Archaeological Survey and the City

By Oxbow Books

In the past 30 years archaeological field survey has become central to the practice of Classical Archaeology. During this time, approaches have developed from the systematic collection of artefacts to include the routine deployment of various geophysical and remote sensing techniques. The ability of archaeologists to reveal the topography of buried urban sites without excavation has now been demonstrated through a wide range of projects across the ancient world. Archaeological Survey and the City reviews the results of such projects and in particular discusses the ways in which the subject might develop in the future, with an emphasis on the integration of different strands of evidence and issues of archaeological interpretation rather than on the technicalities of particular methodologies. Several themes emerge from the fourteen papers. The first is the increasing number of large-area surveys providing data at a sufficient scale to make a significant contribution to our understanding of classical cities both in the Mediterranean and beyond (eg Baelo Claudia, Caistor-by-Norwich, Xanten, Ammaia). The second theme is the generation of new types of data through the application of specific techniques to address particular questions pertaining to urban life, for instance in identifying particular industrial processes such as metal-working (eg Munigua, Wroxeter) or the increasing success in isolating cemeteries (eg Silchester). The techniques involved in identifying these phenomena complement the use of geochemical survey to characterise particular soil properties related to animal husbandry, cultivation or the creation of domestic waste deposits (eg Faleri Veteres), an area which has considerable future potential. A third theme lies in the application and integration of multiple techniques to provide new dimensions to the information available. The data from a number of survey projects have demonstrated that a single survey technique will rarely, if ever, reveal all of the potential information so there is a significant benefit to be derived from applying multiple survey-strategies to the questions being asked of a site. These themes emphasise the dynamism of research in this area, which continues to revolutionise the study of ancient cities.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: Dec 31, 2012
• ISBN: 9781782970873

Book preview

1  Introduction

Paul Johnson and Martin Millett

In a key paper, ‘Mediterranean survey and the city’, published in Antiquity for 1988 John Bintliff and Anthony Snodgrass discussed the potential of archaeological field survey for exploring now-abandoned ancient cities. In the past 30 years the subject they discussed has become central to the practice of Classical Archaeology. However, during this time, approaches have developed from the systematic collection of artefacts to include the routine deployment of various geophysical and remote sensing techniques. The ability of archaeologists to reveal the topography of buried urban sites without excavation has now been demonstrated through a wide range of projects across the ancient world.

This volume results from a three-day seminar organised at the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge University from the 24–27 May 2010 which brought together researchers and practitioners active in this field to review results of such projects and in particular to discuss the ways in which the subject might develop in the future. The meeting generated stimulating discussion and debate so it was felt worthwhile to publish the papers. The emphasis of the conference and therefore the papers in this volume is on the integration of different strands of evidence and issues of archaeological interpretation rather than on the technicalities of particular methodologies. The contributions presented at the conference form the basis of the papers published here, with the addition of a paper by Jeroen Poblome who, though invited, was unfortunately unable to attend the conference. The papers given at the conference by John Creighton (on Silchester), Chris and Vince Gaffney (on visualisation), Simon James (on Dura Europos) and Nicola Terrenato (on Italian surveys), were not submitted for this volume as they will be published elsewhere.

While many recent publications have focussed on technical innovations and the increased resolution or extent of data-collection which these permit, there remains a sense that the questions which we are asking of urban surveys have not been given the same emphasis in the literature. This is potentially problematic since there is a danger that data-collection will become increasingly divorced from historical debates and interpretations unless there is a healthy dialogue between those at the cutting edge of methodological development and those using the evidence to address questions about urbanism. The aim of the conference, and the papers in this volume is to explore more thoroughly the relationships between technical and methodological advances in survey archaeology alongside a re-evaluation of the research questions which urban surveys can and should address.

The papers are organised along broadly thematic lines, beginning with three contributions on Approaches and Methods. The first two (Johnson and Millett) discuss broad approaches to urbanism deploying geophysical survey and assess how the techniques can contribute to understanding particular urban traditions. These papers are complemented by a discussion by Verhoeven which reviews new advances in aerial photography showing how these can now contribute to the subject. The second section on Surface Collection contains three contributions (by Whitelaw, Vaccaro and Poblome et al.) which explore case-studies using data from surface artefact surveys to approach the investigation of urban sites. Whitelaw’s paper on Knossos presents the results of a major survey of this key site and uses this example to make a series of fundamental points about the design and interpretation of such projects. Vaccaro and Poblome et al. both address issues raised by the interpretation of ceramics from survey, providing new perspectives on the potential of familiar material. The section on Integrating Geophysics then provides a series of site-specific examples to explore the ways in which geophysical survey is currently employed, raising important issues concerning the complementarity of different techniques and the relationship between remote sensing and excavation. The case studies, Amara West (Sudan), Carnuntum (Austria), Mariana (Corsica), Trea, Gabii and Portus (all in Italy) demonstrate both the geographical range of current work and the nature of innovative approaches with particular emphasis on the integration of different types of evidence.

The papers in this volume highlight a series of themes which are important for furthering the understanding Classical city-sites. The ideas presented here complement other strands of current scholarship which address similar issues, whether through conferences (e.g. the Urban Landscape Survey in Italy and the Mediterranean conferences held in 2007 and 2009 in Rome¹) or in the study of individual sites. The first theme is the increasing number of large-area surveys providing data at a sufficient scale to enable patterns to be identified within it. While the number of whole cities whose plans are comparatively completely known remains relatively small, an increasing number of sites are being investigated to make a significant contribution to our understanding of classical cities both in the Mediterranean and beyond (e.g. Baelo Claudia, Caistor-by-Norwich, Xanten, Ammaia). This includes the extension of knowledge of already well-known sites beyond, and within the excavated areas (e.g. Italica, Ostia, Empúries and Pompeii).

The second theme is the generation of new types of data through the application of specific techniques (whether new or well-established) to address particular questions pertaining to urban life, for instance in identifying particular industrial processes such as metal-working (e.g. Munigua, Wroxeter) or the increasing success in isolating cemeteries (e.g. Silchester). The techniques involved in identifying these phenomena complement the use of geochemical survey to characterise particular soil properties related to animal husbandry, cultivation or the creation of domestic waste deposits (e.g. Faleri Veteres), an area which has considerable future potential.

A third theme lies in the application and integration of multiple techniques to provide new dimensions to the information available. The use and interrogation of multiple data-sets ranges from a simple visual comparison of the data or vectorised geophysical interpretation, to complex statistical methods of data-fusion. The data from a number of survey projects have demonstrated that a single survey technique will rarely, if ever, reveal all of the potential information so there is a significant benefit to be derived from applying multiple survey-strategies as appropriate to the questions being asked of a site. To date, the application of multiple, complementary survey techniques has often been limited to fairly restricted areas of a site (e.g. Alexandria, Burnum, Butrint, Ephesus, Classe, Sardis, Zeugma). Finally, it is worth emphasising the increasing acquisition of three-dimensional survey data and the impact that this can have on developing archaeological interpretations of particular sites or areas within them (Dura Europos, Pompeii, Silchester, Sikyon).

These themes emphasise the dynamism of research in this area, a feature which will also be clear from the studies included in this volume. Whilst we have given prominence here to the developments in geophysical survey, we should not overlook the developing sophistication of approaches based on the surface collection of artefacts. Work in these areas has liberated the study of cities from the simple cataloguing of artefacts and the simplistic equation of pot sherds to people. The next stage in such work is surely the integration of results of surface collection more effectively with others of the survey techniques discussed here.

Acknowledgements

The conference was funded by the University of Cambridge Faculty of Classics to whom we are most grateful.

Notes

Select bibliography of projects mentioned above

The projects mentioned above, represent a sample of current and recent urban survey projects. The rationale for their inclusion ranges from the particular importance or level of interest in particular sites (e.g. Silchester), the particularly comprehensive application of remote sensing techniques applied to the site (e.g. Wroxeter), or the specific contribution made by geophysical surveys to understanding the specific manifestation of urbanism at a particular site (e.g. Munigua).

Alexandria

GABER, S., EL-FIKY, A. A., ABOU SHAGAR, A. AND MOHAMADEN, M. 1999. Electrical resistivity exploration of the Royal Ptolemic Necropolis in the Royal Quarter of Ancient Alexandria, Egypt. Archaeological Prospection 6. 1–10.

HESSE, A., ANDRIEUX, P., ATYA, M., BENECH, C., CAMER-LYNCK, C., DABAS, M., FÉCHANT, C., JOLIVET, A., KUNTZ, C., MECHLER, P., PANISSOD, C., TABBAGH, A. AND TABBAGH, J. 1998. Geophysical investigations for the location of the Heptastadium in Alexandria (Egypt). 4th meeting of E.E.G.S., Environmental and engineering geophysics, Barcelona, expanded abstracts, Sept. 4–17, 1998. 715–718.

HESSE, A. 1999. Multi-parametric survey for archaeology: how and why, or how and why not? Journal of Applied Geophysics 41. 157–168.

Ammaia

JOHNSON, P. S., CORSI, C. AND VERMEULEN, F. 2012. Ammaia (Marvão; Alto Alentejo, Portugal): a geomagnetic survey of the intra-mural area. Journal of Roman Archaeology 25. 121–45.

