Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:50:33.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making Space for Past Futures: Rural Landscape Temporalities in Roman Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2020

Andrew Gardner  and
Lacey Wallace Open the ORCID record for Lacey Wallace [Opens in a new window]
Andrew Gardner
Affiliation:
UCL Institute of Archaeology, 31–34 Gordon Square, LondonWC1H 0PY, UK Email: [email protected]
Lacey Wallace
Affiliation:
School of History and heritage, University of Lincoln, LincolnLN6 7TSUK Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we seek to explore the ways in which landscapes become venues not only for manipulations of the past in a present, but also for shaping possible futures. Considerations of temporality and being in the landscape have been more strongly focused on the past and social memory than the future, anticipation and projectivity, but these are vital considerations if we are to preserve the possibility that past people imagined alternative futures. A fruitful archaeological context for an exploration of past futures can be found in the choices people made during the late Iron Age and Roman period in Britain, which has an increasingly rich and high-resolution material record for complex changes and continuities during a period of cultural interactions and imperial power dynamics. More specifically, recent research into the architectural and material practices evident on rural settlement sites and across landscapes forces us to challenge preconceptions about the reactive/reactionary culture of rural societies. Case-studies from Kent and the West Country will be deployed to develop the argument that in the materializing of time, the future has a very significant part to play.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 327 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adam, B., 1990. Time and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Adam, B., 2005. Futures told, tamed and traded. (In Pursuit of the Future Project Working Paper 4.) http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/futures/briefings.html#working (accessed 18 August 2017.)Google Scholar
Adam, B., 2009. Future matters: challenge for social theory and social inquiry. In Pursuit of the Future Conference Paper 32. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/futures/briefings.html - conference (accessed 20 September 2017).Google Scholar
Adam, B., 2010. History of the future: paradoxes and challenges. Rethinking History 14(3), 361–78.10.1080/13642529.2010.482790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, G., 2007. Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26(2), 198–223.10.1016/j.jaa.2006.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbalet, J.M., 1997. The Jamesian theory of action. Sociological Review 45(1), 102–21.Google Scholar
Barber, M., 2018. Alfred Schutz, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, E.N.. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/schutz/ (accessed 11 September 2018).Google Scholar
Barrett, J., 1999. The mythical landscape of the British Iron Age, in Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary perspectives, eds Ashmore, W. & Knapp, A.B.. Oxford: Blackwell, 253–65.Google Scholar
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T., 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brownstein, R., 2016. How the election revealed the divide between city and country. The Atlantic, November 17. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/clinton-trump-city-country-divide/507902/ (accessed 10 September 2018).Google Scholar
Brück, J., 2005. Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues 12(1), 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, A.M., 2004. Heavier burdens for willing shoulders? Writing different histories, humanities and social practices for the Romano-British countryside, in TRAC 2003: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Leicester 2003, eds. Croxford, B., Eckardt, H., Meade, J. & Weekes, J.. Oxford: Oxbow, 90–110.Google Scholar
Chadwick, A.M., 2016. Foot-fall and hoof-hit. Agencies, movements, materialities and identities; and later prehistoric and Romano-British trackways. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26(1), 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connerton, P., 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, A., 2016. Other types of meaning: relationships between round barrows and landscapes from 1500 BC–AC 1086. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26(4), 665–96.Google Scholar
Cornell, P., 2015. Colonial encounters, time, and social innovation, in Rethinking Colonialism: Comparative archaeological approaches, eds. Cipolla, C.N. & Hayes, K.H.. Gainesville (FL): University Press of Florida, 99–120.Google Scholar
Dark, K.R., 1993. Roman-period activity at Prehistoric ritual monuments in Britain and in the Armorican Peninsula, in Theoretical Roman Archaeology: First conference proceedings, ed. Scott, E.. Aldershot: Avebury, 133–46.Google Scholar
Davis, J.L., 2007. Memory groups and the state: erasing the past and inscribing the present in the landscapes of the Mediterranean and Near East, in Negotiating the Past in the Past: Identity, memory, and landscape in archaeological research, ed. Yoffee, N.. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press, 227–56.Google Scholar
