 |
|||||
|
| |||||
|
|||||
|
|
Volume 2, Number 13, 1996Production Within and Beyond Imperial Boundaries: Peter S. Wells Copyright 1996 by Peter S. Wells. v. 7/8/96 Abstract After Rome had conquered much of temperate Europe, the administration directed the establishment of industries important to the maintenance of military and economic control of the new provinces. These included stone quarries, pottery manufactures, and metal industries. Recent research shows that much production was not as centralized as has been believed; diverse industrial sites throughout the provincial landscapes indicate a variety of arrangements for supplying the needs of the empire. In many instances, Roman production systems relied upon indigenous traditions of manufacturing. The provincial economies depended also upon materials collected and processed beyond the imperial frontiers. Analysis of Roman imports in Germany, Scandinavia, and eastern Europe, and of the contexts in which they occur, suggests that goods produced outside of the empire played a major role in the imperial economy. These commercial links, over which Roman authorities had no effective control, contributed to substantial changes in economies and in social and political configurations in societies beyond the Roman frontier. INTRODUCTION Most of what we know, and think we know, about empires in world history concerns the actions, motivations, and institutions of the imperial societies; we know relatively little about the peoples who are drawn into imperial contexts, through conquest or other means. Most empires [Page 1] have been developed by societies that possessed writing, and the written accounts upon which understanding has been based - by Romans in the Greater Mediterranean world, Spanish in South America, British in India - have been principally by writers who belonged to the imperial society and who represented the perspective of elite members of that society. In the case of early empires, where archaeology plays a major role in our understanding, the material remains of the imperial culture are usually more substantial and more apparent than are those of the societies impacted. Only relatively recently have historians, archaeologists, and others begun to make systematic attempts to understand the experience of the other peoples involved in interaction with empires - the groups conquered by the expanding empires and those otherwise brought into close contact with them. I distinguish here between the more established research question - what impact did the conquering society have on the indigenous peoples?; and a newer concern - in what ways did the indigenous peoples assert their identities and maintain or reinforce their cultural systems in response to the challenges and opportunities offered by the expanding empire? Some notable examples of studies that focus on such indigenous groups include Smith's (1986) investigation of elites in societies on the periphery of the Aztec Empire, D'Altroy's (1992) studies of indigenous populations within the Inca Empire, and Alcock's (1993) research into Roman-occupied Greece. These studies show that the indigenous societies had important effects on the imperial cultures. In the case I shall discuss below, indigenous groups played major roles in guiding the course of imperial conquest and in the establishment and subsequent management of provincial systems of administration and supply. The question can now fairly be put, to what extent do the central authorities in empires determine the course of events, and to what extent are empires dependent on compromise and negotiation with the societies they incorporate? A world systems approach to the question of the role of the conquered and neighboring peoples in empires can help to draw attention to the interactive aspect of all relations in imperial situations (see useful recent discussions in D'Altroy 1992:14-16; Ferguson and Whitehead 1992:4-8). Conquered peoples, and peoples situated beyond imperial frontiers with whom empires interact through trade, all need to be viewed as part of the same ("world") system. We need to view indigenous peoples, not just in terms of how they react to the imperial power, but rather as active participants in the construction of the contexts of interaction (Hall 1986). From this perspective, we can shift our central question from "what effect did the empire have on group X?", to "what effect did group X have on the empire?" [Page 2] Archaeology can contribute to this development in theory in two important ways. First, archaeology can examine cases of early empires and the changes associated with them over long periods of time. In a landscape for which a good database of archaeological material exists, we can examine changing circumstances and adaptive patterns from pre-conquest times, through the period of conquest, and in different phases of post-conquest time. Such processes of change can take place over several centuries, and the availability of comparable archaeological materials from different periods makes broad-scale studies of change possible. Second, in contrast to historians dependent upon textual sources, archaeologists can examine all levels of society, not just elites and major communities, to gather information about change. In the study of the material manifestations of "everyday life" among the majority of people in a society, and changes in the patterns over time, archaeologists can make their special contribution to research into the broad impact of empires. Whereas historians working with texts depend upon the subjects that interested early writers, archaeologists can consult a theoretically unlimited range of material evidence pertaining to settlement, manufacturing, trade, status expression, and everyday life. The question that will form the focus of this paper is that of imperial control over resources and production. In the World Systems model, an essential dynamic is that between imperial systems that expand over space and in their capacity to consume resources, and indigenous societies that interact with the imperial powers (Schortman and Urban 1992:18; Sinopoli 1994). A wide range of different patterns of interaction can be identified in different circumstances. As I shall demonstrate here, from the evidence of some early empires, the imperial societies had far less control over interaction with other groups than many analyses that have used the World Systems model might predict. The case I examine here is the Roman Empire in temperate Europe. THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN TEMPERATE EUROPE Communities in Italy and in the lands north of the Alps had been engaged in trade interactions since at least Neolithic times, and by the first part of the Late Iron Age, 500-300 B.C., both trade and extensive movements of persons across the Alps is apparent in the archaeological evidence (Wells 1980). At the beginning of the fourth century B.C., invaders from north of the Alps attacked towns in Italy, even sacking Rome in 387 B.C. In the subsequent two centuries, Rome built up its defenses and embarked on military expansion throughout the peninsula of Italy. Rome extended its domain across the southwestern Alps [Page 3] into southern Gaul, where it established the colony of Gallia Narbonensis around 120 B.C. (Rivet 1988). Between 113 and 101 B.C. a group called the Cimbri, apparently from northern Europe, moved into central and southern parts of Europe. Together with other groups that joined them, the Cimbri defeated Roman armies in a series of battles until they were finally beaten at Ferrara in northern Italy in 101 B.C. The early fourth century B.C. attack on Rome, and to an even greater extent the incursions by the Cimbri and their allies in the late second century B.C., had profound effects on Roman thinking about the security of northern Italy and of Rome itself, and about the character of the little-known peoples beyond the Alps (Timpe 1989:341-343; Christ 1995). Roman trade goods are well represented throughout central and western Europe from the start of the second century B.C. on (Will 1987). But the Roman decision to embark on the conquest of Gaul in 58 B.C. represented a major departure from earlier patterns of interaction. There continues to be debate about the reasons for Caesar's decision to invade Gaul. Much recent thinking has emphasized the power politics in Rome at the time, and Caesar's desire for a decisive advantage over his political rivals. But one major factor in Caesar's decision to fight in Gaul, and other Roman leaders' subsequent actions elsewhere in temperate Europe, was concern about establishing a secure frontier to the north, to protect Rome against future threats of attack by groups like the Cimbri (Christ 1995). Between the years 58 and 51 B.C., Julius Caesar led Roman armies in the conquest of Gaul - the lands of modern France, Belgium, and Germany west of the Rhine (Drinkwater 1983). In the year 15 B.C., the Roman generals Drusus and Tiberius led the conquest of the lands that comprise Germany and Austria south of the Danube (Schön 1986). Forays across the Lower Rhine into the region between the Rhine and the Elbe, made in an attempt to extend Roman imperial control to the Elbe, were called off when three legions under the leadership of the general Varus were annihilated in the Teutoburg Forest in A.D. 9. Finally, in A.D. 83 Roman armies completed the conquest of southwestern Germany, establishing a new imperial boundary line and wall - the limes - to link their Rhine and Danube frontiers (Figure 1).
Shortly after the conquest of these regions, Roman administrators organized the division of the landscapes into provinces of the Empire (Filtzinger 1976). Military camps were constructed, particularly along the frontier lines, provincial capitals and other towns established, and a system of roads and bridges built. The broad outlines of these processes, [Page 4] and specific dates of conquests and in some cases of the establishment of military bases and towns, we know from written documents. But the essential issue of how the Roman army, comprising tens of thousands of soldiers, as well as administrators and other imperial representatives in the provinces, were supplied with goods is only sporadically recorded in the written sources (Whittaker 1994). The establishment of frontiers on the edges of the landscapes conquered by Rome, and the character of the political, military, social, economic, and religious patterns that developed in the frontier territories, have been subjects of active research in recent years. Important studies of the frontier zones and the changes that took place in them include those by Dyson (1985); Barrett, Fitzpatrick, and Macinnes (1989); Maxfield and Dobson (1991); and Whittaker (1994); these works contain extensive bibliographies of pertinent literature. The present essay is intended to be a modest contribution to this broad and rapidly-developing field of research on Roman frontier issues. While political, religious, and other factors also played important roles in the interactions between indigenous peoples and Roman occupying forces, my treatment here focuses on aspects of the economy. There is some debate among Roman historians and archaeologists about how many individuals moved from Italy to temperate Europe following the conquest. The dominant opinion now is that relatively few made such a move (Dyson 1985:5). The principal representatives of Rome in the new provinces were the soldiers; other categories of persons from Roman Italy included administrators and merchants (Dyson pers. comm.). Thus, the question of how the new imperial presence north of the Alps was supplied is essentially that of how the army was supplied. SUPPLY AND PRODUCTION
The question of supply for the Roman army can be divided into two main categories, food and manufactured goods. My focus here is on the manufactured products. While the provisioning of the troops with food was overseen by the state (Peacock and Williams 1986:58; Whittaker 1994:101-108), for manufactured products, the state seems not to have played an active part in supply, at least during the first and second centuries A.D. (Oldenstein [Page 5] 1985). The manufactured goods needed by the troops included items required for military service, such as weapons, tools, clothing, dress paraphernalia, leather straps, belts, and tents; and everyday items such as pottery. For information about supply systems for these goods, we are almost totally dependent upon archaeological evidence, since the available texts do not say much about this subject (Oldenstein 1976; Sommer 1988). Within the Imperial Boundaries Recent research indicates that in general for manufactured goods, the Roman state did not maintain centralized production facilities for the military. Instead, each military camp had to make its own arrangements, either setting up its own workshops or arranging with local craftworkers to provide the needed goods (Oldenstein 1976:75-84; Sommer 1988:596; Whittaker 1994:112). Much of such manufacturing was carried out by workers in the vici - towns that were commonly associated with the Roman camps and that provided a wide range of goods and services to the troops (Sommer 1988). Production of pottery was sometimes organized on a large scale, though there were many small workshops as well; often, numerous different enterprises manufactured the same kinds of pottery (Greene 1986:158-167). Much of the fine pottery in use in the provinces, especially terra sigillata, was imported, initially from Italy and subsequently from newly-established production centers in southern Gaul, such as at Lyon and at La Graufesenque, and in central Gaul at Lezoux. Later, as demand for such fine pottery continued to grow, both within the provinces and across the frontiers in the unconquered areas, manufacturing facilities were founded further north and east. Some of them produced great quantities to supply many different communities, including both Roman military camps and civilian settlements. At the manufacturing center at Rheinzabern in southwest Germany, for example, it is estimated that over a million vessels were produced in the workshops every year (Garbsch 1982:11). A number of substantial pottery depots have been identified, where pottery was stored for trade. One such depot found at Kempten in southern Bavaria contained large quantities of terra sigillata made in the Rhineland (Czysz 1986:158). It was buried when a fire destroyed the building in the 160s A.D. The depot was situated in the house of a merchant, located in the center of the Roman town, just across the street from the forum; this situation suggests a relatively high status for this merchant. Investigators disagree as to [Page 6] whether such pottery circulated in a free enterprise market (Peacock and Williams 1986:58) or under some degree of state control (Whittaker 1994:110). Small potteries also existed, and some pottery was produced at military camps (Sommer 1988:594). Soldiers at the military sites, including both legionary troops from Italy and auxiliaries from the provinces, also used pottery manufactured in local communities, both plain and painted wares. These ceramics frequently represent a direct continuation of Late Iron Age pottery traditions (Fingerlin 1981; Wieland 1993); often the indigenous pottery on Roman sites is indistinguishable from pottery on local pre-Roman settlements. It seems, therefore, that the defenders of the empire were dependent upon indigenous craft industries for some of the basic necessities of their daily existence. Although some limited metalwork was done at the military camps, the archaeological evidence strongly suggests that during the first and second centuries A.D. most was done outside, in civilian-run establishments, often in the towns (vici) associated with the military bases (Sommer 1988). Evidence includes large numbers of metalworking tools that are commonly recovered in such towns, but not in the military camps themselves (Sommer 1988:597). Some investigators argue that for the most part, the military was not involved in metal production at all, but arranged all supplies of metal goods through indigenous manufacturers (Fischer 1985:482; Sommer 1988:597). In some cases, evidence for the production of metal goods for Roman troops is recovered at places that otherwise have no apparent link with Roman sites. Oldenstein (1976:65) cites an unpublished find at Steinheim on the Main. A house contained the remains of a chest in which was found scrap metal from Roman military equipment. Iron tools found nearby suggest that this building was a workshop that produced metal implements for Roman troops stationed somewhere in the area. Oldenstein (1976) and C. Wells (1995) provide some numerical information that puts the question into perspective quantitatively. Along the Upper German-Raetian frontier, Oldenstein estimates about 20,000 Roman soldiers served at any one time in the late second and early third centuries A.D. C. Wells (1995:611) estimates about 90,000 troops stationed on the middle and lower Rhine. Typical weaponry for each soldier included helmet, body armor, shield, spear, sword, and dagger. Helmets and armor were made of iron and leather, shields of wood and leather, with iron bands across the front and iron hand-guard. Spear, sword, and dagger were of iron. In addition to the actual weaponry, each soldier wore an average of 10 or more bronze objects, including pins, buckles, strap-ends, and various [Page 7] ornaments (Oldenstein 1976). Thus the total quantities of iron, leather, and bronze required by the Roman soldiers in temperate Europe were vast. If each Roman military base needed to arrange the supply of all, or most, of these goods from indigenous producers - and the evidence suggests that supply worked this way - then the Roman occupying forces were very much dependent upon the local groups. Without the constant cooperation of the local producers, the Roman venture would have failed. In such a relationship between dependent occupiers and local producers, negotiation and compromise are likely to have played a greater role than exercise of power over the indigenous peoples. Thus the question of the character of relations between representatives of the imperial power, and local indigenous craftsworkers and local leaders, becomes a critical issue. The Roman troops must in turn have introduced considerable wealth into the communities that supplied the needed goods. Such reciprocal arrangements surely contributed in a major way to the growing intensity of economic activity in the provinces of Gaul and Germany during the first and second centuries A.D. Beyond the Frontier Interactions between the Roman provinces and the lands beyond the frontier are well documented. The clearest indication of the chronology, extent, and character of the interactions are the large quantities of Roman objects found all over the lands from the imperial frontier northward as far as Norway, Sweden, and Finland, and eastward as far as Russia (Hansen 1987; Hedeager 1987). These Roman-made goods include vessels of bronze, glass, pottery, silver, and gold; coins; statuettes; and jewelry. These objects often occur in exceptionally rich burials, but also on settlement sites. Roman writers, particularly Tacitus and Dio Cassius, provide another perspective on Roman interactions with the peoples east and north of the frontier (Hansen 1987:234; Whittaker 1994:113-127). The written accounts concern mostly interactions with peoples in areas close to the frontiers, and they mention as trade goods coming into the Roman lands ox hides, oxen, horses, slaves, weapons, grain (as tribute), and amber. The textual sources are not very precise, and they do not provide much information about source locations or [Page 8] quantities traded. Other goods that are likely to have been involved in such cross-frontier trade (given what we know about interactions in comparable situations in other times and places), but that have not yet been identified archaeologically, include furs, wool, textiles, honey, and wax. The thousands of Roman-made objects that have been found across the frontier indicate that interaction must have been substantial, and there is every reason to think that supplies for the Roman troops were being traded across the border. One key piece of evidence was recovered at Tolsum in the Netherlands. A tablet was found, bearing a Latin inscription that documents a transaction in which Roman buyers purchased cattle from native sellers (Boeles 1951:129-130). Tacitus, writing around A.D. 100, mentions ox hides as tribute paid by the Frisians to Rome (Annals 4, 72; Whittaker 1994:113). The present state of research makes it difficult to link directly goods that Roman suppliers obtained from producer communities across the frontier with archaeological evidence for such a supply system. But there is good reason to think that the rapid expansion of production activities in iron and in cattle in regions close to the frontier was directly related to this provisioning. Roman troops needed large quantities of iron for weapons, tools, nails, and other purposes. The archaeological evidence in regions across the frontier shows rapid and widespread expansion of iron production during the first, second, and third centuries A.D. (Grünert 1988; Leube 1989; Henning 1991:72), at the time that the Roman army was establishing and outfitting its frontier posts. Examples of such expansion are recently-excavated iron-smelting sites at Gera-Tinz in Thuringia (Dusek 1989:561-562), Riestedt in Saxony-Anhalt (Grünert 1988:478), and Barkow in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Leube 1989:162). At Gera-Tinz, for example, investigators found 21 smelting furnaces in an area measuring 10 x 25 m, associated with remains of a small settlement dated by associated pottery to the first, second, and third centuries. Significantly, the production at these sites, and at others in the lands beyond the frontier, was carried out in numerous very small-scale operations. No sizable, specialized iron-producing facilities have been identified in the lands near the imperial frontier, but instead many small farming communities that produced surplus metal. Only at a distance from the frontier, in the Holy Cross Mountains of southern Poland, do we see clear indication of the growth of a large-scale center for the production of iron at this time (Jazdzewski 1965:153-154). Many sites, particularly on the sandy soils of the North European Plain north and east of the Lower Rhine frontier, show increased production of cattle. Among the best evidence is that from Feddersen Wierde on the North Sea coast near Bremerhaven, Germany. The settlement was established around the middle of the final century B.C., and it was occupied throughout the Roman Period. The settlement surface was built up over time to form a wurt, [Page 9] or artificial mound, above the surrounding flat low-lying land (Haarnagel and Schmid 1984:204-212). Preservation of wood was exceptionally good in the wet environment. The characteristic structure on the settlement is the Wohnstallhaus, a long, rectangular building divided into a habitation area for the human occupants at one end, and a barn with partitions for livestock at the other. Analysis of the foundations of stalls in the buildings from the different phases of habitation at the site indicates an increase in the total livestock capacity on the settlement from 98 stalls at the beginning of the occupation to 443 stalls during the second and third centuries (Haarnagel 1975). Imports from the Roman lands are abundant at Feddersen Wierde; they include terra sigillata pottery, glass beads and vessels, coins, and millstones (Haarnagel 1975, 1979). The evidence suggests an intensification of the production of cattle during the first and second centuries at the site, and a concomitant increase in quantities of imported Roman trade goods. Around the end of the first and beginning of the second century, the excavator identifies evidence indicating increasing social differentiation. One building was constructed that is larger and more substantial than the others on the settlement. During the second and third centuries, greater concentrations of Roman imports are associated with this structure and its successors, and greater quantities of metal-working debris are found in and around it. At the end of the second and start of the third century, the large structure on this special part of the settlement was separated from the rest of the site by a palisade. Next to it was a fenced area with granaries and places where metalworking was done (Haarnagel and Schmid 1984:208). Haarnagel suggests that the occupant of this special precinct directed craft production and trade for the community. In the course of the third century, a decrease in economic activity is apparent at Feddersen Wierde, a process that continues during the fourth century and results in the abandonment of the settlement in the fifth. DISCUSSION The maintenance of the Roman Empire's frontier in temperate Europe depended upon supplies produced by local groups, working in manufacturing traditions that had developed in the prehistoric Iron Age. In fact, a substantial proportion of the goods provided to the Roman troops were versions of prehistoric Iron Age materials. Pottery and fibulae are two categories [Page 10] of goods that illustrate this pattern. Pottery provides important evidence, since it is well preserved and abundantly represented on both native and Roman sites. Monochrome handmade pottery virtually identical to that at Late Iron Age sites such as Manching (Stöckli 1979), Altenburg, and Kelheim (Wells 1993), has been recovered on numerous Roman Period settlements, for example at the military camp at Dangstetten on the Upper Rhine (Fingerlin 1986; Wieland 1993), at Rottweil in Württemberg (Planck 1975), and at Kempten in Bavaria (Mackensen 1978; von Schnurbein 1993). Fine wheel-made pottery decorated with horizontal and vertical red painted bands matching a typical ceramic category from the Late Iron Age similarly occurs on numerous Roman sites, including Kempten and Straubing. Many fibulae (ornamental clothing fasteners) from the military sites are of forms that are identical to local Late Iron Age types or that derive directly from them (e.g. Planck 1975, plate 67, from Rottweil; Rieckhoff 1975, plates 1 and 3, from Hüfingen). It is thus apparent that a substantial portion of the objects used in everyday life at the Roman military sites were manufactured by the indigenous groups in the surrounding landscape, working in their traditional technologies and styles. As Roymans (1983:58) argues from the Dutch evidence, the Roman occupiers surely stimulated the economies of the indigenous communities - both within and beyond the imperial frontier - by arranging to acquire from them the goods they needed. As the needs of the Roman army grew, some local groups shifted their technology and style of production to suit the wants of the Roman occupying troops, as well, of course, as of others who desired the new "Roman" fashions. This process of transformation of indigenous craft traditions is well illustrated in the sequence of pottery production at Schwabegg in Bavaria (Czysz 1987). Kiln debris, including typical Late Iron Age pottery, on the site attests to production at Schwabegg before the Roman Period. Early in the first century A.D. a specialized pottery manufacturing community was established at the site, and by the end of that century it had become a highly specialized center, producing a variety of kinds of pottery and serving a wide market. Among the pottery manufactured was a fine ware with white paint and red painted bands, a type that represents the continuation of a characteristic Late Iron Age ceramic. From this period, 55 kilns have been identified on the site. Continuity in the manufacturing traditions is apparent not only in the form and decoration of vessels produced, but even in the identity of the personnel - a high proportion of the personal names represented in stamps on the pottery are local Celtic names. Toward the end of the second century, the pottery industry at Schwabegg began to specialize in the manufacture of terra sigillata. The products were shipped to communities in all directions from Schwabegg, and they have been identified at forts on the limes and as far east as the province of Pannonia. [Page 11] This example of pottery production at Schwabegg indicates that we need to view the pattern of supply along the frontier as an interactive system, with the Roman occupiers dependent upon local producers, and the local manufacturers adjusting the output of their traditional industries to suit the scale and taste of their customers. Some local individuals gained in wealth and status through this commercial arrangement, and they are represented in unusually rich burials during this period - burials reflecting the practices of the prehistoric indigenous peoples, but with Roman as well as native goods in them. An example is grave 8 at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, dating to between A.D. 80 and 100 (Koster 1993). The grave contained the remains of a cremation, placed inside a glass urn, and numerous other goods, in traditional Iron Age, and distinctly non-Roman, fashion. The goods included weapons (three spears and a shield), a 23-piece dining set of terra sigillata from the production center at La Graufesenque in southern Gaul, numerous ornate glass vessels, five bronze vessels, and a set of writing implements. The identity with Rome is emphasized by the pottery, glassware, and writing utensils; but the composition of the grave assemblage shows that it belongs to the native, pre-Roman, tradition. The examples cited above are only a very small portion of the rapidly-accumulating evidence that indicates that much of the material culture known as "provincial Roman" was in fact made by indigenous peoples in the conquered territories, often using manufacturing techniques and expressing styles that developed directly from their pre-Roman, Iron Age craft traditions. Such evidence, which is only now gaining serious, focused attention among investigators (e.g. Millett 1990; Wieland 1993) raises the fundamental question, what does the word "Roman" actually mean in this context (Freeman 1993)? It is clear now that most of the architecture and everyday material culture that is classified as "Roman" in temperate Europe was not made by individuals from Rome nor even by Roman citizens resident in the provinces, but rather by indigenous parties who, after the conquest, found themselves living under the Roman political structure and amidst the persuasive influence of Roman fashion. As the archaeological evidence makes abundantly clear, after the conquest (and even before it, to a limited extent) Roman material culture and style became extremely popular with the majority of the populations of the provinces. Most people seem to have wanted to be as "Roman" as they could, displaying this new identity through the adoption of all possible aspects of Roman material culture, including pottery, personal ornaments, clothing, tools, and architecture. Agache (1978) demonstrates the indigenous adoption of the "Roman" villa as a style of habitation, and Jones (1987) argues that essential features of the "Roman" cities and towns in temperate Europe were sponsored and constructed by local elites in the context of [Page 12] indigenous rituals of competition. We must therefore understand the word "Roman," when used in reference to temperate Europe, to designate a style - of architecture, pottery, weaponry, ornaments, and so forth, that was eagerly adopted by local people as a means of demonstrating their feelings of identity with the new cosmopolitan civilization under whose dominion they lived. This fashionability of the Roman style among the indigenous peoples did not last long. Already during the first century A.D., within a century after the conquest, new styles of material culture, often with strong elements of the prehistoric Iron Age traditions, developed in the Roman provinces. Among the best examples are several new categories of pottery that were established during the first and second centuries in temperate Europe. One is "Raetian ware," a type of hard-fired, polished pottery with relief decoration, that became immensely popular late in the first century A.D. and was produced by numerous local workshops in Bavaria (Czysc 1986:159-160). "Norican ware" was another new product of the first and second centuries. It was made in small-scale potteries and is characterized by hard-fired, wheel-made vessels with coarse temper and rough surfaces. Decoration is in the form of comb incisions, incised wavy lines, and profiled ridges. Maier (1983) argues that Norican ware, which embodies elements from the Late Iron Age ceramic tradition, represents the expression of indigenous identity, asserting itself against the growing homogeneity of much of Roman material culture. Beyond the frontier, there is no evidence of "exploitation," in the sense of the Roman Empire draining resources away from the indigenous communities. The evidence suggests rather what Hall (1986, 1989) has called "incorporation." According to Hall's model, incorporation is a process by which non-state societies that interact with imperial states become linked economically with the imperial states. As a result, both societies undergo certain changes in social and political configurations. The non-state societies play active roles in such changes. The archaeological evidence shows an increase in local industrial and livestock production, for supply to Roman provinces, as noted above in the examples of iron-working and cattle raising, along with a wide range of changes associated with the economic upswing (Leube 1989:164). These changes, which are apparent in many different regions across the imperial frontier, include the formation of larger communities, development of new technologies, adoption of new styles from the provincial Roman world, and greater expression of status differentiation, largely through display of Roman luxury imports (Hansen 1987), but also through extravagant employment of indigenous architecture and craft products. There is no evidence, either archaeological or textual, to suggest that the Roman Empire exercised any kind of control over the peoples beyond the frontier or over their production of the goods that were desired by the Roman provinces. [Page 13] The evidence that I outline in this paper pertaining to the situation in Roman Period temperate Europe suggests that we need to question even the extent to which the Empire controlled resources and supply within its own borders. If each military base was dependent upon production of foodstuffs, pottery, and metal equipment by communities of indigenous peoples, then a model of power and control is not the best way to examine this relationship. Instead, we need to address issues of negotiation, interaction, and mutual self-interest in order to come closer to understanding relations between the imperial power and the indigenous groups. These considerations lead to the question, who exactly is the empire, when we speak of provincial Roman actions north of the Alps? Whose interests are represented by the concept of the empire, and who carries out decisions to further those interests? The material evidence suggests that a wide variety of different interests were involved, and that treating the empire as a united entity is not helpful in understanding the dynamics of the relationships. The techniques of archaeology allow us to examine these relationships in detail and over time. The example of Feddersen Wierde illustrates how instructive such cases can be when evidence for long-term processual change in patterns of settlement structure, local production, and long-distance trade can be examined. MODEL-BUILDING: FROM THE SPECIFIC CASE TO AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK The Roman Empire in temperate Europe provides an instructive case for examining questions of imperial relations with indigenous peoples, both within and beyond the empire, because of its unusually rich and well-studied data base. We can use this context to develop an analytical framework that can be profitably applied to other situations of imperial relations with indigenous peoples. For this study, I have examined the issue of the provisioning of the empire's military force, since that problem should provide insight into the most extreme concern of supply for the Roman administration. The very basis of the security of the Empire in temperate Europe was the army; and the security of Rome rested upon the security of the provinces to the north. [Page 14] The evidence regarding the ways in which the Roman army solved this problem of supply, outlined above, makes necessary a full rethinking of notions of imperial power and control. World Systems Theory, when applied to empires, has sometimes viewed imperial activity too rigidly and narrowly, without taking into account the myriad local interactions between representatives of the empire and indigenous groups. These interactions - in all their variety - can be examined through focused archaeological research on settlement and cemetery sites at different locations, both within the imperial territories and beyond them. In the case considered above, the necessity of supplying troops on the frontier indicates the need for negotiation and adaptation on the part of the army and its personnel. This case points up the need to reorient our investigations of imperial situations away from questions of power and how it is used, to questions of interests, mutual interdependence, and interactions maintained to further the interests of all involved. The insights offered by this case can be used to develop a general framework for analysis of relations between imperial powers and the indigenous peoples with whom they interact. It is clear that we cannot accept uncritically the contents of surviving written documents from the imperial societies, but must examine the material evidence on the ground. The Roman case presented here shows that relations between the empire and indigenous groups were situational - Roman troops needed to supply themselves with goods, and they needed to secure these goods through arrangements established with local groups. Any more detailed analysis of these relations needs to focus on the economic, social, and political configurations among the local peoples and to include examination of such variables as environment, community size and organization, and craft traditions, in order to reconstruct the development of commercial relations between Roman consumers and indigenous producers. Analysis must begin by assessing the needs of the imperial power in the particular environment, then turn to establishing potential sources for filling those needs. Production sites in the landscape will provide the clearest evidence of the sources - in the case above, kilns, iron-smelting furnaces, and barns for raising cattle. After the sources have been identified, then analysis can turn to evidence for the response of communities to the opportunities presented by interaction with representatives of the imperial power. Evidence will be in the form of imported goods, and of local craft products that show effects of interaction such as adopted technologies and styles. Change evident in the indigenous communities, such as growth in community size, expansion of production facilities, and increasing differentiation expressed in houses and graves, can be integrated into this analysis. [Page 15] My intention in presenting this particular case of Roman troops in temperate Europe is to use the specific instance to draw attention to some of the different kinds of evidence that can help us to analyze the content and character of interactions between empires and indigenous peoples. Acknowledgments Some of the research involved in the preparation of this paper was conducted with the support of National Science Foundation Grant SBR-9506958 and of the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota. I thank those institutions for their support. I also thank Stephen L. Dyson for helpful information about Romans in temperate Europe, and Nick Kardulias and the anonymous reviewer for valuable suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. REFERENCES CITED Agache, R. 1978 La Somme pre-romaine et romaine. Société des antiquaires de Picardie, Amiens. Alcock, C. 1993 Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Page 16] Barrett, J. C., A. P. Fitzpatrick, and L. Macinnes, editors 1989 Barbarians and Romans in North-West Europe. British Archaeological Reports, Int. Ser. 471, Oxford. Boeles, P. 1951 Friesland Tot de Elfde Eeuw (Frisia to the Eleventh Century). Martinus Nijhoff, S'Gravenhage. Christ, K. 1995 Caesar und die Geschichte. In Historische Interpretationen, edited by M. Weinmann- Walser, pp. 9-22. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. Czysz, W. 1985 Töpfer, Ziegler und Geschirrhändler. In Die Römer in Schwaben, edited by M. Petzet, pp. 158-161. Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Munich. 1987 Das römische Töpferdorf Rapis und die Terra-sigillata-Manufaktur bei Schwabegg. Das archäologische Jahr in Bayern 1987: 123-132. D'Altroy, T.N. 1992 Provincial Power in the Inka Empire. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. [Page 17] Drinkwater, J.F. 1983 Roman Gaul. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Dusek, S. 1989 Gera-Tinz. In Archäologie in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, edited by J. Herrmann, vol. 2, pp. 561-562. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart. Dyson, S.L. 1985 The Creation of the Roman Frontier. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Ferguson, R. B., and N. L. Whitehead 1992 The Violent Edge of Empire. In War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States and Indigenous Warfare, edited by R.B. Ferguson and N.L. Whitehead, pp. 1-30. School of American Research, Santa Fe. Filtzinger, P. 1976 Die römische Besetzung Baden-Württembergs. In Die Römer in Baden-Württemberg, edited by P. Filtzinger, D. Planck, and B. Cämmerer, pp. 23-120. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart. Fingerlin, G. [Page 18] 1981 Küssaberg-Dangstetten. In Die Kelten in Baden-Württemberg, edited by K. Bittel, W. Kimmig, and S. Schiek, pp. 413-417. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart. 1986 Dangstetten I: Katalog der Funde. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart. Fischer, T. 1985 Ein Halbfabrikat von der Wangenklappe eines römischen Reiterhelms aus dem Lager von Eining-Unterfeld, Gde. Neustadt, Ldkr. Kelheim. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 50: 477-482. Freeman, P.W.M. 1993 'Romanisation' and Roman Material Culture (review of Millett, The Romanization of Britain), in Journal of Roman Archaeology 6: 438-445. Garbsch, J. 1982 Terra Sigillata: Ein Weltreich im Spiegel seines Luxusgeschirrs. Prähistorische Staatssammlung, Munich. Greene, K. 1986 The Archaeology of the Roman Economy. University of California Press, Berkeley. Grünert, H. [Page 19] 1988 Eisenproduktion und Eisenverarbeitung. In Die Germanen, edited by B. Krüger, vol. 1, pp. 473-487. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. Haarnagel, W. 1975 Die Wurtensiedlung Feddersen Wierde im Nordsee-Küstengebiet. In Ausgrabungen in Deutschland vol. 2, pp. 10-29. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz. 1979 Die Grabung Feddersen Wierde. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. Haarnagel, W., and P. Schmid 1984 Siedlungen. In Archäologische und naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen an ländlichen und frühstädtischen Siedlungen im deutschen Küstengebiet vom 5. Jahrhundertv.Chr. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert n. Chr., edited by G. Kossack, K.-E. Behre, and P. Schmid, vol. 1, pp. 167-244. Acta Humaniora, Weinheim. Hall, T. D. 1986 Incorporation in the World-System: Toward a Critique. American Sociological Review 51: 390-402. 1989 Social Change in the Southwest, 1350-1880. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. Hansen, U.L. 1987 Römischer Import im Norden. Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab, Copenhagen. Hedeager, L. [Page 20] 1987 Empire, Frontier and the Barbarian Hinterland: Rome and Northern Europe from A.D. 1-400. In Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, edited by M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen, pp. 125-140. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Henning, J. 1991 Schmiedegräber nördlich der Alpen. Saalburg Jahrbuch 46: 65-82. Jazdzewski, K. 1965 Poland. Thames and Hudson, London. Jones, R.F.J. 1987 A False Start? The Roman Urbanisation of Western Europe. World Archaeology 19: 47-57. Koster, A. 1993 Ein reich ausgestattetes Waffengrab des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. aus Nijmegen. In Römerzeitliche Gräber als Quellen zu Religion, Bevölkerungsstruktur und Sozialgeschichte, edited by M. Struck, pp. 293-296. Johannes Gutenberg Universität, Mainz. Leube, A. 1989 Germanische Stämme und Kulturen des 1. und 2. Jh. In Archäologie in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, edited by J. Herrmann, vol. 1, pp. 156-165. Konrad [Page 21] Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart. Mackensen, M. 1978 Das römische Gräberfeld auf der Keckwiese in Kempten. Michael Lassleben, Kallmünz. Maier, R.A. 1983 Römerzeitliche Töpferofen für "Norisches Bauerngeschirr" bei Kieling. Das archäologische Jahr in Bayern 1983: 113-116. Maxfield, V.A. and M.J. Dobson, editors 1991 Roman Frontier Studies 1989. University of Exeter Press, Exeter. Millett, M. 1990 The Romanization of Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Oldenstein, J. 1976 Zur Ausrüstung römischer Auxiliareinheiten: Studien zu Beschlägen und Zierat an der Ausrüstung der römischen Auxiliareinheiten des obergermanisch-raetischen Limesgebietes aus dem zweiten und dritten Jahrhundert n. Chr. Bericht der Römisch-Germanische Kommission 57: 49-284. [Page 22] 1985 Manufacture and Supply of the Roman Army with Bronze Fittings. In The Production and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment, edited by M.C. Bishop, pp. 82-94. British Archaeological Reports, Int. Ser. 275, Oxford. Peacock, D.P.S., and D.F. Williams 1986 Amphorae and the Roman Economy. Longman, London. Planck, D. 1975 Arae Flaviae I. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart. Rieckhoff, S. 1975 Münzen und Fibeln aus dem Vicus des Kastells Hüfingen (Schwarzwald-Baar-Kreis). Saalburg Jahrbuch 32. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Rivet, A. L. F. 1988 Gallia Narbonensis: Southern France in Roman Times. Batsford, London. Roymans, N. 1983 The North Belgic Tribes in the 1st Century B.C.: A Historical-Anthropological Perspective. In Roman and Native in the Low Countries: Spheres of Interaction, edited by R. Brandt and J. Slofstra, pp. 43-69. British Archaeological Reports, Int. Ser. 184, Oxford. [Page 23] von Schnurbein, S. 1993 Nachleben in römischer Zeit? In Das keltische Jahrtausend, edited by H. Dannheimer and R. Gebhard, pp. 244-248. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz. Schön, F. 1986 Der Beginn der römischen Herrschaft in Rätien. Jan Thorbecke, Sigmaringen. Schortman, E. M., and P. A. Urban 1992 The Ancient World System. In Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction, edited by E. M. Schortman and P. A. Urban, pp. 17-21. Plenum Press, New York. Sinopoli, C. M. 1994 The Archaeology of Empires. Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 159-180. Smith, M. E. 1986 The Role of Social Stratification in the Aztec Empire: A View from the Provinces. American Anthropologist 88: 70-91. Sommer, C. S. 1988 Kastellvicus und Kastell. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 13: 457-707. [Page 24] Stöckli, W. E. 1979 Die Grob-und Importkeramik von Manching. Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden. Tacitus 1964 Annals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. Timpe, D. 1989 Entdeckungsgeschichte. In Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde vol. 7: 337- 389. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Wells, C. 1995 Celts and Germans in the Rhineland. In The Celtic World, edited by M.J. Green, pp. 603-620. Routledge, London. Wells, P. S. 1980 Culture Contact and Culture Change: Early Iron Age Central Europe and the Mediterranean World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1993 Settlement, Economy, and Cultural Change at the End of the European Iron Age: Excavations at Kelheim in Bavaria, 1987-1991. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. [Page 25] Whittaker, C. R. 1994 Frontiers of the Roman Empire. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Wieland, G. 1993 Spätkeltische Traditionen in Form und Verzierung römischer Grobkeramik. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 18: 61-70. Will, E. L. 1987 The Roman Amphoras from Manching. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 52: 21-36. [Page 26] |
|
 Top |
Archive | Vol. 2 |
