Lunch Club provides affiliates of the Stanford Archaeology Center with a community-oriented forum for engagement with current issues in archaeology. On April 30, 2025,  we will host Stanford University PhD Candidate Matthew Previto.

Abstract:

A longstanding discourse in Roman archaeology, as well as in allied fields, is assessing the impacts of imperialism on daily life. One result of this work is the realization that the disruptive proliferation of infrastructure, even water systems and sanitation, often exacerbated social inequalities instead of leveling them. Despite this conclusion, ancient Rome has long been upheld as a model of the benefits of imperial infrastructure. Yet, empires, past and present, are built on intrinsic inequalities, and the persistent question is for whom were such infrastructural dividends intended and accessible? This question is particularly relevant to Rome’s frontiers. Here, the presence of the armies on the empire’s margins concentrated a wealth of resources meant for soldiers, but not necessarily for others. Roman forts were consistently equipped with advanced water and sanitation systems, supplied by extensive supply networks, and frequently enjoyed the services of medical professionals. My dissertation argues, however, that infrastructure was left much more haphazard for those living outside the fort in extramural spaces, and far less accessible than the facilities inside it. These discrepancies in access to clean water, effective sanitation, and healthcare between the two areas, constructed by the strategic objectives and inequities of empire, enacted a form of structural violence in the extramural spaces of military communities on Rome’s frontiers.

I argue that “extramural space” is a context in which to understand a complex, more nuanced experience of Roman imperialism in military communities. I define it as the space outside of a walled area, such as a fort, that concentrates social, economic, and political power. Outside, the external space is made by practices that are dependent on who, and what, resides inside the walls. Someone with the right status and connections may move between the two areas, but that is determined by their relationships to those within the walled area and the larger social hierarchies of the empire. In recent years, researchers have placed a greater emphasis on these relationships. Close analysis of artifact assemblages and epigraphic sources have revealed that soldiers and non-combatants mixed, created families, and dwelt on both sides of the fort’s walls. By studying the differences in the complexity and sophistication of infrastructure, water access, and healthcare, one can see the persistent structural differences that influenced and foregrounded these social and economic ties that bound the two spaces of Roman military communities together.   

To investigate these discrepancies between the two spaces, I have developed a research method that entails the analysis of infrastructure patterns drawn from pertinent archaeological sites that were representative of trends in the relationships between extramural spaces and their associated forts. I examine five representative sites in the UK, Germany, and Bulgaria: Vindolanda, Housesteads, Saalburg, Zugmantel and the much better supplied legionary site at Novae. At each site I analyzed specific aspects, including: the availability, supply, and quality of water, construction and access to sanitation infrastructure, the evidence for healthcare facilities and medical practice, and indications for the presence of actual, and the potential for, physical violence as a mechanism of coercion. By doing this work I illuminate Roman military communities and provide an argument about how empire penetrated the daily lives of their members. While the coming of Rome certainly brought infrastructural improvements, we cannot forget, nor erase, that these benefits were never intended to be accessible to all.