archaeology

Archaeology

of 14

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Macquarie University; date: 28 July 2014

PrintPublicationDate: Jun2010 Subject: ClassicalStudies,GreekandRomanArchaeology,AncientRomanHistory

OnlinePublicationDate: Sep2012

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211524.013.0006

ArchaeologyHenryHurstTheOxfordHandbookofRomanStudiesEditedbyAlessandroBarchiesiandWalterScheidel

OxfordHandbooksOnline

AbstractandKeywords

Theideaofclassifyingarchaeologyasa‘tool’alongsideprosopography,metre,andnumismatics,while‘culturechange’,‘urbanism’,and‘fallandtransitions’areclassifiedunder‘history’,isprovocativetoanyarchaeologist.Romanisation–atopicthathasbeenprominentintheEnglish-speakingliteratureofthelasttwodecades–seemstoinvolveanimplicitratherthananexplicitsynthesisofarchaeologyandhistory.AnarchaeologyofurbanismintheRomanEmpirewillhighlightthehugelyvariednatureofwhatwemightclassasRomancitiesandbringusupagainstproblemsoffunctionaldefinition,anditwilldocumentthedynamismoflifeintheseplacesinallitsvariedformsandilluminateaccompanyingphenomenainvividdetail.Itwillalsogiveusimagesoflivinganddeadcityinhabitantsandtheirlifestyles;itwilltellusaboutbothpoorandrich–inanunstructuredway.Anarchaeologyofurbanismwillproduceagreatdealofinformationthatreflectsatoneremovesocialstructuresandsocialorganisation,whileyieldinglittlestatisticalinformationwhichcanbeconvertedstraightforwardlyintosociologicaldata.

Keywords:RomanEmpire,archaeology,history,urbanism,Romanisation,dynamism,socialstructures,socialorganisation

ENTERINGatonceintothedebatingspiritofthisvolume,theideaofclassifyingarchaeologyasa‘tool’alongsideprosopography,metre,andnumismatics,while‘culturechange’,‘urbanism’,and‘fallandtransitions’areclassifiedunder‘history’,isprovocativetoanyarchaeologist.TheconceptofhistoryunderwhichtheclassificationismadewillnodoubtbeexplainedelsewhereinthisvolumeandIdonotwanttoarguewiththat.Butforthispiecewherewearetalkingaboutarchaeologywithina‘historic’period,workingdefinitionsofbothhistoryandarchaeologyareneeded.HistoryItaketobethepredominantlythoughnotexclusivelydocument-basedstudyofhumanendeavourinthoseperiodsforwhichcontemporarywritteninformationisavailable;andIwouldfollowBraudel(1975)inseeingthehistoricalprocessas

Archaeology

of 14


resultingfromtheinteractionofthreemajorsetsofinfluences,whichhedefinedas:theroleoftheenvironment;collectivedestiniesandgeneraltrends;andevents,politics,andpeople.Archaeologyisadifferentstudyofmankindandithasevolvedmodesofthoughtappropriatetoitsdata-set,whichcouldbedescribedasthematerialremainsofhumanactivityofanysortfromtheappearanceofthefirsttool-makinghominidmillionsofyearsagotothepresent(RenfrewandBahn2000).TheRomanperiod,aspartoftheshortstretchoftimeinwhichhumanthoughtshavebeenrecordedinwriting,islittlemorethanalickoftheeyelidinthattime-span.Notonlythat,buttheconsensusappearstobethatinthemosteducatedpopulationsoftheHighRomanempirearound90percentofthepopulationwasilliterate(Harris1989),sothateveninthis‘historic’periodtheactivitiesofmosthumanbeingscanonlybereachedthroughstudyoftheirmaterialremains.

Thereisafundamentalmethodologicalrealitythatwhenarchaeologyoperatesonevidenceoccurringwithinahistoricalperiod,ifitistoyieldanythingofvalue,ithastodosoonitsowntermsinthefirstinstance.Evenifaninitialstimulusforresearchmaycomefromsomeotherfieldofstudy,asoneofthemanybranchesofhistory,sociology,oranthropology,archaeologycannotthereforebea‘tool’ofthatfieldofstudy,inthesenseofbeingadevicetothrowdirectlightonconceptsformulatedinthatotherstudy.Itcanonlydirectlyserveconceptsformulatedasaresultofknowledgeofthenatureofitsownproperfieldofstudy.Anadditional,butlesser,pointisthattocallita‘tool’eveninthiscontextwouldbetomisrepresentitasastaticdevice,whereasitisaformofenquirywheremethodsandthoughtabouttheresultsofapplyingmethodsareincontinuousinteractionwitheachotherandthusincontinuousdevelopment.

Sayingthatisabsolutelynottoimplythatnosynthesisispossiblebetween‘historical’andarchaeologicaldatainanhistoricperiod,merelythatthisismoreintellectuallychallengingthanseemsimplicitinsomanypublicationswhichstillappearinRomanStudies.Sohard,indeed,doestheconceptdiethatsomeformofunproblematizedsynthesiscanbetakenforgrantedthatfirstitseemsnecessarytotakeupspaceinlookingnegatively,asitwere,atsometopicsbeforeturningtheargumentroundtosomeofthepositivecontributionsofarchaeology.Thereareplentyofstrawmenonthesynthesisfront,likevirtuallyanyimpositionof‘événementielle’historyontoarchaeologicaldatarangingfromemperors’namesusedaschronologicaladjectives—Augustanurbanism,Trajanicpottery,Neronianoccupation,andsoon—tothe‘clustered’waymanychronologicalstudiesaredoneofsites,militaryandurbanespecially,accordingtothehaphazardsurvivalsofliteraryreferencesortheprestigeofnamesmentionedintexts:weretherereallysomanyAgricolanfortsorsomuchurbandevelopmentunderHadrianandSeptimiusSeverus?Itis,infact,easyenough—ifonelooksattheBraudeliancategorization—tosaythat‘politics,events,andpeople’arethatpartofhistoryleasteasilyittedtoasynthesiswitharchaeologicaldata,althougharecentconcerninarchaeologicaltheorywith‘agency’complicatesthispoint(towhichwewillreturn).ButletusinsteadlookattwomorecomplexandrecentlystudiedareasofsynthesisrelatingtotheothertwoBraudelianhistoricalcategories—demographyandRomanization.

