THEORY, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH IN AN URBAN UNIT: A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE
Michael J. Jones

What I offer here is no theoretical essay, rather a comment from the perspective of an urban unit on ways in which we might reconcile theory with
practice, and historical approaches with theoretical. There are other, related divergences in the profession which are also causing concern (cf.
Cunliffe 1990, on the widening gap between practitioners and academics).
I shall have cause to consider two principal issues – the value of theory to
the research work of a ‘rescue unit’, and the apparently wide discrepancy
between established Roman (and classical) approaches and those involving
explicit theory.
It is now respectable to be explicit too about our different subjective
standpoints. I speak partly as a unit director who, although largely concerned on a day to day basis with practical matters, is acutely aware of the
need to ensure good research value in what we do; but also someone who,
although trained initially as a classicist, has always been attracted by
theoretical approaches. I am not the only person in this or other fields who
recognises both the faults and the value of the newer ideas (Graff 1992).
Being on a generational as well as a professional cusp, I suppose I just
about belong to the (then) younger generation of Romano-British archaeologists identified in his quasi·sociological paper by RickJones (1987a), certainly to what Jeffrey May (1991) has termed the ‘somewhat anarchic
generation’ impressed by the ideas ferment of the late 1960s. Managing a
unit through several different funding eras certainly enhances the ageing
process – no wonder so few original directors are in post. But like many of THEORY, PRACTICE, AND REsEARCH IN AN URBAN UNIT 159
the older generation, I had a classical education, on which little or no impact was made by the radical ideas of social scientists, before moving on to
Roman archaeology.
As I made this change, archaeology too was visibly changing in Britain:
some geographical models were being borrowed (e.g. Johnston 1984), but
the development was most notably inspired by David Clarke’s Analytical
Archaeology (1969). In this period of burgeoning theoretical ideas, a vintage
crop of Cambridge ‘Arch. and Anth.’ graduates (Daniel 1986: 201), had
found university posts and helped to develop several Single Honours
Archaeology schools. Their graduates and scions in turn have constituted a
whole army of recruits to the cause (see Champion 1992 for an analysis of
the intellectual history of this development).
These Single Honours Archaeology students, while acquiring valuable
knowledge and skills, were mostly spared the pain, not to mention the discipline, of rigorous study of the classical languages, where every letter
counts. Not that they lacked for discipline, but it was a more balanced
training. In contrast, the pedantry of the classicist can encourage dismissal
of brilliant new hypotheses if one or two details are inaccurate. Besides, for
many classical students, theorising was hardly encouraged.
Many recruits still enter archaeology through other routes. As a result,
the archaeology profession, now numbering several thousand in Britain,
contains a wide spectrum of individuals with various strengths and weaknesses. With some notable exceptions, classicists and social theorists are as
alike as chalk and cheese. Anthony Snodgrass, who has, like Colin Renfrew,
been writing eloquently on the application of theoretical approaches to
classical archaeology for a decade (e.g., 1985) has put his finger on part of
the problem (1987: 10-11): classical scholars tend to be the sort of people
who, like pure scientists, seek a ‘right answer’: the so-called ‘convergent’
mind. Yet much of classical archaeology was formerly confined to arthistory, and there was plenty of scope for theory here (e.g. Carpenter 1960;
Hutchinson 1962 on visual perception in Minoan Crete, and recent ideas
on iconography; see also Finley 1985: 18-19). Moreover, its long history as
a discipline means that its practitioners are not easily impressed by new
ideas and this has accordingly enabled it to examine and subsequently
jettison certain theories (Boardman 1989; Dyson 1989), while embracing
numeracy, taxonomy, and some social theory (e.g. Morris 1992; Alcock
1993).
Two other factors may, however, make it less penetrable by the uninitiated: the need to undertake detailed, often repetitively tedious (and these 160 M.JONES
days quite unpopular), tasks in order to grasp the subject matter, and the
fact that it is undertaken on an international (though particularly European) scale so that new hypotheses require international recognition to be
fully accepted. I return to the further implication of the first point later.
The significance of the second is that approaches to the classical world are,
in several other countries, even more traditional than the British (see Todd
1992), although there are signs of change here too. The reasons are various
(see Hodder (ed.) 1992; Harke 1992; Cleuziou et al. 1992), though perhaps
more easy to understand in Germany than in France. For all the impressive
array of France’s ‘philosophes’, and the mark left by the historical tradition
of Bloch and Braudel, the value of applying social theory seems to be
largely dismissed by the leading urban archaeologists.
Some comment is appropriate on historical evidence and current historical approaches. The comparatively generous provision of historical documentation – e.g. for the early medieval period – may have influenced
French approaches, but we know of the limitations of documentary evidence. Yet ancient history itself has moved a long way from its former concern with political events seen from the point of view of the prevailing elite.
A commonly stated view of the fascination of the Roman period, and particularly Roman Britain, was the interplay between the historical and archaeological sources (e.g. Hartley 1966), also recognising the tendency of hypotheses to become ‘facts’ or ‘factoids’ (Miliett 1990: preface). We are no
longer so content to serve as history’s hand maiden (e.g. Reece 1993). Snodgrass, for one (1987: 47-51), has identified the often irreconcilable nature
of the two types of evidence for what happened in Roman Britain as well as
in Ancient Greece (see also Branigan 1989). Medieval archaeology meanwhile has been undergoing similar upheavals (Champion 1992: 146-47 for a
recent summary; Rahtz 1981), but its value for understanding settlement
layout and social and economic life is increasingly appreciated by historians.
To sum up so far, there are great discrepancies between classical and
theoretical approaches, but there are clear signs that some earlier notions
are being abandoned and ideas of proven value are being applied.
My own experience of postgraduate research convinced me of both the
value and the limitations of a theoretical framework. In 1970 no-one, as far
as I was aware, had attempted to collate all the evidence for Roman fortifications into an ‘assemblage of (structural) artefacts’, to study them quantitatively and draw inferences and patterns using scatter diagrams. When the
work was published Qones 1975), its audience was more concerned with its
value as a compendium of the evidence than the type of approach; Roman THEORY, PRACTICE, AND RFsEARCH IN AN URBAN UNIT 161
forts were not, in any case, an area of study to which the leading (Cambridge) theoreticians were applying their minds. Some established scholars
also felt that it lacked, as I was only too aware, an insight into the mind of
the Roman military command, and I was encouraged to study important
campaigns up to fairly recent times; was this also theory? The warmest
reception to the methodological approach came in fact from George Jobey,
a prehistorian. Research in this field has continued apace, with radical
shifts taking place in perceptions of both the contribution of the patricians
to the Roman effort – e.g. the debunking of Agricola (Hanson 1987) – and
a greater appreciation of the Roman-native relationship (e.g. Breeze 1982;
Rick Jones’ current project at Newstead). Considerable advances in understanding have of course been achieved by large-scale excavations of
complete forts and other research projects, but few ‘big ideas’ have come
along: one of them being Edward Luttwak’s stimulating thoughts on
‘Grand Strategy’ (1976). Like most big ideas, it represented a leap fonvard
and a great intellectual stimulus, but also contained much which is no
longer accepted (Hanson 1989).
There is another significant influence on the direction of postgraduate
research, then and subsequently: the views of one’s supervisors and patrons
and the need to rely on a limited number of influential persons for endorsement. I am not saying that I personally was constrained in what I felt
able to achieve, but it is true that at that stage we all need one or two
sympathetic champions if we are to find ajob (as we do subsequently when
we apply for research grants). One can only go so far from the well-worn
path of one’s patrons at this early stage: later, there is more freedom. This
must once have been the case too for the current elite of Romano-British
studies, a generation strongly influenced by the genius of Eric Birley and
lan Richmond, and not such a homogeneous bunch as might be suspected
from outside (cf. Scott 1990, on the tendency for traditionalists to regard
theoreticians as all in the same boat; Bradley 1990). Younger academics will
probably accept that scholarship in terms of familiarity with the historical
sources and basic dating materials was of a higher order than is apparent
now, but of course the exponential increase in data has led to increasing
specialism. With the spread of chairs in archaeology Britain became gradually covered with as many different scholars and schools as Iron Age tribes,
and, not surprisingly, some of them displayed (friendly) rivalries and expected loyalty from those they considered to be their clients. A contemporary of that generation, Philip Rahtz, has frankly admitted that one of the
factors that so attracted him to archaeology was the reflected glory of excit-162 M.JONES
ing discoveries, in the tradition of past excavators (1985: 18). With the present emphasis on preservation, the ‘kudos game’ has largely shifted to the
new theoreticians displaying their latest wares at TAG Conferences.
Before I had time to establish my personal position in the national research scene, and to join my peer academic group, I left it largely behind,
or more accurately I was myself left behind, when I moved into rescue
archaeology at Lincoln in the frenetic days of the early 1970s. With considerable energy, but inadequate resources and moderate (but improving)
technical standards, much was recorded before destruction. We were, I
suppose, guilty of what has been called the ‘positivist fallacy’ (Snodgrass
1987: 62) – assuming that what is observable is what is important and can
indicate the principal historical features of the site. Our research framework, as in much urban archaeology in Britain and abroad, was guided
largely by Martin Biddle’s work at Winchester as much as any periodspecific problems. Even this approach was too ‘modern’ for some scholars:
e.g. F. H. Thompson (1975: 253) refers to the ‘nebulous concept’ of urban
archaeology. Much that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s is still being
digested, as it is analysed and subjected to the latest theories of, say, site
formation processes, or quantititave finds analysis.
In the meantime the insecurity of the unit’s existence meant that our
chief priority at times has been survival, to preserve an organisation with
local expertise in the city – a model that is generally accepted as being in
the best interests of urban archaeology (Galinie, forthcoming). We appear
to have come through the worst, but more than ever have to keep on our
toes: a Unit needs political, professional and academic credibility. Techniques have to be continually reviewed and improved where possible, and
here the Units have to some extent taken the initiative (e.g. in recording
and analysing stratigraphy). Management of projects takes up an increasing
amount of time, and theories are constantly changing. We have had to
sharpen our image with the developer, the planner, and the public, produce reports appropriate to our markets, and generally be accepted as a
‘good thing’: educational displays help here if they hit the right note, and
of course are an investment for the future in creating a favourable climate
for archaeological research.
We suffer in archaeology from what one might term the ‘remarkable
precedent syndrome’: if one Professor in the south of England can get his
excavation reports published within three years or if an organisation in the
north makes profits out of a tourist scheme, those who hold the purse
strings assume that we can all follow suit. Perhaps the greatest challenge to THEORY, PRACTICE, AND REsEARCH IN AN URBAN UNIT 163
the modern unit is maintaining our greatest resource, a substantial group
of energetic professionals who have acquired both technical and local
expertise – and the latter takes some while to develop. Naturally most staff
are, sooner or later, concerned about job security and so there is a need to
ensure a smooth workflow, an art in itself. There is some alarm in the profession that, while it is not difficult to persuade students to undertake small
dissertations on various types of material, post-graduate research tends to
be directed largely to ‘theoretically exciting’ problems, while we may soon
suffer from a depletion of resources in terms of, say, pottery experts (see
also Monaghan, above), and find it difficult to get anyone to do a thesis on
a body of historical evidence. Fortunately, some of these problems have
been recognised, but action is needed soon (Fulford and Huddleston 1991,
reviewed by Greene 1992). I have been surprised how few universities have
followed the example of Leicester in establishing courses in post-excavation
studies.
Whatever the obstacles, it is in our interest not only to produce publications, but to ensure that our reports are written in an awareness of current
research problems, and further to devise new projects which are of solid
research value. There may be some new large-scale field projects in the
future, but in the context of the preservation ethic, and in a recession,
these could be few and far between. At least there are now signs that the
conservation role which archaeology is playing in society is not considered
to be sufficient without a modicum of research. The planning system can
be used to carry out research to aid decision-making, but on a limited scale.
In preparing reports, therefore, we must take account of the fact that we
may not be able to increase substantially either our database or our knowledge of particular sites and problems within the foreseeable future. Yet
there is a great deal of data to hand which can be manipulated more easily
than ever before thanks to computers.
For many years, I have struggled to keep pace with the output of work on
Roman and later towns. What those of us in the Units need to know is:
how can results from our sites illuminate problem areas or test current
ideas, for instance, in Lincoln on Roman legionary fortresses and towns.
Closer links with universities are one way of keeping in touch. The Roman
Society provided some advice several years ago (Wacher (ed.), 1985), and
some of its ideas were incorporated into a wider survey of urban archaeology produced by the Council for British Archaeology (Jones and Wacher,
1987). The CBA’s Urban Research Committee continues to offer useful
support with its study of themes such as victualling and innovation. Among 164 M.JONES
the Roman Society’s recommendations for future work, several priorities
were of direct application to Lincoln; the fortress plan, any site with wellpreserved deposits in a major Roman town, complete examples of
domestic and industrial dwellings, suburbs and the urban fringes, the terrltorium, harbours and waterfronts, and cemeteries, especially those of the
later Romani early Christian period. There is obviously a great deal still
worth investigating according to the collective wisdom of the RomanoBritish ‘establishment’ (see also Todd 1989). The significance of transitional phases – e.g., the late Roman and early Saxon periods – was recognised and was subsequently prominent in English Heritage’s research
framework ‘Exploring Our Past’ (1991). Here, the Roman period did not
otherwise feature strongly except as an element in diachronic approaches
to larger problems, such as ‘towns’ and ‘landscapes’. Justifiably perhaps,
greater emphasis was placed on the native perspective.
It is of course quite appropriate for the archaeological study of the town
to follow a multi-period approach: this is also the case in France, where ‘la
ville’ forms research project number one for ‘historic’ archaeology (hence
‘programme HI’: Min. Culture 1990). But there is also scope in the French
scheme for other major themes, on aspects such as cemeteries, mining and
metallurgy, communications, etc., as well as more specific problems such as
aspects of ‘protohistoric’ settlements and their populations, and minor
urban and rural settlements, through to some site specific projects. Some
of the larger field programmes involve several teams working on different
aspects of the same ‘projet collectiJ de recherche’ (e.g. Guyon (ed.) 1991),
whose endeavour and direction are co-ordinated by regular meetings and
project reviews. I hope that we can observe such initiatives and learn something from them; in many cases it appears that they do not take place in an
awareness of the sort of research framework which many British theoreticans would advocate. It is at the same time true that each country has
younger groups of scholars who are getting to grips with the changing
theoretical approaches seen in Britain (e.g. Hodder (ed.) 1992). The development of theory during the 1970s largely passed the Units by, no
doubt partly because they were so preoccupied with site work, with developing new practical applications and with improving and refining recording systems. Moreover, the difficult language of theory and its apparent lack of application to their problems meant that the effort to grasp its
significance did not seem worthwhile. Worse was to follow: new theoretical
approaches, new theories, and new techniques, many of them borrowed
from other disciplines which were already casting them off, seemed to THEORY, PRACTICE, AND RF.’lEARCH IN AN URBAN UNIT 165
follow each other even more quickly. Of course, some of them left an obvious mark: e.g. spatial analysis, explicit sampling strategies, environmental
context. Others, like ideas on social power (Mann 1976) or centre-periphery, would be the talk of one TAG Conference and unmentioned at the
next. It was not too obvious to the uninitiated that these ideas were in fact
finding their way into the literature but publication of appropriate papers
did usually follow (for the application of centre-periphery relationships, see
for instance Rowlands and Larsen 1987; Cunliffe 1988; Champion (ed.)
1989; Parker Pearson 1989; Millett 1990).
Now I know that a year is a long time in archaeological theory but units
have only a number of specialists, and for those of us trying to make the
best use of our time, the multiple whammy of theory after theory with no
simple guide to their value (cf. Hodder 1986; Renfrew and Bahn 1991:
426-34) was quite bewildering. From a student perspective, a year is a long
time, and the excitement of stimulating ideas obviously found a ready
market here. A theoretically aware generation has now found its way into
the units, and is carrying out good work. But, as I said above, some of our
needs are for skilled practitioners in more tedious, practical tasks: perhaps
they need a question to start with? It might also be said, perhaps uncharitably, that some younger academics enjoy and benefit professionally from
the kudos of being the first to espouse and propagate a new theoretical
application. Even academics who have been more open to new ideas are expressing concern that there is too much theory and not enough practice
(e.g. Bintliff 1991, re post-modernism at TAG; Snodgrass 1987: 9, on the
need to demonstrate that theories work in practice). At least there is some
recognition that theories need to be applied to the Roman period with
care. Moreover, the theoretical scene is constantly in flux, a fact which
gives traditionalists an excuse not to take it seriously and decision-makers ‘a
pretext’ to decry advice from academics. John Barrett has recognised this
and has made a plea for a general agreement on the aims of archaeological
research (1989). Competition may be healthy within the subject but a unified standpoint is at times necessary when the value and continuation of
research is under attack.
Our needs in the units are for regular and clear communication of what
is important, what we should be looking for, how we should be analysing
our abundant evidence, and of course several approaches are valid. We
need to know how to use the archaeological data to the best effect. I like to
think that the forerunner of these TRAC occasions was the volume on
Recent Trends drafted under Rick Jones’ editorship and published in 1991, 166 M.JONES
but largely written in 1986 (R. F. J. Jones 1991). Like much of that volume’s
contents, my own contribution set out some sort of agenda and although it
made a gesture in the direction of theoretical approaches, was not written
from a theoretically-informed position (M. J. J ones 1991). It is interesting
to note that English Heritage is confronting the problem of the viable
sample (Startin 1993), one aspect I did consider, and a thorny problem
indeed.
So what should we in places like Lincoln be doing with our evidence? We
have some help from historians, although not all of them are yet convinced
of the value of archaeological evidence. David Peacock’s 1982 study of
pottery was a notable exception in impressing ancient historians with the
contribution which archaeology can make. No doubt this partly reflects the
fact that historians, belonging to a more established discipline, tend not to
need to grasp on to theory as much as the new, insecure discipline of
archaeology seeking to establish itself in its own right. Yet historical
approaches have moved on considerably in recent years. Moses Finley
(1985: 18-23; 59-66) discussed the relationship between history and
archaeology, and argued that the need is not more exhaustive monographs
on individual cities, however scholarly. More important to Finley, who
accepted the value of models, would be to establish how the economic
system worked to support such a large settlement (see Lazreg and Mattingly 1992 for a good example). Finley’s successors have carried the debate
further, but no consensus exists (Gamsey et al. 1983; cf. Wallace-Hadrill
1991; Eagles 1990). It is certainly clear that we need to study the urbanrural relationship, which includes studies of environmental samples such as
animal bones linked to survey of the hinterland (see Milleu 1991 for a
recent account of one survey). A variety of relationships is to be expected:
as Philippe Leveau, a tireless French fieldworker, has written, towns are not
the only element of Romanisation, nor are they synonymous with civilisation, merely a sign of a certain form of it; there are several different types
of urban systems, several different types of countryside (Leveau quoted by
Vallet 1991: 77). Further help is provided by books like that produced by
Dominic Perring on Roman London (1991), combining the latest archaeological data with recent theoretical ideas, although for many problems it
presents only one of several possible interpretations (e.g., cf. Williams
1990). There is pressure to produce cosy,simple histories, for the local and
popular markets; we know that the reality was both more complex and uncertain, and that life for most was always fairly wretched, exploitation rife
(e.g. Walsh 1992: introduction). THEORY, PRACTICE, AND REsEARCH IN AN URBAN UNIT 167
How then are we reconciling these approaches in Lincoln? Work is
advanced on a major publication project, with substantial funding from
English Heritage, on those sites excavated before 1988. The academic
framework and objectives of this project were largely devised by our then
inspector, Mike Parker Pearson, now a lecturer in archaeological theory at
Sheffield University, in conjunction with my colleague, Alan Vince, who
manages the project. Not surprisingly they take due note of the research
framework recently published by English Heritage (1991). Progress on the
project is being monitored for English Heritage by Tim Williams, who is
known and respected by our team for his helpful and knowledgeable
support: he too has had much experience of analysing urban stratigraphy
and finds, and his researches into Roman London (e.g. 1990) are worthy of
inclusion in this volume.
I want to summarise the themes of the research (Vince (ed.) 1991), which
of course covers the post-Roman periods too. The analysis of site and finds
data can take place more easily because the data has now been computerised, on a multi-user system. Even with generous support, we have had to
be selective, to confine finds reports to those which are of patent value,
and to limit our academic objectives to three principal themes, which cover
questions to which out present data can be applied. They are:
1. The extent of settlement in Lincoln and its suburbs through time and
the development of major foci. Settlement is plotted using the pottery databases to chart the incidence of diagnostic types, supported by a synthesis of
the stratigraphic evidence and non-ceramic artefacts. Major foci shifted
through time, but they included the principal routes and public buildings.
Some attempt is also being made to estimate the changing population level
through time (see Marsden and West 1992), and social differentiation in relation to material culture.
2. The study of spatial patteming within the town and its suburbs: was
there socio-economic zonation? Evidence for commercial activity will obviously be examined here (see Redman 1986 for a good analysis of this
theme at Qsar-Es Seghir).
3. Lincoln’s hinterland, its trading contacts and their effect on and relationship to the fortunes of the town itself. Pottery will again be a major, but
not exclusive, source of information. No new fieldwork is planned; rather
the information on the hinterland will be gathered from published and
archive sources.
In the course of the project, another theme – that of the major social
transformations of the transitional phases – will emerge and the results will 168 M.JONES
be set in their appropriate academic context. But we realise that there are
further important areas which will still require attention in due course: for
instance, organic fmds and the local environment, for which excavations by
the river in 1987-90 produced the most useful data. More work is desirable
in the longer term related to the wider environment, and on tenurial arrangements and social relationships, property boundaries and land division.
That programme as far as we can tell, is both ‘theoretically infonned’ and
appropriate to the available data. It does not prevent us from pursuing in
more detail related problems. I mention some here which are my particular
concern.
One is the plan of the forum – analogues need detailed study – and the
implication of its design in tenns of cultural influence, linked perhaps also
to what it symbolised Gones and Gilmour 1980). Rick Jones (1987b) and
Martin Millett (1990: 72-73) have touched on, but in relation to the tribal
capitals rather than the coloniae. Where do the influences derive from and
through which mechanism (Blagg 1990; Blagg and Millett (eds) 1990)? The
original inhabitants of the military colonies, those who oversaw the development of public-works, were predominantly the retired legionaries who
had origins in the Mediterranean area – or so it is assumed; is this distinction reflected in architectural styles and what does this tell us about both
the clients and the designers? Can we recognise a distinct elite culture in
the early coloniae? If so, when does it cease to be distinctive?
Another major area of research is the nature of the late Roman town,
and the symbolic and economic implications of its fortifications Gones
1993; Jones et al. forthcoming). Some work has already been undertaken
on the source of building materials for the city’s strong defences, which
survived as a ‘relict feature’ to influence subsequent topography Gones
1980; cf. Greene 1986: 152-54).
I want to end with the last ‘live’ remnant of romanitas in the city. The
existence of an early church-like structure in the middle of the forum was
established in 1978, dated to no earlier than the late 4th century, and if you
believe the radiocarbon dates of nearby burials, possibly gone by the end of
the 6th Gones 1994). Again it can be viewed as a symbol of power. There is
no exact parallel for this phenomenon, although the Exeter forum may
have contained a similar structure in the sub-Roman period. Nor is there
any certainty in the interpretation of the evidence: I have, therefore been
examining better-preserved evidence for early churches in Gaul and the
Mediterranean provinces as well as in Britain. The research has suggested
several alternative interpretations; e.g., was this part of the ‘episcopal THEORY, PRACflCE, AND REsEARCH IN AN URBAN UNIT 169
group’? Study of the continental evidence is helped by the existence –
especially in those Catholic countries which boast better urban continuity –
of the thriving discipline of ‘Christian archaeology’ (Duval 1991). Is it an
appropriate appraoch (cf. lames 1993)?
This fragmentation of various branches of archaeology, in different ways
from in Britain (there is also a ‘Merovingian archaeology’ in France), strikes
one when studying mainland Europe. The different disciplines do not necessarily mix. It is a problem from which we too suffer. As theory advances
quickly, much Roman archaeology is still firmly rooted in the traditional
disciplines. Let us by all means have a healthy and unrestrained theoretical
development, but most of all, let us communicate with each other.
POSTSCRIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS —-
Since this paper was written and delivered to the publishers, some echoes
of its content can be found, set out more eloquently, in the volume ArcluuJological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? edited by Norman Yoffee and Andrew
Sherratt (Cambridge University Press, 1993). The papers by Richard
Bradley, Christopher Chippindale and the editors themselves are of most
relevance to the substance of the paper above.
Three reviews of Martin Millett’s The Romanization oJ Britain which have
now appeared form a useful collection. Although all are by the middle
generation of scholars, they take some issue with both Miliett’s general
approach and some of his detailed arguments. See M. G. Fulford in The
ArcluuJological Journal 148 (1991): 307-09; R. J. A. Wilson in Journal oJ
Roman Studies 82 (1992): 290-03; and P. W. M. Freeman in Journal oJ
Roman ArcluuJology 6 (1993): 438-45.
The paper as here presented is a revised version of that read at the conference, with some of the more ephemeral and flippant material deleted. I
thank the organisers of the conference for agreeing to include such an
eccentric contribution and subsequently to publish it. In its present form I
take full reponsibility for any errors and misrepresentations, but need to
register my debt to the following, who kindly commented on an earlier
draft and who were without exception encouraging in their response:
Dr D. G. Coombs, Pamela Graves, Dr R. F. J. lones, Dr D. J. Mattingly, Dr
M. Milieu, Dr M. Parker Pearson, and Peter Rush. Much of the research for
this paper was undertaken during my tenure of an Honorary Simon Professional Fellowship of the University of Manchester, and I thank Professor
G. D. B. lones and Dr J. P. Wild for their support. 170 M.JONES
Bibliography
Alcock, Susan 1993. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barley, Maurice W. (ed.) 1977. European Towns: Their Archaeology and Early
History. London: Academic Press.
Barrett, John C. 1989. Archaeology in the Age of Uncertainty. Paper given
to Theoretical Archaeology Group Conference 1989.
Barrett, John C., Andrew P. Fitzpatrick, and Lesley MacInnes (eds) 1989.
Barbarians and Romans in North-West Europe. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series 471).
Bintliff, John 1991. Post-Modernism, Rhetoric and Scholasticism at TAG:
the Current State of British Archaeological Theory. Antiquity 65:274-
278.
Bintliff, John (ed.) 1991. The ‘Annates’ School and Archaeology. Leicester
University Press.
Blagg, Thomas F. C. 1990 The Temple at Bath (Aquae Sulis). Journal of
Roman Archaeology 3:419-430.
Blagg, Thomas F. C. and Martin Millet (eds) 1992. The Early Roman Empire
in the West. Oxford.
Boardman, John 1989. Classical Archaeology: Whence and Whither? (Review ofSnodgrass 1987). Antiquity 62:795-797.
Bradley, Richard 1990. Review of Todd (ed.) 1989. Britannia 21:393-396.
Branigan, Keith 1989. Review of Snodgrass.Journal of Hellenistic Studies 109:
248-249.
Breeze, DavidJ. 1982. The Northern Frontiers of Roman Britain. London: Batsford.
Carpenter, Rhys 1960. Greek Sculpture: a Critical Review. Chicago and
London.
Champion, Timothy (ed.) 1989. Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in
Archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman.
Champion, Timothy 1992. Theoretical Archaeology in Britain. In Hodder
(ed.) 1992, 129-160.
Cleuziou, S., Anick Coudart, J.-P. Demoule, and Alain Schnapp 1992. The
Use of Theory in French Archaeology. In Hodder (ed.) 1992,91-128.
Cunliffe, Barry W. 1990. Publishing in the City. Antiquity 64:667-671.
Ciippers, Heinz 1990. Die ROmer in RheinlaruJ.Pjalz. Stuttgart.
Daniel, Glyn 1986. Some Small Harvest. London.
Duval, Noel et al. (eds) 1991. Naissance des Arts Chretiens. Paris: Imprimerie
Nationale.
Dyson, Stephen 1989. The Relevance for Romanists of Recent Approaches
to Archaeology in Greece. Journal of Roman Archaeology 2: 143-146.
Eagles, Donald 1990. Roman Corinth. Chicago.
English Heritage 1991. Exploring Our Past: Strategies for the Archaeology of
England. London. THEORY, PRACTICE, AND REsEARCH IN AN URBAN UNIT 171
Finley, Moses 1985. Ancient History: Evidence arul Models. London.
Fulford, Michael G. 1992. Will Prese”,ation be the Death of Archaeology?
Paper read at IFA Annual Conference, April 1992.
Fulford, Michael G. and Karen Huddleston 1991. The Current State of
Roma1W-British Pottery Studies. London: English Heritage.
Galinie, H. forthcoming. British Archaeology: a View from Abroad. Council
for British Archaeology (Annual Report, 1992).
Garnsey, Peter, Keith Hopkins, and C. Richard Whittaker 1983. Trade in the
Ancient Economy. London: Chatto and Windus.
Graff, Gerald 1992. Beyorul the Culture Wars, New York and London. W W
Norton (reviewed by Patrick Wright). The Guardian, Ijune 1993.
Greene, Kevin T. 1986. The Archaeology of the Roman Economy. London: Batsford.
Greene, Kevin T. 1992. Review of Fulford and Huddleston 1991. Britannia
23:362-365.
Guyon, jean 1991. From Lugdunum to Convenae.Journal of Roman Archaeology 4:89-122.
Hanson, William S. 1987. Agricola arul the Conquest of Britain. London.
Hanson, William S. 1989. The Nature of Roman Frontiers. In Barrett et al.
(eds) 1989, 55-63.
Harke, Heinrich 1992 All Quiet on the Western Front? In Hodder (ed.)
1992, 187-222.
Hartley, Brian R. 1966 Some Problems of the Roman Military Occupation of
the North of England. Northern History 1:7-23.
Hodder, Ian R. 1986. Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hodder, Ian R. (ed.) 1992. Archaeological Theory in Europe. London and New
York: Routledge.
Hutchinson, R. W. 1962. Prehistoric Crete. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
james, Edward 1993. Review of Duval 1992. Medieval Archaeology 37: 340-
341.
johnston, Ronald J. 1984. City arul Society: an Outline for Urban Geography.
2nd edition. London.
jones, Michael J. 1975. Roman Fort Defences to AD 117. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports (British Series 21).
Jones, MichaelJ. 1991. Lincoln. In R. F.J.Jones 1991 (ed.), 69-74.
Jones, MichaelJ. 1993. The Latter Days of Roman Lincoln. In Alan G. Vince
(ed.), Pre-Viking Liruisey, 14-28. Lincoln.
Jones, Michael J. 1994. St Paul in the Bail: Britain in Europe? In K. S.
Painter (ed.).
jones, Michael J. and B. J. J. Gilmour 1980. Lincoln; Principia and Forum: a
Preliminary Report. Britannia 11 :61-72.
jones, Michael J. and John S. Wacher 1987. The Roman Period. In John 172 M.jONES
Schofield and R. H. Leech (eels), Urban ArchaeoltJg:y in Britain, 27-45.
London: Council for British Archaeology (Research Report 61).
jones, Michael J. et al. forthcoming. The Defences of the Lower City: ArchaeoltJg:y
of Lincoln, vol. 7.2.
jones, Richard F.]. 1987a. The Archaeologists of Roman Britain. Bulletin of
the Institute of ArchaeoltJgy, London 24:85-97.
jones, Richard F. J. 1987b. A False Start? The Roman Urbanisation of
Western Europe. World ArchaeoltJgy 19:47-57.
jones, Richard F.]. (ed.) 1991. Roman Britain: Recent Trends. Sheffield:J. R
Collis.
Lazreg, M. B. and D.]. L. Mattingly 1992. Leptiminus (Lamta)), A Roman Port
City in Tunisia, vol. 1. Michigan.
Luttwak, Edward 1976 The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Baltimore:
johns Hopkin University.
Mann, Michael 1976. The Sources oJ Social Power, vol. 1. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Marsden, Peter and Barbara West 1992. Population Change in Roman
London. Britannia 23:133-140.
May, Jeffrey 1991. Tony Gregory: Reflections on a Life. Current ArchaeoltJgy
126:263-267.
Millett, Martin 1990. The Romanization of Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Millett, Martin 1991. Roman Towns and Their Territories: an Archaeological Perspective. In]. Rich and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds) 1991, 169-190.
Ministere de la Culture 1990. La Recherche ArcMoltJgique en France 1985-89.
Paris.
Morris, 1. 1992. Death, Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Painter, K. S. (ed.) 1994. Churches Built in Ancient Times: Early Christian
Architecture in the East Mediterranean, Britain and Ireland. London:
Society of Antiquaries (occasional paper).
Parker-Pearson, Michael 1989. Beyond the Pale: Barbarian Social Dynamics
in Western Europe. In Barrett et al. (eels) 1989, 198-226.
Peacock, David P. S. 1982. Pottery in the Romari World: an EthnoarcheoltJgical
Approach. London and New York: Longman.
Perring, Dominic 1991. Roman London. London: Seaby.
Rahtz, Philip A. 1981. The New Medieval Archaeology. Inaugural lecture,
University of York.
Rahtz, Philip A. 1985. Invitation to ArchaeoltJgy. Oxford: Blackwell (rev. ed.
1991).
Redman, Charles L. 1986. Qsar-es-Seghir: an ArchaeoltJgical View of Medieval
Life. New York.
Reece, Richard M. 1993. Theory and Roman Archaeology. In E. Scott (ed.),
Theoretical Roman ArchaeoltJg:y: First Conference Proceedings, 29-38. Aldershot: Avebury (Worldwide Archaeology Series 4). THEORY, PRACTICE, AND REsEARCH IN AN URBAN UNIT 173
Renfrew, A. Colin and Paul Bahn 1991. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and
Practice. London.
Rich, John and Andrew Wallace Hadrill (eds) 1991. City and Country in the
Ancient World. London and New York: Routledge.
Rowlands, Michael G., K. Larsen, and Kristian Kristiansen (eds) 1987. Centre
and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge.
Scott, Eleanor 1990. Review ofTodd (ed.) 1989. Antiquity 64:953-956.
Snodgrass, Anthony 1985. The New Archaeology and the Classical Archaeologist. Am. Journal of Archaeology 89:31-37.
Snodgrass, Anthony 1987. An Archaeology of Greece: the Present State and
Future Scope of a Discipline, (Sather Classical Lectures). Berkeley, Los
Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Startin, D. William A. 1993. Preservation and the Academically Viable
Sample. Antiquity 255:421-426.
Thompson, F. Hugh 1979. Reveiw of Barley (ed.) 1977. Germania 57:251-
256.
Todd, Malcolm (ed.) 1989. Research on Roman Britain 1960-89. London:
Roman Society (Britannia Monograph 11).
Todd, Malcolm 1992. Reveiw of Ciippers 1990. Journal of Roman Studies 82:
289-290.
Vallet,]. P. 1991. The Place and Role of the Annales School in an Approach
to the Roman Rural Economy. In]. Bintliff(ed.) 1991, 73-92.
Vince, Alan G. (ed.) 1991. Lincoln Excavations 1972-87: Analysis and
Publication Research Design. Lincoln: City of Lincoln Archaeology Unit.
Wacher, John S. (ed.) 1987. Priorities for the Preservation and Excavation of
Romano-British Sites. London: Roman Society.
Wall ace Hadrill, Andrew 1991. Elites and Trade in the Roman Town. In
Rich and Wallace-Hadrill (eds) 1991, 241-272.
Walsh, Kevin 1992. The Representation of the Past. London and New York.
WiUiams, Tim 1990. The Foundation and Early Development of Roman
London: a Social Context. Antiquity 64:599-607.