Rome
Study of the Roman world is underrepresented and marginalized in mainstream archaeological discourse, at least in Anglophone scholarship. This is astonishing, given Rome's role in the creation of western culture. The histories of over thirty modern countries include extended periods as part of the Roman Empire. Archaeology presents few issues more important to explore greater than the reasons this vast empire came into being, why it eventually transformed into the medieval world, and not least, how such an entity, exceptional in Old World history, stayed together so long.
What is the reason for Roman archaeology's relatively low profile? Is it because Rome is over-familiar, or just plain dull? Perhaps, as a notoriously ruthless and successful imperial power, for many it is now ideologically or morally suspect. Maybe it is that Roman archaeologists are boring, old-fashioned and have nothing of interest to say to their colleagues. Is their work anyway devalued because it is hopelessly compromised by colonialist baggage?
Or could the explanation really lie elsewhere? Perhaps the biggest problem is now other archaeologists, hindered by their prejudices about what Roman archaeology is--or rather, was. For in recent years the subject has exploded into a multiplicity of schools of thought, generating theoretically-informed, post-colonial perspectives which are totally transforming our understandings of a key historical era. Lingering prejudice based on outmoded stereotypes may have blinded many outsiders to these radical changes--and to what Roman archaeology now his to offer the discipline as a whole. Whatever the reasons, the result is everyone's loss: for Roman archaeology has unique riches, with some of the biggest and finest archaeological data-sets anywhere, complemented by a vast body of texts providing unrivalled opportunities for doing historical archaeology.
Some of these issues were discussed during the recent seminar entitled `Whither...
View Full Essay