Eckardt, H., Brewer, P., Hay, S. & Poppy, S., 2009. Roman barrows and their landscape context: a GIS case-study at Bartlow, Cambridgeshire. Britannia 40, 65–98.10.3815/006811309789786025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M. & Mische, A., 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103(4), 962–1023.10.1086/231294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eve, S., 2014. Dead Men's Eyes: Embodied GIS, mixed reality and landscape archaeology. (BAR British series 600.) Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.10.30861/9781407312910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, D., 2007. Caesar's Calendar: Ancient time and the beginnings of history. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.10.1525/9780520933767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flaherty, M.G. & Fine, G.A., 2001. Present, past, and future: conjugating George Herbert Mead's perspective on time. Time and Society 10(2/3), 147–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, H., 2006. The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace & oblivion in Roman political culture. Chapel Hill (NC): University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, A., 2012. Time and empire in the Roman world. Journal of Social Archaeology 12(2), 145–66.Google Scholar
Gardner, A., 2013. Thinking about Roman imperialism: post-colonialism, globalisation and beyond? Britannia 44, 1–25.10.1017/S0068113X13000172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, M. & Parker Pearson, M., 1999. Learning to live in the Iron Age: dwelling and praxis, in Northern Exposure: Interpretative devolution and the Iron Ages in Britain, ed. Bevan, B.. Leicester: University of Leicester, 217–31.Google Scholar
Gill, F., 2013. Succession planning and temporality: the influence of the past and the future. Time and Society 22(1), 76–91.10.1177/0961463X10380023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosden, C., 1994. Social Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gosden, C. & Lock, G., 1998. Prehistoric histories. World Archaeology 30(1), 2–12.Google Scholar
Graham, M.W., 2006. News and Frontier Consciousness in the Late Roman Empire. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.182583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, C., 2011. Constructing Communities in the Late Roman Countryside. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511994739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, S. & Whitehouse, R., 2006. Phenomenology in practice: towards a methodology for a ‘subjective’ approach. European Journal of Archaeology 9(1), 31–71.10.1177/1461957107077704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannah, R., 2015. Theorization, measurement, and standardization of calendrical time. Oxford Handbooks Online. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935390.013.9010.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935390.013.90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, J., 2005. Rethinking the great divide: long-term structural history and the temporality of the event. Norwegian Archaeological Review 38(2), 88–101.10.1080/00293650510032707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haskell, D.L. & Stawski, C.J., 2017. Re-envisioning Tarascan temporalities and landscapes: historical being, archaeological representation, and futurity in past social processes. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24(2), 611–39.Google ScholarPubMed
Haverfield, F., [1906] 1923. The Romanization of Roman Britain (4th edn). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., [1927] 1996. Being and Time (trans. Stambaugh, J.). Albany (NY): SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Holdaway, S. & Wandsnider, L., 2008. Time in archaeology: an introduction, in Time in Archaeology: Time perspectivism revisited, eds Holdaway, S. & Wandsnider, L.. Salt Lake City (UT): University of Utah Press, 1–12.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 25(2), 152–74.10.1080/00438243.1993.9980235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R., 2002. In the present tense: time, identification and human nature. Anthropological Theory 2(3), 267–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, W., Stoker, G. & Warren, I., 2018. Towns, cities and Brexit. The UK in a Changing Europe, 11 February. http://ukandeu.ac.uk/towns-cities-and-brexit/ (accessed 10 September 2018).Google Scholar
Johnson, D.P., 2008. Contemporary Sociological Theory: An integrated multi-level approach. New York (NY): Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-76522-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M., 2012. Phenomenological approaches in landscape archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 41, 269–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamash, Z., 2016. Memories of the past in Roman Britain, in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Britain, eds Millett, M., Revell, L. & Moore, A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 681–96.Google Scholar
Knoblauch, H., 2014. Projection, imagination, and novelty: towards a theory of creative action based on Schutz, in The Interrelation of Phenomenology, Social Sciences and the Arts, eds. Barber, M. & Dreher, J.. (Contributions to Phenomenology 69.) New York (NY): Springer, 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koselleck, R., [1979] 1985. Futures Past: On the semantics of historical time (trans. Tribe, K.). Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lodwick, L.A., 2017. Agricultural innovations at a late Iron Age oppidum: archaeobotanical evidence for flax, food and fodder from Calleva Atrebatum, UK. Quaternary International 460, 198–219.10.1016/j.quaint.2016.02.058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodwick, L., 2019. Farming practice, ecological temporality, and urban communities at a late Iron Age oppidum. Journal of Social Archaeology 19(2), 206–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G., 2005. The Archaeology of Time. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M., 2013. The Romano-British Peasant: Towards a study of people, landscapes and work during the Roman occupation of Britain. Oxford: Windgather Press.Google Scholar
Mead, G.H., [1932] 2002. The Philosophy of the Present. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Meade, J., 2004. Prehistoric landscapes of the Ouse Valley and their use in the Late Iron Age and Romano-British period, in TRAC 2003: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Leicester, 3–6 April 2003, eds Croxford, B., Eckardt, H., Meade, J. & Weekes, J.. Oxford: Oxbow, 78–89.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M., 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Meskell, L., 1999. Archaeologies of Social Life. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meskell, L., 2003. Memory's materiality: ancestral presence, commemorative practice and disjunctive locales, in Archaeologies of Memory, eds. Van Dyke, R. & Alcock, S.E.. Malden (MA): Blackwell, 34–55.10.1002/9780470774304.ch3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, D., Palmer, S., Smith, A. & Perpetua Jones, G., 2007. Iron Age and Roman Settlement in the Upper Thames Valley: Excavations at Claydon Pike and other sites within the Cotswold Water Park. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology.Google Scholar
Mische, A., 2009. Projects and possibilities: researching futures in action. Sociological Forum 24(3), 694–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, D., 2016. Continental philosophies, in The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory, eds Gardner, A., Lake, M. & Sommer, U.. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199567942. 013.034Google Scholar
Murray, T., 1999. Introduction, in Time and Archaeology, ed. Murray, T.. London: Routledge, 1–7.Google Scholar
Mytum, H., 2007. Materiality and memory: an archaeological perspective on the popular adoption of linear time in Britain. Antiquity 81, 381–96.10.1017/S0003598X00095259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanni, G., 2011. Time, empire and resistance in settler-colonial Victoria. Time and Society 20(1), 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, L., 1999. The Hochdorf ‘princely’ grave and the question of the nature of archaeological funerary assemblages, in Time and Archaeology, ed. Murray, T.. London: Routledge, 109-38.Google Scholar
Powell, K., Smith, A. & Laws, G., 2010. Evolution of a Farming Community in the Upper Thames Valley: Excavation of a prehistoric, Roman and post-Roman landscape at Cotswold Community, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology.Google Scholar
Rivet, A.L.F., 1958. Town and Country in Roman Britain. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Salzman, M.R., 1990. On Roman Time: The codex-calendar of 354 and the rhythms of urban life in late antiquity. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sassaman, K.E., 2012. Futurologists look back. Archaeologies 8(3), 250–68.10.1007/s11759-012-9205-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semple, S., 2011. Perceptions of the Prehistoric in Anglo-Saxon England: Religion, ritual, and rulership in the landscape. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C., 1987a. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C., 1987b. Abstract and substantial time. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 6(1), 32–41.Google Scholar
Smith, J.T., 1997. Roman Villas: A study in social structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taylor, J., 2013. Encountering Romanitas: characterising the role of agricultural communities in Roman Britain. Britannia 44, 171–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J., 1996. Time, Culture and Identity: An interpretive archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 2004. Round barrows and dykes as landscape metaphors. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(2), 185–203.10.1017/S0959774304000125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, C., 2008. Phenomenological approaches to landscape archaeology, in Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, eds David, B. & Thomas, J.. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press, 271–84.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, paths, and monuments. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
van Beek, R. & der Mulder, G., 2014. Circles, cycles and ancestral connotations. The long-term history and perception of late Prehistoric barrows and urnfields in Flanders (Belgium). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 80, 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyke, R.M. & Alcock, S.E. (eds), 2003. Archaeologies of Memory. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oyen, A. 2019. Rural time. World Archaeology 51. DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2019.1601461Google Scholar
Varner, E., 2004. Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio memoriae and Roman imperial portraiture. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Versluys, M.J., 2014. Understanding objects in motion. An archaeological dialogue on Romanization. Archaeological Dialogues 21(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vine, F. 1883. On three Roman tumuli in Gorsley Wood, near Bridge and Canterbury. Archaeologia Cantiana 15, 311–17.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. & Mullen, A., 2019. Landscape, monumentality and expression of group identities in Iron Age and Roman East Kent. Britannia 50, 75–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L., Mullen, A., Johnson, P. & Verdonck, L., 2016. Archaeological investigations at Bourne Park, Bishopsbourne. Archaeologia Cantiana 137, 251–80.Google Scholar
Williams, H. (ed.), 2003. Archaeologies of Remembrance: Death and memory in past societies. New York (NY): Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M., 2003. Growing metaphors: the agricultural cycle as metaphor in the later prehistoric period of Britain and north-western Europe. Journal of Social Archaeology 3(2), 223–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ybema, S., 2010. Talk of change: temporal contrasts and collective identities. Organization Studies 31(4), 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar