writing disciplinary history, or why romano–british archaeology needs a biographical dictionary of...

COLIN WALLACE

WRITING DISCIPLINARY HISTORY, OR WHY ROMANO-BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY NEEDS A BIOGRAPHICALDICTIONARY OF ITS OWN

Summary.This paper reviews the current state of the writing of the history ofRoman archaeology in Britain. It brings to Romanists’ attention some recenttheoretical approaches, attempts to identify the obstacles to future progressand explores one way of overcoming them.1

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the connections within Romano-British archaeology becomes somewhateasier with the growth of the subject after the First World War . . . Haverfield died in 1919,but as Richmond implied he does not seem to have stimulated an active group of followers:many had been killed during the war . . . Finally, the vast majority of Romano-Britisharchaeologists in this century have had one thing in common: we have been men. There havebeen many women interested and knowledgeable in Roman Britain, but most have written asspecialists on some class of objects or another and have not written works of synthesis. Thisis odd . . . (Jones 1987, 88 and 95).

The paper from which these quotes are taken was published by R.F.J. Jones in the later1980s; it remains one of the few available reviews of the recent history of Romano-Britisharchaeology. Many questions arise from reading it. For example, was World War 1 really sucha watershed? What about George Macdonald (1862–1940) and the Corbridge School(Atkinson, Bushe-Foxet al.)2 as surviving and influential pupils of Haverfield? Male-dominated though the subject was, is that really an excuse for mentioning no women at all in apiece on ‘The archaeologists of Roman Britain’? There is no sign in it of M.V. Taylor (seebelow) or of Joan Liversidge (1914–84), the author ofBritain in the Roman Empire;3 work of

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 21(4) 381–392 2002ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UKand 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 381

1 Not of course theonly way, given recent explorations of biographical myths and myths of biography like Beard2000, but one that I think will be helpful.

2 At the time, one obituarist (W.G. Collingwood?) wrote of ‘the group of younger scholars who have been formedunder his teaching and [who] will surely carry on the work he began so brilliantly’:Transactions Cumberlandand Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society new series 20, 1920, 257.

Presumably Jones was taking his notion from R.G. Collingwood (rather than Richmond). The former hadintroduced the chapter on Roman Britain in his autobiography (of 1939) with the reasons for his ‘obligation tokeep alive the Oxford school of Romano-British studies that [Haverfield] had founded’: ‘Haverfield, the greatmaster of the subject, died in 1919; most of his pupils had already fallen in the War; I was left the only manresident in Oxford whom he had trained as a Romano-British specialist . . .’ (quoted from the 1982 edition, 120).

thesortdoneby DorothyCharlesworth(1928–81)is lightly dismissed.A carefulreviewof theliteratureon the history of Romano-Britisharchaeologyshowsthat suchcaricaturedviews ofthehistoryof Romanarchaeologyaredisturbinglycommon.This is in contrastwith themany,more serious,treatmentsof prehistoryand prehistorians(e.g. in the recentEncyclopediaofArchaeologyeditedby Tim Murray in 1999).

If Romano-Britisharchaeologistsdo not exploretheformationof their discipline,thenprehistoriansor classicistsare certainly not going to do it for them. A few Romano-Britisharchaeologistsdo appearin NancyThomsonde Grummond’sEncyclopediaof the History ofClassical Archaeology(1996), but almost entirely for their contribution to MediterraneanRoman archaeology.Returning to the Romano-Britishliterature, there is a ‘culture-clash’betweenapproachestaken,betweenthosewriting intricate,but moredifficult, institutionalandpersonalhistoriesandthosewho yield to the temptationsof what is essentiallymyth-making.An exampleof the former is B.J.N. Edwards’ study of conflicts, class and otherwise,atRibchester(Edwards2000, 27–43) and of the latter, Jones’survey quotedabove,which isheavily weighted towardsa discussionof the presentday. Worse than any denial that thepresent-daysubjecthasits rootsin formermodesof thought– pasttheories,waysof argument,methods,trends– is the kind of disciplinary history which is merely a vehicle for currentpreoccupations.

THE VALUE OF A PROBLEM-ORIENTEDAPPROACH

Recently,in the NorwegianArchaeologicalReview, thereappeareda paperby EvertBaudou, where he discusseswhat he calls the ‘problem-orientatedscientific biography’(Baudou1998). By this is meantone which is written with the intention of elucidatingaparticular,important,still-activearchaeologicalproblem,situatingthesubjectof thebiographyin society at large and allowing the writing of a biographyto contribute to archaeologicalresearchgenerally.Baudoufoundproductivegroundin the tensionbetweenthe individual andthe collective,andwenton to setout whathe sawasthe properrelationshipbetweenSubject,BiographerandReader,e.g.in termsof providingnumerousandrepresentativequotationsfromthework in question.In thecontextof acontinuingdiscussionof thevalidity of oneof thebasicconcepts introduced by an early twentieth-century Romano-British archaeologist (i.e.Haverfield on Romanisation),the notion of the problem-orientedbiography seemsveryrelevantto anydiscussionof thewaysof writing of thehistoryof Romano-Britisharchaeology.Sinceit is concernedto increasethe part biographieshaveto play in archaeologicalresearch,muchof Baudou’spaperis givenoverto generaldiscussionof potentialanddifficulties, beforepresentingonly a single case-study(of the Swedishprehistorianand individualist GustafHallstrom). Its more general importance is that Baudou charts a middle way between‘presentist’ histories (like Hingley 2000) and the all-encompassingbiography (cf. Hawkes1982),without abandoningthe methodologysetout so clearly by Givens(1992,esp.55–64).

It is also appropriatehere to mention the writers of ‘critical histories’4 (after theoriginal call-to-armsin Fahnestock1984,suchwork is summarizedin Lucy andHill 1993and

3 SeeProceedingsof the CambridgeAntiquarianSociety73, 1984,1–4 andpp. 56–58of Hamlin (ed.) 2001.4 Succinctlydefinedby Jensenas ‘contextually orientedhistoriography. . . one might say that the internalistic

traditionhaschosento forgettheinfluenceof societyon researchandtheexternalisticlacksconsiderationof theinternaldynamicof a discipline.To getawayfrom theseopposingpolesyou canusethembothat thesametime. . .’ (Jensen1997,82).

WHYROMANO-BRITISHARCHAEOLOGYNEEDSA BIOGRAPHICALDICTIONARYOF ITS OWN

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY382 ß Blackwell PublishersLtd. 2002

Lucy et al. 1997, with methodand theory set out in works like Christenson[ed.] 1989). ARomano-Britishreadershipmight consultwith profit papersby Evans(1998aand1998b)andSmith (1997and1999)on theorganizationandpracticeof prehistoricarchaeology,or Roberts(2002) on the ways in which archaeologistsare remembered,by writers who sharemany ofBaudou’sconcernswith theresponsibilitiesof theBiographerandtheReader.Baudoutook hisdirections– for his study of Gustaf Hallstrom – from earlier work on the developmentofknowledgethat stressednot revolutions in paradigmsbut insteadthe slow adjustmentsof‘thought styles’ between‘thought collectives’.

‘Problem-oriented’or ‘critical histories’work hasnot yet mademuchof animpactonRomano-Britishstudies,but the applicationsseemclear. As an exampleof what might beachieved,on the themeof the individual and the collective in a Romano-Britishcontext,Aileen Fox’s recentautobiographycan serveas rather more than just a useful quarry foranyonewishing to discussthe life andtimesof the practitionersof twentieth-centuryRomanarchaeologyin Britain (Fox2000).In its pages,LadyFoxcanbefollowed from herbeginningsin archaeologyat the Richboroughexcavationsof 1929 (working with Bushe-Fox,ThomasMay, T. DaviesPryce,Mrs Holland Walker andDonaldAtkinson), training herselfin Rome,Londonandthe Rhinelandto becomefirst a site supervisorandthena researchassistantonthis pioneeringopen-areaexcavation.Her first substantialpiece of work was writing thesmall-findscataloguefor the 1928–30seasons.After broadeningher field experiencewithDorothyLiddell at HemburyandMeonHill, marriageto Cyril Fox took herto SouthWalesin1933. The reader is given sufficient detail to get a good idea of how one particulararchaeological‘apprenticeship’was served,at the start of a careerculminating in a majorcontributionto thesuccessfuldevelopmentof archaeologyasa universitysubject.A problem-orientedbiographyof Lady Fox might well begin with this accountof her ‘archaeologicaltraining’.5

COMMENTS ON THE CURRENTSTATE OF WRITING THE HISTORY OF ROMANO-BRITISHARCHAEOLOGY

Having suggestedsomethingof what is currently missingfrom currentwork on thehistory of Romano-Britisharchaeology,we turn next to attemptsto set down the history ofwaysof looking at the studyof RomanBritain. Oneshortcontributionin this field confineditself to a study of how particular archaeologistsof the late nineteenthand early twentiethcenturiesusedand interpretedRomanpottery in context (Wallace1990).The authorof thatpaperput specialstresson both the effectsof rapid publicationandthe differencesmadeby aparticular theoreticalapproach(the multi-period assumptionheld by thoseworking on theRomanNorth versustheuni-periodassumptionwidely appliedin theSouth).Othertreatmentsperhapssuffer from too sharpa focuson an individual archaeologist,for examplethestudyofR.G. Collingwood (1889–1943)by Browning (1995). A review of the literature revealstheabsenceof any considerationof contemporarysociety during the nineteenthand twentiethcenturies,its attitude to archaeologyand how it employedinterpretationsof RomanBritain(‘intellectualhistory’, cf. theexampleof Kuklick 1996).A studyof this subjectmight fruitfullydraw on the evidencefor an ‘alternative’ RomanBritain providedby the severaldocumented

5 A recentBritish problem-orientedbiography,basedon thesubjectsof excavationtechniqueandtraining, is thatby Lock on D.G. Hogarth(1990).

COLIN WALLACE

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGYß Blackwell PublishersLtd. 2002 383

casesof wishful thinking,outrightforgeryandsaltingof sites(e.g.Isserlin1998;Peacock1973;Benham1921;Selkirk 1993;Rodwell andRodwell 1977).

Areas of study which switch betweenthe individual archaeologistand the generalthemescanbe linked to another;that of thedevelopmentof researchmethods.This shouldgobeyonda bare listing of discoveries– as given in Richmond’s1960 paper‘Roman Britain,1910–1960’– but alsodealwith aspectssuchasstaffing, financing,prestigeandpublicizing.Moreusecouldbemade,for example,of approacheslike PaulBooth’sreviewof theplaceheldin Romano-Britishstudiesby the importantmodernvilla excavationat Ditchley (Booth2000),or Oliver Gilkes’ paperontheAngmeringprojectin Sussex(Gilkes1998).Otherthanwork likeCunliffe’s on Bath(e.g.1986)or thegrowing literatureon Hadrian’sWall (e.g.WoodsideandCrow 1999)however,suchtreatmentsarerare.

