The Frontiers of the Roman Empire (FRE) series introduces the archaeology of Rome's border systems in conjunction with an aspiration to combine them within a single, multi-national World Heritage Site (WHS). The scale of this ambition is illustrated by the total length of the frontiers, which runs to c. 7,500 km and spans 20 modern countries on three continents. Despite a long-standing tradition of international co-operation within frontier studies, the WHS project faces different languages, alphabets, research and site-presentation traditions, and attitudes towards Roman heritage. An awareness of this permeates the FRE volumes, most obviously in the provision of the text in at least two, and up to four, languages. French, German, and English appear most frequently, although the latter is the only language to have featured in every FRE volume.
The books and online edition that have been published so far provide succinct statements about discrete stretches of frontier, often, but not exclusively, restricted to the boundaries of modern nation states. Three frontiers, Hadrian's Wall, the Antonine Wall, and the Upper German and Raetian Limes, have achieved WHS status. This geographical focus is comparable to that discernible in the coverage of the FRE books, with the volume discussing the African frontiers representing the only instalment documenting an area outside Europe. Further publications are planned to fill the lacunae.
Seeking to build a coherent WHS inevitably invites hard decisions about which sites to include within a nomination, and which to exclude. The goal is to assemble a WHS that will comprise ‘the line(s) of the frontier at the height of the empire from Trajan to Septimius Severus (about A.D. 100 to 200), and military installations of different periods which are on that line. The installations include fortresses, forts, towers, the limes road, artificial barriers and immediately associated civil settlement’. This brings two traditional staples of Roman frontier scholarship to the fore: military infrastructure and the second century a.d., a period when sophisticated border systems proliferated around the Empire's fringes. In practice the scope of the FRE volumes is wider, as in many cases the course of the frontiers endured into the late period. This inclusivity promotes a more nuanced appreciation of the border zones.
Assessing post second-century developments is essential for understanding how the frontiers evolved to reflect changed circumstances, or failed as imperial control fractured. The exclusion of systems that developed when insecurity intensified in new regions, such as along the ‘Saxon shore’, or because existing measures failed, as in Germany when the land limes imploded, is a loss. This is also true of the ‘proto-frontiers’ that emerged in the first century a.d. Examples of installation groups comparable to those later associated with frontiers are discernible in the first half of the first century a.d. Although the extent and ambition of the early second-century frontiers appears unprecedented, their core components had a long pedigree. Analysing how these elements were adapted for frontier service offers insights into the priorities of their progenitors, and also lays bare the different techniques employed by border systems.
Most of the FRE books are just under 100 pages long, requiring complex and, sometimes, contentious discourse to be judiciously summarised. Occasionally this can convey an undue impression of scholarly consensus. The question of whether the frontiers were devised with a single purpose in mind is an important example of this. Although the series refers to ‘frontiers’ plural, the conceptual framework holds that ‘the very commonality of Roman frontiers demands that they are treated as a single monument’. A statement addressing the intention of the frontiers reinforces this notion, proposing that although the concentration of military force provided ‘the base of armies whose main purpose was to defend the empire, the primary function of the frontiers themselves was the control of movement into and out of the empire’. This dual role accords with the fabric of the frontiers, which typically juxtapose forts that could serve as a baseline for campaigning, with a network of fortlets, towers and, where appropriate, artificial barriers, which appear designed to detect and curtail unauthorised transit.
Although it is indisputable that the fundamental purpose of the frontiers was to control movement, the precise nature of that movement, and whether uniform restrictions were applied along every border, remains opaque. Hadrian's Wall is often singled out because its monumental scale is well in excess of anything displayed by contemporary frontiers elsewhere in the Empire. Whether this implies it was a bulwark against invasion or simply a grandiose vanity project devised by the emperor Hadrian and devoid of functional implications remains a live research topic. These competing models amount to the difference between a system conceived as either a military defence or a means of regulating the free movement of people. Clarifying whether the Wall operated in a climate of war or peace is essential to understanding the backdrop against which everyday life in the frontier zone was conducted. Focusing on the immediate frontier line can also obscure diversity within the wider border region. Although the extensive network of hinterland and outpost forts in Britain is acknowledged, the stark contrast it offers to the narrow ribbon of forts along the Rhine and Danube rivers is not explored.
Pre-existing indigenous populations receive varying attention in the FRE volumes. In large part this reflects a long-standing research bias in favour of the military remains. While there have been notable exceptions to this focus on fortifications, the cumulative effect has been to entrench perspectives found in the surviving ancient histories, which typically counterpoint the capabilities of Rome's armies with shameless innuendo about the barbaric attributes of their opponents. An increased appreciation of the architectural and artistic achievements of indigenous groups living around the fringes of the Empire, coupled with an awareness of their willingness to exploit the occupiers, is gradually redressing this imbalance. Presumably controlling the movement of these peoples fell within the remit of the frontiers, and so the presence or, for long stretches of the German land frontier, absence of indigenous groups should have influenced the nature of the border works. Conversely, assessing how societies developed after being artificially severed by a frontier ought to inform our understanding of its impact.
The FRE volumes are penned by respected specialists working in the relevant region, which can illustrate how models for cultural transmission vary from country to country. The concept of ‘Romanization’ is notoriously encumbered with baggage in Britain, but the term is freely employed in two FRE volumes dedicated to stretches of the Danube. This prompts the question of the extent to which proximity to a nascent border brought opportunity or oppression, although naturally this is likely to have varied. It is interesting to contrast the suggestion that groups living to the north of the Danube in what is now Slovakia became prosperous due to ‘Roman influence’, with the bleak picture Fraser Hunter has painted elsewhere of the ramifications of imperial policy beyond the British frontier. The value of integrating the indigenous perspective is ably demonstrated by the FRE North Africa volume, which provides a fascinating and refreshing counterpoint to the Roman narrative. This considered appraisal of the indigenous populations allows a more balanced account of the frontier zones to emerge.
Although a more holistic approach would contextualise the military infrastructure, the FRE books succeed admirably in their stated aim of introducing and promoting knowledge of these systems. The individual volumes are handsomely illustrated in full colour, and they provide a valuable set of images from many less-familiar stretches of frontier. It would be against the spirit of the endeavour to regret that the text is not more extensive, especially given the space constraints imposed by the desire to accommodate multiple languages. Indeed, one of the major advantages of this series is that it makes an authoritative and succinct account of these frontiers easily accessible to a multi-national audience. One area where extra space could have been freed up, though, is in the opening section. The first volume in the FRE series, published in 2005, provided a prospectus for a multi-national WHS rather than an account of the archaeology of a specific frontier. This text is repeated at the beginning of all subsequent volumes, creating near-identical front sections.
An intriguing aspect of the FRE series is the extent to which the distinction between artificial and natural frontiers is evident in the way they are discussed. The linking stretches of curtain on Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall have resulted in these frontiers being treated as cohesive entities, with a focus on the overall system rather than its constituent installations. Most of the FRE volumes dedicated to the Danube adopt a different approach and delve into individual site histories in a manner more reminiscent of an itinerary. These approaches illustrate the variety of Rome's frontier works; whether they also reflect the imposition of different levels of movement control remains an open question.