VERDONCK, L., TAELMAN, D. AND VERMEULEN, F. 2008. Ground-penetrating radar survey at the Roman town of Ammaia (Portugal). In Recent work in archaeological geophysics: 35–36. London: English Heritage.

VERMEULEN, F., CORSI, C., DE DAPPER, M. AND DEPREZ, S. 2005. Geoarchaeological observations on the Roman town of Ammaia. Internet Archaeology 19.

VERMEULEN, F. AND TAELMAN, D. 2010. From cityscape to landscape in Roman Lusitania: the municipium of Ammaia. In. Corsi, C. and Vermeulen, F. (eds) Changing Landscapes. The impact of Roman towns in the Western Mediterranean, Proceedings of the International Colloquium (Castelo de Vide – Marvão, 15–17 May 2008). 311–324. Bologna: Antequem.

Baelo Claudia

SILVA, P. G., BORJA, F., ZAZO, C., GOY, J. L., BARDAJ, T., DE LUQUE, L., LARIO, J. AND DABRIO, C. J. 2005. Archaeoseismic record at the ancient Roman City of Baelo Claudia (Cádiz, south Spain). Tectonophysics 408. 129–146.

Burnum

BOSCHI, F. 2011. Geophysical survey of the Burnum Archaeological site, Croatia. Archaeological Prospection 18. 117–126.

BOSCHI, F. AND GIORGI, E. 2012. The Burnum Project: an integrated approach to the study of a Roman castrum in Croatia. In. Vermeulen, F., Burgers, G-J., Keay, S. and Corsi, C. (eds). Urban Landscape Survey in Italy and the Mediterranean. 170–79. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Butrint

HOUNSLOW, M. W. and CHROSTON, P. N. 2002. Structural layout of the suburbs of Roman Butrint, southern Albania: results from a gradiometer and resistivity survey. Archaeological Prospection 9. 229–242.

Caerleon

GUEST, P. AND YOUNG, T. 2006. Mapping Isca: geophysical investigation of Priory Field, Caerleon. Archaeologia Cambrensis 155. 117–133.

Caistor St Edmund

BESCOBY, D. AND BOWDEN, W. 2008. The plan of Venta Icenorum (Caistor-by-Norwich): Interpreting a new geophysical survey. Journal of Roman Archaeology 21. 324–335.

BESCOBY, D., BOWDEN, W. AND CHROSTON, P. N. 2009. Magnetic survey at Venta Icenorum, Caistor St Edmund: survey strategies and initial results. Archaeological Prospection. 16. 287–219.

Carnuntum

NEUBAUER, W. AND EDER-HINTERLEITNER, A. 1997. Resistivity and magnetics of the Roman town Carnuntum, Austria: an example of combined interpretation of prospection data. Archaeological Prospection 4. 179–189.

NEUBAUER, W., EDER-HINTERLEITNER, A., SEREN, S. AND MELICHAR, P. 2002. Georadar in the Roman civil town Carnuntum, Austria: an approach for archaeological interpretation of GPR data. Archaeological Prospection 9. 135–156.

Classe

BOSCHI, F. 2006. Le prospezioni geofisiche, In A. Augenti (a.c.) La basilica e il monastero di San Severo a Classe. La storia, gli scavi: 20–21. Ravenna: Ravennantica.

BOSCHI, F. 2012. Nuove indagini integrate a Classe (RA). Stato attuale e prospettive di ricerca. In Vermeulen, F., Burgers, G-J., Keay, S. and Corsi, C. (eds). Urban Landscape Survey in Italy and the Mediterranean. 138–48. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Dura Europos

BENECH, C. 2007. New Approach to the Study of City Planning and Domestic Dwellings in the Ancient Near East. Archaeological Prospection 14. 87–103.

Empúries

AQUILUE, X., CASTANYER, P., JORDAN, D., SANTOS, M. AND TREMOLEDA, J. 2000. Resultats del projecte de prospeccions electromagnetiques a la ciutat romana d’Empúries (L’Escala, Alt Emporda). Empuries 52. 261–279.

Ephesus

GROH, S. 2012. Strategies and results of the urban survey in the Upper City of Ephesus. In Vermeulen, F., Burgers, G-J., Keay, S. and Corsi, C. (eds). Urban Landscape Survey in Italy and the Mediterranean. 62–71. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Falerii Veteres

CARLUCCI, C., DE LUCIA BROLLI, M. A., KEAY, S., MILLETT, M. AND STRUTT, K. 2007. An archaeological survey of the Faliscan settlement at Vignale, Falerii Veteres (Province of Viterbo). Papers of the British School at Rome LXXV. 39–121.