Demography,afieldinwhichoneoftheeditorshasmadeadistinguishedcontribution(andtakesacautiousviewofa‘glassceiling’lyingoverthefieldasawhole:Scheidel2001),mightbeconsideredaclassicareawherearchaeologycouldserveasa‘tool’,for,bycareful

Archaeology

of 14


studiesofbuildingsandsites,couldwenotarriveatpopulationsizesforthosecategories,andbystudyofthelandscapecouldwenotprojectthosepopulationsandtheirfluctuationsthroughregions?Fromthestudyofhumanskeletalremainsincemeterysitescouldwenotarriveatacloseunderstandingofthecompositionofpopulations?Theclearanswertoallthreequestions,fromahostofwell-meaninganddiligentstudies,is‘no’(seeBintliffandSbonias1999,especiallythearticlesbyChapmanandWilkinsonongeneralpointsandbyCambiandLoCascioonRomanItaly).Forbuildingsandsites,letustaketheexampleofthebest-knownRomansite,Pompeii.Probablythemostwidelyacceptedestimateofthepopulationoftheurbanareaisthatof8,000–10,000suggestedin1975byEschebachfromhisanalysisoftheplanofthecityandfollowedbyJongman(1988:108–12)withinadiscussionwherethepopulationofboththeurbanareaanditsterritoryisestimatedat37,500,basedontheestimatedcarryingcapacityoftheland(Jongman1988:135).Eschebach'sestimateisnecessarilyimpressionistic,notbecauseathirdofthewalledareaofPompeiiremainsunex-cavated,butbecauseitisvirtuallyimpossibletomakemorethanguessesaboutthetwo-thirdswhichhavebeenexcavated:whatwasintheupperstoreysofbuildings,howmanymateriallyinvisibleornearly-invisibleinhabitants,asdomesticslavesandshopkeeperssleepingonthepremiseswerethere?Howmuchofthetimedidwealthierpersonsandtheirimmediateentouragesstayintheirtownhouses…andsoon?Duncan-Jones(1982:276–7)adducedmodernparallelsforordersofmagnitudeofurbandensitywithinadiscussionwhichhasaprevalentlynegativethrustabouttheuseofarchaeologicalevidence;Storey(1997)hasusedthisapproachincriticizingtheconventionaldocument-basedestimateofthepopulationofRomeasaroundamillion(cf.LoCascio2000)asbeingfartoohigh;ItriedaslightlydifferenttacticonanestimateofthepopulationofRomanCarthage,ofusingtheanalogyofsixteenth-centuryTunis,asanadjacentcapitalcityonasimilarscaleandatacomparabletechnologicallevel,albeitwithinadifferenturbanculture,toarguethatthatcitymighthavehadapopulationaroundthe100,000mark(Hurst1993),whileeconomichistorianssuchasHopkins(1983:89)andHarris(1993:12)weresuggestingthatitmighthavebeenasmuchasfivetimesthatsize.Forviewsoffluctuatingregionalpopulationsbasedonlandscapestudies,oneonlyhastolookatthe(implicitly)differentlevelsofoptimismaboutthecontributionofarchaeologicalsurveytothisbetweenPotter'sChangingLandscapeofS.Etruria(1979)andtheTiberValleySurveyvolumerelatingtothesamearea(Patterson2004).Leavingasideissuesovertheidentificationofsites,ontopofanydifficultyofconvertingsitesintopeopleistherealizationofhowmuchthistypeoflandscapestudyisdominatedbyvaryingpatternsofpotteryproductionandmarketing(broughtoutespeciallyclearlyintheAgerTarraconensisstudy:Carreté,Keay,andMillett,1995).Thebrutaltruthisthatsurveyarchaeologistsmostlyfindpots,notpeople.Themostdirectcontributiontodemographyofsurveyarchaeologyhasprobablybeentodocumenttheappearanceanddisappearanceofhumanbeingsfrommarginallandscapes,howevermuchtheappropriately-named‘proxy-data’havebeenmarshalledinsupportofargumentsinothersituations(Chapman1999).AgoodsenseofthevaguenessweareleftwithonalargerscalecanbeobtainedbyreadingMillett'spages(1990:181–6)estimatingthepopulationofRomanBritain,takingintoaccountanoverviewofregionalsurveywork,andresultinginpossibilitiesbetween180,000and290,000fortheurbanpopulation,50,000–200,000forthemilitarypopulationand1.8±1.2to4.6±2.9millionfortheruralpopulation.Thenecessarilyimprecisecalculationsleavelittleconfidenceintheoverall‘mid-range’figureof3.7million,andevenMillett'sconclusionthatthetotalisunlikelytohavebeenaslowasthe

Archaeology

of 14


figureestimated(ofaround2million)fortheeleventhcenturyfromDomesdayBookorashighasthe5–6millionofsome‘optimistic’Romanestimatesseemsnotbeyondquestion.AtthispointHopkins'seulogyofthelarge-scalemodelisnotaconsolation:‘ifweinvestigatethepopulationsizeofasingletowninRomanBritain,orofasingleprovince,wecanbewildlywrong.Butifwearecarefulinourconstructionofamodelonalargescale,withluckandgoodjudgement,someofourerrors,andsomelocalortemporaryfluctuations,shouldbeselfcancelling’(Hopkins2002:193).

