For the penultimate talk in our
seminar series, we were given food for thought in the form of a theoretical
debate where Dr. Gardner tackled the current issues in the relationship between
theory and Roman archaeology, giving us an overview of its evolution within the
discipline, and some ideas on how theory can be used . develop our
understanding of the Roman Empire.
Contrary to other
archaeological disciplines, Roman archaeology has tended to neglect theory,
largely as a result of the incredible amount of data available which led to a
focus on empirical studies. In 1991, the Theoretical Roman Archaeology
Conference
(TRAC) was created and one of the first issues it addressed was that
of “Romanisation”, a concept over which debates have raged through the
following decade. Indeed, some established approaches took Rome as the focal
point and viewed the relationship between the Empire and its conquered
territories in colonial terms, with the acculturation of the defeated and their
conversion to the superior Roman culture. This was complemented to a certain
extent by traditional historical explanations and core/periphery model.
However, the rise of
post-colonial discourse – e.g. Said, Babha... - meant that the focus was
shifted and more weight was given to the “others”, the non-Romans and a more “nativist”
point of view was adopted. This perspective was variously influenced by
Marxism, feminism and post-structuralism. It paid attention to evidence for
resistance in the conquered provinces, and concepts such as discrepant
identities and hybritidity were developed in the 1990s (see works by Van Dommelen,
Mattingly below). In this way, the theoretical discourse in Roman archaeology went
beyond the simplistic Roman/native dichotomy. However, this reversal of focus
also resulted in some problems, notably the overemphasis laid on the literary
sources, and the lack of attention paid to issues of power and violence: the
multicultural nature of the Empire got highlighted, but the violence inherent
to the processes of conquest and imperial rule has been minimised.
Globalisation theories have
stressed the connectivity and communication aspects of the Empire, highlighting
the role of material culture and consumption. Within this framework, concepts
such as hybridity/hybridisation and “glocalisation” – the idea that within a
global network of exchange, artefacts take on a local meaning in different
parts of the network – have been developed to address satisfactorily the huge
variety of interactions present within the Roman Empire and its provinces. Some
argue however, that globalization is a
Western post-mediaeval phenomenon and cannot be applied to the study of past
societies. The different is one of scale and intensity of communication though,
for it can be shown that the different part of the ancient world were connected
by trading and diplomatic links, even prior to the emergence of the Roman
Empire.
Post-colonial theories stress a
marginal – bottom-up - approach, globalisation theories on the other hand stress
a systemic –top-down- perspective: the distinctive features of institutional
articulation of power, identity and Empire are thus lost in the middle. For
this reason, Dr. Gardner argued for the adoption of an “institutional
archaeology” to gain a better understanding of cultural change in the past. By
studying traditions and innovations in practice,
we can understand the relationship between communities and institutions and
the nesting of identities within power-flows, inside an overarching spatial and
temporal reality. Dr. Gardner used to
case-studies to illustrate his argument: the bathhouse in the military fortress
at Caerleon, Wales, and the rural
settlement of Cotswold community.
At Caerleon, the fortress was
built according to the standards of military architecture, with a strict
hierarchy of space, e.g. a large house for the centurion, smaller rooms for the
legionaries. In addition to the living quarters, other buildings in the
fortress served regimental practices, such as the bathhouse. Bathing played an
important unifying role within the soldier community – a community composed of
men coming from various provinces of the Empire. But at Caerleong, in the 4th
century, we see a change in the use of space: the pool of the bathhouse goes
out of use and is used as a rubbish dump. This in turn tells us something about
changes in practices within the unit: bathing as a social activity went into
disuse: what can this tell us about different dynamics within the military
community? This interaction of actors and institutional structures is rather
easy to see in the case of the military because we know what the standard
situation would be, but Gardner’s study of the rural settlement at Cotswold
community showed how this could be applied to a different scenario. There, it
is the analysis of artefact distribution across the site which could inform the
archaeologist about changing practices over time. And with changing practices
come changing relationships, and changes in identity construction.
To conclude, practice theories
have proven their worth in illuminating the material, social and temporal
aspects of life in the past. It is a useful theoretical framework to address
issues of cultural change and identity studies. Post-colonial studies in Roman
archaeology are quite different than in other disciplines: no other empire has
been studied in this way, probably because of the role Rome took as an example
for modern nations’ own colonialism in the 19th century. The study
of the Roman Empire is thus not just that of a past civilisation, it is
intertwined with our understanding of our present society.
On behalf of UCD School of
Archaeology and the Archaeology Society, I would like to thank Dr. Gardner for
such an interesting talk. The argument he presented to us can be found in his
latest paper published in Britannia
(see below for references).
By
Alexandra Guglielmi
Some references for further reading:
Gardner, A. (2012). Time and empire in the Roman world. Journal
of Social Archaeology, 12.2, 145-166.
Gardner, A. 2013.
Thinking about Roman Imperialism: Postcolonialism, Globalization and Beyond? Britannia 44, 1-25
Gosden, C. 2001. Postcolonial
archaeology. Issues of culture, identity, and knowledge, in I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge:
Polity Press, 241-261
Hingley, R. 2010. Cultural
diversity and unity: Empire and Rome, in S. Hales and T. Hodos (eds) Material Culture and Social Identities in
the Ancient World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 54-75
Mattingly, D. 2010. Imperialism,
Power and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire, Princeton University
Press
Van Dommelen, P. 2005. “Colonial interactions and hybrid
practices: Phoenician and Carthaginian settlement in the ancient Mediterranean”
in G. Stein (ed.) The Archaeology of
Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives. Oxford: School of American
Research
Woolf, G. 1997, “Beyond Romans and natives” World Archaeology 28(3), 339-350
