Frontiers and Mobilities: The Frontiers of the Roman ......A new focus on mobilities and migrations...

Frontiers and Mobilities: The Frontiersof the Roman Empire and Europe

RICHARD HINGLEY

Department of Archaeology, Durham University, UK

This article addresses questions relating to the ‘Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site’and seeks to introduce into this initiative some concepts derived from recent writings on contemporarymobilities and bordering, exploring the possibility of creating greater engagement between the two aca-demic fields of ‘border studies’ and ‘Roman Frontier Studies’. By examining the relationship betweenthe Roman Frontiers initiative and the European Union’s stated aims of integration and the dissol-ution of borders, it argues in favour of crossing intellectual borders between the study of the present andthe past to promote the value of the Roman frontiers as a means of reflecting on contemporary problemsfacing Europe. This article considers the potential roles of Roman Frontier Studies in this debate byemphasizing frontiers as places of encounter and transformation.

Keywords: borders, frontiers, encounter, mobilities, Roman Empire, European Union, WorldHeritage

INTRODUCTION

A new focus on mobilities and migrations isdeveloping in archaeology across the world(van Dommelen, 2014).1 Archaeologists,particularly in Britain, have focused onhuman mobility within the Roman Empire,using a series of newly-developed scientifictechniques that offer new understandings(Eckardt, 2010; Eckardt et al., 2014;Eckardt & Müldner, 2016; Martinianoet al., 2016; Redfern et al., 2016). TheRoman past provides a particularly signifi-cant parallel to the modern world with thelarge-scale movements of people across the

Empire and the apparent success of theimperial administration in assimilatingpeople from disparate backgrounds into asettled society (Hingley, 2005; Versluys,2014). This material is sometimes useddirectly to reflect on issues of mobility andmigration in the contemporary UK (e.g.Hingley, 2010; Tolia Kelly, 2010; Eckardt& Müldner, 2016: 215–16). The disciplineof Roman Frontier Studies is also focusingincreasing attention on the function ofRoman frontier works and the transforma-tive character of the frontier on the popula-tions within and beyond the border zones(Hingley, in press; see also Wells, 2013;Jankovic et al., 2014; Roymans et al., 2016;González Sánchez & Guglielmi, in press),2

1 ‘Migration’ involves the movement of people acrossphysical space (Jansen et al., 2015), while ‘mobilities’ isa far broader term that ‘encompasses both the large-scale movement of people, objects, capital, and informa-tion across the contemporary world, as well as the morelocal processes of daily transportation, movementthrough public space and the travel of material thingswithin everyday life’ (Hannam et al., 2006: 1).

2 I will not draw a clear distinction between frontiersand borders. Usually frontiers are more formal, substan-tial, and physical, while borders may be virtual andconceptual.

European Journal of Archaeology 21 (1) 2018, 78–95This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© European Association of Archaeologists 2017 doi:10.1017/eaa.2017.17Manuscript received 26 May 2016,accepted 6 March 2017, revised 9 December 2016

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.17Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12 Jun 2020 at 11:32:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.17

https://www.cambridge.org/core

although research on the geographicalorigins of those living on the Roman fron-tiers remains fairly rare.The ‘Frontiers of the Roman Empire

World Heritage Site’ (FREWHS) initia-tive is casting an interesting light on issuesof migration. This transnational initiativehas been developed since the early 2000sby Roman frontier specialists and heritagemanagers (Figure 1), involving UNESCOState Parties from western, central, andeastern Europe (Breeze & Jilek, 2008;Sommer, 2015). This article has beenwritten as a review of this theme and as aresponse to the decision of the UK govern-ment, and a small majority of the Britishpublic, during the summer of 2016 towithdraw from the European Union (EU).This move toward British separation fromEurope seems to be symptomatic of thegrowing global trend in the West to definemigration as problematic, which is leadingto the development of policies that controland monitor migrants in the ‘most strin-gent ways’ (Jansen et al., 2015: 1).

The manner in which the FREWHSinitiative has defined the value of theRoman frontiers will be explored bydrawing on the EU’s two central concepts,integration and the dissolution of borders.The character of the FREWHS will beaddressed as a series of venues for encoun-ter and transformation rather than as mea-sures of (former) national or colonialdivision (see Cooper & Rumford, 2013:114). These materials will be used toreflect on the trends toward nationalisticand divisive rhetoric in Europe, drawingon the prominence of the FREWHS toargue the value of heritage as a means ofpromoting inclusive messages that linkinto the interconnectedness of the peopleof Europe and the Mediterranean region.The role of the Roman frontiers as theborders of an intercontinental military dic-tatorship makes the World Heritage Sitepotentially particularly potent as a paralleland source of contemplation over concernsabout contemporary border building andmobilities.

Figure 1. The frontiers of the Roman Empire and the Frontiers of the Roman Empire WorldHeritage Site (drawn by Christina Unwin).

Hingley – Frontiers and Mobilities 79





ROMAN FRONTIER STUDIES AND WORLD

HERITAGE STATUS

First proposed during the early 2000s, theFREWHS has drawn in heritage profes-sionals, educationalists, public agencies,and organizations, including UNESCOand the EU (Breeze & Jilek, 2008; Mills,2013). Many accounts of the Roman fron-tier works describe their physical form andtheir variable characters in different partsof the frontier zone (including Breezeet al., 2005; Klose & Nünnerich-Asmus,2005; Breeze, 2011; Moschek, 2011).These Roman frontier installations in-clude: substantial linear fortificationsacross isthmuses (Hadrian’s Wall and theAntonine Wall); systems of forts, roads,and ramparts that supported a river fron-tier (the limes along the Rhine andDanube); and complex landscapes of forts,roads, and ramparts in less well-definedfrontier regions (North Africa and theMiddle East; Breeze, 2011).The FREWHS initiative was built upon

the lengthy history of research into thesephysical remains (Breeze et al., 2005: 44;Breeze, 2008). Much of the initial archaeo-logical work on Roman frontiers wasundertaken in Germany, Austria, andBritain, where these relict physical worksbegan to be uncovered during the nine-teenth century (Breeze, 2011: 9–10;Moschek, 2011). Research has been carriedout in other parts of Europe, although inNorth Africa and the Middle East this hasbeen undertaken largely by European andAmerican archaeologists (Mattingly et al.,2013: 44–47). Notable exceptions to thisEuropean and American focus are thescholarly studies in Israel that reflect long-term issues of national security (Isaac,2000: 1–3; Gambash, 2015). This researchhas found a focus through the Congress ofRoman Frontier Studies, which was estab-lished in 1949 and to date has met ontwenty-three occasions at various locations

in the frontier lands of the former RomanEmpire (Birley, 2002). Large-scale survey-ing and mapping have been accompaniedby excavation and fieldwork to uncover thelocation, sequence, character, and regionalvariability of the physical remains ofRoman frontiers and their individual ele-ments (Breeze, 2011: 9–12). Extensiveresearch since the 1970s has also examinedthe military and civil populations of theRoman frontiers and the movement ofpeoples and artefacts both into and out ofthe Roman Empire across its frontiers (e.g.Bloemers, 1989; the ‘thematic session IIon Romans and natives’ in Maxfield &Dobson, 1991; Haffner & von Schnurbein,1996; Wells, 2013; Jankovic et al., 2014).

