Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Struggling with a Roman inheritance. A response to Versluys

  • Richard Hingley
Extract

I am very grateful to Miguel John Versluys for this paper, which raises several important issues that derive from current debates in Roman archaeology. I am aware of the context of Versluys's arguments as I am a contributor to the forthcoming volume Globalization and the Roman world (which Versluys has jointly edited; Pitts and Versluys 2014). I am pleased to be able to develop some of the themes outlined in my chapter for that volume (Hingley 2014b) through this reflection upon Versluys's contribution to the developing debate. The issues raised by Versluys are particularly timely since a number of younger colleagues have observed that the critical focus provided by what I shall term ‘post-colonial Roman archaeologies’ (PCRAs) is stifling innovative research. PCRA is the term I use to address the body of research and publication characterized by Versluys as ‘Anglo-Saxon Roman archaeology’ (for reasons given below). I did not attend the TRAC session at Frankfurt to which Versluys refers, but I recognize his observation that there is a genuine concern about the form and content of PCRAs arising from Roman archaeologists both in Britain and overseas. PCRAs have focused around two core themes: (1) critiquing the concept of Romanization and (2) the development of new ways of approaching the Roman Empire. Versluys suggests that this discussion has culminated in ‘an uncomfortable ending’ (p. 1) for the Romanization debate and his proposal includes the reintroduction of this concept. Taking a rather different perspective, I shall propose that a dynamic and transformative agenda is spreading across several continents and that PCRAs form an important aspect of this developing perspective.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Richard Hingley, Department of Archaeology, Centre for Roman Cultural Studies, Durham University. Email: richard.hingley@durham.ac.uk.
References
Hide All
Baudrillard, J., 2003: Passwords, London.
Cunliffe, B., 1984: Images of Britannia, Antiquity 58, 175–8.
Dietler, M., 2010: Archaeologies of colonialism. Consumption, entanglement, and violence in ancient Mediterranean France, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.
Gardner, A., 2013: Thinking about Roman imperialism. Postcolonialism, globalisation and beyond?, Britannia 44, 125.
Garraffoni, R.S., and Funari, P.P., 2012: The uses of Roman heritage in Brazil. Traditional reception and new critical approaches, Heritage & society 5 (1), 5376.
González-Ruibal, A., 2010: Colonialism and European archaeology, in Lydon, J. and Rizvi, U.Z. (eds), Handbook of postcolonial archaeology, Walnut Creek (World Archaeological Congress Research Handbooks in Archaeology 3), 3950.
Hardwick, L., and Gillespie, L. (eds.) 2007: Classics in post-colonial worlds, Oxford.
Hingley, R., 1989: Rural settlement in Roman Britain, London.
Hingley, R., 2005: Globalizing Roman culture. Unity, diversity and empire, London.
Hingley, R., 2014b: Post-colonial and global Rome. The genealogy of empire, in Pitts, M. and Versluys, M.J. (eds.), Globalisation and the Roman world. Perspectives and opportunities, Cambridge, forthcoming.
Hodos, T., 2010: Local and global perspectives in the study of social and cultural identities, in Hales, S. and Hodos, T. (eds), Material culture and social identities in the ancient world, Cambridge, 331.
Krishnaswamy, R., 2008: Postcolonial and globalization studies. Connections, conflicts, complicities, in Krishnaswamy, R. and Hawley, J.C. (eds.), The post-colonial and the global, Minneapolis, 221.
Lafrenz Samuels, K., 2008: Value and significance in archaeology, Archaeological dialogues 15 (1), 7197.
Lafrenz Samuels, K., and Totten, D.M. (eds.), 2012: Making Roman places, past and present, Portsmouth, RI (Journal of Roman archaeology Supplementary Series 89).
Laurence, R., 2012: Roman archaeology for historians, London.
Morley, N., 2010: The Roman Empire. Roots of imperialism, New York.
Mouritsen, H. 1998: Italian unification. A study in ancient & modern historiography, London.
Orrells, D., Bhambra, G.K. and Roynon, T. (eds.), 2011: Black Athena. New agendas, Oxford.
Pitts, M., and Versluys, M.J. (eds.), 2014: Globalisation and the Roman world. Perspectives and opportunities, Cambridge.
Reece, R., 1982: Review of Roman Britain by Peter Salway, Archaeological journal 139, 453–6.
Scott, E. (ed.), 1993: Theoretical Roman archaeology. First conference proceedings, Avebury.
Sonntag, S.K., 2003: The local politics of global English, Lanham, MD.
Terrenato, N., 2005: The deceptive archetype. Roman colonization in Italy and post-colonial thought, in Hurst, H. and Owen, S. (eds), Ancient colonizations. Analogy, similarity and difference, London, 5972.
Versluys, M.J., 2014: Roman visual material culture as globalising koine, in Pitts, M. and Versluys, M.J. (eds), Globalisation and the Roman world, Cambridge, forthcoming.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Archaeological Dialogues
  • ISSN: 1380-2038
  • EISSN: 1478-2294
  • URL: /core/journals/archaeological-dialogues
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed