Study of the Roman world is underrepresented and marginalized in mainstream archaeological discourse, at least in Anglophone scholarship. This is astonishing, given Rome's role in the creation of western culture. The histories of over thirty modern countries include extended periods as part of the Roman Empire. Archaeology presents few issues more important to explore greater than the reasons this vast empire came into being, why it eventually transformed into the medieval world, and not least, how such an entity, exceptional in Old World history, stayed together so long.

What is the reason for Roman archaeology's relatively low profile? Is it because Rome is over-familiar, or just plain dull? Perhaps, as a notoriously ruthless and successful imperial power, for many it is now ideologically or morally suspect. Maybe it is that Roman archaeologists are boring, old-fashioned and have nothing of interest to say to their colleagues. Is their work anyway devalued because it is hopelessly compromised by colonialist baggage?

Or could the explanation really lie elsewhere? Perhaps the biggest problem is now other archaeologists, hindered by their prejudices about what Roman archaeology is--or rather, was. For in recent years the subject has exploded into a multiplicity of schools of thought, generating theoretically-informed, post-colonial perspectives which are totally transforming our understandings of a key historical era. Lingering prejudice based on outmoded stereotypes may have blinded many outsiders to these radical changes--and to what Roman archaeology now his to offer the discipline as a whole. Whatever the reasons, the result is everyone's loss: for Roman archaeology has unique riches, with some of the biggest and finest archaeological data-sets anywhere, complemented by a vast body of texts providing unrivalled opportunities for doing historical archaeology.

Some of these issues were discussed during the recent seminar entitled `Whither Roman Archaeology?', and intensive day of presentations and discussions, held in London on 16th November 2002, organized by Ian Haynes and Richard Hingley, Chair and Secretary respectively of the Archaeology Committee of the UK'S Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Over seventy people took part in the lively debates, to which I contributed as a discussant. What follows is a personal perspective, necessarily selective, on the current place and future potential of Roman archaeology as practiced by British researchers, based around the presentations and discussions at the seminar.

The day was initially a response to the results of a survey on the state of Roman archaeology in UK universities (Allason-Jones 2000), itself prompted by a perception that university teaching and research on the subject are sliding into crisis. Dedicated lectureships were apparently not being replaced, and study of Rome seemed to be vanishing from curricula. However, the organizers wisely framed the seminar on the wider issue of which university archaeology is at most the dominant component: the place, and potential value, of Roman archaeological research as a whole. Like prehistoric or medieval studies, Roman research is by no means confined to university departments. Government agencies, museums, contract and independent archaeologists, and even parliamentarians participated (although non-university sectors were not as strongly represented as hoped).

Given the number of theoretical viewpoints represented, and the wide range of potential constituencies to be considered (from university, contract and independent `amateur' archaeology to heritage agencies, tourism and popular media presentation), it is not surprising that debate was often lively. Notably, some of the younger contributors felt that the discipline's internal revolution remains incomplete, and that some senior establishment figures remain significant obstacles to change. Romano-British archaeology's main journal, Britannia, was criticized for remaining too conservative, and unrepresentative of current mainstream discourse (see Faulkner 2002). Despite the controversies, the day resulted in a notable degree of consensus on the nature of the key problems, and what needs to be done to improve the situation.

Roman archaeology as practiced by British researchers has seen remarkable changes in recent years. What many now see as decades of increasingly stale cultural-historical consensus based on the `Romanization' paradigm established a century ago (Haverfield: 1906 and many subsequent editions; Freeman: 1997) was challenged from the 1970s by Richard Reece at the London Institute of Archaeology (Reece 1988), whose iconoclastic teaching inspired a new generation. His most influential disciple is Martin Millett, new Laurence Professor of Classical Archaeology at Cambridge, whose Romanization of Britain (Millett: 1990) represents the current orthodoxy with and against which many researchers currently work. It helped establish the principle that the colonized were not simply ciphers and victims but active agents, essential participants in two-way, if highly asymmetric, processes of cultural interaction. Since 1990, many theoretical strands typifying other areas of Anglophone archaeology, not least post-colonial approaches, have permeated Roman research and led to a period of historiographical deconstruction, self-examination, and generation of entirely new models of the Roman past (e.g. Hingley 2000; James forthcoming; Mattingly 1997; Webster and Cooper 1996; Webster 2001).
Fundamental reappraisal of the most basic concepts is still underway, not least the very meanings of `Roman'. The utility of the core concept of `Romanization' has been attacked. Some retain it, at least in its `weak' definition (that most people within the empire did gradually `become Roman', legally and to varying degrees in culture and identity). Others reject it, as inextricably linked with simplistic acculturation models and colonialist ideologies (on this debate see, e.g. Freeman 1993; Hingley 1996; Barrett 1997; Keay and Terrenato 2001; for an American perspective, see Wells 1999).

New focus on the roles of indigenous cultures, and an enormous expansion of field data from the Roman provinces (not least Italy and Britain itself); have resulted in a completely different view of the nature of the Roman world. Remarkable empire-wide uniformity of aspects of elite, public, urban and martial material culture, and some other generally distributed artefact categories such as terra sigillata pottery, almost everywhere overlies equally astonishing local diversity and continuity from pre-Roman times, especially in private and non-elite aspects of culture. This even applies to Italy, which never was the homogeneous yardstick of `pure' Roman culture previous models assumed. It is now clear that the Roman world was not about triumphal imposition of Italian imperial culture on others who passively adopted it with varying degrees of enthusiasm and success. Rather, from Scotland to the Sahara, and from the Tagus to the Tigris, the Roman world was the product of incredibly complex multilateral interactions between social groups. Most retained diverse cultural traditions, while selectively innovating as the result of a mix of negotiation with, coercion by and resistance to the imperial power, leading to new syntheses locally redefining what `Roman' meant.

