Richard Hingley. The recovery of Roman Britain 1586-1906: a colony so fertile.

Freeman, Phil

RICHARD HINGLEY. The recovery of Roman Britain 1586-1906: a colony so fertile. (Oxford Studies in the History of Archaeology). xiv+390 pages, 58 illustrations. 2008. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 978-0-19-923702-9 hardback 75 [pounds sterling].

Richard Hingley has been a major contributor to the recent outpouring of publications on archaeological historiography and in particular that of Roman Britain. Adding to an already impressive bibliography comes this monograph, building on his Roman officers and English gentlemen (2000) which looked at the reception of Romano-British archaeology at the end of the nineteenth century and the outset of the twentieth. Now the objective is to explore 'the value of ideas derived from Roman Britain in the construction of British nationhood and in the context of empire-building, bur with a far longer chronological perspective' (pp. 1-2). But Hingley is at pains to explain that his text should not be regarded as a conventional historiographical narrative. Its chronological parameters are determined by what is regarded as the first sign of a more critical, less mythological understanding of the island's Roman remains, one that drew on a more sophisticated appreciation of the classical sources that were then becoming available. It also happens to be the date of the first edition of Camden's Britannia, although paradoxically Hingley plays down his legacy. It was more Thomas Browne, Edward Lhwyd and Robert Plot who pursued '... more fully the potential value of ... objects to provide evidence for past peoples' (p. 83). Especially important in this respect was Browne, '... the first of the authors ... to use the concept of "Romanized" and it would appear that its value to him derived from his attempt to interpret the objects be studied' (p. 84). Hingley's terminal date is the year of Francis Haverfield's British Academy lecture, The Romanization of Roman Britain, and its case for the island as '...fully participating in the international culture of Rome, a view that contrasted dramatically with the established interpretation of Britain' (p. 313).

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The text consists of four chapters, prefaced by an Introduction and rounded off with a Conclusion. The chapters explore four inter-linked themes, each 'selected for their articulation of concepts of national origin and purpose.' The first is about how the idea of civility or civilising of the province was first appreciated. In this respect Hingley argues that the concept, if not the word, 'Romanisation' was originally recognised in the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras and that it was derived as much from the recognition of the value of material objects as Tacitus' statement about Agricola bringing culture to the Britons. Not surprisingly writers in those times were much influenced, if not conditioned, by contemporary English attitudes to Rome and the subsequent political union of England and Scotland.

The second chapter is about evolving interpretations of the 'walling out of humanity' in northern Britain, a result of delimiting the province with the construction of the two Roman walls. Here are explored changing contemporary attitudes to the walls and to the region north of Hadrian's Wall, at one and the same rime regarded as markers of or boundaries to civility, and elsewhere as evidence of the Scottish 'resistance to the Romans' and their 'civilising' mission.

The third chapter explores the identity and character of the Roman incomers to Britannia and the part the ruination of their monuments played in shaping how the occupation was viewed; this in turn enabled reflection on Britain's imperial purpose. The chapter also looks at the shifting nature of interpretations of the province's civilian aspect. For a significant development, the recognition of a civilian horizon, took place in the eighteenth century. Prior to this the study of Roman Britain had been derived from classical writers who wrote about military events and from inscriptions recovered mainly, in the contemporary parlance, from military 'stations'. Hingley argues that breaking down the emphasis on the military character of the occupation, complemented or followed by a shift to a view that emphasised 'civilian' life (exemplified by the debate about the origins of some Roman towns), was one achievement of that century. A growing appreciation of the range of other types of sites (notably villas) and certain types of artefacts were also instrumental in changing interpretations of the history of the province. The implications of the shift, however, were not, evidently, fully appreciated. At best what resulted was a half-way house, explanation of which forms the basis of the fourth chapter. Here Hingley returns to some of the themes examined in Roman officers: while the military paradigm continued to exert considerable influence, it was Haverfield's more rigorous academic standards and continental perspective which achieved a rapprochement of a sort between the various traditions and approaches to the study of Roman Britain.

Hingley's observations are often convincing and insightful, not least the underlying point that all archaeological writing has to be read as a product of its time and respected as such. As might be expected, he manages to synthesise a large amount of material (the bibliography is forty pages long). Personally 1 found the first three chapters fascinating. I was not so struck by the fourth, but this is because some of it is familiar and because our opinions on Haverfield's contribution to Romano-British studies differ. But this is a minor quibble. More problematic is the price of the book. As this is an important, well-researched, clearly-explained and provocative study, it should be made available in paperback and become compulsory reading for all those with an interest in the history of archaeology in Britain.

PHIL FREEMAN

School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, UK

(Email: pfreeman@liv.ac.uk)