OPITZ, R. 2010. Integrating lidar and geophysical surveys at Falerii Novi and Falerii Veteres (Viterbo). Papers of the British School at Rome LXXVII. 1–27.

Italica

RODRIGUEZ HIDALGO, J. M., KEAY, S., JORDAN, D. AND CREIGHTON, J. 1999. La Italica de Adriano. Resultados de las prospecciones arqueolgicas de 1991 y 1993. Archivo Español de Arqueología 72. 73–98.

Munigua

MEYER, C., ULLRICH, B. AND BARLIEB, B. M. 2007. Archaeological questions and geophysical solutions: ground-penetrating radar and induced polarization investigations in Munigua, Spain. Archaeological Prospection 14. 202–212.

Ostia

HEINZELMANN, M., BECKER, H., EDER, K. AND STEPHANI, M. 1997. Vorbericht zu einer geophysikalischen Prospektionskampagne in Ostia Antica. Römische Mitteilungen 104. 537–548.

HEINZELMANN, M. 1998. Arbeitsbericht zu einer zweiten geophysikalischen Prospektionskampagne in Ostia Antica. Römische Mitteilungen 105. 425–429.

Pompeii

DI MAIO, R., FEDI, M., LAMANNA, M., GRIMALDI, M. AND PAPPALARDO, U. 2010. The contribution of geophysical prospecting in the reconstruction of the buried ancient environments of the House of Marcus Fabius Rufus (Pompeii, Italy). Archaeological Prospection 17. 259–269.

Portus

KEAY, S., MILLETT, M., PAROLI, L. AND STRUTT, K. 2005. Portus. An archaeological survey of the port of imperial Rome. Archaeological Monographs of The British School at Rome 15. London: British School at Rome.

Sagalassos

MARTENS, F. 2005. The archaeological urban survey of Sagalassos (south-west Turkey): the possibilities and limitations of surveying a ‘non-typical’ classical site. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24. 229–254.

Sardis

DRAHOR, M. G. 2006. Integrated geophysical studies in the upper part of Sardis archaeological site, Turkey. Journal of Applied Geophysics 59. 205–223.

Silchester

CREIGHTON, J. 1997. Silchester Roman Town: Insula IX, Resistivity Survey, 8 July 1997. Unpublished report: University of Reading

LINFORD, N., LINFORD, P., MARTIN, L. AND PAYNE, A. 2010. Stepped frequency ground-penetrating radar survey with a multi-element array antenna: results from field application on archaeological sites. Archaeological Prospection 17. 187–198.

LINFORD, N. 2001. Silchester Roman Town, Hampshire. Report on Ground Penetrating Radar Survey, March 2000. Report 9/2001, English Heritage Centre for Archaeology.

Sikyon

LOLOS, Y. A., GOURLEY, B. AND STEWART, D. R. 2007. The Sikyon Survey Project: a blueprint for urban survey. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20(2). 267–296.

Wroxeter/Wroxeter Hinterland Project

BUTEAUX, S., GAFFNEY, V., WHITE, R. AND VAN LEUSEN, M. 2000. Wroxeter Hinterland Project and Geophysical Survey at Wroxeter. Archaeological Prospection 7. 69–80.

GAFFNEY, C. F., GATER, J. A., LINFORD, P., GAFFNEY, V. L. AND WHITE, R. 2000. Large-scale systematicfluxgate gradiometry at the Roman city of Wroxeter. Archaeological Prospection 7. 81–99.

GAFFNEY, V. AND GAFFNEY, C. (eds). 2000. Special Issue: Non-invasive investigations at Wroxeter at the end of the Twentieth Century, Archaeological Prospection 7(2).

VAN LEUSEN, P. M. 1999. The Viroconium Cornoviorum Atlas: high resolution, high precision non-invasive mapping of a Roman civitas capital in Britain. European Journal of Archaeology 2(3). 393–405.

Xanten

SCOLLAR, I. 1961. Magnetic Prospecting in the Rhineland. Archaeometry, Vol. 4, 74–75.

Zeugma

DRAHOR, M. G., BERGE, M. A., KURTULMUS, T. Ö., HARTMANN, M. AND SPEIDEL, M. A. 2008. Magnetic and Electrical Resistivity Tomography Investigations in a Roman Legionary Camp Site (Legio IV Scythica) in Zeugma, Southeastern Anatolia, Turkey. Archaeological Prospection 15. 159–186.

APPROACHES AND METHODS

2  Conceptualising Townscapes: Perceptions of Urbanism and their Influence on Archaeological Survey Strategies

Paul Johnson

Introduction

When John Bintliff and Anthony Snodgrass wrote their seminal 1988 article ‘Mediterranean Survey and the City’, they highlighted a series of problems with approaching urban sites through non-intrusive methods. Despite technical developments in archaeological survey over the two decades since the article was written, to some extent these problems remain intractable. Historical processes, continuity of occupation and extensive excavations limit the accessibility of well-known sites such as Ostia, Pompeii or Rome for comprehensive study. Of the problems highlighted, perhaps the most important for archaeological survey strategies, was to contextualise urban sites within their rural hinterlands (Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988: 57), something which increasingly is being attempted through multiple methodologies as ever-larger areas are surveyed with geophysics as well as surface-collection methodologies (see e.g. Carreté et al. 1995; Gaffney et al. 2007; Keay et al. 2005; Whitelaw 2008, this volume). Geophysical survey techniques are now applied to urban sites with regularity and the information derived from work carried-out on green-field sites such as Carnuntum, Falerii Novi, Portus and Wroxeter, to name but a few, has substantially added to the overall corpus of data available for urban sites in the Roman world. As technologies for undertaking archaeological survey push the boundaries of precision in the instrumentation used, increasing resolution to the point where physical factors are the greatest limitation to increasing the spatial accuracy of the readings made, it is critical that the interpretations derived from work undertaken on these urban sites is situated within a social and academic context. The problems in conception and execution of field survey in the study of Roman rural landscapes have, relatively recently, been usefully addressed (Witcher 2006). Geophysical survey must be used to complement other forms of evidence and to partake in current academic discourse, for example, where studies of urbanism are focussed on attempts to understand the social use of space, and to move beyond restricted research agendas that aim merely to capture site plans. To exploit the rich evidence available from urban surveys fully we need to address the issue of context explicitly, to acknowledge the ways in which towns can be conceptualised, the effect these concepts have on survey strategies and how the data might be harnessed to engage with wider debates on urbanism and urban-living in the Roman Empire.

Research objectives for urban archaeological surveys

Traditionally, objectives of survey projects have related to defining the form of urban sites, locating foci of activity and attempting to define the edges of urban areas where there is an incomplete record from other sources. In addition, a number of projects have undertaken large-scale survey in the hinterlands of known sites in order to determine sub-urban zones of occupation and to investigate the nature of the transitions between urban sites and their surrounding areas. In comparison to the extensive, surface-collection-based surveys which comprised the majority of projects in the 1970s and ’80s, the information provided by intensive geophysical surveys offers the possibility to ask and address different research questions.

Defining the location of previously unknown urban sites was, and still is, often a large part of the outcome of extensive surface-surveys based primarily on the collection of material from plough-soil assemblages, of the type described by Bintliff and Snodgrass (1988). A number of geophysical surveys have also attempted to locate sites within geographical areas such as the Celone valley in southern Italy or the Tiber valley in central Italy, where little or nothing was previously known about the extent or location of smaller settlements (e.g. Ciminale et al. 2007; Gaffney et al. 2004; Millett and Patterson 1998). This type of approach enables a more detailed plan of buried remains to be made available for further research, or heritage management purposes than is possible through information derived from artefact collection. The most common objective of urban geophysical survey therefore has been to describe the plan or physical layout of a particular town, whatever the circumstances of its discovery (e.g. Bescoby et al. 2009; Drahor 2006). While a useful prerequisite for further study, it could be argued convincingly that, at its most basic level, this was little better than ‘wall chasing’ more akin to excavations such as those undertaken at the beginning of the twentieth century by the Society of Antiquaries at Silchester (as discussed by Fulford and Clarke 2002), than a rigorous academic endeavour intended to discuss the nature of urban life (Spoerry 1992: 2).

The questions of settlement extent and urban/rural relationships are closely interlinked and are also dependent upon how we as surveyors conceptualise the town. Studies of Roman urbanism have typically been based on the assumption that a strong dichotomy exists between the city and countryside, both conceptually and physically (Goodman 2007: 4). However, in text-based studies of Roman thought, the legal unity of city and countryside within an administrative boundary is stressed as being implicit in ancient understandings of an urban entity (see Agusta-Boularot 1998; Arnaud 1998; Champlin 1982; Chevallier 1998; Goodman 2007: 8–9; also Reynolds 1988: 15–16). This dichotomy between urban and rural is in some ways a false one and in reality there is often seen to be a gradual change in land-use and density of occupation as one moves further from the urban core (e.g. Carreté et al. 1995: 248–253; Witcher 2005).

Whilst this understanding is not often carried through to survey design, the strong evidence for planned extra-mural areas at sites such as Falerii Novi (Hay et al. 2010) calls into question the definition of urban areas purely on the basis of locating a wall circuit or other boundary feature. The urban population was highly likely to have used extra-mural areas intensively and they influenced the way a city would have presented itself to, or have been perceived by, people approaching it from afar. These areas, traditionally understood as funerary or distinct from the ‘real’ intra-mural city, offer the possibility to understand more fully the lives of people occupying or otherwise using the urban environment. These urban/rural relationships are further complicated by the liminality and impermanence of the extra-mural zone which requires a far-reaching survey strategy taking into account the likely extent of the hinterland of a given urban site, the definition of which is itself not unproblematic. Though such projects exist, utilising a variety of strategies (e.g. Buteaux 2000; Creighton pers. comm.; Hounslow and Chroston 2002; Martens et al. 2008; Waelkens and Poblome 1997; Waelkens and Loots 2000; White and Gaffney 2003), their scope precludes such an approach from being universally applied in situations where funding and time are material considerations. The development of properly integrated studies of extra-mural zones surrounding known urban sites at a high level of detail and with a consistent and affordable methodology is therefore a high priority.

Some recent projects have also begun to attempt to characterise geophysical responses in order to indicate discrete areas of activity within the urban whole, using a combination of geophysical techniques to infer the presence of industrial or artisanal quarters (notably Gaffney et al. 2000; Neubauer and Eder-Hinterleitner 1997: 187–188; and Lolos et al. 2007). These attempts have to date been particularly successful in combining magnetic (both gradiometry and susceptibility) measurements with structural information derived from GPR or resistance data, and there is also great potential for geochemical analyses to contribute to this line of questioning (e.g. Carlucci et al. 2007; Loveluck et al. 2011; Oonk et al. 2009). This line of research offers significant potential to develop the level of understanding about patterns of occupation that it is possible to attain solely through non-intrusive investigation of these sites.

One of the most commonly levelled criticisms of geophysical research as applied to archaeological survey, whether justified or not, is that the desire to develop new technologies and applications, and the quest for increased precision in survey techniques and equipment, drives new survey projects more than research questions with a wider relevance to our understanding of past societies. In some ways, the necessarily technical instruction required in order to conduct this type of work endorses such an assertion. Recent syntheses of the state of the discipline have focussed on the technical aspects even where they acknowledge the importance of archaeologically focussed research questions (e.g. Gaffney 2008: 115; Conyers and Leckebusch 2010), and perhaps therefore do not refute these criticisms robustly enough.

Conceptualisations of towns

Whatever the motivation, methodology or objective of an urban study, their design is commonly influenced by implicit concepts of what a city constitutes, looks like and means. As students of ancient material culture, we rely on a more limited data-set to address questions about the nature, meaning and use of urban space than is available to sociological studies of phenomena in recent or modern urbanism (e.g. Gottdiener 1985; Park et al. 1925; Reiner and Hindery 1984). It is therefore imperative to understand these biases fully, in order to realise the interpretative potential of the available data, to move beyond current limitations and to develop new strategies and methodologies which rely not on technical advances, but rather on the more careful application of existing techniques to answer specific archaeological, and social, questions.

Physical spaces

Many traditional studies of urbanism have been solely focussed on the importance of understanding the physical fabric of the city. Haverfield’s Ancient Town Planning (1913) was one of a number of works which set the tone for an essentially architectural approach to understanding urbanism. This approach, which seeks to categorise urban sites on the basis of the presence or absence of easily identifiable architectural features, derives from the premise that classical Roman cities should exhibit some degree of standardisation in plan and the suite of buildings present (Brogiolo 1999: 247). This approach has, to a degree, been dominated by discussions about public or otherwise monumental architecture, as these features are most readily identifiable in the archaeological record. The greater proportion of most urban sites are, however, composed of private residences and areas of restricted access. The contribution which these can make to understandings of urban occupation and life within ancient cities should be explored further, as has been successfully undertaken through excavation at, for example, the House of Amarantus in Pompeii (Fulford and Wallace-Hadrill 1998), or in the ongoing excavations and geophysical survey work undertaken at Silchester (Clarke and Fulford 2002; Creighton 1997; Linford et al. 2010; Martin 2000).

An orthogonal street-grid or plan is often seen to be the quintessential indicator of a Roman town foundation. Yet the great paradox in this understanding is that Rome itself would barely qualify on this basis (Orr 1983: 93), and it is unlikely, on this criterion, that the City would be identified as ‘highly Romanised’ if found ex-novo under a field somewhere in southern Etruria. Although Rome is often acknowledged to stand outside wider Roman-period urban norms, and orthogonal plans are widespread elsewhere in the Empire, the lack of such regulated planning does not exclude a site from designation as a town/city or important centre. Nor should the mere presence of orthogonality be used to suggest a particular origin or motivation for the foundation of particular cities. Woolf (2000: 118) has offered a comparison between the form of colonial Roman town-foundations in the provinces and their native predecessors, citing the example of Bibracte and Autun, which demonstrate clearly the superficial similarities in plan between the two sites. However, the employment at Autun of gates constructed in a way which consciously referenced a northern Italian tradition of defensive circuits might support a subversion of this apparent similarity and the establishment of a dichotomy between the ‘native’ and ‘Imperial’ forms of monumentality. This overt blending of cultural traditions could be ascribed to a specifically Imperial, rather than Republican, practice, and in this context would argue for a greater willingness of local populations to associate themselves with the dominant political power (Ward-Perkins 1970: 1, 11–12), whilst retaining structural elements within the townscape which could serve to tie a community to its historical roots. A sense of continuity in social organisation and cultural tradition, modified through the changing power-structure of Imperial hegemony seems to be a likely explanation and something which must figure in interpretations of town plans. Similarly, a re-evaluation of the geophysical survey data from Falerii Novi shows that an original orthogonally-planned city can, over time, develop into a less orthogonal form, determined by socio-cultural constraints and shaped by social memory. The final form of which harks back to a pre-Roman antecedent, rather than demonstrating a continued and rigorous adherence to supposed planning norms which might be expected as a result of greater integration into Imperial power-structures (Millett 2007; Hay et al. 2010).

The largely architectural viewpoint often espoused in respect of survey data does not allow for the wide variations in urban forms acknowledged even in antiquity (Pausanius, Description of Greece x 4.1; contra Owens 1991). Particular fixations with the relationship between Roman military planning and urban foundation should be re-assessed (see for example Gros and Torelli 1988: 130–131), and it is imperative to consider a plurality of cause for the adoption of particular urban plans, in particular the tensions between ideological, cosmological and practical considerations (see for example (Rykwert 1976: 60–62; also Carl et al. 2000 for discussions of the tension between praxis and ideology in a wider variety of contexts). We must acknowledge that planning decisions may have been taken for a number of reasons, and that similar motivations may have resulted in localised differences in physical form. Investigations of geophysical survey data that acknowledge this bias and advance interpretations to better understand the origins, chronology, and development of urban plans will improve the research agenda and result in more robust discussions that do not focus simply upon the identification of a plan and public buildings.

Economic spaces

The work of Finley and the ‘Cambridge School’ in ancient economic history had the effect of focussing discussions of ancient urbanism on the economic sphere (see, for example the influential: Finley 1973; Garnsey 1983; 1983a; 1998; Hopkins 1980; 2002). This academic initiative is particularly evident in the widespread adoption and discussion of the ‘consumer city’ model (Weber 1958), of which it has been said that the ‘consumer city is by far the best available model that actually defines an ancient city in economic terms’ (Laurence 1994: 10). There are, however, problems in its application (Whittaker 1990; 1995), and strong arguments that the ideal types were not applicable to actual historical examples (Finley 1973: 123–124). This extensive discourse belies the idea that the economic role of cities in the ancient world is understated (contra Owens 1991: 3). On the contrary, it is all too common for the economic aspects of urban life to be presented as the dominant or only line of enquiry, especially within synthetic works. The widespread use of Weberian ideal types as an explanatory framework for ancient urbanism has, in fact, had the unfortunate consequence of limiting discussion of ancient urbanism to the economic sphere (Lomas 1997: 21–22). More recently the work of the Oxford ‘Roman Economy Project’ has endeavoured to update approaches to Roman economy in light of recent and current research (e.g. Bowman and Wilson 2009; forthcoming), which has led to renewed debate about issues in the Roman Economy (e.g. Scheidel 2009; Wilson 2009 for a response), with concomitant implications for understanding Roman urbanism.

The challenge posed by scholastic concentration on economic questions is to integrate the information available from geophysical survey into a discussion of ancient economies and the use of space. I have argued elsewhere that there is a close link between economic practices and the character and usage of urban spaces (Johnson 2010: 168, 186–190); the onus is placed firmly on developing modes of interpretation which allow us to access information pertaining to industrial or economic activities within urban spaces. This information may be more difficult to access through geophysical survey, a medium more suited to the recovery of structural data, but it is by no means impossible. An approach to the data which prioritises the description of features categorised on the basis of observed geophysical properties should be one of the main avenues of future research. This focus would have the potential to provide information pertaining to industrial processes with significant and recognisable geophysical and magnetic properties such as the firing of ceramics, smelting and working of iron (e.g. Gaffney et al. 2000; Marmet et al. 1999), and even conceivably the presence of installations relating to daily activities such as baking and cooking food. If we begin from an understanding of the geophysical properties of known features of these types (for example, through excavation following survey), we can derive a means to identify them solely through non-intrusive methods and, indeed, re-visit older data and seek out these features on that basis.