The new diversity and vibrancy of research is manifested in the annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC 2002 lists the published proceedings), and the biennial Roman Archaeology Conference (the latter under the auspices of the Roman Society). However, despite all these developments, the field has an unduly low academic profile and an outmoded public image. Concerns about this motivated many to attend the `Whither Roman archaeology?' seminar.
Many of the challenges highlighted during the seminar are generic to UK archaeology, and must be solved as part of wider strategies. To achieve our joint goal of exploring, comprehending and communicating the richness of the archaeological heritage, we all need to improve our understanding of the increasingly complex web of factors and structures which facilitate and constrain research. Within archaeology, we must cope with growing fragmentation of theory, practice and sub disciplines. And we have to deal more effectively with proliferating supranational, national, devolved and local governments, state agencies, funding bodies, commercial interests and public groups, some of which are highly sympathetic, but many of which are hostile.

The question of appointments brought the seminar back to its original starting point: a perceived critical decline in numbers of university researchers, and in Rome-focused teaching. Conflicting views seemed linked to the employment status and seniority of the speakers! In part, we may (as Martin Millett suggested) simply be seeing a routine temporary fluctuation of numbers within a small academic community. As numbers have declined at Newcastle and Durham, for examples, they have expanded strongly at Leicester: some of the `shrinkage' is redistribution. And while levels of specialist teaching have declined overall, Roman archaeology is now embedded within broader courses, something actually good for the subject. However, how do future researchers now acquire real depth of background knowledge of the material? Roman archaeology is not alone in facing a shortage of specialist skills needed to support the wider research effort. How are specialist training, research and expertise to be sustained, when universities and museums are shedding rather than creating such posts?

On the shape of research itself, several speakers, including Hella Eckart, a German scholar working in the UK, and the anthropological archaeologist Chris Gosden, warned that British Roman archaeology has still not entirely shaken off its past parochialism. It remains too focused on Roman Britain, and needs to look harder beyond Britain for data, comparisons and inspiration from others. British Roman archaeologists have long enjoyed overseas links, not least in German frontier studies and in Italy. As Simon Keay and Ian Haynes highlighted, recent years have seen expanded engagement and co-operation overseas, in fieldwork and interpretative debates with like-minded continental scholars, not least in Holland and Italy (e.g. Keay and Terrenato 2001) However, there is more to be done.
Various potential approaches and themes were discussed, which would allow us to make the most of the special nature of the Roman period and its archaeology, both in conducting research and in disseminating it (see below). For example, the cultural complexity of the subject, and the richness of the data, already make this a prime field for the study of archaeologies of identity, including ethnic, legal (Roman citizenship itself), gender and other dimensions. This also offers escape from past over-concentration on elites.

An important focus was on the relationship of archaeology and text. Jane Webster proposed the sub discipline should reconstitute itself as an historical archaeology on the American model, as working in comparative colonialism (already an important strand in research: e.g. Webster 2001).

Following the logic of emphasizing more comparative approaches, and of reconceptualising the archaeology of the Roman world as the result of processes of interaction, we need to decentre the empire, to look at its provinces in relation to their indigenous pasts and their contemporary neighbors. We must therefore make much greater efforts to cross and erode period and disciplinary boundaries. But this has to be a two-way process. Romanists should look and work more outside the Roman Empire, and great benefit may well accrue if prehistorians and early medievalists are invited to deal more with Roman archaeology.

Whether Roman archaeology truly faces a crisis or not, as David Breeze noted, the way forward is the same: to promote the subject much more effectively. While, as Hella Eckart proposed, the richness of Roman-period data sets provides an obvious advantage and `selling-point', we must not just assert, but demonstrate their potential, and show what we can do with them. A recurrent theme of the day was demonstrating the wider relevance of Roman archaeology. It was argued that something so central to western cultural identity is inherently relevant, but this needs illustrating to many in a world where the importance of the Roman cultural heritage is increasingly forgotten.

Martin Millett said that Romanists are currently still too inward-looking, and not trying hard enough, or in the right ways, to tell other archaeologists what we are achieving. Andrew Gardner proposed greater effort to present and publish our work in contexts not confined to a Romanist audience.

To reach non-academic constituencies, Nell Faulkner showed how field projects can be used to deeply involve local communities. However, the vast majority are beyond direct reach of this approach. We need more and better engagement with the media, popular presentation and the school system. In principle, Roman archaeology has advantages here: Rome remains a part, albeit attenuated, of popular culture, and widely fascinates. Further, the newly-realized complexities of the Roman Empire have obvious resonance with our own world of multi-culturalism in tension with global homogenization. However, delivery is less easy. Archaeology has had limited influence on the UK's National History Curriculum, and few archaeologists write school textbooks. Many such books have not yet even taken on the century-old Romanization paradigm, still presenting `the Romans' in provinces like Britain as Italian incomers. Broadcast media reach millions, but demand simple, unilinear storylines, something at odds with the very nature of contemporary academic thinking. At the same time, writing for schools and general audiences can be detrimental to a career: it is accorded low prestige, and takes up that central and ever-diminishing resource: time. Yet these issues are not insoluble. Here, again, Roman archaeology faces challenges in common with the rest of archaeology.