
A . Extraordinary, superior, unusual, uncommon.
Organic. Inherent, fundamental, essential, constitutional, radical, vital; organized, systematized.
A . Non-essential, circumstantial, provisional, contingent, inorganic, secondary.
Organization. Structure, form, construction; organism.
A . Disorganization.
Organize. Arrange, constitute, shape, adjust, frame, establish, construct, systematize.
A . Disorganize, dismember, disband, break up, annul.
Origin. Source, rise, commencement, spring, fountain, derivation, cause, root, foundation.
A . Termination, conclusion, extinction.
Original. Primitive, new, primary, pristine, genuine, inventive, peculiar, initiatory, primordial, ancient, former, first.
A . Subsequent, later, derivative, modern, terminal.
Originate. Begin, cause, commence, start, invent, create, spring, rise.
A . Prosecute, conduct; conclude, finish, end.
Ornament. Decoration, embellishment, adornment.
A . Disgrace, brand, disfigurement, detraction.
Ornate. Adorned, beautiful, embellished, decorated, elaborate, rich, ornamented.
A . Bare, bald, nude, plain, naked. Orthodox. Sound, conventional, approved, correct.
A . Heretical, unorthodox, liberal, radical.
Ostensible. Exhibited, avowed, professed, apparent, pretended, declared, manifest, specious, plausible, outward.
A . Real, actual, genuine, veritable, concealed, hidden. Ostentation. Display, boasting, show, boast, vaunting, flourish, pageant, pomp, parade, pageantry.
