TRAC 2011: Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference

By Oxbow Books

This volume was derived from the twenty-first annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, which took place at the University of Newcastle (14-17 April 2011).

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: Mar 30, 2012
• ISBN: 9781842178522

Book preview

Preface

The twenty-first Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC) was held in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, between 14—17 April 2011. The conference featured a rich array of sessions—focusing on themes of identity, moved communities and diaspora, gender and masculinity, the Roman army, questions of theory in the works of R.G. Collingwood, Roman trade and consumption, anthropological archaeology approaches to Roman colonialism, and two general sessions loosely focused on matters of landscape and religion—and drew postgraduate, established academic, and professional participants from across the UK, the European continent, the near east, and North America. The result was a lively and diverse extended weekend of discussion, debate, and fun.

While this was the twenty-first occurrence of TRAC, it was also the twentieth anniversary of the very first conference, itself held in Newcastle upon Tyne. For this reason we wanted to include some form of retrospective element to the conference and its proceedings, and inviting Eleanor Scott—TRAC’s founder—provided perspective on how/if TRAC has changed over the years. Our thanks must go to Eleanor, and also to Professors Richard Hingley and Martin Millet, who ensured that Sunday morning’s ‘Retrospective Session’ was lively and useful in evaluating the on-going health of the conference. TRAC is often run by postgraduate students, and is quite rightly seen as a safe environment for postgraduates and early career researchers to present and test ideas, but it also needs to remain relevant in the wider world of Roman studies. Although it has come to provide a valuable opportunity for postgraduates, TRAC is not a ‘postgraduate conference,’ and the continued attendance and input of established archaeologists remain vital to its endurance.

As well as looking back, the retrospective session was meant to prompt us to look forward, to debate how TRAC can continue to be a dynamic arena for new ideas, and how the volume can remain an appealing place for high-quality research to be published. We feel that this can be achieved, at least in part, by continuing the practice of having the papers for the volume reviewed prior to publication. We would also like to suggest that in each volume of TRAC proceedings, there should be a review of the previous volume. The volume is usually reviewed elsewhere, but having an internal review will allow TRAC to become reflective; to learn from mistakes and build on successes. Unfortunately, as this idea came late in the publication timetable, we have been unable to begin this with the current volume, but strongly encourage our successors to offer a critical review of this volume in TRAC 2012.

As others who have organised conferences like TRAC know very well, it is an arduous, involving, yet ultimately very rewarding process. Part of this process includes the selection of papers to include in the programme of sessions. A sign of TRAC’s popularity is the large number of abstracts received from our call for papers. Unfortunately, these exceeded the space and time available for the TRAC 2011 conference, and we had to carefully consider each abstract. A guiding principle in the selection was the degree to which each paper promised to engage with theory; abstracts that were completely devoid of theory were rejected, as we were committed to keeping the ‘theoretical’ emphasis of the ‘Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference.’ In the end, we were very pleased with the standard of papers chosen for the conference.

As with the conference itself, the selection of papers for the present volume was difficult. We received fewer abstracts for this, and were disappointed that some of our favourite papers from the conference were not submitted, but still had to choose some papers over others. The final decision on which papers to include in the volume was ours alone, but we continued the practice set by our predecessors of having each submitted paper reviewed by experts in the field; thus, we received comments and publication recommendations from eminent Roman archaeologists. These comments—along with our own—were passed along to each author, and papers were improved and narrowed down to those presented here. The volume contains a total of ten papers, plus two specially requested contributions by Eleanor Scott and Lindsay Allason-Jones.

The degree to which each paper in this volume is ‘theoretical’ may become a subject for debate. Some of the papers specifically focus on particular theoretical approaches, and may be considered explicitly theoretical in nature. Most, however, provide more practical application of theory in the context of Roman archaeology than in-depth consideration of the adopted theory itself. In our view, both types of paper provide proper engagement with theory for inclusion in a TRAC volume. These papers, we feel, broadly reflect the tone and themes of the conference. We may not always agree with the ideas or theories put forward in the papers, and they do not all represent definitive findings but, instead, on-going research. TRAC is, however, meant to be a place where new methodologies and theories can be proposed, as long as they are backed up with data, appropriate study, and critical analysis.

