Marjan Hrženjak, cuius memoria in umbris tenebrisque etiam fulgit, sit eo terra levis. 174 Abstract: The article discusses the theory of Romanisation as understood in Slovenian archaeology based on the Norico-Pannonian costume. Although the term 'Romanisation' is widely used, it was never critically examined nor indeed clearly defined in Slovenian archaeology. Its intended meaning is usually aligned with the views laid out by Theodor Mommsen (1968), but this theory is mostly outdated and does not fit the modern narrative in Roman mortuary archaeology. It is in this regard that the prevalent classification of artefacts (and subsequently graves) into strictly 'Roman' or 'native' is problematic: certain types of objects are classified as 'native' although they are exclusively found in undoubtedly Roman-period graves or, vice versa, some objects that were clearly used in the area even before the Roman occupation are nevertheless considered typically 'Roman'. Numerous parallels from other parts of the Roman Empire also demonstrate the inadequacy of such a binary approach and dispute the validity of the results thus obtained. Some archaeological traditions, notably the Britsh, have therefore recently developed new, more complex theories of identity and cultural interactions that enable us to shed new light even onto old material. With their aid, Roman culture may be perceived not as a static monolith, but rather as a dynamic process. Izvleček: Prispevek se ukvarja s pojmovanjem teorije romanizacije v slovenski arheologiji na podlagi primera »noriško-panonske« noše. Termin »romanizacija« kljub razširjenosti v slovenski arheologiji ni doživel niti jasne definicije niti kritične obravnave. Običajno se uporablja v skladu s teorijo romanizacije Theodorja Mommsna (1968) ki pa je v številnih pogledih preveč poenostavljena in ne ustreza sodobnemu razumevanju identitete in kulture v pogrebni arheologiji. S tega stališča je problematično tudi strogo ločevanje grobnih pridatkov (in, na njihovi podlagi, sočasnih grobov) na »rimske« in »staroselske«, na katerem običajno temelji klasifikacija pokopov. V skrajnih primerih nek predmet velja za »staroselskega«, čeprav se je začel pojavljati šele v nedvoumno rimskodobnih grobovih, ali obratno za »rimskega«, četudi ga je najti že pred rimsko okupacijo območja današnje Slovenije. Na neustreznost binarnega pojmovanja celotnih kategorij predmetov in vprašljivost iz njega izvedenih sklepov kažejo tudi mnoge vzporednice z drugih koncev Rimskega imperija. V nekaterih arheoloških tradicijah, zlasti v britanski, zato že vrsto let razvijajo drugačne, kompleksnejše teorije identitete in kulturnih interakcij. Z njihovo pomočjo lahko tudi staro gradivo vidimo v interpretativno novi luči in rimsko kulturo preučujemo ne kot statičen monolit, marveč kot dinamičen proces.