Social spaces

In order to enrich our discourse we are exhorted to engage in discussions about the social nature of space and the way in which people occupied and used urban sites, using the physical fabric of the town as a proxy for socio-cultural activities (e.g. Leone 2007: 33). These activities would have encompassed not only how people occupied, lived in and modified their personal spaces but also how they interacted with each other within them and how public spaces mediated social relationships, the way that people moved through and focussed their activities in different areas within the city, and the different ways that residents and visitors may have experienced the city. Whilst we may still be some way from being able to fully understand the ‘townscape’ (Zanker 1998: 3, 28), the contribution of archaeological survey to understanding the relationships between closely associated buildings offers great potential to engage in these debates. The vast scale that geophysical survey affords, in comparison to excavation, is its great advantage for investigating social space. Although resolution, difficulties in the interpretation of chronological relationships and the lack of material information (i.e. artefact distributions, construction materials, etc.), are significant drawbacks of geophysical survey, there are important possibilities for the discussion of social space on the city-wide scale based on roads, alignments, boundaries, structured open spaces, building plans, and other visible features (e.g. pipes, drains, etc.). The advantages provided by this scale of information are the opportunities to discuss possible status differentiation across sites, perhaps to identify poverty through differential types of housing and their location or zoning within the town and to approach an understanding of the lifestyles of ordinary people living in the more numerous, though often less well understood, insulae.

Advancing an agenda

Studying urbanism invariably involves a combination of physical and social organisation in both public and private spaces. Developing an approach to archaeological survey data which explicitly acknowledges these connections and interrelationships is crucial to placing the study of these data within mainstream academic discourse. Elements of this data-set can be used and combined or compared in different ways in order to generate interpretative frameworks which will enable this medium to engage more fully with, and contribute to wider research on Roman urbanism.

Public/monumental buildings

Monumental urban structures can provide a great deal of information about aspects of life in Roman towns. They provide evidence to elucidate the relationships between urban social elites, their priorities for display and the overarching power structures of the Empire. Rather than producing a catalogue of buildings, conforming to an expected type-series, the presence of these buildings in survey data should be assessed within the context of the surrounding urban topography and in a way which addresses the probable motivations behind the decisions leading to their construction or modification. Particular structures such as fora, temples and other public buildings show clearly in geophysical survey results, for example as seen at Falerii Novi where the central Forum and several temples are clear within the gradiometry plots (Keay et al. 2000, figs 10, 12, 16, 22 and 25). The presence of certain forms of monumental architecture should not be read unproblematically as indicators of particular social attitudes, conforming to an Empire-wide architectural ideal, but should be analysed critically as indicators of underlying ambitions and the response of particular social groups to the political realities of life under the Empire. These monumental buildings should not only be seen as part of a checklist of ‘Roman’ elements but also as a way of understanding how the population of a city chose to display elements of their social identities and mediate their practices through particular, easily recognisable architectural forms. Open spaces such as fora or markets are also of great value in understanding how a city may have functioned as a place where social interactions were played out. The presence of areas without occupation may be interpreted in a number of ways, but it is the relationships between these structured spaces which enable a holistic interpretation of the urban form to be arrived at.

Private spaces

Although monumental buildings are relatively easily identifiable through geophysical survey and they have tended to be the traditional focus of research on urban space(Özgenel 2007: 239; Zanker 2000: 41), the data available from geophysical surveys can also provide a great deal of information about private spaces. In wider archaeological research, studies of domestic space through material culture assemblages tend to focus on activities relating to food and drink (e.g. Nevett 2010: 142) and the uses of particular rooms (e.g. Allison 2004). Geophysical survey is clearly not yet able to provide detail about artefact distributions and surface collection survey is not capable of discerning patterns of activity at an inter-room level, though it has been attempted for larger spatial units at sites such as Falerii Novi, Sikyon and Sagalassos, with mixed results (e.g. Keay et al. 2000: 70, 74–75; Lolos et al. 2007; Martens 2005). The analysis of plans, arrangement of rooms and identification of particular features are however all possible avenues of research where data from geophysical survey can be usefully employed

Detailed studies of accessibility using excavated or otherwise extant evidence have been undertaken which approach issues of visibility and interconnectedness through the concept of directed movement (e.g. Ellis 2004: 381–383). The use of domestic spaces has been a particularly well-studied topic in relation to the Vesuvian cities (see Allison 2004; Jones and