Eleanor Scott’s introduction to this volume describes a particular success of TRAC in helping to provide an equal forum for male and female researchers. Her involvement in the conference and the publication has been both beneficial and revealing. In a meeting she casually asked the two female members of the editorial committee whether the papers in the volume were equally split by gender. That it had not occurred to us to query this is clearly testament to the changes in Roman archaeology since she organised the first conference; consideration of the attendance and participation at the recent TRAC conferences reveals its continuing egalitarian nature. Additionally, whilst the gender split in the 2012 Roman Archaeology Conference might not be exactly equal, it reflects the influence TRAC has had on the composition of ‘mainstream’ Roman research.

Quite unintentionally, the papers presented at TRAC 2011, and those published in the volume, were from a roughly equal number of male and female researchers. However, the review panel for the volume was predominantly made up of male academics. This probably reflects inequalities in the structure of academia more than lingering sexism in the discipline, but also suggests that it might take time for the influence of TRAC to be reflected in the Roman archaeology ‘establishment.’ Scott’s introduction to the first proceedings described how female scholars who attempted to remain in Roman archaeology received ‘no patronage, but have been merely patronised.’ That this is no longer the case is—in part—a product of twenty-one years of TRAC.

Following Scott’s introduction, Lindsay Allason-Jones provides a summary of her exceptional plenary lecture, considering the importance of theory and TRAC’s contribution to Roman archaeology, with useful advice and an important call for the current TRAC generation to move forward with boldness. The ten papers then begin with Stephen Leach, who considers the ideas of British philosopher and historian R.G. Collingwood to identify possible seeds of contemporary archaeological theory. Darrell J. Rohl introduces the ancient tradition of chorography, identifying its theoretical foundations and considering its potential for new approaches to archaeologies of place. Karim Mata brings anthropological archaeology perspectives to bear on Roman colonialism and globalisation in the lower Rhineland. Astrid Van Oyen considers the potential of actor-network-theory in archaeology, using the example of analysis of knowledge systems in terra sigillata production. Meike Weber focuses on the fine details and potters’ stamps of samian ware to consider questions of production and consumer choice in the Roman economy. Edward Biddulph raises the Darwinian evolution-inspired memetics to consider the role of cultural evolution in Roman funerary traditions. Nicky Garland uses the evidence from Chichester and its surroundings to consider the hybrid functional/social/symbolic significance of constructed boundaries in the landscapes of the Late Iron Age-Roman transition period of Britain. Elizabeth M. Greene considers the social role of women on military frontiers through a cross-cultural comparison of Sulpicia Lepidina and Elizabeth Custer. Carol van Driel-Murray challenges the view of local recruitment in the Roman army, highlighting the evidence for extreme mobility among Batavian units. The volume ends with Michael Mulryan, who rethinks the map and movement networks of late antique and early medieval Rome, arguing that the establishment of early Christian devotional pathways stem from earlier pagan traditions. These papers cover a broad range of topics, all of which are relevant to current work in Roman archaeology.

To conclude, we would like to offer thanks to all those members of the TRAC 2011 organising committee, and to all the students and volunteers who helped to make the conference a success. Special thanks to Professor Ian Haynes, Dr. Jane Webster, Dr. Kevin Greene, Lindsay Allason-Jones, and the members of the TRAC Standing Committee for their support, advice, and assistance throughout the conference and editorial process. Thanks to all of our anonymous reviewers, whose expertise was essential in helping us with final paper selection and in helping individual authors strengthen the papers. We also thank Oxbow Books for continuing to support TRAC through the publication of our proceedings, and especially thank our individual authors for their stimulating ideas and research.

Maria Duggan, Frances McIntosh, and Darrell J. Rohl

Introduction: The Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Turns 21

Eleanor Scott

The plenary session, ‘Retrospective Discussion’ which I chaired at the Newcastle TRAC in April 2011 marked the twenty-first anniversary of a conference that was designed as a probable one-off and which has run every year since. As the original creator and organiser of TRAC, I was absolutely delighted to return to the fold for a very fine weekend of theoretical archaeology amongst Romanists old and new. For the Retrospective, I shared a platform with Martin Millett and Richard Hingley and a very lively and enjoyable hour and a half it was, too, of anecdotes, Q&A, discussion and reminders of just how much TRAC has achieved and just how far Roman Archaeology has come over the past generation.