Cemeteryarchaeology,likelandscapearchaeology,hasinthelastgenerationblossomedtocreateaworldofitsown,where,tothemanypathological,dietary,andsocio-religiousindicatorsrevealedbytheconditionofbonesandtheirdisposalingravesistentativelybeingaddedtheresultsofDNAanalysis(cf.Pearce,Millett,andStruck2000).Cemeteriestellusaboutindividualsandaboutindividualinstancesofphysicalconditions,andtheytellusinaskewedwayabouttheageofthoseburied(beingaccurateontheyoungand,thoughimproving,stillimpreciseaboutmatureadults);potentially,familialrelationsandendemicconditionsofdiseaseornutritioncanalsoberevealed.Whatisnotrevealedasaruleisthemakeupofwholepopulations,notsomuchforthereasonthatfewcemeteriescanbeuncoveredintheirentirety,thoughthatisoverwhelminglythecase,asbecauseoftheancientsocialconstraintsdeterminingwhoendedwithaformalburialintheground(Morris1992)or,asHodder(1980)illustratedlongago,whetherpopulationswerenecessarilyburiedlocally.

Intheseillustrations,then,itshouldbeclearthatwhilearchaeologycanproducedemographicinformationofallsorts,itcannotdoittowhatwemightcallahistoricaldemographer'sorder.Ifyouwanttocompare,say,thedocumentedearlymodernpopulationoftheNaplesregionwiththatofancientCampania,archaeologytodaygivesyounobetteranestimateforthelatterthanBelochmade120yearsago(Beloch1890:457),nordoesitshowanysignofbeingableto.If,ontheotherhand,youwanttoknowwhentheMoliseuplandsorthewadivalleysidesofTripolitaniawereinhabitedandhow,archaeologyhasanswers,justasitcanhaveontheincidenceofcribraorbitaliaorthelikelihoodoffamilialrelationshipsincemeterygroups.

Romanization—atopicwhichhasbeenprominentintheEnglish-speakingliteratureofthelasttwodecades—seemstoinvolveanimplicitratherthananexplicitsynthesisofarchaeologyandhistory.Itisthelabelforaconceptformulatedinanageofarchaeologicalandhistoricalthinkingverydifferentfromourown—inFrancisHaverfield'slecturestoOxfordUniversityundergraduatesofthe1890sand1900s,thoughasHingley(2000,2005)hasshown,HaverfelddrewfromtheearlierworkofMommsen.AlectureonthisthemewaspublishedintheProceedingsoftheBritishAcademyfor1905underthetitleTheRomanizationofRomanBritain,andthissubsequentlywentthroughthreefurthereditions(in1912,1915,and1923)asasmall,buthighlyinfluential,book.Inthetimesince,thelabelRomanizationhasremainedwhilewhatitsignifieshasalteredsubstantially.WhatHaverfieldmeantwasthedegreeofRomanmaterialculturewhichmightbemanifestedinasiteorarea,measuredbystraightforwardmarkerssuchastheuseofRomanformsinartandarchitecture,theuseofRoman-styletechnologyaswheel-turnedpottery,builtroads,andmasonrybuildings,andtheuseofRomancoinsandinscriptionsinLatin.HismaininterestwastochartthevaryingdegreestowhichthismaterialculturewasdeployedinBritain.Heevidentlythoughtthatthosewholivedinmasonrybuildingsofright-angledplan,bathed,andusedshinyredpotteryhad

Archaeology

of 14


throwntheirlotinwiththeimperialauthoritiesmorethanthosewhodidnot,andhisgeneralview,incommonwiththeprevailingattitudeofhistime,wasthatthiswouldbetotheiradvantage.WithoutenteringintotheelaborationsofthisviewmadebyleadingRomano-Britisharchaeologistswhofollowedhim,itseemsfairtoidentifyPeterSalway'sOxfordHistoryofRomanBritain(1981)asthelastmajorworkonRomanBritainofferingastraightforwardnarrativeofthemarchofamoreadvancedcivilizationoveralesserone,withtheunstatedassumptionthatthiswas,asitwere,thenaturalorderofthings.Aturning-pointwasmarkedbyReece'sMyRomanBritain(1988),Hingley'sRuralSettlementinRomanBritain(1989),andMartinMillett'sTheRomanizationofBritain(1990).ThearchaeologyofBritainhadtodivorceitselffromhistoryand,substantially,fromRome(Reece),Romanizationinmaterial-culturetermscouldbeandwasactivelyresisted(Hingley),whileforMilletttherewereoptionsabout‘becomingRoman’;localelitestendedtodoitinordertoretaintheirsocialsuperioritywithinthecolonialsociety,othersacceptedittoalesserorgreaterdegree;withtime,‘anti-Roman’tendenciesarisingfromthenatureofpre-RomanBritishsocietyshowedthrough,asforexampleinthechequeredhistoryofurbanism.Thechangingclimateofthoughtledtowhatcanbecategorizedasthe‘discrepantexperience’approachmostexplicitlystatedbyMattingly(1997,2006)butalsoimplicit(thoughusedtoadifferentend)throughWoolf'sBecomingRoman(1998):Romanmaterialitemscouldbedeployedfordifferentpurposes,includingsubversiveones,accordingtocontext;everywherethereweredifferentusages;thatandthepurposeofthoseusesiswhatweneedtolookat.

Onthefaceofitthismightseemtobeadebateaboutinterpretingmaterialculture,andthustofallwithintheframeworkoutlinedaboveofarchaeologyserving‘conceptsformulatedasaresultofknowledgeofthenatureofitsownproperfieldofstudy’.But,especiallyinHingley'sRomanOfficersandEnglishGentlemen(2000)andhisGlobalizingRomanCulture(2005),orifonelooksthroughthepagesofthepublishedproceedingsoftheTheoreticalRomanArchaeologyconference(TRAC)since1990,itisclearthatthisisreallyadebateaboutimperialistandpost-imperialnarrativesand,forthebookswhichareBritain-centred—soexcepting,forexample,Woolf'sBecomingRoman(1998)aboutGaulandTerrenato'swritingsaboutRomanizationinItaly(e.g.hisIntroductiontoKeayandTerrenato2001)—thisisnotaboutRomanimperialismsomuchasnineteenth-andtwentieth-centuryBritishimperialismanditsreception:Haverfieldfirstmadetheanalogy,thoughasHingleysays(2000:53–6,121–3),itwassomewhatperipheraltohismainlineofthought.Thishasbeenlesstrueforthe‘post-imperialists’.Inhis1997editedvolumeonRomanization,MattinglyintroducesthetopicbyreferringexplicitlytoSaid'swell-knownvolumeCultureandImperialism(1993)ontheBritishEmpireintheEast.ThisdebateinRomanBritainevokesanearlierdiscussionofRomanAfrica,where,inresponsetoBroughton'sTheRomanizationofAfricaProconsularis(1929),theAlgerianscholarMarcelBenaboupublishedLaRésistanceàlaromanisationdelʼAfriqueromainein1974,adecadeormoreaftertheterminationoftheAlgerianWarofIndependence;however,whilethatcouldbeseenasadebatebetweencolonizerandcolonized,theBritishdiscussionhasbeenbetweencolonizersandtheirsonsorgrandsons.AlthoughtheBritishdebateespeciallyhaswidenedourwaysoflookingatRomanmaterialcultureandinasenseputitsstudyintoanewperspective(theAfricanargumentwasmoreonhistoricalmatters),itmustbeseenthatarchaeologyhereisbeingusedasatoolinanagendathatessentiallyliesoutsideitandthat,asfarasthisisthecase—asisperhapsalreadyevident—thedebate

Archaeology

of 14


seemsunlikelytoleadanywheremuchfurtherthanithasreachedatpresent.ThecentralquestioninRomanmaterialculturemightbethoughttobenotsomuchaboutdifferentusagesindifferentplacesandtimes,ashowitachievedtheuniformityithad.

Having,then,giventhesetwoquitecomplexexamplesofarchaeologybeingdeployed,firstasatoolinafieldofstudywhereitscontributionisqualified,thenasammunitioninadebatewhichcannotberesolvedinpurelyarchaeologicalterms,itisappropriatetoaskwhataretheparticularqualitiesofanarchaeologicalcontributiontoourimageoftheRomanworld.Theobviousansweristhatthisistheonlywaytoencounterthatphysicalworldinallitscomplexity,fromtheremarkableartitproducedtoitsimpactontheglobalenvironment,andthechoiceisalmostinfiniteaboutwhichaspectswechoosetofocuson.Focusingspecificallyonthearchaeology/historyrelationship,themostimportantwayinwhichthestudyofthehumanmaterialpastgivesadivergentviewfromanywrittenrecordoraccountisinthedegreeofchange:archaeology'sbasicunitofstudyismeasurablechangeinsomeform,whetherchronologicallyorsimplyasvariety,andwhatitshowsisthattherewasahugeamountmoreofboththaniseverdocumented.Whenwelookatcategoriesforwhichthereisbothadocumentedandmaterialculturemanifestation,as,forexample,urbanism,thedocumentaryaspect,throughtheverysemanticsoflanguage,aswellasforlegalorotherreasons,de-emphasizeschange.Thus,forexamplewehaveentitiesofverydifferentcharacter,asbetween,sayCosa,aHellenizedItaliantownfoundedin272BCEforafewthousandsoulsengagedpredominantlyinmanagingaparcelofagriculturalterrainandhavinganerraticexistencethereafter(Fentress2003);Carthage,refoundedin29BCEtobetheculturalandcommercialmetropolisofAfrica,brandishingitsPhoenicianidentitybeneathastylishimperialRomanveneer,tenormoretimesthesizeofCosaatitsmomentoffoundation,andgrowingheadlongfromthat(Hurst1993);andYork,aciviliansettlementoutsidethewallsofalong-standinglegionaryfortressinthefarnorthoftheempire,whichprobablyreceivedapromotioninstatusatthebeginningofthethirdcenturyCEwhenthefortresswasusedasabasefortheSeverancampaignsintoScotland(Ottaway1999).Allofthesewerecoloniae,theyallhadaconstitutioninwhichcommonelementswerepresent,membersoftheirleadingsocialclasswereprobablycalleddecurionesinallthreecities,andtheirinhabitantsallprobablythoughtofthemselvesasRomans;therewerephysicalsimilaritiestoo,inthatallthreecitieshadaforum,temples,andrichhousesandatsomestageweresurroundedbyawall.Therecouldbeanarrativedwellingonthe‘continuity’ofurbanideasandidealswhichallthreecitiesshared,oranotherdwellingontheirhugelydivergentcharacters,contexts,andhistories.Wecanappreciatethosecityidentitiesandhistoriesandbepromptedtothinkaboutwhytheyshouldhavedevelopedastheydidonlythroughtheirarchaeology:richasthedocumentationforCarthageis,itgivesuslittlemorethanglimpsesofafewpeaksinamountainrange,whilethatforCosaandYorkgivesnosenseofwhattheseplacesamountedto.EveninRomeitself,foralltheweightofancienteyewitnesscommentsandacrushingweightofscholarshipaboutit,archaeologysetsourunderstandingofthecityinacompletelynewdimension,essentiallybyshowingthatagreatdealmorehappenedthanwewouldguessfromthewrittenrecordbutalso—ofcourse—inbringingusintocontactwithaphysicalrealitywecanhardlygraspfromthewrittenword.

AnarchaeologyofRomanurbanismwill,then,highlightthehugelyvariednatureofwhatwe

Archaeology

of 14


mightclassasRomancitiesandbringusupagainstproblemsoffunctionaldefinition,anditwilldocumentthedynamismoflifeintheseplacesinallitsvariedformsandilluminateaccompanyingphenomenainvividdetail;itwillgiveusimagesoflivinganddeadcityinhabitantsandtheirlifestyles;itwilltellusaboutbothpoorandrich—inanunstructuredway.Itwillproduceagreatdealofinformationwhichreflectsatoneremovesocialstructuresandorganization,whileyieldinglittlestatisticalinformationwhichcanbeconvertedstraightforwardlyintosociologicaldata.ItschallengetoanyinstitutionalaccountofRomanurbanismcanbesummedupinoneword—dynamism.Itrevealsthesesocialorganismsintheirtruestateofdynamictension,neverremainingthesameandalldifferentfromeachother.

Perhapsamorecelebratedillustrationofthischaracterofarchaeologicaldataanditsimpactuponafieldofstudyhasbeeninthestudyofancienteconomicmechanisms.Ashasoftenbeenremarked,neitherMosesFinley'sfamousTheAncientEconomy(1973)northeinfluentialwritingsofKeithHopkinswhichfollowedandmodifiedFinley'sview(amongwhichitwillsufficetocite‘TaxesandTradeintheRomanEmpire’:Hopkins1980;seealsoHopkins2002),mademuchuseofarchaeologicaldatadespitetherebeingawelterofseeminglyrelevantinformation.OneconsequenceoftheFinleystudywasindeedtostimulateacertainwayofprocessingarchaeologicaldata,particularlypottery,soastohighlightlarge-scaleproduction,markets,andlong-distancetradeandtherebyprovidematerialforarguingwithhis‘primitivist’viewoftherelativeinsignificanceoftradeanditsrestrictiontoluxuries.OnemightmentionparticularlyanItalianschoolofsocialhistorians/archaeologists,originallyderivingfromaMarxisttradition,whichdevotedgreatenergytostudyingpotteryproductionanddistribution(GiardinaandSchiavone1981),and,onamorepurelyarchaeologicalandlesssocial-historicallevel,Greene'sTheArchaeologyoftheRomanEconomy(1986),bothaimingtorefuteFinley.Greenehasmorerecently(2007)expressedregretsthat,insteadoftakingagreatdealofarchaeologicalinformationonboard,andtherebyrefiningtheirarguments,Romaneconomichistoriansmostlyturnedtheirattentionawayfrommechanismsandtowardsthestudyofeconomicinstitutionswherearchaeologicaldatahadlittleroletoplay.Thisisnotquitehowithasappearedtome.First,althoughthehistoricaldebatewasdescribedasanacademicbattlegroundbyHopkinsinhisintroductiontothevolumeofTradeintheAncientEconomypresentedtoFinley(Garnsey,Hopkins,andWhittaker1983),itwasonewherebythattimemostofthebigideashadbeendeployedandmanyparticipantshadentrenchedthemselvesinwell-establishedpositions.Ahostofdetailedhistoricalandespeciallyarchaeologicalstudiesseemedtoshowvarietyandcontradictionsofthebigpictureandthusunderminesuchbroad-brushtermsas‘theancienteconomy’or‘theRomaneconomy’.WithintheRomanworld,itappearedthattherewasamyriadofeconomicmechanismsonlypulledtogethertoalimitedextentbythetradingof‘asmallishsurplus,say10%oftheactualgrossproduct…Themainstimulitothattradeweretaxesandrents’(Hopkins2002:224–5).ForallthesuperficialuniformityofasinglecurrencyfromScotlandtotheSahara,itwasclearfromthearchaeologicalstudyoflostcoinsthatlow-valuecoinswereusedindifferentwaysindifferentpartsoftheRomanEmpireandthatinsome,asBritainandnorthernGaulinthefirsttwocenturiesce,theymaynothavebeengreatlyusedatall(Reece1973).Eventhefavouritearchaeologicalmarkeroftrademovements—pottery—sufferedastudycrisisinwhichitwasrealizedthatcountingpottypesandprovenancedfabricsmightnotbequiteasrevealingabouteconomicmechanismsaswasinitiallyhoped,andthatperhapsaslargeorinsome

Archaeology

of 14


casesalargerfactorinfluencingwhichpotsendedupwherewasculturalchoice(cf.Woolf1998:ch.7)—aphenomenonwhichplaceslessofapremiumonprecisenumbers.

Theeffectofallthis,aidedinnosmallwaybyHopkins'sforcefulinterventionof1995(reprintedasHopkins2002),wastodivorcethedebateaboutoveralleconomicmodelsfromtheaccumulationanddiscussionofthedetaileddata.Hopkinsarguedthatinasituationwherethedetailedevidenceisalwaysfoundwantingtoagreaterorlesserextentwhileitiscumulativelyimpressive,themostappropriateconstructisamodelaccountingforasmanyaspossibleofthedisparatephenomenawithinalogicalwhole.Ifso,theonlywaytoreplacethemodelistoconstructanotherwithasuperiorlogic;sayingthatthisorthatpieceofdetailedevidencedoesnotagreewithitwasofnoconsequenceinitself.ItisadeliciouslyPlatonicviewofthings,andthusmightarchaeology(butnotonlyit)appeartobetamed.Alimitationofthisviewamountingtoalogicalflawinthemodelrhetoricwouldseemtolieinthelowlevelofintegration.Ifonly10percentofthegrossproductwasavailableasaforceforintegration,thenthemodelislargelynottalkingaboutthe90percentnotcaughtupinthisprocess.Analternativeframeworkmightseemtobeofferedbythedistinctionmadebetween‘worldeconomies’and‘worldempires’inWallerstein'sWorldSystemsanalysis:economicintegrationwasonlyoptionalforworldempires(cf.Woolf1990,discussingWallerstein1974and1980).Atallevents,debateabouttheancienteconomyshifteddecisivelyfromthepositionsofthe1980s(cf.ScheidelandvonReden2002foranoverviewofmanyaspectsoverthefollowingyears).Archaeology'sroleinthiswastoshowthatagreatdealmorewasgoingonanditwasmorecomplexthanwhenthe‘big’argumentswereformulated,butalsothatreadingthedetailwasnotstraightforward.Itdidnot,then,determinethedebatesomuchasrequireittobeconductedinadifferentform.