THE ‘FRONTIERS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

WORLD HERITAGE SITE’ INITIATIVE AND

EUROPEAN IDENTITIES

The FREWHS initiative involves signifi-cant co-operation between archaeologistsand heritage managers in a number ofEuropean State Parties and also has thesupport of UNESCO (Breeze et al., 2005:20; Breeze & Jilek, 2008: 5). Followingextensive discussion at the EuropeanArchaeological Association, Culture 2000funding was obtained from the EU in2005 to co-ordinate the management andinterpretation of the Roman frontiers,communicating shared values to create anagenda for international co-operation(Breeze & Jilek, 2008). To understand thisinitiative, it is important to consider thehistory of the World Heritage Site policy.The United Nations and UNESCO wereformed in the aftermath of World War IIto support internationalization, promotepeace, and to encourage internationalco-operation and cultural respect. The‘Convention concerning the protection ofCultural and Natural World Heritage’ wasadopted by the General Conference of

80 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (1) 2018





UNESCO in 1972 to promote this agenda(Askew, 2010: 20–23; Long & Labadi,2010: 5–6).Despite UNESCO’s excellent intention

to recognize and protect important culturaland natural heritage resources, problemswith World Heritage policies have subse-quently emerged. World Heritage Siteshave sometimes been used by State Partiesto emphasize the ancestry and status of aparticular people or territory (see Herzfeld,2008: 146). Marc Askew (2010: 20–22)has made use of specific examples, includ-ing the Preah Vihear temple close to theborder of Cambodia and Thailand, tooutline the idea of the World HeritageList as a ‘status-conferring artefact’ in thecompetition for dominance between states.He has argued that, in some cases, thenomination process has been used fordomestic agendas of cultural hegemonyand state nationalism. Heritage resourcesoften cross state boundaries and, therefore,are potentially difficult to inscribe andmanage. As a response to such concerns,certain states have joined together todevelop particular ‘transnational WorldHeritage Site’ nominations that spaninternational boundaries and that promoteinternational co-operation to communicateuniversal values.UNESCO’s ‘World Heritage Centre’

currently (October 2016) lists 1052‘properties’ or individual World HeritageSites (UNESCO, 2016), of which theFREWHS is one. It also forms one ofthirty-four transnational World HeritageSites (UNESCO, 2016; see Brough &Scott, 2014: 116–17). The long-termambition is to create a truly transnationalFREWHS that encompasses all Romanfrontier works across Europe, NorthAfrica and the eastern Mediterranean.When the project was initiated, Hadrian’sWall was already inscribed, having beenadded to the World Heritage List in1987. The limes along the Rhine and

Danube in Germany was nominated in2004 and approved the following year. In2008 the Antonine Wall in Scotland wasadded to the List. The current focus is onthe nomination of the river frontiers alongthe Lower Rhine and eight additionalDanubian states that contain the survivingRoman remains (Sommer, 2015: 920–21).Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, andSerbia are currently co-operating over thenomination of their Roman frontier works(Zsolt, 2008: 74–75). The European focusof the FREWHS initiative reflects recentpolitical changes. Following the collapse oftheir communist regimes, many centraland eastern European countries joined theEU between 2004 and 2013, includingHungary, Slovakia, and Croatia (EuropeanUnion, 2016).3

The concept of Europe is highlycomplex and draws on entangled historicalroots and models, of which ideas derivingfrom Classical Rome comprise just onepart (e.g. Graves-Brown et al., 1996;Biebuych & Rumford, 2012: 5–6). ImperialRome has, however, constituted a powerfulelement in the European psyche sinceClassical times. Classical writings and thephysical remains of Classical cultures havebeen used to frame cultural, political, andmilitary strategies, especially since therediscovery of Greek and Roman texts andmaterial remains during the Renaissance(Hingley, 2001; Morley, 2010; Witcher,2015). The ethnic origins of Europeanpeoples are far more complex than a simpleclaim to former unity under the RomanEmpire might suggest, and differentregions of Europe have had recourse to awide variety of supposedly ancestral popu-lations from the ancient and more recentpast (see Geary, 2002; Eder, 2006;Zielonka, 2006; Hsu, 2010). Imperial

3 Negotiations are currently underway to consider themembership of Serbia and a number of other countrieswithin an expanded EU.






Rome has nevertheless been fundamentalto the modern European project.Although the Roman Empire has not

always been represented in an entirelypositive light, the organization nowknown as the EU has drawn deeply onthis concept since the foundation of theEuropean Economic Community by aTreaty signed in the city of Rome in1957. This choice of city was not random,since, as one commentator on theFREWHS has recently argued, Romestands for the principles of ‘peace, govern-ance, law and order, and above all unity’that lie at the core of the EU’s purpose(Figel, 2008: 1). The original treatystressed the idea of integration and thedissolution of borders (European Com-mission, 1957). European policy has con-tinued to stress the free movement ofpeople within Europe and has also workedto create ethical measures to controlmigration from outside the EU’s borders.The documents produced through the

FREWHS initiative emphasize stronglythese aims of integration and the dissol-ution of borders. Among the initiative’spublications intended to communicate theideas behind this transnational monumentis the booklet Frontiers of the RomanEmpire (Breeze et al., 2005), with text inEnglish, German, French, and Arabic. Astatement on the ‘common cultural heri-tage of the Roman Empire’ states the aimsof the initiative:

‘Roman frontiers are part of a commonheritage of the countries circling theMediterranean Sea. Successive genera-tions have built on that heritage andmodified it, thus helping to create ourmodern world. Today, our worldappears to be diverse, divided bylanguage, religion and traditions. Yet,our heritage is more common and inter-connected than we sometimes appreci-ate.’ (Breeze et al., 2005: 12; myemphasis)

This statement emphasizes the commonheritage of all the countries surroundingthe Mediterranean, and that the frontiersof the Roman Empire have more than aspecifically European relevance.Since the Roman Empire incorporated

peoples within a vast territory, it may beinterpreted as an inclusive mechanismresulting from its policy of encouraginglocal self-government and urbanizationthroughout its territories (Breeze et al.,2005: 14–16). The FREWHS bookletsuggests that the Roman frontiers werethe ‘membrane’ through which Romanideas and objects ‘percolated’ to reach theoutside world beyond the Empire’s limits(Breeze et al., 2005: 16; see Whittaker,2004: 193). This is in keeping with a bodyof archaeological work that has used thedistribution of artefacts on both sides ofthe imperial frontiers to assess the likelymovement of people across them (e.g.Wells, 2013). The opportunities providedby the scientific analysis of human bonesoffer a potentially far more informedunderstanding of the movement of peopleacross and within these frontiers (seeHingley, 2010; Nesbitt, 2016), althoughrelatively little relevant research has beenundertaken in the regions through whichthey passed.To be included in the World Heritage

List, sites must be rated as possessing out-standing universal value (UNESCO,2016). The UNESCO World HeritageCentre sets out the methods UNESCO‘State Parties’ must use to nominate poten-tial World Heritage Sites and also the pro-cesses to be addressed before these can beinscribed by UNESCO in the WorldHeritage List. The process of nominatinga World Heritage Site requires a StateParty (or State Parties) to produce andsubmit to UNESCO a ‘Statement ofOutstanding Universal Value’. UNESCO’sguidelines and regulations encourage theestablishment of the identity of the ‘Site’ as






exceptionally representative of a particulartime and place.The Statement of Outstanding Universal

Values for the Frontiers of the Roman Empireand its Component Parts (SOUV) was pro-duced as part of the FREWHS initiativeand made available online by the UK’sDepartment of Media and Culture(DCMS, 2011).4 The draft SOUV for theFREWHS drew on the earlier outputs ofthe initiative but rephrased the cultural rele-vance of the Roman frontiers in a mannerthat reflects the progress of the move forinscription. This document includes a four-page synthesis which observes that:

‘The FRE [Frontiers of the RomanEmpire] as a whole has an extraordinar-ily high cultural value. It was the borderof one of the most extensive civilizationsin human history, which has continued toaffect the western world and its peoples tilltoday. It had an important effect onurbanisation and the spread of culturesamong remote regions. The scope andextent of the frontier reflects the unifyingimpact of the Roman Empire on the widerMediterranean world, an impact thatpersisted long after the empire had col-lapsed, while the frontiers are the largestsingle monument to the Roman civiliza-tion.’ (DCMS, 2011; 2, my emphasis)

This SOUV follows UNESCO’s templateby outlining the importance of theFREWHS and supports this by providingevidence for three of the ten universal cri-teria that UNESCO requires in order toassess a monument or landscape for WorldHeritage Site status (UNESCO, 2016).Two of these criteria emphasize integration

and the movement of people by comment-ing that:

‘Criterion iiiThe Roman frontier is the largestmonument of the Roman Empire, oneof the world’s greatest preindustrialempires. The physical remains ofLimes, forts, watchtowers, settlementsand the hinterland dependent upon thefrontier reflect the complexities of Romanculture but also its unifying factors acrossEurope and the Mediterranean world.

Unlike the Roman monumentsalready inscribed, the FRE’s construc-tions are evidence from the edges of theEmpires and reflect the adoption ofRoman culture by its subject peoples. Thefrontier was not an impregnable barrier:rather it controlled and allowed the move-ment of peoples within the military units,amongst civilians and merchants, thusallowing Roman culture to be transmittedaround the region and for it to absorbinfluences from outside its borders.

Criterion ivThe Frontier reflects the power andmight of the Roman Empire and thespread of classical culture and Romanisationwhich shaped much of the subsequent devel-opment of Europe.’ (DCMS, 2011; myemphasis)

This document emphasizes the idea of theunifying impact of the Roman Empire onits subject populations in the frontierregions, the movement of peoples and cul-tures across borders, and, on two occasions,the European and ‘Western’ inheritance ofRome’s example. It also directly reflects theEU’s policies of integration and free move-ment by emphasizing the former role ofthe Roman frontiers in spreading Romanculture, and in both controlling and allow-ing the movement of people.A series of publications has been pro-

duced to communicate the particular char-acteristics of various regional sections of the

4 This thirteen-page document was not finally sub-mitted to UNESCO as part of the nomination process,although it provides an interesting set of observations.To date, the nominated sections of the FREWHS haveproduced their own independent SOUVs, which areavailable at the UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Anearlier version of the SOUV was published by Breezeand Young (2008).






FREWHS (Figure 2; these include Breezeet al., 2008; Zsolt, 2008; Jilek et al., 2011;Mattingly et al., 2013). These documentthe ways that the physical character of theRoman frontiers varied according to localtopography and the character of the soci-eties encountered by the Roman adminis-tration in different parts of the Empire,5

while also communicating the unifiednature of the Roman frontiers as a whole.A directly co-operative agenda is outlinedin all these publications, emphasizing theneed for coordination but also for eachState Party to follow its own approach interms of understanding, protecting, man-aging, presenting, and interpreting itsmonuments (Breeze et al., 2005: 14–16).The FREWHS initiative has also created aseparate body of literature focused onregional heritage practice, marketing, and

interpretation to encourage people to visitand explore the archaeological remains(e.g. Breeze & Jilek, 2008; Hingley, 2012:301–05; Mills, 2013; Stone & Brough,2014; Brough, 2015).The progress of the FREWH initiative

appears currently to suggest that a unifiedmonument will be created for theEuropean sections, perhaps by 2020 (JohnScott, pers. comm.). Those leading theFREWHS initiative have communicatedthe transnational values of the monumentto a range of people throughout Europeand the Mediterranean world, althoughcurrently it appears likely that political,military, and cultural factors will preventthe realization of the inscription of Romanfrontier works in North Africa and theMiddle East. For people living across muchof the southern and eastern Mediterranean,Roman frontier monuments may, indeed,represent a physical reminder of formercolonial (and current economic and polit-ical) domination (Mattingly, 2011: 69).Some of the Roman frontier remains inTunisia have been included in a Tentative

Figure 2. An assortment of publications derived from the Frontiers of the Roman Empire WorldHeritage Site initiative. Reproduced by permission of David Breeze.

5 The volume on North Africa, for example, stressesthe variability of the populations living in the frontierzone and emphasizes the importance of studying the‘indigenous peoples’, reflecting the colonial context ofmuch of the archaeological research undertaken acrossthis region (Mattingly et al., 2013: 48).






List, although, in the current military andpolitical context, it is easy to understandwhy relatively little progress has been madein nominating other parts across NorthAfrica and the Middle East (Brough &Scott, 2014: 118; Brough, 2015).The nature of the archaeological evi-

dence also influences the process of theinscription; it is much simpler to definethe linear frontier works that make upmuch of the northern frontiers than themultiple fortified cities that defined theEmpire’s limits across much of the south-ern and eastern Mediterranean (DavidBreeze, pers. comm.). The success of theFREWHS initiative, however, also dir-ectly reflects the European focus ofRoman Frontier Studies and the Europeanclaim to the inheritance of the culturallegacy of imperial Rome (Mattingly et al.,2013: 44–47; Brough 2015: 934).

BORDERING, MIGRATION, AND THE

VALUES OF ROMAN FRONTIERS

Recent writings in the cross-disciplinaryfield of border studies have focused onmigration and bordering in the contem-porary world (for archaeological responses,see Hingley & Hartis, 2011; Gardner, inpress). This prolific body of research hasdeveloped in response to changing inter-national strategies for controlling migra-tion (see Kolossov, 2005; Rumford, 2006).It grew out of work undertaken during thelater twentieth century but has been trans-formed because of pressures resulting from‘9/11’ and the ‘War on Terror’ (Wilson &Donnan, 2012: 2–3). James Sidaway(2015: 216) has recently observed that‘Dozens (or probably hundreds) of booksand hundreds (or probably thousands) ofpapers would need to be referenced tobegin to do justice to border-studies’.Indeed, this cross-disciplinary field hasexpanded to the extent that it no longer

has a single disciplinary agenda (ChrisRumford, pers. comm.). Border studies arecharacterized, however, by works thataddress the theories and practices of con-temporary bordering (see Rumford, 2006;Wilson & Donnan, 2012; Luath Bacas &Kavanagh, 2013; Richardson, 2013; Jansenet al., 2015). Much of the output has paidcritical attention to the ethics of borderingin the contemporary world, with a particu-lar focus on the border policies of the EU.Other accounts of borders have empha-sized the transformative and creativepotential of such spaces as mechanisms ofconnectivity and encounter (e.g. Juffer,2006; Hingley, 2010: 240; Parry, 2010;Hingley & Hartis, 2011: 82–83; Cooper& Rumford, 2013: 107); this may partlyserve to counter the creation of increas-ingly impermeable boundaries.The EU has been seeking to deal with

large-scale migration across its bordersduring the past decades in a pragmatic andethical manner. The scale of the problem atthe EU’s boundaries, and, increasingly, thecrisis emerging at certain national boundar-ies within the EU, has, however, resultedin stringent critiques of EU policy andpractice (e.g. Bialasiewicz, 2012; Carr,2012; Jansen et al., 2015). Research hasfocused on the need to provide moredetailed theoretical enquiries and ethicalassessments of the ‘amazing sophisticationand complexity’ of bordering practices thatcharacterize the EU’s borders (Bialasiewicz,2012: 843–44). There is much emphasis onthe ethics and power-relations behind con-temporary borders and the importance ofassessing the borders, and the question ofthe frontiers of pre-modern societies hasbeen raised (Jansen et al., 2015: xvi). It haseven been suggested that the EU’s borderpolicies and practices draw deeply on theexample of the Roman frontiers (Hingley,2015a: 62).While conceptions of borders and mobi-

lities in the contemporary world have






become more complex, accounts of Romanfrontiers have moved away from the nine-teenth and early twentieth century imperialconception that they served as structuresthat separated ‘civilisation’ from ‘barbarism’(Whittaker, 2004). New approaches explorethe idea that Roman frontiers constitutedmore inclusive and transformative land-scapes (Hingley, 2012: 311–21). A focuson the peopling of the Roman frontiershas addressed the multiple locations acrossthe Roman Empire and beyond fromwhich these populations originated and theways that frontier lands acted to connectpeople and transform their identities (ibid.:333–34). This draws on archaeologicalevidence for the ways of life of the commu-nities living on the Roman frontiers,including auxiliary soldiers who wererecruited from across the Empire (Breeze,2011: 34–9). The encouragement of inter-national tourism exploits the character ofthe Roman communities that once inhab-ited these frontier regions (Mills, 2013: 1–2). To entice people to visit the places thatmake up the Roman frontiers, strategiesfor tourism and interpretation focus pri-marily on the messages of mobility andinclusion long promoted by the EU.Such a strategy helps to communicate

the living relevance of these ancient works(Hingley, 2012: 1–8). Powerful and inclu-sive messages are generated for visitors tothe regions with impressive physicalremains of Roman frontier works, giventhat World Heritage can function as atourism advertising strategy (see Long &Labadi, 2010: 7). Income from visitorsand tourists is vital for local communitiesin some of the European sections of theRoman frontier. Before the recent militaryand political difficulties, tourism also actedas a crucially important source of incomefor communities living close to the well-known Classical monuments of the south-ern and eastern Mediterranean regions(Mattingly, 2011: 70–1; Lafrenz Samuels

& Totten, 2012: 22–3; Mattingly et al.,2013: 92–93).Re-enactment has been used for

decades to draw the public to Roman heri-tage attractions and is popular along theEuropean sections of the Frontiers of theRoman Empire (Figure 3; Appleby, 2005;Bishop, 2013). Living history events, artis-tic works, and digital media have come tothe forefront of policy for the Europeansections of the Roman frontiers as a resultof the emphasis on bringing these monu-ments to life to encourage tourism (seeBreeze & Jilek, 2008; Mills, 2013). Forexample, Jilek and colleagues observe thatin Austria and Germany:

‘Municipalities, museums and Romansocieties along the Limes organiseRoman events as special attractions,mainly for families … To move outsidetheir own exhibition spaces means todirectly address the visitors, givingthem a better chance to enter into theliving conditions to the Roman world.Re-enactment groups … demonstratehow Roman soldiers and civilianslived.’ (Jilek et al., 2011: 86)

Roman buildings have also been recon-structed to help inform visitors to themonuments (Figure 4; see also Flügel &Obmann, 2013).These cultural and heritage practices are

perhaps most fully developed on Hadrian’sWall, where the initiative ‘IlluminatingHadrian’s Wall’ in 2009 brought peopletogether from across the UK and beyondto light beacons along the entire length ofthe monument at sunset (Hingley, 2012:6–7, 332). Works of border studies seldomconsider pre-modern borders and frontiers,but in Anthony Cooper and ChrisRumford’s ‘Monumentalising the Border:Bordering through Connectivity’, theauthors mention the ‘Connecting Lights’event held on Hadrian’s Wall during theSummer Olympics of 2012 which linked






the 117 km of this monument with a lineof pulsating two-metre diameter lightedballoons, intended to encourage people toview the Wall as a bridge rather than abarrier (Cooper & Rumford 2013: 107,120). Cooper and Rumford (2013: 114)

also argue that ‘border monuments andpublic art situated on or near borders areincreasingly designed to celebrate culturalencounters and/or the ability of borders toconnect as well as divide’. Festivals havepublicized Hadrian’s Wall as an inclusive

Figure 3. A re-enactment Roman event in the town of Enns, Austria. Reproduced by permission ofEva Kuttner.

Figure 4. The Roman civil town at Carnuntum, Austria, showing buildings that have been recon-structed and displayed for the public. Reproduced by permission of Sonja Jilek.






heritage landscape that brings peopletogether from across the world. These areaspects of a sustained variety of activitiesthat aim to promote the monument andits constituent parts as exciting places tovisit (Hingley, 2012: 333–35).Hadrian’s Wall fits very well within

Cooper and Rumford’s definition of ‘post-national borders’ as ‘mechanisms of con-nectivity and encounter’ rather than asmarkers of national or colonial division.The extension of World Heritage Sitestatus to the other European sections ofthe Frontiers of the Roman Empire ispioneering a transnational approach tocelebrate cultural encounter and the con-nective aspects of borders in both theancient past and the contemporary age.These activities call on a broader range ofvalues derived from the Roman Empirethan those of colonialism and imperialism(see Lafrenz Samules & Totten, 2012:23), including ideas of mobility and cul-tural integration. Breeze and colleagues, ina study of the Roman frontiers inSlovakia, have noted that:

‘The very commonality of Roman fron-tiers demands that they are treated as asingle monument. Roman frontiers arethe joy of the aficionado of culturaltourism—here is one great culturalroute running right around the Romanempire …, offering not just differentsites but a wide range of landscapes andscenery.’ (Breeze et al., 2008: 46)

Tourism is encouraged through this workalthough much of the emphasis acrossEurope appears to be focused on inform-ing people about the importance of man-aging and maintaining these resources (seeJilek et al., 2011: 86–87).The idea of the Roman frontiers as con-

texts for cultural encounter appears to havebeen developed most fully with regard toHadrian’s Wall. While the potential role ofthe Roman frontiers in connecting people

and transforming identities is addressed inthe public realm, comparatively little hasbeen done to explore issues of borderingand mobilities from more critical perspec-tives (Hingley, 2012: 319–20).The ‘Frontiers Gallery’ at Tullie House

Museum (Carlisle, England) brings Romanfrontiers into a direct relationship with thepresent by addressing ‘the concept of reso-nances with the modern world and in par-ticular the perspectives of people today forwhom the experience of the frontier is partof their daily life and worldview’ (Millset al., 2013: 184). This gallery adopts the‘narrative of the Roman frontier’ to ‘act asa metaphor through which to explore sig-nificant contemporary issues’ (Ibid.: 185).The intention here is to challenge thevisitor to think about the moral andethical issues that affect us all in thecontext of UNESCO’s wider agenda ofpromoting peaceful coexistence and part-nership between nations of the worldthrough respect, understanding, toleration,and co-operation. One feature involves theprojection of still scenes of disrupted liveson modern borders onto a screen in theshape of the map covered by the area ofthe Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site(Figure 5). This includes scenes from thelives of migrant peoples who have becomecaught in international borders, such asthe increasingly well-defined borders ofthe EU.Visitors are asked to write their com-

ments on pieces of paper and attach themto a board for others to read. Their mes-sages demonstrate that members of thepublic visiting the museum feel consider-able discomfort when thinking about bor-dering in the past and, particularly, in thepresent. The pursuit of ethical and polit-ical considerations may indeed form oneof the prime public values that may bedeveloped through the display and inter-pretation of the Roman past, allowing thecomplexities of the past and present to be






addressed in the public arena (see Labadi,2010: 81). This may be seen as a negativemessage by many who seek to publicizethe Roman frontiers for visitors, althoughit should be possible to adopt a morenuanced perspective that emphasizes thevariable characters of frontiers and bordersin both the past and the present.

CONCLUSION

Attempts to manage the movement ofpeople across the EU’s borders have beendeeply challenged by the political troublesthat have transformed the lands to the

south and east of the Mediterranean overthe past decade, leading to sustainedscholarly and public criticism of the EU’spolicies and practices on its borders. Withthe shock of the UK’s vote to leave theEU in mind, we seem to be faced with astark choice: either to seek to maintain aninternational policy that attempts tomanage migration across borders in anincreasingly unstable world, or to progres-sively close borders and convert theminto monumentalized frontiers. The latterapproach would lead to an increasing frag-mentation of the international communityat a time when co-operation is increasinglyvital.

Figure 5. The Roman Frontier Gallery, The Living Wall, Tullie House Museum, Carlisle, England.Reproduced by permission of Tullie House Museum, Carlisle, England.






Historical studies of borders and fron-tiers tend to indicate that these worksseldom work for any sustained period(Foster, 2013: 3–4; Chaichian 2014). TheRoman frontiers are an exception in thisrespect, since they only collapsed afterseveral centuries. Perhaps their lengthyhistory of operation was partly due to theirflexibility in enabling migration acrosstheir lines. Emphasizing the complexity ofborder cultures and the roles of bordersand frontiers in both the past and thepresent helps to communicate the normal-ity of migration throughout human historyand the creative character of encounter,while the central role of Classical Rome inEuropean concepts of origin emphasizesthe academic and public potency of thetangible ruins of Roman frontier culture.Although the promotion of the ancient

frontier works of a militarized dictatorshipmay appear to be a problematic context forcommunicating an idea of common heri-tage (Hingley, 2015a), the co-operation ofarchaeologists and heritage managers inthe FREWHS initiative has championed aWorld Heritage Site with major publicappeal. The Roman frontiers are likely tocontinue to form an increasingly popularseries of heritage landscapes and draw invisitors from far afield, from Europe atleast. The potential of this heritageasset also partly lies in researching andcommunicating the complex ethical contextof the contemporary borders across theglobe as well as the intricate ways in whichthe past and the present are entangled (seeHayes & Cipolla, 2015). Such an analysismay address the disconnections as well asthe connections between past and present(see Whittaker, 2004: 193; Hingley,2015b). The contemplation of theseRoman frontier works is of value to scho-lars, visitors, readers of accessible books onthe subject, and consumers of digital heri-tage regarding the complexity and tem-poral depth of the issues that affect the

world in which we live. Thinking aboutthese monuments also highlights themesthat need to be addressed if we are toimagine the possibility of better futures. Itremains the task of those who studyancient frontiers to consider migration andbordering in deeper terms and explore howthe increasing normalization of the argu-ment for the stringent treatment ofmigrants has emerged (see Jansen et al.,2015).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research developed from the ‘Tales ofthe Frontier’ project (supported by theArts and Humanities Research Council[2007–2014], Grant Number AHE510345/1). It also grew from discussions arisingfrom the ‘Life of the Frontier’ initiative,funded by the Institute of AdvancedStudies at Durham University (2011–2012).I particularly wish to acknowledge theassistance of a number of colleagues, par-ticularly Professor David Breeze, Dr ChiaraBonacchi, Professor Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly, Dr Andrew Burridge, Dr AndyGardner, Professor Stephen Harrison, DrSonja Jilek, Dr Sofia Labadi, Dr DanLawrence, Andrew Mackay, Dr NigelMills, Professor Chris Rumford, JohnScott, Christina Unwin, Dr RobertWitcher, and the editors of the EuropeanJournal of Archaeology.