Some of the previous characteristics of Roman archaeology that we reminded ourselves about during that Retrospective were most likely unknown to younger scholars. The moment that I mentioned—with knowing nods from Lindsay Allason-Jones and Carol van Driel Murray—that it was, ‘back in the day,’ frequently possible to be the only female speaker at an entire Roman archaeology conference, there was some startled laughter. We should never underestimate or overlook TRAC’s achievement in creating an egalitarian vehicle for men and women alike. Further, TRAC’s achievements lie not just within itself, but in what it has propelled others to do. Take RAC (the Roman Archaeology Conference), for example. TRAC’s influence was not just that it was felt necessary by some to create this mainstream response, but TRAC caused that response to be shaped in such a way that it created yet another significant platform upon which female archaeologists might be heard equally with male, and about strategic issues as well as operational ones.

During the Retrospective Discussion we touched on an issue that it was really only possible to do with the benefit of a generation’s hindsight. The question was posed: was the first TRAC an over-reaction to a non-problem, or was it useful and necessary? Richard Hingley and Martin Millett were quite certain. TRAC has mattered, and mattered significantly. It has stripped away much of the self-involved stratification and self-importance of the subject, and taken us away from a place where senior scholars got up and left a conference hall when a postgraduate took to the platform, and brought us to a world where fresh new ideas are valued for the message and not the perceived social characteristics of the messenger. The audience at the Retrospective were in agreement that a scholar’s particular narrative did not have any natural authority simply because of their position in the world, and TRAC had helped to eradicate this unwanted academic elitism within the discipline. Equally, women working in archaeology had their work re-valued from being ‘just’ whatever it was—‘small finds’, ‘gender stuff’, ‘babies’—to being actual archaeology. Crucially, ownership of ideas and the study of bodies of material became open to all. Nobody ‘owned’ the interpretation of Hadrian’s Wall or hoards or Italian landscapes. Postgraduates in particular were and are welcome to come along and turn established knowledge on its head, and demonstrate and connect with layers upon layers of meaning within the data and within the texts and within the subsequent modern narratives. The result was that TRAC helped to establish professional careers that otherwise might not have been established.

That being said, TRAC does need to maintain a healthy balance between being a confidence-and career-enhancing platform for postgraduates and being a valued academic conference with some key-note speakers scattered throughout. What it is not, and should never be, is a seminar for the submission of research outlines for group discussion. As I stressed during the Retrospective, the original TRAC was inhabited by a large number of already established contributors, as well as those who would go on to become established and ‘elevated’ within their fields whether that be in the field or in academia (or both). One way or another, we were mostly professional archaeologists. I had just completed post-doctoral research funded by the British Academy and was working for RCHME. The roll call from the first TRAC conference, which I read out, is interesting: Sue Alcock, Brian Boyd, Geoff Carter, John Casey, Simon Clarke, Jon Coulson, Peter van Dommelen, Kevin Greene, Karen Griffiths, Richard Hingley, Ian Hodder, Kurt Hunter-Mann, Martin Jones, Rick Jones, Martin Millett, Richard Reece, Rob Rippengal, Ross Samson, Sarah Scott, Pat Southern and Greg Woolf. This first conference line-up was a real mix of contributors (and contributions), from the UK, the Netherlands and the USA, and it started a tradition that worked extremely well. I also thanked many others who were part of the culture of the time in and around Newcastle that was questioning traditional Romanism, whether it be excavation methodologies and interpretations, or academic narratives, such as Paul Bidwell, Nick Hodgson and Tony Wilmott. The fact that attendees such as Wilmott and van Driel-Murray were prepared to contribute quality papers to TRAC 2 and beyond helped to create a series with—to use the modern term—‘traction.’

The TRAC tradition, it was clear from the Retrospective, is also predicated on it being a friendly place. TRAC may be edgy, but it is safe. No-one gets ripped to shreds at TRAC. Noone’s ego is allowed to take precedence over a researcher’s presentation and learning process. This, it emerged, was a critical factor in TRAC’s continued success. Yet is has not driven down ‘production values.’ Far from it—the content of the papers at TRACs in recent years has been very rewarding and the contents of the peer-reviewed volumes excellent. This volume proves these points. The ten papers selected to represent the conference not only look at the possible meanings of the ways in which the archaeological data presents itself but reach fascinating conclusions and suggest future research avenues. I have particularly enjoyed how they have taken possession of strands of some established areas of research, from terra sigillata to Vindolanda, and shown how framing questions in alternative ways allows the data to be better, or differently, understood. TRAC as ever is an invitation to come and talk about not just which complex data sets one is studying, but how they are being studied.

For example, Van Oyen’s paper on terra sigillata brings to us a sophisticated conceptual landscape rather than simple pottery production, development and distribution. Weber asks if terra sigillata has yet given up to us all possible information on the Roman economy, and in interrogating the data she reveals how much more there is to be discovered about consumer patterns and decision-making; Biddulph also effectively emphasises actors and agency, and examines evolutionary traits and deposition in a radical way. Green’s paper on the social role of women on a military frontier is a riot of information on different social and historical contexts, and looks at gender writ large within social and military space; whilst van Driel-Murray examines displacement and mobility with particular reference to the Batavian context in a typically sparkling and detailed piece of work. Alongside this, looking at the military role in and the meaning of ‘romanisation’ in the Lower Rhineland, Mata shows how closer engagement with anthropological and ethnographic scholarship by Roman archaeologists can stimulate their historical imagination and enhance archaeological interpretations. Rohl, looking ahead to new possibilities in the study of the Antonine Wall, takes a word so beloved of archaeologists—region—and subjects the representation of region to scrutiny through analysis of the ‘deep maps’ of chorography, and once again layers of meanings are revealed to us rather than flat description. The cultural and historical representation of place, space, and routes through it, is discussed by Mulryan, in his developed and penetrating account of narrative led itineraries in the late antique landscape. Also valuable is Garland’s analysis of the social impact of, and the social meanings behind, the variance in landscape boundaries in the Chichester region across the late Iron Age and Roman periods. All the papers look at perception, representation, and ask the evidence for more. They have built on comments made and discussion enjoyed at the conference, and are the stronger for it.

Allason-Jones’s paper was the ‘state of the nation’ plenary performance at TRAC 2011 and while she rues the excision of ‘the jokes,’ it remains an entertaining gallop across twenty years’ terrain. I like Lindsay’s exhortation to ‘boldly go,’ to be ‘cross’ and ‘passionate’ about Roman archaeology and matters arising. It is also timely that she refers to PPG16. The possible demise of developer-funded rescue archaeology, and the politics of high-end archaeological policy-making, was discussed at the Retrospective, and revealed how much TRAC’s heart remained as much in the field as in the lecture theatre.

Dear TRAC, it is a privilege to know you.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Ian Haynes and Frances McIntosh for the invitation to participate in TRAC 2011, and also to thank Frances and Darrell Rohl for tidying up this Introduction. I’m grateful to Richard Hingley and Martin Millett for being part of ‘old gits’ corner’ at the Retrospective Session; to Nick Hodgson for looking after me during the conference; to Lindsay Allason-Jones for putting up with me; and Tony Wilmott for getting me there and back (via Hadrian’s Wall!). I would also like to congratulate Newcastle for providing such a memorable conference and reunion.

She Said ‘Emic’

Lindsay Allason-Jones

The title of my paper comes from an artwork by Ruth Barker (Fig. 1), the Centre for Interdisciplinary Artefact Studies’ 2010 Leverhulme Artist in Residence. Her project, Low Metamorphosis, aimed to explore the potential of using performance and textual practice in relation to material artefacts and their current institutional contexts and interpretations. As she interrogated the relationship between the objects in the Great North Museum and ideas— between what a culture believes and the artefacts it produces—she became aware of the crucial nature of the objects that people produce and use over time and she now uses alternative media to ensure that the ephemeral nature of her performances has a legacy.

Whilst she was with us Ruth attended my lectures on artefacts, particularly those on archaeological theory from which she plucked various words, such as ‘emic.’ Whilst familiarising my students with the terminology of archaeological theory I have noticed that some of them find this terminology terrifying and switch off, whilst others get overly excited by the words to the extent that they forget what they are really trying to do. This matter of language is important and the subject of archaeological theory has been bedevilled by it. In museum exhibitions, in giving talks to the public, school children and undergraduates, as in television and radio programmes, one is trying to get complex ideas across to ordinary people and there is no point in using complex language because one will lose one’s audience immediately. So why do we use such language? Is it for our own benefit? So the funding bodies can feel comfortable and tick boxes? Or is it for the greater good of society? At the moment there is concern about the part Impact is to play in the next Research Assessment exercise. Archaeology, by its