Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T12:30:02.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roman narratives

The writing of archaeological discourse – a view from Britain?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Ray Laurence
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The narrative structure of Roman archaeology places a particular emphasis on the acculturation of the newly conquered provinces. This ‘process’ known as Romanisation has been found wanting by many commentators on Roman archaeology. Although rejected, it can still reappear and influence the narrative structure of many studies. Reference is deliberately made to the publications of the ‘Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference’ to highlight the revision of the usage of ‘Romanisation’ by British scholars during the 1990s. The paper identifies the cultural assumptions underpinning the revisionist views of Romanisation and the key problem of a narrative based explicitly or otherwise on textual evidence. Here, an attempt is made to account for the uniqueness of Roman archaeology as practiced in Britain – in comparison to that of prehistory or medieval archaeology. The paper suggests that there is a need to move on from Romanisation to alternative narrative forms drawing on recent revisionist agendas within the social sciences.

Keywords

RomanisationnarrativesglobalisationRoman archaeology

Information

Type
Discussion Article
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , December 2001, pp. 90 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allison, P., 2001: Using the material and written sources. Turn of the millennium approaches to Roman domestic space, American journal of archaeology 105, 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 1997a: Romanization: a critical comment, in Mattingly, D.J. (ed.), Dialogues in Roman imperialism. Power, discourse and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire, Portsmouth (Journal of Roman archaeology supplementary series 23), 51–66.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 1997b: Theorising Roman archaeology, in Meadows, K., Lemke, C. and Heron, J. (eds), TRAC 96. Proceedings of the sixth annual theoretical roman archaeology conference, Sheffield 1996,Oxford,1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, M., North, J. and Price, S., 1998: Religions of Rome 1, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Berry, J., Poortinga, Y., Segall, H. and Dasen, P., 1992: Cross-cultural psychology. Research and applications, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J., 1995: ‘Whither archaeology?’ revisited, in Kuna, M. and Venclová, N. (eds), Whither archaeology? Papers in honour of Evzen Neustupny, Prague, 24–35.Google Scholar
Braun, R., 1994: The holocaust and problems of representation, reprinted in Jenkins, K. (ed.), The postmodern history reader, London, 387–391.Google Scholar
Brandt, R., and Slofstra, J. (eds), 1983: Roman and native in the Low Countries, Oxford (BAR International Series 184).Google Scholar
Braund, D., 1996: Ruling Roman Britain, London.Google Scholar
Burnham, B.C., and Johnson, H.B. (eds), 1979: Invasion and response. The case of Roman Britain, Oxford (BAR British Series 73).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, M., 2001: Romans, Celts and Germans. The German provinces of Rome, Stroud.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R.G., and Myres, J.N.L., 1936: Roman Britain and the English settlements, Oxford.Google Scholar
Creighton, J., 2000: Coins and power in Late Iron Age Britain, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creighton, J., 2001: The Iron Age-Roman transition, in James, S. and Millett, M. (eds), Britons and Romans. Advancing an archaeological agenda, London (Council for British archaeology research report 125), 4–11.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B., 1979: Some concluding thoughts, in Burnham, B.C. and Johnson, H.B. (eds), Invasion and response. The case of Roman Britain, Oxford (BAR British Series 73), 359–365.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B., 2001: Facing the ocean. The Atlantic and its peoples, Oxford.Google Scholar
Deletant, D., 1998: Rewriting the past. Trends in contemporary Romanian historiography, in Deletant, D. and Pearson, M. (eds), Romania observed. Studies in contemporary Romanian history, Bucharest, 276–303.Google Scholar
Fincham, G., 2001: Writing colonial conflict, acknowledging colonial weakness, in Davies, G., Gardner, A. and Lockyear, K. (eds), TRAC 2000. Proceedings of the tenth annual theoretical Roman archaeology conference London,Oxford,25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcey, C. 1997, Beyond ‘Romanization’: technologies of power in Roman Britain, in Meadows, K., Lemke, C. and Heron, J. (eds), TRAC 96. Proceedings of the sixth annual theoretical Roman archaeology conference, Sheffield 1996,Oxford,15–21.Google Scholar
Freeman, P., 1997: ‘Romanization? imperialism’. What are we talking about?, in Meadows, K., Lemke, C. and Heron, J. (eds), TRAC 96. Proceedings of the sixth annual theoretical Roman archaeology conference, Sheffield 1996,Oxford,8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frere, S., 1967: Britannia, London.Google Scholar