Sofarthisaccountofarchaeologyhasstayedclosetoahistory-dominatedframework,bothinshowingwhereitcannotfullyrespondtothedemandsofsuchaframeworkinthetermsinwhichtheyhavebeensetout—asinthedemographyandRomanizationexamples—andinshowingwhereithasbeenabletoaltertheagenda,asintheurbanismandeconomic-historyexamples.WhataboutframeworksormodesofthoughtgeneratedfromprehistoricarchaeologyandappliedtoRoman-periodremains?Ashasbeensaid,mostofRomanarchaeologyisstrictlyprehistoryinthesenseofbeingaboutpeoplewhocouldnotwriteandforthemostpartwerenotwrittenaboutexceptataratherschematicanddistantlevel.Althoughthemorehistorically-mindedRomanarchaeologistshavetendedtoproceedinafairdegreeofignoranceoftheconcernsofprehistoricarchaeology,andtherehasbeenmuchcriticismofRomanarchaeologistsforbeing‘untheoretical’,inrealityRomanarchaeologyhasneverhaddifficultyinfollowingtheleadofprehistory,evenifithasoftendonesowithouttherhetoricandsometimeswithatime-lag.Thusthequantificationofpotteryandotherartefactsandtheself-consciousnessaboutsamplingsitesandlandscapesdevelopedinthe1970sand1980scanbetracedtotheintellectualframeworkofprocessualismandsystemsanalysiswhichheldswayin1970sprehistory(cf.RenfrewandBahn2000).Post-processualprehistoryisamorediffusesetofintellectualinfluences,butsomethemeswhichhavecometothefore—contextualarchaeology,afocusonagency,phenomenology—haveobvioushomesinRomanarchaeology.Theproblemindeedisnottobelazyaboutthembecauseofrecoursetothewrittenword.

AsregardstheuseofprehistoricarchaeologicaltheoryinRomanarchaeology,therehasbeen

Archaeology

of 14


andstillisarevealingdividebetweentheEnglish-speakingscene,wherearchaeologyisoftentaughtinuniversitiesinisolationfromhistoryorotherhumanitiesstudies,andtherestofwesternEurope,whereRomanarchaeologyismorecloselylinkedwithhistoryorthewiderstudyoftheClassics.YoungerBritishacademicshavefelttheneedforanannualTheoreticalRomanArchaeologyconference,whichhasmetwithsuccesseachyearsince1990.AlthoughithasbecomeafairlybroadchurchasregardstheoreticalapproachestoRomanmaterial,itwassubstantiallybornofthedesiretotreatRomanarchaeologymorelikeprehistory:thereisindeedanamusingintroductionbyHodderin‘contextual’modeintheproceedingsofthefirstconference(Scott1993),whereheurgesRomanarchaeologistsnottotrylateinthedaytoapplythesweepingtheoreticalapproacheswhichprehistoryhadjustliberateditselffrom.OnecouldimagineatheoreticalRomanarchaeologyconferenceinGermany,France,orItaly,butagreatdealmoreofthetheorywouldbegeneratedfromhistoricalstudies.Forthereasonstatedabove,BritishRomanarchaeologyhastendedtoremainmoreahistoricalinitstermsofreferenceandapproaches;thishasbeentoitsadvantageinmakingitadventurousandoftentotheforemethodologically,butithasthedisadvantageoftendingtocausesomeofitsinterestingfindingstobeisolatedfromhistorically-linkeddiscussionandconsequentlyfromwhatcontinuestobethemainstreamofacademicthoughtabouttheRomanperiod.AnimportantunifierofthesedivergentintellectualtraditionsinRomanarchaeologyoverthelasttwentyyearshas,however,beentheJournalofRomanArchaeology,which,thoughhavingastrongAnglo-Americaneditorialstyle,hasprovedtobeatrulyinternationaljournalasregardsscholarlycontributions;ithaslessenedthedividebetween‘anglophone’andnon-anglophoneRomanarchaeology.

AquestionfortheconclusionofthisdiscussionistowhatextentdoesorwillarchaeologygiveusadifferentviewofthewholeRomanphenomenon?Hingley'sbookGlobalizingRomanCulture(2005)pointstowardsananswer,thoughIwouldnotgiveitquiteinthesametermsashim.Hegoestolengthsthere,asinhisearlierwork,toshowhowwehave,asitwere,anelitistviewofRomanculture,focusinginanunbalancedwayontherichandpowerfulandontheirengagementwiththemostvisibleformsof‘Roman’culture—astowns,villas,andlargemonuments—andthatwehavedevelopedacircularformofargumentationinlabellinganythinguniformandwidespreadintheRomanworldlikecertaintypesofpottery‘Roman’,eventhoughtheremaybenoindependentjustificationforthat.Further,wearemotivatedaswesternerstocontinuetoseetheimpositionoforderbyRomancivilizationasfar-reachingandbeneficialinthewayweliketobelievethatourrecentwesternhistoryisofcentralimportanceand,onbalance,beneficialwithintheworldoftoday.YetwhenwelookatthearchaeologyofthelesspowerfulintheRomanworldwefindthattownsandvillasareinadistinctminorityastypesofsite,andthattheclassicformsofRomanmaterialculture,asart,coins,andthosetypesofpotterythoughttobeRoman,areinaminorityinthetotalityofwhatwascalledtheRomanworld.Ourviewisthereforeunbalancedand,ifwedidmoreofthistypeofarchaeology,andsteeredhistoricalandarchaeologicalstudytowardssomeofthemoreunpleasingaspectsoftheimpositionofRomanrule,wecould—ineffect—endupwithalessRomanocentricviewoftheRomanworld.