PROBLEMSAND PROGRESS

For those(not just in Romano-Britisharchaeology)whorely on anapproachto writingdisciplinary history which promotesthe use of personaldetails, personalpapers,personallibrariesandthe atmosphereof placesandtimes,thereareproblems.Obtainingsuchmaterialcanbedifficult, andthereis aconstantdangerof over-relianceonsecondarysourcesandindeedimagination. An alternative route, explained below, lies in a considerationof Romanarchaeology’stradition of corpora.

A further obstacleresultsfrom a lack of confidencein the value of the studyof thehistory of Romanarchaeologyin Britain, which in consequenceprivilegesdiscussionof thepresentandfuturedirectionsof thesubjectoverthestudyof its past.A third obstacleis thelackof a critical massof publishedmaterial,and here the contrastbetweenthe healthy stateofsixteenth–eighteenth-century studiesand that of work on the nineteenth–twentiethcenturies(especiallythe twentieth)is marked.

This division falls roughly at the point where the practices of Romano-Britisharchaeologybecomedistinguishablefrom thoseof prehistoricor early medievalarchaeology.Looking at the developingliterature,a numberof observationscanbe made.For the earliestperiod,Kendrick’s book of 1950 had brokennew groundin fifteenth- and sixteenth-centurystudiesand was followed by Gransden(1980 and 1982) and others.It was impossibleforhistoriographyto ignorea figure like William Camden(1551–1623),who hasbeenthesubjectof a series of studies (the most recent by Kunst in 1995). By the late 1980s, detailedseventeenth-century studieshadadvancedfar enoughto provideseveralwriterswith materialsfor synthesis(Mendyk 1989;Parry1995).

Archaeologicalfinds of Romano-Britishmaterialmadesufficient impact on nationallife andlettersin the eighteenthcenturyto demandmodernscholarlyattention,e.g.by Brown(1974,1980and1987)andLevine (1991).The SurteesSociety’spublicationof the papersofWilliam Stukeley(1687–1765)in the later nineteenthcenturybecamea major foundationforPiggott’sstudy(2ndedition,1985)andwithout theprior existenceof thatbookHaycockwouldhavehadnothingto be revisionistabout(Haycock1999).JustasGransden(above)took issuewith Kendrick, recentlySweethasreactedagainstthe downgrading,in works like thosebyPiggott,of the scholarshipof the secondhalf of the eighteenthcentury.Shearguedfor morerecognitionof theachievementsof writers like RichardGough(1735–1809)in broadeningthescopeof antiquarianstudies(Sweet2001). In 1997 Philip Ayres was able to set the earlyachievementsof Romano-Britisharchaeologyin relationto theBritish aristocracyandgentry’s



appropriationandassimilationof Romanhabitsof mind in thecenturyfollowing the ‘GloriousRevolution’ settlementof 1688–89.

Once the field of eighteenth-centurystudiesis left behind, however,contributions(especiallythoseof book length) begin to get fewer. Malcolm Todd’s work on the trans-formation of archaeologyand topographybetweenc.1770 and 1820 was clearly set in thecontextof themovementknownasRomanticism(Todd1996);the sterility andbadtemperofmid-nineteenth-centuryscholarlydisputeshavebeenwell conveyedby RogerMiket (1984);Norman Vance (and others)have alertedus to the multiple and conflicting signification inVictorian appropriationsof the RomanRepublicandEmpire(e.g.Vance1997).Theavailableliteratureon the nineteenthcenturyis increasing.Therehasjust beenlittle in the way of fullconsideration yet of later nineteenth- and twentieth-century work; one exception, onmethodology,is Richmond’s1939 paperconcerningthe techniqueof selectiveexcavation.In the contextsof classandanti-establishmentconflicts, evenlesshasbeenachieved.In thisrespect,RogerWhite’s work onThomasWright (1810–1877)andCharlesRoachSmith(1807–90),who canbediscussedextensivelyin termsof their challengesto theexistingorderof theirday(hintedat in workslike Robins1995andRoachSmith1883,76–85/293–95,amongothers),is eagerlyanticipated.

By taking the subjectseriously,andcontinuingan engagementwith the subject,it ispossibleto sustaina wider interest,as exemplifiedby the work of Iain GordonBrown andPhilip Freeman(e.g. the latter’s 1996and1997).

A BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY?

To provide vital information, we need a biographical dictionary: of people,organisationsandprojects.It shouldnot be an endin itself: the intentionwould be to provideaccessto publishedsources– autobiographies, biographies,obituariesand shorterreviews–and to give an appreciationof archival sources(cf. Wickham 1998).6 Already the site-basedliteratureis arrangedin somedepthin Bonser’s1964Romano-BritishBibliography. Without abiographicaldictionary,with a guideto sourcesandshortpen-portraits,considerationof moregeneralquestionsis much more difficult than it needbe. The value of corporasuchas TheRomanImperial Coinageor TheRomanInscriptionsof Britain to theeverydayactivitiesof theRomano-Britisharchaeologisthardly needsto be stressed.

An entry in sucha biographicaldictionarymight look somethinglike theoneoverleaf.On looking into the matterof archivalsourcesfurther, it would appearthat it is only

from thetime of Haverfield– who wasactivefrom the1880sto the1910s,theRomanSocietybeingfoundedin 1910– thatdocumentationsurvivesin quantity(cf. theEdwardianmaterialonwhich Boon drew for his 1975 and 1990 papers).But there are works like CharlesRoachSmith’s threevolumesof Retrospections,SocialandArchaeological, which give a goodentryinto thestudyof theplaces,personalitiesandprogressof British archaeologyin thenineteenthcentury,asexperiencedby oneof thecentralfigures.Theold Dictionary of NationalBiographyprovidesreasonablecoverageof nineteenth-centuryfigures(althoughnot later ones;howeverthesemay be includedin the revisedversioncurrently in preparation).Therearesomemoremodernreminiscences,autobiographies, biographiesand hagiographies,thougharguablynot

6 Notealsotheexamplesprovidedby thework of Welinder(1999),usingtheactualsourcesfor the interactionofparticulargroupsof archaeologistsandthe communicationof ideas.

COLIN WALLACE


enough(e.g.Chitty 1987;Noel-Hume1978;Fox2000;Hodges2000andWebster1991);Web-basedpublishinghasprovideda platform heretoo (Bishop1997).

MORE ON THE PROBLEM-ORIENTEDAPPROACH

Oncea ‘cast list’ hasbeenassembledfrom a sourcesuchasa biographicaldictionary,how might a consciousproblem-orientedstance– to studying the recenthistory of Romanarchaeologyin Britain – work with suchinformation?To this end,I offer a shortreviewof oneset of contextsand contactsfrom the early twentiethcentury,informed by preliminary data-gatheringfor a biographicaldictionary.Thecentralfigure, DonaldAtkinson,wasthesubjectafew yearsagoof analmostpurelydescriptivetreatmentwhich gatheredbasicdetails(Wallace1995);but morecanusefully be said.

Relationsbetweenthe individual andthe collectivecanbe studiedin this instancebylooking at the organisationand practiceof fieldwork. But first, who was Donald Atkinson?Born in 1886,dying in 1963,he wasactive from the 1910sto the 1960s.He wasan Oxfordstudentof Haverfield’sanda long-timeexcavationcolleagueof J.P.Bushe-Foxat Corbridge,Wroxeter and Richborough.His earliest researchwas on samianpottery and at the site of

Prof. Robert Carr Bosanquet, 1871–1935

active 1890s–1930s(British School at Athens1899–1906)

Classicist, postgraduate research in Greece,member of the Northumberland ExcavationCommittee from 1898, Assistant Director thenDirector, British Schoolat Athens,excavationsinCrete,Professorof ClassicalArchaeologyin theUniversity of Liverpool 1906–20,relief work inAlbania, Corfu and Macedonia in WW1, inva-lided home 1918, retired to Northumberland,dividing his time between Romano-British ar-chaeologyand farming.

Educatedat Trinity College Cambridge1890–4and the British School at Athens. Turning fromliterature to archaeology, supervised the firstmodern Roman fort excavation(at Housesteadsin 1898). With the Liverpool Committee forExcavation and Research in Wales and theMarches and as a Commissionerof the RoyalCommissionon the Ancientand Historical Monu-mentsof Wales, organizedcampaignsof fieldworkandprojectsof synthesison RomanBritain in theperiodbeforeWW1. Oneof theearlyProfessorsofLiverpool University’s Institute of Archaeology.At least as important as Haverfield to theformation of Romano-British archaeologyas adiscipline.

Bonser (1964) references99 (Haverfield obit.),766 (Housesteads),1285 (finds), 1361–2(trullei),1729 (inscription), 1897–8 (Housesteads),7255(vaguelecturenote),7460(Hadrian’sWall), 7786(Housesteads),8027 (Lanchester),8055 (Ebche-ster),8185(High Rochester),8216(ChewGreen),8899 (Caersws), 8992 (in RCAHMW Car-marthens.), 9186 (in RCAHMW Merioneth.),9327 (Caersws)and 9356 (in RCAHMW Rad-nors.); seealso Archaeol Aeliana 4ser 13, 1936(Dunstanburgh)obituaries Antiq J 15, 1935, 397–8, ArchaeolAeliana4 ser 13, 1936,1–8 (RH Hodgkin),TransCumberlandWestmorlandAntiq Archaeol Soc nser35,1935,289–90(?RGCollingwood)andHistBerwickshireNatur Club 29, 1935, 120–2; DNB1931–40, 1949,90–1;seealsoBosanquet,ES(ed)1938 Robert Carr BosanquetLetters and LightVerse, Gloucester,pp. 15–19,25, 68 & 100–1ofWhitehouse,H 1986TheBritish Schoolat AthensThe First Hundred Years and Gill, DWJ 2000‘Collecting for Cambridge:JohnHubert Marshallon Crete’, Ann Rep Brit SchoolAthens95, 2000,517–26

see other entries for Liverpool Committee . . .,NorthumberlandExcavations Committee, RoyalCommission. . ., Society of Antiquariesof New-castle



Lowbury Hill. His later fieldwork was conductedat a rangeof Romano-Britishsites,rural,military andurban:GaytonThorpe,Ribchester,Wroxeter,Caistorby NorwichandCirencester.He taughtat the University of Manchesterfrom 1919to 1951.7

The long-runningCorbridgeexcavations– in which Atkinsonparticipated– hadgrownfrom simple beginningsinto a researchproject on the RomanNorth (Birley 1959 and Bishop1994).Oncethe annualproject wasestablished,Haverfield encouragedpupils like J.P.Bushe-Fox andPhilip Newbold(1887–1916)to carry out their own researchon the chronologyof theNorthernFrontier and contributespecialiststudiesto others’ work. From his positionsin theOffice of WorksandtheSocietyof Antiquaries,JoscelynPlunkettBushe-Fox(1880–1954),8 whowas perhapsthe most eminentof the Haverfield ‘Corbridge school’ (and a Petrieprotege too:Drower 1985, 312), helped plan the Richborough excavations. His earlier excavationsatWroxeterformeda link, in termsof organisation,broadaimsandpersonnel,between1908–14Corbridgeand1922–38Richborough.At all these,theexcavation wasdoneby a locally-recruiteddiggingworkforce(at Richboroughwith theexplicit aim of unemployment relief), supervisedbythe new generation of professionalarchaeologistswho wereassistedby studenttrainees.JustasHaverfield trainedup a new generation,so new archaeologistslike Wheeler,Hawkes,RadfordandFox weresentto Bushe-FoxandAtkinson to learn(e.g.Hudson1981,127–8).

Somethingof Atkinson’sworking methodsemergesfrom enquiriesto thosewho knewhim. He preferredhis paid labourersto studentexcavators,whetherfor easeof instructionorsupervisionis not clear, and paid the price in termsof a low level of excavationtechniquecomparedto othersworking in the1920sand’30s.Becauseof a lackof developedfacilities andof a desire to harnessthe enthusiasmof whichever collaboratorscould be found, post-excavationprocessingcould take place at a distance,e.g. much of the work on the kilnassemblagesfrom Caistortook placein Buxton,Derbyshire,thehomeof theillustratorGeorgeStafford.His small daughterhelpedwith the work of sortingandreconstruction(andstill hassomeodd sherdsasa souvenir).

Attentionneedsto bedrawnhereto somethingof themechanicsof allotting directorsto projectsand traineesto excavations,for by the 1920sthere had emergedsomeform ofcentralco-ordinationfor this.Or rathersomeform of centralco-ordinator;this is anappropriatepoint to introduceMargerieVenablesTaylor (?1880–1963),anotherprotegeeof Haverfieldandonewhowasactivefor a long time (from the1900sto the1960s9). Stemmingfrom herwork asa collaboratorwith Haverfieldon the (largely female-compiled)Victoria CountyHistory andthen for the Journal of Roman Studies, Taylor beganto function as a central sourceofinformationandadviceon Romano-Britisharchaeology.Haverfieldhadmatcheddirectorstoprojects,e.g.assigningAtkinson andH.G. Evelyn White (1884–1924)to excavatethe NorthLeigh villa; Taylor carriedthis on.Whenthesupervisorof theGaytonThorpevilla excavationssuddenlydiedon site,shewasaskedby theNorfolk andNorwich ArchaeologicalSociety:‘doyou know of anyoneat the University sufficiently keento undertakethis work?’10 Shefound

7 Unpublishedsourcesfor Atkinson: interview with the late Prof. W.H. Chaloner;correspondencewith MissYvonneL. Stafford; materialon GaytonThorpein the Haverfield Archives,SacklerLibrary; correspondencewith the late Prof. C.F.C.Hawkes.

8 SeeAntiquariesJournal 35, 1955,283.9 SeeJournal of RomanStudies54, 1964,1–6 andJournal of RomanStudies50, 1960,xi.

10 In a letter from B. Cozens-Hardyto M.V. Taylor, 8 November1932,now in the HaverfieldArchives,SacklerLibrary (quotedby permissionof the Administratorsof the HaverfieldBequest).

COLIN WALLACE


themAtkinson.Studentscameto her, too, for shesenttheyoungChristopherHawkesto workfor Atkinson at Wroxeter in 1926; he rememberedhis training in pottery analysis asindispensablyuseful preparationfor his own subsequent(Miss Taylor-organised)project atAlchester.

Onecanthereforeseethepotentialof problem-orientedwork, thatdrawsonasourceofbiographical information, from the sketchesabove.A numberof other themeswait to beaddressedby suchwork. Forexample,enquirersaftertheimpactof classconflict onoursubjectwill havebenefitedfrom readingB.J.N. Edwards’pioneeringdiscussionof the treatmentofThomas May (1842–1931)by the archaeologicalestablishment(Edwards 2000, 32–34).Documentationcountshere:without thedetail,correlationsbetweena writer’s view of RomanBritain and the constraintsof their own time and class can only be suggestedand notdemonstrated.PerhapsA.H. Cocksdid take a ‘Romano-Victorian’ view (in EleanorScott’sevocativephrase)wheninterpretingHambledonvilla (Scott1990),butat presentall wehavetohand are the bare facts of a 1912 excavation,the report of which was read in 1917 andpublishedin 1921 by someonewho died in 1928. To characterizethe man’s methodsandpurpose,the besttheoreticalapproachesdemandwe be given somethingmoreaboutboth himandhis times.Evenminor characterscanbeinformative;theGloucestershirearchaeologistW.St Clair Baddeley(1856–1946)wasa minor player in the developingarchaeologyof AncientRome,but through his writings the major figures and their relationshipscan be seenveryclearly (Wiseman1992).

CONCLUSIONS

As this paperattemptsto show,thereare at presentproblemswhen Romano-Britisharchaeologistsapproachtheir predecessors.I havesoughtto demonstratethevalueof criticallydiscussingthehistoryof Romanarchaeologyin Britain (from examplespositiveandnegative),to discovertheobstaclesto progressandto makea pleafor oneway of overcomingthem.Thepotential benefit of a biographicaldictionary is that it gives a better graspof disciplinaryhistory,not leastby settingindividual figuresin their contemporarycontextandgiving anideaof their contacts.Both prehistoryand classicalarchaeologyhavelonger traditionsof writingdisciplinaryhistory.Romano-Britisharchaeologyneedsto beginto catchupwith – for example– works of the scopeandscaleof the volumescreatedby Sandysat the beginningof the lastcentury,andBriggsandCalder,anddeGrummondat its end(Sandys1908;BriggsandCalder1990;de Grummond1996).11

Oneof the very first satisfactorytreatmentsof the history of RomanarchaeologyinBritain wasby Haverfield(entitled ‘The Studyof RomanBritain: A Retrospect’),in his 1907Ford lectures (Haverfield 1924, 60–88). He (and Bosanquet)also excelled at publishingprimary sources(e.g.Haverfield1910andBosanquet1956).RichmondandBirley (the latter,for example,in his 1961book)wrotewell on this areatoo; sowhy did thingschange?Perhaps

11 I do not pretendthat thereareno drawbacksto whatsomewill seeasbooksperpetuatingthe ‘GreatMan’ mythof history; I merelymentiontheir absencefrom Romano-Britishhistoriographyaspossiblecauseof therebeingonly a very few ‘GreatMen’ andno others– no supportingactorsor spearcarriers– in too manyhistoriesof thesubject.Of notehereis somework on ‘statusbias’, e.g.Thacker’s(1993)paperarguingagainsttheattachmentof inappropriatesignificanceto an individual, using the caseof a neglectedfieldworker overshadowed in theliteratureby his manager.



becauseof the difficulty of the task,disguisedas a lack of respectability,therehasbeennosustainedattention(comparableto thatprovidedfor prehistoryby Piggott)but rathera numberof unconnectedindividual essays(e.g. Munby 1977, reviewing seventeenth-and eighteenth-centuryachievementsin Romano-Britishstudies).

It is often claimedthat archaeology,especiallyprehistoricarchaeology,hascomeofage,andthata signof thematurityof thedisciplineis a willingnessof scholarsto engagewiththeir predecessors.How true is this of Romano-Britisharchaeology?Worryingly, not at all:morethanonerecenttreatmenthasimplied thatthesubjectis riddledwith problemsanddogmato an unacceptabledegree.At present,Romano-Britisharchaeologistsunlike studentsof otherbranchesof archaeology12 – lack a way to assessthe significanceof any particularpieceofwriting (or indeedof its author)in context.Yet goodreflexive practiceis possible,anda firststeptowardsthis is theassemblyof pasttrendsin scholarship,drawingon the‘critical histories’and‘problem-oriented’approachesusedelsewherein writing the history of archaeology.

Acknowledgements

I amgratefulto RaphaelIsserlin,JuliaRobertsandPhil Freemanfor their commentson earlierversionsof thispaper.Responsibilityfor its contentsandtoneis minealone,however.I wouldalsolike tothankMichaeldeBootman,ProfessorAlan BowmanandLyndaSmithsonfor their assistance.This paperis basedon mostof the onedeliveredat the 11th annualTheoreticalRomanArchaeologyConference,University of Glasgow2001.

1 WarristonTerraceEdinburghEH3 5LZ

[email protected]

REFERENCES

AYRES, P. 1997:ClassicalCulture and the Idea of Romein EighteenthCenturyEngland(Cambridge).

BAUDOU, E. 1998: The Problem-OrientatedScientific Biography as a ResearchMethod. NorwegianArchaeologicalReview31.2,79–96(with commentsanda reply on pp. 97–118).

BEARD, M. 2000:TheInventionof JaneHarrison (Cambridge,MA).

BENHAM, W. Gurney1921:Alleged Relicsof Boadicea’sVictory. EssexReview30, 28–31.

BIRLEY, E. 1959:Excavationsat Corstopitum,1906–58.ArchaeologiaAeliana4 series37, 1–31.

BIRLEY, E. 1961:Researchon Hadrian’s Wall (Kendal).

BISHOP,M.C. 1994:CorstopitumAn EdwardianExcavation(London).

BISHOP,M. 1997:TheHomepageof RobertHenryForster.http://www.armatura.connectfree.co.uk/forster/index.htm[accessed06/2002].

BONSER, W. 1964:A Romano-BritishBibliography(55 B.C.–A.D.449) (Oxford).

BOON, G.C. 1975:Edwardianmanagementandexcavationcosts.Antiquity 49, 51–4.

BOON, G.C. 1990:Archaeologythroughthe SevernTunnel: the CaerwentExplorationFund,1899–1917.Transactionsof the Bristol and GloucestershireArchaeologicalSociety107,5–26.

12 By contrast,for example,with the availability to any Egyptologistof DawsonandUphill’s WhoWasWho inEgyptology(1995).

COLIN WALLACE


BOOTH, P. 2000:RaleghRadfordandthe RomanVilla at Ditchley: A Review.Oxoniensia64, 39–49.

BOSANQUET,R.C. (ed.E. Birley) 1956:RobertSmith andthe ‘Observationsuponthe PictsWall’ (1708–09). Transactionsof the Cumberlandand WestmorlandAntiquarian and ArchaeologicalSocietynewseries55, 154-71.

BRIGGS,W.W. andCALDER, W.M. (eds.)1990:ClassicalScholarship:A biographicalencyclopedia(NewYork).

BROWN,I.G. 1974:‘Gothicism,ignoranceanda badtaste’:thedestructionof Arthur’s O’on. Antiquity48,283–7.

BROWN, I.G. 1980:TheHobby-HorsicalAntiquary: A ScottishCharacter1640–1830(Edinburgh).

BROWN, I.G. 1987: Chyndonaxto Galgacus:New Letters of William Stukeleyto AlexanderGordon.AntiquariesJournal 67, 111–28.

BROWNING,M. 1995:A BaconianRevolution:CollingwoodandRomano-BritishStudies.In Boucher,D.,Connelly,J. andModood,T. (eds.),Philosophy,History and Civilization InterdisciplinaryPerspectiveson R.G. Collingwood(Cardiff), 330–63.

CHITTY, M. Derwas 1987: A PersonalRecord of Roman Yorkshire 1906–1943.Bulletin YorkshireArchaeologicalSocietyRomanAntiquitiesSection4, 3–13.

CHRISTENSON, A.L. (ed.) 1989: Tracing Archaeology’s Past: The Historiography of Archaeology(Carbondale,ILL.).

COLLINGWOOD, R.G. 1982:An Autobiography(Oxford).

CUNLIFFE, B. 1986:Major Davis: Architect andAntiquarian.Bath History 1, 27–60.

DAWSON, W.R. andUPHILL, E.P. (ed. M.L. Bierbrier) 1995:WhoWasWhoin Egyptology(London).

DROWER,M.S. 1985:Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology(London).

EDWARDS,B.J.N. 2000:TheRomansat Ribchester:Discoveryand Excavation(Lancaster).

EVANS, C. 1998a: Historicism, chronology and straw men: situating Hawkes’ ‘Ladder of inference’.Antiquity 276,398–404.

EVANS, C. 1998b:ConstructingHousesand Building Context: Bersu’sManx Round-houseCampaign.Proceedingsof the PrehistoricSociety64, 183–201.

FAHNESTOCK, P.J. 1984: History and Theoretical Development: The Importance of a CriticalHistoriographyof Archaeology.ArchaeologicalReviewfrom Cambridge3.1, 7–18.

FOX, A. 2000:AileenA PioneeringArchaeologist(Leominster).

FREEMAN, P. 1996:British Imperialismand the RomanEmpire. In Webster,J. andCooper,N.J. (eds.),RomanImperialism:Post-ColonialPerspectives(Leicester,LeicesterArchaeologyMonograph3), 19–34.

FREEMAN, P.W.M. 1997:Mommsento Haverfield: the origins of studiesof Romanisationin late 19th-c.Britain. In Mattingly, D.J. (ed.), Dialoguesin RomanImperialism(Portsmouth,RI, Journalof RomanArchaeologySupplementarySeries23), 27–50.

GILKES, O. 1998: Amateursand professionals:the excavationof AngmeringRomanVilla 1935–1947.SussexArchaeologicalCollections136,67–80.

GIVENS,D.R. 1992:TheRoleof Biographyin Writing theHistory of Archaeology.In Reyman,J.E.(ed.),RediscoveringOur Past.Essaysin the History of AmericanArchaeology(Aldershot),51–66.

GRANSDEN,A. 1980:AntiquarianStudiesin Fifteenth-CenturyEngland.AntiquariesJournal 60, 75–97.

GRANSDEN,A. 1982:Historical Writing in Englandii c.1307to the Early SixteenthCentury(London).

deGRUMMOND,N. THOMSON(ed.)1996:AnEncyclopediaof theHistoryof ClassicalArchaeology(2 vols.)(London).

HAMLIN, A. (ed.) 2001:Pioneersof the Past (Cambridge).



HAVERFIELD, F. 1910:Sir RobertSibbald’s‘Directions for his honouredFriendMr Llwyd how to TraceandRemarkethe Vestigesof the RomanWall betwixt Forth andClyde’. Proceedingsof the SocietyofAntiquariesof Scotland44, 319–27.

HAVERFIELD, F. (ed. G. Macdonald)1924:TheRomanOccupationof Britain (Oxford).

HAWKES, J. 1982:Adventurerin Archaeology(London).

HAYCOCK, D. 1999: ‘A small journey into the country’: William Stukeleyand the formal landscapeofStonehengeandAvebury.In Myrone,M. andPeltz,L. (eds.),ProducingthePast:Aspectsof AntiquarianCulture and Practice1700–1850(Aldershot),67–82.

HINGLEY, R. 2000:RomanOfficersandEnglishGentlemen:Theimperial origins of Romanarchaeology(London).

HODGES,R. 2000:Visionsof Rome:ThomasAshby,Archaeologist(London).

HUDSON,K. 1981:A SocialHistory of Archaeology:TheBritish Experience(London).

ISSERLIN, R.M.J. 1998: William Stukeley’sCaesaromagus, its basisin fiction and fact. In Bird, J. (ed.),Fabric and Form: Studies in Rome’s material past in honour of B.R. Hartley (Oxford, OxbowMonograph80), 51–8.

JENSEN,O.W. 1997: When ArchaeologyMeets Clio. A Critical Reflection on Writing the History ofArchaeology.ArchaeologicalReviewfrom Cambridge14.2,79–92.

JONES,R.F.J. 1987: The Archaeologistsof RomanBritain. Bulletin University of London Institute ofArchaeology 24, 85–97.

KENDRICK, T.D. 1950:British Antiquity (London).

KUKLIC K, B. 1996: Puritans in Babylon: The AncientNear East and AmericanIntellectual Life, 1880–1930 (Princeton,NJ).

KUNST, C. 1995: William Camden’sBritannia: History and Historiography.In Crawford, M.H. andLigota, C.R. (eds.),Ancient History and the Antiquarian: Essaysin Memoryof Arnaldo Momigliano(WarburgInstituteColloquium2), 117–31.

LEVINE, J. 1991:Dr Woodward’sShield:History, Scienceand Satire in AugustanEngland(Berkeley).

LOCK, P. 1990: D.G. Hogarth (1868–1927):‘. . . A Specialistin the Scienceof Archaeology’. AnnualBritish SchoolAthens85, 175–200.

LUCY, S. andHILL, J.D. 1993:Critical historiesof British Archaeology:An accountof a meetingheld inCambridge,July 1993.ArchaeologicalReviewfrom Cambridge12.1,77–90.

LUCY, S., THOMAS, S. and HILL, J.D. 1997: Summaryof Critical HistoriesMeeting,November4th 1995,MacDonaldInstitute,Cambridge.ArchaeologicalReviewfrom Cambridge14.2,141–54.

MENDYK, S.A.E. 1989: `SpeculumBritanniae': RegionalStudy,Antiquarianismand Sciencein Britain to1700 (Toronto).

MIKET, R. 1984:JohnCollingwoodBruceandtheRomanWall Controversy:TheFormativeYears,1848–1858.In Miket, R. andBurgess,C. (eds.),Betweenand Beyondthe Walls (Edinburgh),243–63.

MUNBY, J. 1977:Art, ArchaeologyandAntiquaries.In Munby, J. andHenig,M. (eds.),RomanLife andArt in Britain (Oxford, British ArchaeologicalReportsBritish Series41), 415–36.

MURRAY, T. (ed.)1999:Encyclopediaof Archaeology:TheGreatArchaeologists(2 vols.) (Oxford/SantaBarbara).

NOEL-HUME, I. 1978:Into the jawsof death. . . walkedone.In Bird, J.,Chapman,H. andClark, J. (eds.),CollectaneaLondiniensia(London,LondonandMiddlesexArchaeologicalSocietySpecialPaper2), 7–22.

PARRY, G. 1995:TheTrophiesof TimeEnglishAntiquariansof the SeventeenthCentury(Oxford).

PEACOCK, D.P.S.1973:Forgedbrickstampsfrom Pevensey.Antiquity 47, 138–40.

COLIN WALLACE


PIGGOTT,S. 1985:William Stukeley:An Eighteenth-CenturyAntiquary (London).

RICHMOND, I.A. 1939:The rise andprogressof Romanarchaeologyin Northumbria.DurhamUniversityJournal 32, 55–64.

RICHMOND, I.A. 1960:RomanBritain, 1910–1960.Journal of RomanStudies50, 173–91.

ROBERTS,J. 2002: ‘That Terrible Woman’: the Life, Work and Legacyof Maud Cunnington.WiltshireArchaeologicalNatural History Magazine(Wiltshire Studies)95, 46–62.

ROBINS,M. 1995:The Gadfly: a necessaryPest?AntiquariesJournal 74, 314–15.

RODWELL, W.J. and RODWELL, K.A. 1977: Roman Pottery from Goldhanger.EssexArchaeologyandHistory 8, 251–52.

SANDYS, J.E. 1908:A History of ClassicalScholarshipVol. III (Cambridge).

SCOTT,E. 1990:A critical reviewof the interpretationof infant burialsin RomanBritain, with particularreferenceto villas. Journal of TheoreticalArchaeology1, 30–46.

SELKIRK, A. 1993:A hoax?Current Archaeology134,52.

SMITH, C. Roach.1883/1886/1891:Retrospections,Socialand Archaeological(3 vols.) (London).

SMITH, P.J. 1997: GrahameClark’s new archaeology:the FenlandResearchCommitteeand Cambridgeprehistoryin the 1930s.Antiquity 71, 11–30.

SMITH, P.J. 1999: ‘The Coup’: How did the PrehistoricSocietyof EastAnglia becomethe PrehistoricSociety?.Proceedingsof the PrehistoricSociety65, 465–70.

SWEET,R. 2001:AntiquariesandAntiquities in Eighteenth-CenturyEngland.Eighteenth-CenturyStudies34.2,181–206.

THACKER, P. 1993:Discovery,HistoricalFrameworks,andScientificStatus:JoaoMoleiro andtheHistoryof Archaeology.Bulletin of the History of Archaeology3.1, 11–15.

TODD, M. 1996:From Romanticismto Archaeology:RichardColt Hoare,SamuelLysonsandAntiquity.In BrayshayM. (ed.),TopographicalWriters in South-WestEngland(Exeter),90–104.

VANCE, N. 1997:TheVictoriansand AncientRome(Oxford).

WALLACE, C. 1990:RomanPotteryStudiesin Britain 1890–1919.Journal of RomanPotteryStudies3,80–87.

WALLACE, C. 1995: Donald Atkinson, a neglectedRoman Archaeologist.TransactionsBristol andGloucestershireArchaeologicalSociety112,167–76.

WEBSTER,D.B. 1991:Hawkeseye:TheEarly Life of ChristopherHawkes(Stroud).

WELINDER, S. 1999: The Uniformization of Archaeologyin the Swedish–NorwegianKingdom 1814–1905.Acta Archaeologica70, 227–45.

WICKHAM, M.S. 1998:TheRadfordCollection:Catalogueof thepapersof RaleghRadfordtogetherwith achronologyof his careerand a bibliography (Swindon).

WISEMAN, T.P. 1992: With Boni in the Forum.In Wiseman,T.P. (ed.), Talking to Virgil: A Miscellany(Exeter),111–48.

WOODSIDE,R. andCROW,J. 1999:Hadrian’s Wall: An Historic Landscape(London).



writing disciplinary history, or why romano–british archaeology needs a biographical dictionary of...

Documents