Friedlander, S., 1992: Probing the limits of representation, reprinted in Jenkins, K. (ed.), The postmodern history reader, London. 387–391.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R., 1999: Gender and archaeology. Contesting the past, London.Google Scholar
Gombrich, E.H.J., 1986: Aby Warburg. An intellectual biography, London (originally published 1970).Google Scholar
Graafland, A., and De Haan, J., 1996: A conversation with Rem Koolhaas, in Speaks, M. (ed.), The critical landscape, Rotterdam, 218–236.Google Scholar
Grahame, M., 1998: Redefining Romanization, in Forcey, C., Hawthorne, J. and Witcher, R. (eds), TRAC 97. Proceedings of the seventh annual theoretical Roman archaeology conference, Nottingham 1997,Oxford,1–10.Google Scholar
Habinek, T., 1998: The politics of Latin literature. Writing, identity and empire in ancient Rome, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haffner, A., and von Schnurbein, S. (eds), 2000: Kelten, Germanen, Römer im Mittelgebirgsraum zwischen Luxemburg und Thüringen, Bonn (Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 5).Google Scholar
Hardt, M., and Negri, A., 1994: Empire, London.Google Scholar
Häussler, R., 1998: Motivations and ideologies of Romanisation, in Forcey, C., Hawthorne, J. and Witcher, R. (eds), TRAC 97. Proceedings of the seventh annual theoretical Roman archaeology conference, Nottingham 1997,Oxford,11–19.Google Scholar
Haverfield, F., 1912: The Romanization of Britain, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hessing, W., 2001: Foreign oppressor versus civiliser. The Batavian myth as a source for contrasting associations of Rome in Dutch historiography and archaeology, in Hingley, R. (ed.), Images of Rome. Perceptions of ancient Rome in Europe and the United-States in the modern age, Portsmouth (Journal of Roman archaeology supplementary series 44), 127–143.Google Scholar
Hill, J.D., 2001: Romanization, gender and class, in James, S. and Millett, M. (eds), Britons and Romans. Advancing an archaeological agenda, London (Council for British archaeology research report 125), 12–18.Google Scholar
Hingley, R., 2000: Roman officers and English gentlemen. The imperial origins of Roman archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Hingley, R., 2001a: Images of Rome, in Hingley, R. (ed.), Images of Rome. Perceptions of ancient Rome in Europe and the United-States in the modern age, Portsmouth (Journal of Roman archaeology supplementary series 44), 7–23.Google Scholar
Hingley, R., 2001b: An imperial legacy. The contribution of classical Rome to the character of the English, in Hingley, R. (ed.), Images of Rome. Perceptions of ancient Rome in Europe and the United-States in the modern age, Journal of Roman archaeology supplementary series 44, Portsmouth, 145–165.Google Scholar
Hingley, R. (ed.), 2001: Images of Rome. Perceptions of ancient Rome in Europe and the United-States in the modern age, Portsmouth (Journal of Roman archaeology supplementary series 44).Google Scholar
Hoff, M., and Rotroff, S. (eds), 1997: The Romanization of Athens, Oxford.Google Scholar
Horden, P., and Purcell, N. (eds), 2000: The corrupting sea. A study of Mediterranean history, Oxford.Google Scholar
James, S., and Millett, M. (eds), 2001: Britons and Romans. Advancing an archaeological agenda, London (Council for British archaeology research report 125).Google Scholar
Jones, S., 1997: The archaeology of ethnicity, London.Google Scholar
Jones, M., and Miles, D., 1979: Celts and Romans in the Thames Valley. Approaches to culture change, in Burnham, B.C. and Johnson, H.B. (eds), Invasion and response. The case of Roman Britain, Oxford (BAR British Series 73), 315–325.Google Scholar
Kansteiner, W., 1994: From exception to exemplum. The new approaches to Nazism and the ‘Final Solution’, reprinted in Jenkins, K. (ed.), The postmodern history reader, London, 413–418.Google Scholar
Keay, S., and Terrenato, N., 2001: Preface, in Keay, S. and Terrenato, N. (eds), Italy and the west. Comparative issues in Romanization, Oxford, ix–xii.Google Scholar
Kellner, H., 1994: ‘Never again’ is now, reprinted in Jenkins, K. (ed.), The postmodern history reader, London, 397–412.Google Scholar
Knoop, R.M., 1994: Twee jaar klassiek-archeologisch zeer geleerd, Lampas 27, 172–184.Google Scholar
Koolhaas, R., 1999: The Harvard Project on the city. Roman cities, in Bossé, L., Christov-Barkargiev, C., and Obrist, H.U. (eds), La Ville-98, Le Jardin-00, La Mémoire-99, Roma, Paris.Google Scholar
Koolhaas, R., and Mau, B., 1995: S,M,L,XL, New York.Google Scholar
Koolhaas, R., Boeri, S., Kwinter, S., Tazi, N. and Obrist, H.U., 2001: Mutations, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Krausse, D., 1996: Internationale Romanisierungsforschung im Vergleich, Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 1/3, 258–273.Google Scholar
Krausse, D., 2001: Buchbesprechung, Nico Roymans, From the sword to the plough, Germania 79, 173–180.Google Scholar
Laurence, R., 1994: Roman Pompeii. Space and society, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, R., 1999: The roads of Roman Italy. Mobility and cultural change, London.Google Scholar