WhilemakinggoodpointsaboutmaterialcultureinRomantimes,thisviewseemstometobetoocaughtupinwhatmightbecalledthepostcolonialangstoftheRomanizationdiscussion.

Archaeology

of 14


Hingley(2005:117–18)seemstooreadytobedismissiveofaviewhecitesofWoolf,whoisineffectdevelopingHopkins'sexpositioninConquerorsandSlaves(1978),ofRomeasanorganismthatmetabolizesothermatterandisitselftransformedbywhatitfeedson(Woolf1997:347,citedbyHingley2005:47).This,itseemstome,isthemostsatisfyingexplanationofthediscrepantexperienceapproachdiscussedabove,since,unliketheotherexplanationswhichtendtodwellsimplyondifferenceandun-oranti-Romanness,thisoneexplainshowRomanmaterialculturecouldfunctioninagivencontextaccordingtotherulesofthatcontext,yetatthesametimethatexperiencewouldfeedbackintoahighersenseofRomanness.Forexample,WoolfshowsinBecomingRoman(1998)thattheuseofterrasigillatapotterymadeinGaulwitharepertoireofclassicalimagerymayhavebeencharacteristicofun-Romanpeoplestowardstheouteredgesoftheempire.Whatmotivationthesepeoplesusedthepotterywithisneitherherenorthere;theoneeffectofusingitaboutwhichitispossibletobeconfidentisthatfamiliaritywiththisvisualimagerycreatedasharedculturalelementbetweenthesepeopleandtheinhabitantsofthecityofRome.ThelargequestionishowfarthispercolatedthroughthepopulationsoftheRomanworld,andhereoneistemptedtoseeananalogywithHopkins'smodeloftheRomaneconomy,inwhichonlyasmallproportionofGrossProductmovedaroundasrentsandtaxestoestablisha‘Romaneconomy’.Onemightsaythatonlyacorrespondinglysmallproportionofthegrossculturalproducthadtomovearoundtoestablisha‘Romanculture’.Evenifwecanbeclearinunderstandingthatbothinthesocio-economicandthesocio-culturalspheresthese‘Roman’elementswereabsoluteminoritiesofthewhole,theywereenoughtoestablishthedistinctiveRomannessoftheworldtowhichtheybelonged.Thedevelopmentofmorearchaeologyfocusedregionallywillenableustounderstandbetterboththemetabolizingprocessinitsmanymanifestationsanditsplacewithintheworldtowhichitbelongs.

References

BELOCH,J.(1890),Campanien.GeschichteundTopographiedesantikenNeapelundseineUmgebung(2ndedn.).Breslau:Morgenstern.

BENABOU,M.(1975),LaRésistanceafricaineàlaromanisationdelʼAfriqueromain.Paris:FrançoisMaspero.

BINTLIFF,J.andSBONIAS,K.(1999),ReconstructingPastPopulationTrendsinMediterraneanEurope(3000B.C.–A.D.1800).TheArchaeologyofMediterraneanLandscapes,ed.G.BarkerandD.Mattingly,1.Oxford:Oxbow.

BRAUDEL,F.(1975),TheMediterraneanandtheMediterraneanWorldintheAgeofPhilipII,tr.S.Reynolds,2ndedn.,2vols.London:Fontana.

BROUGHTON,T.R.S.(1929),TheRomanizationofAfricaProconsularis.BaltimoreandLondon:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPressandOxfordUniversityPress.

CAMBI,F.(1999),‘DemographyandRomanizationinCentralItaly’inBintliffandSbonias1999:115–27.

Archaeology

of 14


CARRETÉ,J.-M.,KEAY,S.J.,andMILLETT,M.(1995),ARomanProvincialCapitalanditsHinterland:TheSurveyoftheTerritoryofTarragona1985–90.JournalofRomanArchaeologySupplementaryseries,15.AnnArbor,Mich.

CHAPMAN,J.(1999),‘ArchaeologicalProxy-dataforDemographicReconstructions:Facts,FactoidsorFiction’,inBintliffandSbonias1999:65–76.

COULSTON,J.,andDODGE,H.,eds.(2000),AncientRome:TheArchaeologyoftheEternalCity.OxfordUniversitySchoolofArchaeologymonograph54.Oxford:OxfordSchoolofArchaeology.

DUNCAN-JONES,R.(1982),TheEconomyoftheRomanEmpire:QuantitativeStudies(2ndedn.).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

ESCHEBACH,H.(1975),‘ErläuterungenzumPlanvonPompeji’,inB.AndreaeandH.Kyrieleis(eds.),NeueForschungeninPompeji:unddenanderenvomVesuvausbruch79n.Chr.verschüttetenStädten,331–38.Recklinghausen:Bongers.

FENTRESS,E.(2003),CosaV:AnIntermittentTown,Excavations1991–1997.AnnArbor,Mich.:UniversityofMichiganPressfortheAmericanAcademyinRome.

FINLEY,M.I.(1973),TheAncientEconomy.London:Chatto&Windus.

GARNSEY,P.,HOPKINS,K.,andWHITTAKER,C.R.,eds.(1983),TradeintheAncientEconomy.London:Chatto&Windus.

GIARDINA,A.,andSCHIAVONE,A.,eds.(1981),Societàromanaeproduzioneschiavistica.2,Merci,mercatiescambinelMediterraneo.Rome:Laterza.

GREENE,K.(1986),TheArchaeologyoftheRomanEconomy.London:Batsford.

———(2007),‘ArchaeologicalDataandEconomicInterpretation’,inP.F.Bang,M.Ikeguchi,andH.G.Ziche(eds.),AncientEconomies,ModernMethodologies:Archaeology,ComparativeHistory,ModelsandInstitutions,109–36.SantoSpirito(Bari):Edipuglia.

HARRIS,W.V.(1989),AncientLiteracy.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.