REFERENCES

Appleby, G.A. 2005. Crossing the Rubicon:Fact or Fiction in Roman Re-enactment.Public Archaeology, 4: 257–65.

Askew, M. 2010. The Magic List of GlobalStatus: UNESCO, World Heritage andthe Agenda of States. In: S. Labadi &C. Long, eds. Heritage and Globalisation.London: Routledge, pp. 19–44.






Bialasiewicz, L. 2012. Off-shoring and Out-sourcing the Borders of EUrope: Libyaand EU Border Work in theMediterranean. Geopolitics, 17: 843–66.

Biebuych, W. & Rumford, C. 2012. ManyEuropes: Rethinking Multiplicity. EuropeanJournal of Social Theory, 15: 3–20.

Birley, A.R. 2002. Fifty Years of RomanFrontier Studies. In: P. Freeman, J.Bennett, Z.T. Fiema & B. Hoffmann, eds.Limes XVIII: Proceedings of the XVIIIthInternational Congress of Roman FrontierStudies, Held in Amman, September 2000.Oxford: Archaeopress: pp. 1–11.

Bishop, M. 2013. Re-enactment and LivingHistory—Issues about Authenticity. In: N.Mills, ed. Presenting the Romans:Interpreting the Frontiers of the RomanEmpire World Heritage Site. Woodbridge:Boydell Press, pp. 23–30.

Bloemers, T. 1989. Acculturation in theRhine/Meuse Basin in the Roman Period.In: J. Barrett, A. Fitzpatrick & L.Macinnes, eds. Barbarians and Romans inNorth-West Europe (BAR InternationalSeries 471). Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports, pp. 175–97.

Breeze, D.J. 2008. Research on RomanFrontiers. In: D.J. Breeze & S. Jilek, eds.Frontiers of the Roman Empire: TheEuropean Dimension of a World HeritageSite. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland, pp.57–59.

Breeze, D.J. 2011. The Frontiers of ImperialRome. Barnsley: Pen & Sword.

Breeze, D.J. & Jilek, S. eds. 2008. Frontiers ofthe Roman Empire: The EuropeanDimension of a World Heritage Site.Edinburgh: Historic Scotland.

Breeze, D.J. & Young, C. 2008. Frontiers ofthe Roman Empire World Heritage SiteSummary Notification Statement. In: D.J.Breeze & S. Jilek, eds. Frontiers of theRoman Empire: The European Dimension ofa World Heritage Site. Edinburgh: HistoricScotland, pp. 29–36.

Breeze, D.J., Jilek, S. & Thiel, A. 2005.Frontiers of the Roman Empire. Edinburgh& Esslingen: Historic Scotland/DeutscheLimeskommission.

Breeze, D.J., Jilek, S. & Thiel, A. 2008.Frontiers of the Roman Empire/Grenzen desRömischen Reiches/Hranice Rímskej Ríše:Slovakia/Slowakei/Slovensko. Edinburgh,Esslingen, Vienna & Nitra: Historic

Scotland/Deutsche Limeskommission/Archeologickÿ ústav SAV.

Brough, D. 2015. Factors Influencing theFuture Development of the Frontiers ofthe Roman Empire World Heritage Site.In: L. Vagalinski & N. Sharankov, eds.Limes XXII: Proceedings of the 22ndInternational Congress of Roman FrontierStudies. Sofia: National ArchaeologicalInstitute with Museum of the BulgarianAcademy of Science, pp. 933–40.

Brough, D. & Scott, J. 2014. The Frontiers ofthe Roman Empire World Heritage Site.In: P. Stone & D. Brough, eds. Managing,Using, and Interpreting Hadrian’s Wall asWorld Heritage. New York: Springer, pp.115–25.

Carr, M. 2012. Fortress Europe: Dispatches froma Gated Continent. London: Hurst.

Chaichian, M.A. 2014. Empires and Walls:Globalisation, Migration, and ColonialDomination. Chicago (IL): Haymarket.

Cooper, A. & Rumford, C. 2013.Monumentalising the Border: Borderingthrough Connectivity. Mobilities, 8: 107–24.

DCMS 2011. Statement of OutstandingUniversal Value for the Frontiers of theRoman Empire and its Component Parts(WHS FRE) (C430). London: DCMS[online] [accessed 27 October 2016].Available at <http://old.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/historic_environment/9095.aspx>

Eckardt, H. ed. 2010. Roman Diasporas:Archaeological Approaches to Mobility andDiversity in the Roman Empire (Journal ofRoman Archaeology Supplementary Series78). Portsmouth (RI): Journal of RomanArchaeology.

Eckardt, H. & Müldner, G. 2016. Mobility,Migration, and Diaspora in RomanBritain. In: M. Millett, L. Revell & A.Moore, eds. The Oxford Handbook ofRoman Britain. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, pp. 203–23.

Eckardt, H., Müldner, G. & Lewis, M. 2014.People on the Move in Roman Britain.World Archaeology, 46: 534–50.

Eder, K. 2006. Europe’s Borders: TheNarrative Construction of the Boundariesof Europe. European Journal of SocialTheory, 9: 255–71.

European Commission, 1957. The Treaty ofRome. [online] [accessed 26 May 2016].Available at <http://eu-ropa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/treaties/index_en.htm>



http://old.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/historic_environment/9095.aspx



http://eu-ropa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/treaties/index_en.htm






European Union, 2016. European Union:Enlargement [online] [accessed 1 November2016]. Available at <http://europa.eu/european-union/topics/enlargement_en>

Figel, J. 2008. Foreword. In: D.J. Breeze &S. Jilek, eds. Frontiers of the Roman Empire:The European Dimension of a World HeritageSite. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland, p. 1.

Flügel, C. & Obmann, J. eds. 2013. RömischeWehrbauten: Befund und Rekonstruktion.Munich: Volk Verlag.

Foster, R. 2013. Introduction: Between TheseTwo Kinds of Death. Global Discourse, 3:3–11.

Gambash, G. 2015. Rome and ProvincialResistance. Abingdon: Routledge.

Gardner, A. in press. Brexit, Boundaries, andImperial Identities: A Comparative View.Journal of Social Archaeology.

Geary, P.J. 2002. The Myth of Nations: TheMedieval Origins of Europe. Oxford:Princeton University Press.

González Sánchez, S. & Guglielmi, A. eds. inpress. ‘Romans’ and ‘Barbarians’ Beyond theFrontier: Archaeology, Ideology and Identitiesin the North. Oxford: Oxbow.

Graves-Brown, P., Jones, S. & Gamble, C.eds. 1996. Cultural Identity and Archae-ology: The Construction of European Com-munities. London: Routledge.

Haffner, A. & von Schnurbein, S. 1996. Kelten,Germanen, Römer im Mittelgebirgsraumzwischen Luxemburg und Thüringen.Arcäologisches Nachrichtenblatt, 1: 70–77.

Hannam, K., Sheller, M. & Urry, J. 2006.Editorial: Mobilities, Immobilities andMoorings. Mobilities, 1: 1–22.

Hayes, K.H. & Cipolla, N.C. 2015. Introduc-tion: Re-imagining Colonial Pasts, Influ-encing Colonial Futures. In: N.C. Cipolla& K.H. Hayes, eds. Rethinking Colonial-ism: Comparative Archaeological Approaches.Gainesville (FL): University Press ofFlorida, pp. 1–13.

Herzfeld, M. 2008. Mere Symbols.Anthropologica, 50: 141–55.

Hingley, R. 2001. Images of Rome: Perceptionsof Ancient Rome in Europe and in theUnited States in the Modern Age (Journal ofRoman Archaeology Supplementary Series44). Portsmouth (RI): Journal of RomanArchaeology.

Hingley, R. 2005. Globalizing Roman Culture:Unity, Diversity and Empire. London:Routledge.

Hingley, R. 2010. Tales of the Frontier:Diasporas on Hadrian’s Wall. In:H. Eckardt, ed. Roman Diasporas:Archaeological Approaches to Mobility andDiversity in the Roman Empire.Portsmouth (RI): Journal of RomanArchaeology, pp. 227–43.

Hingley, R. 2012. Hadrian’s Wall: A Life.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hingley, R. 2015a. The Frontiers of the RomanEmpire World Heritage Site andTransnational Heritage. In: P.F. Biehl,D. Cromer, C. Prescott & H. Soderland,eds. Identity and Heritage: ContemporaryChallenges in a Globalized World. New York:Springer, pp. 55–64.

Hingley, R. 2015b. Post-colonial and GlobalRome: The Genealogy of Empire. In: M.Pitts & J.M. Versluys, eds. Globalisationand the Roman World: World History,Connectivity and Material Culture.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,pp. 32–46.

Hingley, R. in press. Introduction: Imperiallimits and the Crossing of Frontiers. In:S. González Sánchez & A. Guglielmi, eds.‘Romans’ and ‘Barbarians’ Beyond theFrontier: Archaeology, Ideology and Identitiesin the North. Oxford: Oxbow.

Hingley, R. & Hartis, R. 2011.Contextualizing Hadrian’s Wall as‘Debatable Lands’. In: O. Hekster & T.Kaizer, eds. Frontiers in the Roman World:Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop of theInternational Network Impact of Empire.Leiden: Brill, pp. 79–96.

Hsu, R. 2010. Ethnic Europe: Mobility,Identity, and Conflict in a GlobalizedWorld. Stanford (CA): Stanford UniversityPress.

Isaac, B. 2000. The Limits of Empire: TheRoman Army in the East, revised edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jankovic, M.A., Mihajlovic, V.D. & Babic, S.eds. 2014. The Edges of the Roman World.Newcastle upon Tyne: CambridgeScholars Publishing.

Jansen, Y., Celibates, R. & de Bloois, J. 2015.Introduction. In: Y. Jansen, R. Celibates& J. de Bloois, eds. The Irregularization ofMigration in Contemporary Europe:Detention, Deportation, Drowning. London& New York: Rowman & Littlefield,pp. ix–xxiv.



http://europa.eu/european-union/topics/enlargement_en






Jilek, S., Kuttner, E. & Schwarcz, A. 2011.Frontiers of the Roman Empire: The DanubeLimes in Austria. Vienna: AustrianInstitute for Historical Research.

Juffer, J. ed. 2006. The Last Frontier: TheContemporary Configuration of the U.S.-Mexico Border (South Atlantic Quarterly105(4)). Durham (NC): Duke UniversityPress.

Klose, G. & Nünnerich-Asmus, A. eds. 2005.Grenzen des Römischen Imperiums. Mainzam Rhein: Phillip von Zabern.

Kolossov, V. 2005. Border Studies: ChangingPerspectives and Theoretical Approaches.Geopolitics, 10: 606–32.

Labadi, S. 2010. World Heritage: Authenticityand Post-Authenticity: International andNational Perspectives. In: S. Labadi & C.Long, eds. Heritage and Globalisation.London: Routledge, pp. 66–84.

Lafrenz Samuels, K. & Totten, D.M. 2012.Roman Place-Making: From Archaeo-logical Interpretation to ContemporaryHeritage Contexts. In: D.M. Totten & K.Lafrenz Samuels, eds. Making RomanPlaces, Past and Present: Papers Presented atthe First Critical Roman Archaeology Con-ference held at Stanford University inMarch, 2008 (Journal of Roman Archae-ology Supplementary Series 89). Ports-mouth (RI): Journal of RomanArchaeology, pp. 11–32.

Long, C. & Labadi, S. 2010. Introduction. In:S. Labadi & C. Long, eds. Heritage andGlobalisation. London: Routledge, pp. 1–16.

Luath Bacas, J. & Kavanagh, W. 2013. BorderEncounters: Asymmetry and Proximity atEurope’s Frontiers. In: J. Luath Bacas &W. Kavanagh, eds. Border Encounters:Asymmetry and Proximity at Europe’sFrontiers. New York: Berghahn, pp. 1–23.

Martiniano, R., Caffell, A., Holst, M.,Hunter-Mann, K. & Müldner, G. 2016.Genomic Signals of Migration andContinuity in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. Nature Communications, 7: 10326doi: 10.1038/ncomms10326.

Mattingly, D. 2011. Imperialism, Power andIdentity: Experiencing the Roman Empire.Princeton (NJ) & Oxford: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Mattingly, D., Rushworth, A., Sterry, M. &Leitch, V. 2013. Frontiers of the RomanEmpire/Grenzen des Römischen Reiches/Frontières de l’Empire romain: The African

Froniers/Die Grenzen in Afrika/Les Fron-tières africaines. Edinburgh: Hussar.

Maxfield, V. & Dobson, M. 1991. RomanFrontier Studies 1989. Exeter: Universityof Exeter Press.

Mills, N. ed. 2013. Presenting the Romans:Interpreting the Frontiers of the RomanEmpire World Heritage Site. Woodbridge:Boydell Press.

Mills, N., Padley, T., Scott, J., Branczik, L. &Adkins, G. 2013. Applying the Hadrian’sWall Interpretational Framework. In: N.Mills, ed. Presenting the Romans:Interpreting the Frontiers of the RomanEmpire World Heritage Site. Woodbridge:Boydell Press, pp. 181–92.

Morley, N. 2010. The Roman Empire: Roots ofImperialism. New York: Pluto Books.

Moschek, W. 2011. Der Römische Limes. EineKultur- und Mentalitätsgeschichte. Munich:Speyer.

Nesbitt, C. 2016. Multiculturalism onHadrian’s Wall. In: M. Millett, L. Revell& A. Moore, eds. The Oxford Handbook ofRoman Britain. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 244–45.

Parry, W. 2010. Against the Wall: The Art ofResistance in Palestine. London: Pluto Press.

Redfern, R.C., Gröcke, D.R., Millard, A.R.,Ridgeway, V., Johnson, L. & Hefner, J.T.2016. Going South of the River: AMultidisciplinary Analysis of Ancestry,Mobility and Diet in a Population fromRoman Southwark, London. Journal ofArchaeological Science, 74: 11–22.

Richardson, T. 2013. Borders and Mobilities:Introduction to the Special Issue.Mobilities, 8: 1–6.

Roymans, N. Heeren, S. & De Clercq, W.eds. 2016. Social Dynamics in the NorthwestFrontiers of the Late Roman Empire:Beyond Decline or Transformation. Amster-dam: Amsterdam University Press.

Rumford, C. 2006. Introduction: TheorizingBorders. European Journal of Social Theory,9: 155–69.

Sidaway, J. 2015. Mapping Border Studies:Book Review Essay. Geopolitics, 20: 214–22.

Sommer, C.S. 2015. WHS FRE (Frontiers ofthe Roman Empire) – Running andExpanding the World Heritage Site. In:L. Vagalinski & N. Sharankov, eds. LimesXXII: Proceedings of the 22nd InternationalCongress of Roman Frontier Studies. Sofia:






National Archaeological Institute withMuseum Bulgarian Academy of Science,pp. 919–22.

Stone, P. & Brough, D. eds. 2014. Managing,Using, and Interpreting Hadrian’s Wall asWorld Heritage. New York: Springer.

Tolia-Kelly, D. 2010. Narrating the PostcolonialLandscape: Archaeologies of Race atHadrian’s Wall. Transactions of the Instituteof British Geographers, NS 36: 71–88.

UNESCO 2016. UNESCO World HeritageList [online] [accessed 27 October 2016].Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org>

van Dommelen, P. 2014. Moving On:Archaeological Perspectives on Mobilityand Migration. World Archaeology, 46:477–83.

Versluys, M.J. 2014. Understanding Objects inMotion: An Archaeological Dialogue onRomanization. Archaeological Dialogues, 21:1–20.

Wells, P. ed. 2013. Rome beyond its Frontiers:Imports, Attitudes and Practices (Journal ofRoman Archaeology Supplementary Series94). Portsmouth (RI): Journal of RomanArchaeology.

Whittaker, C.R. 2004. Rome and its Frontiers:The Dynamics of Empire. London:Routledge.

Wilson, T.M. & Donnan, H. 2012. Bordersand Border Studies. In: T.M. Wilson &H. Donnan, eds. A Companion to BorderStudies. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell,pp. 1–21.

Witcher, R. 2015. Globalisation and RomanCultural Heritage. In: M. Pitts & M.J.

Versluys, eds. Globalisation and the RomanWorld: World History, Connectivity andMaterial Culture. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 198–222.

Zielonka, J. 2006. Europe as Empire: TheNature of the Enlarged European Union.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zsolt, V. 2008. A Római Limes Magyarorszá-gon. In: D.J. Breeze, S. Jilek & A. Thiel,eds. A Római Birdalom Határai/Frontiers ofthe Roman Empire. Edinburgh, Esslingenand Pécs: Historic Scotland/DeutscheLimeskommission/Pécsi Tudományegye-tem Régészeti Szeminárium, pp. 35–78.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Richard Hingley is a Professor of RomanArchaeology at Durham University, UK.His research focuses upon Iron Age andRoman society and he has published avariety of books, including Roman Officersand English Gentlemen (2000), GlobalizingRoman Culture (2005) and Hadrian’s Wall:A Life (2012). He is a member the WorldHeritage Site Management Panel forHadrian’s Wall.

Address: Department of Archaeology,Durham University, UK. [Email: [email protected]]

Frontières et mobilités : les frontières de l’Empire romain et l’Europe

L’article ci-dessus traite du site du patrimoine mondial que constituent les « Frontières de l’Empireromain » et cherche à introduire dans cette initiative certains concepts formulés dans des écrits récents sur lamobilité et la délimitation des frontières contemporaines dans le but d’étudier la possibilité de créer unecollaboration plus étroite entre les deux domaines que sont l’étude des frontières actuelles et l’étude desfrontières romaines. L’examen des rapports entre l’initiative sur les « Frontières de l’Empire romain »et les objectifs fondamentaux d’intégration et de dissolution des frontières de l’Union européenne nous mèneà proposer une approche qui transcende les frontières intellectuelles entre l’étude du passé et celle du présentet de promouvoir les valeurs que représentent les frontières romaines comme moyen de réflexion sur lesproblèmes auxquels l’Europe se trouve confrontée aujourd’hui. Dans cet article nous examinons l’influenceque les études sur les frontières romaines pourraient avoir dans ce débat en soulignant le rôle des frontièrescomme lieux de rencontre et de transformation. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Mots-clés: frontières, rencontres, mobilité, Empire romain, Union européenne, patrimoine mondial



http://whc.unesco.org

http://whc.unesco.org

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




Grenzen und Mobilität: die Grenzen des römischen Reiches und Europa

In diesem Artikel wird das Weltkulturerbe „Grenzen des Römischen Reiches“ besprochen, und es wirdversucht, einige Konzepte, die von neueren Veröffentlichungen über Mobilität und Begrenzungen in derheutigen Welt beeinflusst sind, in diese Initiative einzuführen; es wird auch versucht, eine engereZusammenarbeit zwischen den wissenschaftlichen Feldern, die sich den modernen Grenzen und denrömischen Grenzen widmen, zu fördern. Die Auswertung der Zusammenhänge zwischen dem Projekt„Grenzen des Römischen Reiches“ und den grundsätzlichen Zielen der Integrierung und Abschaffung derGrenzen innerhalb der Europäischen Union führt zur Empfehlung, intellektuelle Grenzen zwischendem Studium der Gegenwart und der Vergangenheit zu überschreiten, um den Wert der römischenGrenzen als Mittel einer Betrachtung der aktuellen Grenzproblemen Europas zu fördern. Die poten-zielle Bedeutung der römischen Grenzen in dieser Debatte, vor allem ihre Rolle als Orte der Begegnungund des Wandels wird hier betont. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Stichworte: Grenzen, Begrenzung, Begegnung, Mobilität, römisches Reich, Europäische Union,Welterbe






Frontiers and Mobilities: The Frontiers of the Roman ......A new focus on mobilities and migrations...

Documents

Transcript of Frontiers and Mobilities: The Frontiers of the Roman ......A new focus on mobilities and migrations...