It is impossible to analyse and understand archaeological evidence without at least some influence from the modern social context in which it is being undertaken, but historiographical studies make it clear that many major cultural influences have affected the way in which archaeology has been approached. Recent years have seen a number of publications on the historiography of Roman archaeology in Britain and the English-speaking world and the formation of tradition (e. g., S. Dyson 2006; Hingley 2000,2008; Todd 2004). However, there are a much larger number of publications on the decline and fall of civilisations and empires (e. g., Heather 2006; Tainter 1988; Yoffee and Cowgill 1988). These are valuable in their evaluations of the potential external and internal threats to large-scale organisations, but they do not necessarily allow analysis of experience at local levels where change will have been variable and interpreted in different ways. It is important not to view these entities in isolation following predetermined life cycles of growth and decline. This is where an analysis of the archaeology at a local level can help us. Changes to the economy and bureaucracy, for example, will not have had the same impact or have been perceived in the same way across the whole Roman Empire.
The theory of 'decline and fall’ used in late Roman archaeological interpretation, including urban studies, is very much socially constructed and value laden. Much of the data for public buildings within towns were excavated and published with preconceived notions of the nature of Roman towns and the ways in which they changed in the late Roman period. There is still considerable uncertainty about the nature and function of public buildings in Roman Britain and the way in which they were used in the late Roman period, which should be addressed in greater detail. Sir Mortimer Wheeler’s Verulamium (the Roman town near the modern city of St Albans) excavations in the 1930s (Wheeler and Wheeler 1936) emphasised a vision of decay and degradation in the late Roman period, with little appreciation of the considerable amount of evidence of activity, and the resulting image of the town has been influential in late Roman studies. Most accounts of late urbanism have tended to compare the excavated evidence unfavourably with that of the so-called Golden Age and contrast it negatively with the ‘romanisation’ of the towns (e. g., Faulkner 2000a; 2004; Liebeschuetz 2000). As Christie (2006: 185) emphasises, however, the inevitable physical decay in later Roman times does not ‘denote the end of a town, but
Rather a redefinition, an ideological modification to the previous conception of "towns” or urbanism’. Decline and fall is especially related to economic models of understanding settlement, development, and change.
By examining the context and origins of the concept of decline and fall, one finds it possible to move away from an uncritical acceptance of this interpretation of change and transformation, in both late Roman studies and studies of the post-conquest arrival of civilisation. Edward Gibbon’s (1737-94) The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (published 1776-88) is a key example of how the context of a text and its reception can have an influence on later academic thought and endeavour.6 Gibbon’s work had a huge impact on antiquarian and early archaeological practice and theory. Gibbon’s attitude to the Golden Age and to pre-conquest settlement, as well as his knowledge of structural remains in Rome, proved highly important in shaping approaches to the Roman Empire and its later phases.
Gibbon did not use the term 'romanisation’, but his approach to the conquered West, his appreciation of the cultural superiority and civilisation of Rome, and his coverage of decline in the later Roman period were similar to those of later writers. These authors, influenced by Gibbon, used the term as a convenient summary of the processes that they perceived took place after Roman conquest (e. g., Haverfield 1912; cf. Rogers and Hingley 20io). The approach of Francis Haverfield (1860-1919) and others, working in the context of the British Empire and its imperial endeavours (which drew on contemporary understandings of ancient Rome for guidance and support), influenced the development of the discipline of Roman archaeology for decades to come. This genealogy of imperialism has now been studied in some detail and its impact on Roman archaeology has been subjected to considerable critical review, highlighting the emphasis on Roman elite viewpoints and the simplistic understanding of provinces such as Britain that this provided (see especially Hingley 2000, 2008; Mattingly 1997a, 2004, 2006a; Webster and Cooper 1996). This book contributes to the debate on romanisation and imperialism, emphasising the pre-existing values attached to places in Britain, the nuanced experiences involved in urban development, and the continuation of activity within these places into the later Roman period.
The late Roman phase of towns was an important period of these places and was part of the long-term use of these sites. As activity at many of these sites in the late pre-Roman period need not be seen as inferior to Roman urbanism, the late Roman phase of towns was also a significant period that requires analysis. In the case of many towns, such as Canterbury, Lincoln, and Winchester, the sites have remained important to the present day, albeit in a form different from Roman urbanism and via different pathways and spatial mores. In all cases the settlements had complex biographies, often also with some form of continuation from pre-Roman times. A number of themes relating to Roman Britain in the later Roman period are examined in detail here, including structural changes to the urban public buildings, timber constructions within them, and industrial activity. The detailed examination of the use of public buildings complements other studies of towns that have focused on the monumentality of public buildings and the use of space in earlier periods (e. g., Boman 2003; Favro 1996; Revell 1999).
Christie’s (2006) analysis of late Roman Italy, emphasising the concept of transformation rather than decline, is useful here: The structures of late Roman townscapes remained much more than simply skeletons to the early medieval towns that followed. The 'physical parameters’ of the public buildings 'remained visible and even active’ well into the postRoman period even if 'some components were in part robbed out or even razed’ (ibid.: 270). The structures continued to have an impact on the experience of these places despite the fact that the towns were neither static nor resistant to change. Towns were continually evolving and adapting: some buildings were demolished, and the material reused, whilst in other cases structures were maintained and repaired and the buildings absorbed additional functions or changed use entirely. These complexities in place biography represent peoples’ actions, needs, and desires in the past; there was no strict dichotomy between continuity and change. Edensor’s (2005) innovative study of modern-day industrial ruins also demonstrates that the structures could remain valued and important within towns beyond their original use; they also entrapped meaning from the past that survived in the present. These studies suggest that although towns change and appear to deteriorate, they can still remain viable and functioning places with considerable importance and meaning.
Public buildings framed activity that allows the detailed study of continuity and change of use. On a larger scale, the town as a whole was a space that gathered people and controlled movement, interaction, and experience. Public activities such as street processions, ceremonies, and speeches would have taken place within the town and linked with the public buildings (Lavan 2003a: i8i). These could have continued unaltered into the latest phases of the town when forms of monumental architecture had begun to decay (Roueche 1999).10 Whether such rituals took place in Romano-British towns is uncertain without documentary evidence, but the idea raises complexities that require acknowledgement. Movement of people to, from, and around towns was an important element providing meaning and representing ongoing activity at sites (cf. Insoll 2007).
World History