———ed.(1993),TheInscribedEconomy:ProductionandDistributionintheRomanEmpireintheLightofinstrumentumdomesticum.JournalofRomanArchaeologysupplementaryser.6.AnnArbor,Mich.:JournalofRomanArchaeology.

HAVERFIELD,F.(1923),TheRomanizationofRomanBritain(4thedn.,rev.G.Macdonald).Oxford:ClarendonPress.

HINGLEY,R.(1989),RuralSettlementinRomanBritain.London:Seaby.

———(2000),RomanOfficersandEnglishGentlemen:TheImperialOriginsofRomanArchaeology.London:Routledge.

———(2005),GlobalizingRomanCulture:Unity,DiversityandEmpire.London:Routledge.

Archaeology

of 14


HODDER,I.(1980),‘SocialStructureandCemeteries:ACriticalAppraisal’,inP.Rahtz,T.Dickinson,andL.Watts(eds.),AngloSaxonCemeteries.BARBritishSeries82:161–9.

HOPKINS,K.(1978),ConquerorsandSlaves.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

———(1980),‘TaxesandTradeintheRomanEmpire(200BC–AD400)’,JournalofRomanStudies,70:101–25.

———(1983),‘Models,ShipsandStaples’,inP.GarnseyandC.R.Whittaker(eds.),TradeandFamineinClassicalAntiquity.CambridgePhilolologicalSociety,Suppl.vol.8:84–109.

———(2002),‘Rome,Taxes,RentsandTrade’,inScheidelandvonReden2002:190–230:

repr.fromKodai:JournalofAncientHistory,6/7(1995/6),41–75.

HURST,H.(1993),‘Cartagine,lanuovaAlessandria’,inA.Carandini,L.C.Ruggini,andA.Giardina(eds.),StoriadiRoma,vol.III/2,Lʼetàtardoantica,Iluoghieleculture,327–37.Turin:Einaudi.

JONGMAN,W.(1988),TheEconomyandSocietyofPompeii.Amsterdam:J.C.Gieben.

KEAY,S.,andTERRENATO,N.,eds.(2001),ItalyandtheWest:ComparativeIssuesinRomanization.Oxford:Oxbow.

LOCASCIO,E.(1999),‘ThePopulationofRomanItalyinTownandCountry’,inBintliffandSbonias1999:161–71.

———ed.(2000),Romaimperiale.Unametropoliantica.Rome,chap.1,‘Lapopolazione’.Rome:Carocci.

MATTINGLY,D.J.(2006),AnImperialPossession:BritainintheRomanEmpire,54BC–AD409.London:AllenLane.

———ed.(1997),DialoguesinRomanImperialism:Power,Discourse,andDiscrepantExperienceintheRomanEmpire.JournalofRomanArchaeology,Supplementaryseries,23.Portsmouth,RI.

MILLETT,M.(1990),TheRomanizationofBritain:AnEssayinArchaeologicalInterpretation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

MORRIS,I.(1992),Death-ritualandSocialStructureinClassicalAntiquity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

OTTAWAY,P.(1999),‘York:TheStudyofaLateRomancolonia’,inH.Hurst(ed.),TheColoniaeofRomanBritain:NewStudiesandaReview.JournalofRomanArchaeology,Supplementaryseries,36:136–50.Portsmouth,RI.

PATTERSON,H.,ed.(2004),BridgingtheTiber:ApproachestoRegionalArchaeologyintheMiddleTiberValley.ArchaeologicalMonographsoftheBritishSchoolatRome,13.London:BritishSchoolatRome.

Archaeology

of 14


PEARCE,J.,MILLETT,M.,andSTRUCK,M.,eds.(2000),Burial,SocietyandContextintheRomanWorld.Oxford:OxbowBooks.

POTTER,T.W.(1979),TheChangingLandscapeofSouthEtruria.London:Elek.

REECE,R.(1973),‘RomanCoinageinBritainandtheWesternEmpire’,Britannia,4:227–52.

———(1988),MyRomanBritain.Cirencester:CotswoldStudiesattheAppleLoft.

RENFREW,C.andBAHN,P.(2000),Archaeology:Theories,MethodsandPractice,3rdedn.London:Thames&Hudson.

SAID,E.W.(1993),CultureandImperialism.London:Chatto&Windus.

SALWAY,P.(1981),RomanBritain.TheOxfordHistoryofBritain,1A.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

ScHEIDEL,W.(2001),DebatingRomanDemography.Leiden:Brill.

———andVONREDEN,S.,eds.(2002),TheAncientEconomy.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

SCOTT,E.,ed.(1993),TheoreticalRomanArchaeology:FirstConferenceProceedings.Alder-shot:Avebury.

STEINBY,E.M.,ed.(1993–2000),LexicontopographicumurbisRomae,6vols.Rome:Quasar.

STOREY,G.R.(1997),‘ThePopulationofAncientRome’,Antiquity,71:966–78.

TRIGGER,B.G.(1989),AHistoryofArchaeologicalThought.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

WALLERSTEIN,I.(1974),TheModernWorldSystem,I:CapitalistAgricultureandtheOriginsoftheEuropeanWorld-economyintheSixteenthCentury.Orlando,Fla.:AcademicPress.

———(1980),TheModernWorldSystem,II:MercantilismandtheConsolidationoftheEuropeanWorld-economy,1600–1750.NewYork:AcademicPress.

WILKINSON,T.(1999),‘DemographicTrendsfromArchaeologicalSurvey:CaseStudiesfromtheLevantandNearEast’,inBintliffandSbonias1999:45–64.

WOOLF,G.(1990),‘World-systemsAnalysisandtheRomanEmpire’,JRA3:44–58.

———(1997),‘BeyondRomanandNatives’,WorldArchaeology,28:339–50.

———(1998),BecomingRoman:TheOriginsofProvincialCivilizationinGaul.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Archaeology

of 14


archaeology

Documents