Laurence, R., 2001: The creation of geography. An interpretation of Roman Britain, in Adams, C. and Laurence, R. (eds), Travel and geography in the Roman Empire, London, 67–94.Google Scholar
Mattingly, D.J., 1995: Tripolitania, London.Google Scholar
Mattingly, D.J., 1997: Dialogues of power and experience in the Roman Empire, in Mattingly, D.J. (ed.), Dialogues in Roman imperialism. Power, discourse and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire, Portsmouth (Journal of Roman archaeology supplementary series 23), 7–26.Google Scholar
Mattingly, D.J. (ed.), 1997: Dialogues in Roman imperialism. Power, discourse and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire, Portsmouth (Journal of Roman archaeology supplementary series 23).Google Scholar
Millett, M., 1990: The Romanization of Britain. An essay in archaeological interpretation, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Morris, I., 1997: Periodization and the heroes. Inventing a Dark Age, in Golden, M. and Toohey, P. (eds), Inventing ancient culture. Historicism, periodization and the ancient world, London, 96–131.Google Scholar
Morris, I., forthcoming: Classical archaeology, in Bintliff, J. (ed.), The Blackwell companion to archaeology, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rajak, T., 1983: Josephus. The historian and his society, London.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.E., 1997: Economy and ritual. The use of animal bone of the Iron Age and Roman cultural transition, in Meadows, K., Lemke, C. and Heron, J. (eds), TRAC 96. Proceedings of the sixth annual theoretical Roman archaeology conference, Sheffield 1996,Oxford,82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roymans, N., 1996a: The South Netherlands project. Changing perspectives on landscape and culture, Archaeological dialogues 3, 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roymans, N. (ed.), 1996b: From the sword to the plough. Three studies on the earliest Romanization of Northern Gaul, Amsterdam (Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 1).Google Scholar
Roymans, N., and Theuws, F., 1990: The Pioneer project ‘Power and Elite’. An introduction, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Salway, P., 1981: Roman Britain, Oxford.Google Scholar
Shohat, E., and Stam, R., 1994: Unthinking Eurocentricism. Multiculturalism and the media, London.Google Scholar
Slofstra, J., 1994: Recent developments in Dutch archaeology. A scientific-historical outline, Archaeological dialogues 1, 9–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, P., 1995: Inventing Britain. The Roman creation and adaptation of an image, Britannia 26, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struck, M., 2001: The Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation and Hermann the German, in Hingley, R. (ed.), Images of Rome. Perceptions of ancient Rome in Europe and the United-States in the modern age, Portsmouth (Journal of Roman archaeology supplementary series 44), 91–112.Google Scholar
Terrenato, N., 1998: The Romanisation of Italy, in Forcey, C., Hawthorne, J. and Witcher, R. (eds), TRAC 97. Proceedings of the seventh annual theoretical Roman archaeology conference, Nottingham 1997,Oxford,20–27.Google Scholar
Terrenato, N., 2001: Ancestor cults. The perception of ancient Rome in modern Italian culture, in Hingley, R. (ed.), Images of Rome. Perceptions of ancient Rome in Europe and the United-States in the modern age, Portsmouth (Journal of Roman archaeology supplementary series 44), 71–89.Google Scholar
Urry, J., 1990: The tourist gaze, London.Google Scholar
Urry, J., 2000: Sociology beyond societies. Mobilities in the twenty-first century, London.Google Scholar
Webster, J., 1995: The just war. Graeco-Roman texts as colonial discourse, in Cottam, S., Dungworth, D., Scott, S. and Taylor, J. (eds), TRAC 94. Proceedings of the fourth annual theoretical Roman archaeology conference, Durham 1994,Oxford,1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J., 1996: Ethnographic barbarity. Colonial discourse and Celtic warrior societies, in Webster, J. and Cooper, N. (eds), Roman imperialism. Post-colonial perspectives, Leicester (Leicester archaeological monographs 3), 111–124.Google Scholar
Webster, J., and Cooper, N. (eds), 1996: Roman imperialism. Post-colonial perspectives, Leicester (Leicester archaeological monographs 3).Google Scholar
Webster, J., 1997: A negotiated syncretism. Readings on the development of Romano–Celtic religion, in Mattingly, D.J. (ed.), Dialogues in Roman imperialism. Power, discourse and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire, Portsmouth (Journal of Roman archaeology supplementary series 23), 165–184.Google Scholar
Webster, J., 2000: At the end of the world. Druidic and other revitalization movements in post-conquest Gaul and Britain, Britannia 31, 1–20.Google Scholar
Wells, P.S., 1998: The barbarians speak. How the conquered peoples shaped Roman Europe, Princeton.Google Scholar
Wolfram, H., 1997: The Roman Empire and its Germanic peoples, Berkeley and London.Google Scholar
Woolf, G., 1998: Becoming Roman. The origins of provincial civilization in Gaul, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar