Roman Britain was Britain's first truly historical period, and as such it has deservedly been the subject of many books, especially in the last thirty years. Today, thanks to excavations, scientific techniques and new research, we know far more about this unique mixture of classical and Celtic civilization. However, the basic history has not altered much. Instead it is the archaeology that has changed, and with it there has been a reappraisal of the architectural, material and social structure of Roman Britain. In the process, the history has become a little lost, or at any rate taken for granted.
Some of the greatest excavations of Romano-British archaeological sites were conducted in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These included the work at Silchester and numerous digs along Hadrian s Wall, and at other military sites nearby. The techniques of the time meant many features in the ground went unnoticed, whilst contemporary attitudes had their own effect. A preoccupation with the Roman army in Britain was common, and lay to a large extent in personal experience of Britain's own imperial armed forces. Military documents found at Vindolanda in the 1970s show that the Roman army was far from being the rigid and predictable organization archaeologists once assumed, and probably also reflect other aspects of the way Roman Britain and other provinces were managed.
Perhaps this mirrors how our world has also changed. Equally, each generation of historians and archaeologists wants to make its mark. Part of this process is a ritual re-examination of some of the assumptions and attitudes of previous generations. An old dogma is supplanted by a new one. But just as the certainties of older scholarly attitudes now seem easy to question, we also need to bear in mind that the certainties of our own time are just as likely to be flawed. Today, dendrochronology and other modern archaeological techniques are often treated as infallible sources of objective information. Archaeologists also sometimes infer more from their excavations than the evidence can really support. The reality is that flawed historical and literary material cannot be made good by archaeology.
Not least because the evidence is of an entirely different kind. The two complement one another, but they are not mutual substitutes.
Even so, the archaeological record has been transformed. New techniques have made it possible to recognize environmental evidence in unprecedented detail, or to identify occupation levels that would entirely have escaped the notice of a Victorian archaeologist. Despite its usefulness, the metal-detector is regretted by many archaeologists because of the reckless way some detectorists have used it. However, some extraordinary finds have changed our view of Roman Britain forever. The fact that some finds have turned up in places that archaeologists either would not, or could not, have looked only goes to show how selective the ‘offi-ciaf record can be. The Mildenhall Treasure (see pp. 258-59), found in the 1940s, was even thought by some at the time to have been a modern import from North Africa. Since then, the discovery of exceptional treasure hoards such as Thetford and Hoxne, along with a very large number of minor finds, have radically altered our knowledge of the sheer quantity of Romano-British sites. The remarkable coinage of the rebel emperor Carausius (286-93), with its dramatic series of unprecedented mythical and literary types, was once rare. Now far more is known about this emperor from his numismatic record.
Archaeology and history belong to their own time. Today, old certainties have been replaced by doubt, and a palpable fear for the future. A parallel often drawn today is how the increase in American power mirrors Rome s rise, and how America has come to define today s world order. Now that international terrorism and environmental concerns have challenged our sense of security, it becomes easier to see what the dramatic decline of Roman power in the West in the fourth century meant for the Empire’s population. Likewise, an increasing focus on native identities in Roman Britain reflects an increased respect for ethnic identities in our own time. Imperialism has increasingly become condemned as a purely oppressive force, given weight by its appalling excesses in the twentieth century, and reinforced by a contemporary sense of the ‘victim’ Yet life is rarely quite so simple. The complex relationships between native society and Roman culture in Britain were just that, and evidently reached some sort of equilibrium which was surprisingly stable, and which seems to have been eventually acceptable to most of the participants. A new approach to the late Iron Age has made a very good case for the idea that some tribal aristocracies welcomed, and even coveted, Roman influence.
Archaeology has also been transformed in modern times. WTiat was once the preserve of an exclusive few has become the everyday fare of popular television, magazines and weekend relaxation. Far more people now have access to the subject, with many seeking to further their
A gilt-copf)cr figure of Hercules, said to have been found near Hadrian’s Wall, at Birdoswald. It is possible that this statuette was intended as a portrait of the emperor Commodus (ad 180-92), who from 191 identified himself w'ith the deified mlhical hero. Height 50 cm. (British Museum).
Knowledge as students. Others take part in excavations, often paying for the privilege of instruction ‘in the field’. Roman Britain is an especially popular component in this new world of archaeology. The Roman world is one that we can recognize, with its towms, roads, political structure, economy and multicultural society. Like all the most absorbing historical periods, it is at once a mirror for our own lives, and a portal into an age of mystery and intrigue.
Roman Britain is also a source of perpetual frustration, thanks to the sporadic and limited nature of the historical record. Traditionally this contributed to a sense that Britain was palpably different from other provinces, by being fundamentally less integrated into the Roman world and all its systems. It was also true that archaeological thought inclined to the idea that the Roman world was so systematized, that fragmentary evidence could be joined together by filling in the gaps. In recent years, more time has been given to an increasingly sophisticated analysis of the evidence. Not surprisingly, a broader range of interpretations has been the result. These help to invigorate academic debate, but often leave the general reader floundering in a jungle of limitless and inconclusive possibilities. Yet the basic chronological framework is much as it has always been.
Peter Salway has recently made the important observation that the writing tablets at Vindolanda near Hadrian’s Wall, and an increasing number of other documents from similar waterlogged deposits, show that Britain functioned as a Roman province much as any other. Its administrative systems and military units used the same methods of recording, communication and government as other provinces of the Empire. So we should be more confident about being able to use parallels from other, better-recorded parts of the Empire to understand how Roman Britain worked. However, the record we have is so biased to the military that it leaves us still unsure of the extent to which the Roman world impacted on the indigenous British population. Another problem that arises from recent discoveries, especially the Vindolanda letters, is the natural tendency to treat these extraordinary pieces of evidence, each of which is highly individual, uncritically as templates for everything else that went on.
The study of Roman Britain, like most academic disciplines, has increasingly been divided up amongst a proliferating array of specialists. This inclination to disperse what is in fact a fairly cohesive subject means that it is commonplace for a specialist in one field to know little about other fields beyond his or her immediate interest. Since Roman Britain is a fairly small subject, this means that often only one or two people end up monopolizing their own particular topics, or even sites. Two recent books attempting to sum up current work on Roman Britain were written by an array of different specialists, each responsible for different chapters. Many of the contributions are in fact interesting and worthwhile, but overall create an impression of a fragmented and incomplete subject.
Ironically, despite the expansion in specialisms, a major facet of the Roman world has taken a back seat. Today it is commonplace for lecturers and archaeologists teaching Roman history to have no Latin, and therefore no direct access to the history, literature and graffiti of the period they profess to be experts in. The result is a literal acceptance of published translations, and a distancing between our time and the one we are studying. To a Victorian antiquarian, despite his shortcomings, this would have been regarded as an impossible handicap.
This book has been written to try and balance old and new attitudes, and to draw as much of what went to make up Roman Britain into a single whole, by taking into account new discoveries and perceptions for a contemporary audience. With a subject as wide-ranging as this, and with limited space, it is impossible to cover everything. Rather than include a litany of examples, each only briefly alluded to, I have preferred to discuss fewer examples of artifacts, sites and other subjects in greater detail. The basic chronology of events is tackled in the first three chapters, before turning to a variety of themes that allow us to explore the complex strata of developments that characterized Britain in the Roman Empire. With its unique combination of history and archaeology, Roman Britain bridges the world between prehistory and the Middle Ages, providing not just a vital link, but also a special opportunity to examine how history and archaeology complement and contradict one another.
1 would like to record my thanks to Colin Ridler, Elain McAlpine, Sarah Vernon-Hunt, Neil Palfreyman, Rowena Alsey and Celia Falconer at Thames & Hudson. I am also immensely grateful to Catherine Johns, formerly of the British Museum, for her detailed comments on the text. are also due to Stewart Ainsworth, Mick Aston, Mark Corney, Neil Faulkner, Richard Reece and Tony Wilmott who contributed wittingly and unwittingly in a variety of discussions about general issues and specific sites.
Guy de la Bedoyere
Welbv, Lincolnshire
World History
