• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 23 January 2018 Version of attached le: Published Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Hingley, Richard (2018) 'Frontiers and mobilities : the Frontiers of the Roman Empire and Europe.', European journal of archaeology., 21 (1). pp. 78-95. Further information on publisher's website: https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.17 Publisher's copyright statement: c European Association of Archaeologists 2017 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk European Journal of Archaeology 21 (1) 2018, 78–95 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Frontiers and Mobilities: The Frontiers of the Roman Empire and Europe RICHARD HINGLEY Department of Archaeology, Durham University, UK This article addresses questions relating to the ‘Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site’ and seeks to introduce into this initiative some concepts derived from recent writings on contemporary mobilities and bordering, exploring the possibility of creating greater engagement between the two aca- demic fields of ‘border studies’ and ‘Roman Frontier Studies’. By examining the relationship between the Roman Frontiers initiative and the European Union’s stated aims of integration and the dissol- ution of borders, it argues in favour of crossing intellectual borders between the study of the present and the past to promote the value of the Roman frontiers as a means of reflecting on contemporary problems facing Europe. This article considers the potential roles of Roman Frontier Studies in this debate by emphasizing frontiers as places of encounter and transformation. Keywords: borders, frontiers, encounter, mobilities, Roman Empire, European Union, World Heritage INTRODUCTION Empire and the apparent success of the imperial administration in assimilating A new focus on mobilities and migrations is people from disparate backgrounds into a developing in archaeology across the world settled society (Hingley, 2005; Versluys, (van Dommelen, 2014).1 Archaeologists, 2014). This material is sometimes used particularly in Britain, have focused on directly to reflect on issues of mobility and human mobility within the Roman Empire, migration in the contemporary UK (e.g. using a series of newly-developed scientific Hingley, 2010;ToliaKelly,2010;Eckardt techniques that offer new understandings & Müldner, 2016:215–16). The discipline (Eckardt, 2010; Eckardt et al., 2014; of Roman Frontier Studies is also focusing Eckardt & Müldner, 2016; Martiniano increasing attention on the function of et al., 2016; Redfern et al., 2016). The Roman frontier works and the transforma- Roman past provides a particularly signifi- tive character of the frontier on the popula- cant parallel to the modern world with the tions within and beyond the border zones large-scale movements of people across the (Hingley, in press; see also Wells, 2013; Jankovic et al., 2014; Roymans et al., 2016; 1 ‘Migration’ involves the movement of people across González Sánchez & Guglielmi, in press),2 physical space (Jansen et al., 2015), while ‘mobilities’ is a far broader term that ‘encompasses both the large- scale movement of people, objects, capital, and informa- tion across the contemporary world, as well as the more 2 I will not draw a clear distinction between frontiers local processes of daily transportation, movement and borders. Usually frontiers are more formal, substan- through public space and the travel of material things tial, and physical, while borders may be virtual and within everyday life’ (Hannam et al., 2006: 1). conceptual. © European Association of Archaeologists 2017 doi:10.1017/eaa.2017.17 Manuscript received 26 May 2016, accepted 6 March 2017, revised 9 December 2016 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Durham University Library, on 23 Jan 2018 at 09:34:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.17 Hingley – Frontiers and Mobilities 79 although research on the geographical The manner in which the FREWHS origins of those living on the Roman fron- initiative has defined the value of the tiers remains fairly rare. Roman frontiers will be explored by The ‘Frontiers of the Roman Empire drawing on the EU’s two central concepts, World Heritage Site’ (FREWHS) initia- integration and the dissolution of borders. tive is casting an interesting light on issues The character of the FREWHS will be of migration. This transnational initiative addressed as a series of venues for encoun- has been developed since the early 2000s ter and transformation rather than as mea- by Roman frontier specialists and heritage sures of (former) national or colonial managers (Figure 1), involving UNESCO division (see Cooper & Rumford, 2013: State Parties from western, central, and 114). These materials will be used to eastern Europe (Breeze & Jilek, 2008; reflect on the trends toward nationalistic Sommer, 2015). This article has been and divisive rhetoric in Europe, drawing written as a review of this theme and as a on the prominence of the FREWHS to response to the decision of the UK govern- argue the value of heritage as a means of ment, and a small majority of the British promoting inclusive messages that link public, during the summer of 2016 to into the interconnectedness of the people withdraw from the European Union (EU). of Europe and the Mediterranean region. This move toward British separation from The role of the Roman frontiers as the Europe seems to be symptomatic of the borders of an intercontinental military dic- growing global trend in the West to define tatorship makes the World Heritage Site migration as problematic, which is leading potentially particularly potent as a parallel to the development of policies that control and source of contemplation over concerns and monitor migrants in the ‘most strin- about contemporary border building and gent ways’ (Jansen et al., 2015: 1). mobilities. Figure 1. The frontiers of the Roman Empire and the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site (drawn by Christina Unwin). Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Durham University Library, on 23 Jan 2018 at 09:34:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.17 80 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (1) 2018 ROMAN FRONTIER STUDIES AND WORLD in the frontier lands of the former Roman HERITAGE STATUS Empire (Birley, 2002). Large-scale survey- ing and mapping have been accompanied First proposed during the early 2000s, the by excavation and fieldwork to uncover the FREWHS has drawn in heritage profes- location, sequence, character, and regional sionals, educationalists, public agencies, variability of the physical remains of and organizations, including UNESCO Roman frontiers and their individual ele- and the EU (Breeze & Jilek, 2008; Mills, ments (Breeze, 2011:9–12). Extensive 2013). Many accounts of the Roman fron- research since the 1970s has also examined tier works describe their physical form and the military and civil populations of the their variable characters in different parts Roman frontiers and the movement of of the frontier zone (including Breeze peoples and artefacts both into and out of et al., 2005; Klose & Nünnerich-Asmus, the Roman Empire across its frontiers (e.g. 2005;Breeze,2011; Moschek, 2011). Bloemers, 1989; the ‘thematic session II These Roman frontier installations in- on Romans and natives’ in Maxfield & clude: substantial linear fortifications Dobson, 1991; Haffner & von Schnurbein, across isthmuses (Hadrian’s Wall and the 1996; Wells, 2013; Jankovic et al., 2014). Antonine Wall); systems of forts, roads, and ramparts that supported a river fron- tier (the limes along the Rhine and THE ‘FRONTIERS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE Danube); and complex landscapes of forts, WORLD HERITAGE SITE’ INITIATIVE AND roads, and ramparts in less well-defined EUROPEAN IDENTITIES frontier regions (North Africa and the Middle East; Breeze, 2011). The FREWHS initiative involves signifi- The FREWHS initiative was built upon cant co-operation between archaeologists the lengthy history of research into these and heritage managers in a number of physical remains (Breeze et al., 2005:44; European State Parties and also has the Breeze, 2008). Much of the initial archaeo-

Load more

  19

Copy Link