TRAC-TiDA 2025

Wednesday 22nd Oct 2025; 13:00-14:00 GMT+1

Moving towards the final months of 2025, it seems fair to state that Roman archaeology stands at a decisive juncture shaped by profound disciplinary, institutional, and political transformations. Situating its reflections within both the author’s own academic trajectory and the broader European context since the end of the Cold War, this paper examines how the optimism and internationalism of the 1990s have given way to a climate of neoliberal precarity, rising autocracy, and mounting challenges for the Humanities, for critical thinking, and for the study of the human past. Within this environment, Roman archaeology, or rather archaeologies – drawing on a wide spectrum of traditions, from the empirically and historically grounded approaches of continental Europe (including the Austrian, German, Italian, and French schools) to the theoretically ambitious and globally networked perspectives of the Anglophone world – must confront the intellectual consequences of postmodern relativism and the succession of “cultural turns” that have shaped the field since the late twentieth century.

The paper contends that, while these diverse traditions have each enriched the discipline – through rigorous contextual analysis on the one hand and theoretical innovation on the other – their increasing divergence has also fostered fragmentation and a drift toward de-historicisation. Recent symmetrical or posthumanist approaches, which seek to balance or even prioritise the agency of objects and materials over that of human actors, risk eroding the interpretative centrality of human experience and responsibility when studying the Roman world. Against a backdrop of political instrumentalisation of the past, the paper calls for renewed commitment to contextual, critical, and human-centred scholarship. The central challenge for Roman archaeology in 2025 lies in reconciling its pluralistic intellectual heritage with a shared, historically grounded, and ethically engaged vision of the human past.

Dominik Maschek is Deputy Director General of the Leibniz-Zentrum für Archäologie (LEIZA) at Mainz and the Head of the Roman Archaeology section. He also serves as a professor of Roman archaeology at the University of Trier. He has previously lectured at the University of Birmingham. He has published widely on the topic of architecture and construction in the Roman world as well as battlefield archaeology, urban and landscape archaeology of the Mediterranean region and the Roman northwest, GIS modelling and digital reconstruction, including the fieldwork projects at Fregellae and Carnuntum. Dominik is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London.

Dr Ulla Rajala                                  Dr Therese Emanuelsson-Paulson

Stockholm University                    Stockholm University

ulla.rajala@antiken.su.se             therese.emanuelsson.paulson@antiken.su.se

What and how do the monuments communicate? In this session we want to explore the mediating role of Roman architecture. Objects mediate between people in a range of ways, and in so doing are essential from their part to the way that selves are constructed in relation to others - i.e. to intersubjectivity (for the full discussion, see Gardner 2003, 2-5). In recent archaeological, and indeed interdisciplinary, discussions objects are given agency, better repositioning of human is searched for and the white western nature of the
‘human’ is questioned; these discussions have reached Roman archaeology, too (Mol 2023). Nevertheless, the extent to which such ‘material turn’ would help archaeology has been questioned (Gardner 2021), even if the essence of archaeology as the study of ‘things’ cannot be underestimated.

Roman towns were full of buildings that created different kinds of urban landscapes that affected people’s senses. The Roman architecture could be grandiose and massive, full of decorations and friezes. As monuments, the buildings stood for something and they conveyed different ideas and messages (e.g. Zanker 1990). But whose messages they communicated and what was their reception? Could the Roman monuments have unintended connotations? Do they still stand for something? And can we always understand their messages? Or is our perception of these monuments affected by older archaeological theories?

This session invites the interpretations and re-interpretations of pre-Roman and Roman monuments in the core and periphery of the Roman Empire. In addition, the assessment of their reception in the later periods can be explored as well. Especially welcome are contributions that discuss different ontological questions related to monuments.

Papers:

What do the monuments stand for?: Introduction (Ulla Rajala & Therese Emanuelsson-Paulson, Stockholm University)

Atrium Vestae: a monument for people, Vestals or emperor? (Ulla Rajala, Stockholm University)

Octagonal columns in pre-Roman Italy (Therese Emanuelsson-Paulson, Stockholm University)

The oppressive nature of monumental architecture in Gaul (Ralph Haeussler, University of Winchester)

Reconsidering the Meaning in the Forum of Augustus: Materiality, Intention and Reception (Hyun Seo Cho, Seoul National University)

The Messages of Peace on the Ara Pacis Augustae (Gaius Stern, University of Berkeley)

One fits all? On the plurality of meaning concerning arches erected for the visiting emperor (Marius Gaidys, Eberhard-Karls Universität, Tübingen)

The Odeion of Agrippa in Athens – a misunderstood Monument of Roman architecture? (Margarita Sardak, University of Cologne)

Monumental Memory and Civic Identity: The Temple of Zeus in the Neapolis Vignette of the Church of St Stephen at Kastron Mefaa (Umm ar-Rasas, Jordan) (Jacopo Dolci, University of Nottingham)

The evolution and messaging of the use of Imperial Porphyry in Roman architecture (Sem van Atteveld, Leiden University)

Dr. Jessica Clarke

(UCL / British School at Rome )

jessica.clarke.15@ucl.ac.uk

The session aims to explore the archaeology of Roman theatre from new diachronic and cross-cultural perspectives. Too often studied through a Rome-centric and literary lens, theatre in the ancient world offers a diverse and complex archaeological record that demands fresh theoretical and comparative approaches.

The session invites papers that examine any aspect of theatre archaeology between the Greek Classical period and the late Roman period in the Mediterranean and beyond, including northern/eastern Europe and Britain. This could include the architecture and decoration of theatre buildings or the material culture of theatre – such as the iconography of theatre performances, masks, and actors.

The focus of the papers should be on tracing developments over time and space, identifying moments of continuity or change in the archaeological record of theatre. This could encompass the emergence of regional theatre designs, changes in construction techniques, or shifts in the use and meaning of performance space. Alternatively, papers might focus on the development of theatre iconography and possible regional variations in theatrical imagery or the media through which it was presented. How did theatre architecture and visual culture differ between cities and regions? What do these variations reveal about changing local identities, political dynamics, or social priorities over time?

The key aim of the session is to move beyond teleological models that assume Rome was the driving force behind cultural change in the Mediterranean – a narrative which has dominated scholarly discussions of post-Hellenistic theatre archaeology. Instead, the intention is to highlight the agency of local communities across a wide geographic and temporal frame, and their role in shaping and developing various theatrical forms. In so doing, the session hopes to find fresh theoretical approaches to the archaeology of Roman
theatre, reframing it not as a monolithic tradition but a vibrant, pluralistic, and morphic phenomenon with a complex developmental history.

Papers:

Introduction

New Approaches to Roman Theatre Archaeology: Introduction (Jessica Clarke, UCL / BSR)

The theatre of Nea Paphos: contextualising theatre in Roman Cyprus (Craig Barker, University of Sydney)

Water management in Roman theatres and their development in the Iberian Peninsula (Julian Aponte Henao, University of Granada)

All the world’s a stage: architecture and ordines in the Roman theatre of Bracara Augusta (Hispania Tarraconensis) (Diego Machado and Manuela Martins, University of Minho)

Beyond Naumachia: Water's Function in Theaters of the Roman Decapolis (Clare Rassmussen, Bryn Mawr College)

Computational Approaches to Regionalism in Gallo-Roman Theater Design (John Sigmier, University of Toronto)

Ljubica Perinić,                                                           Anton Ye. Baryshnikov

Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts                 Independent Researcher

bperinic@gmail.com                                                baryshnikov85@gmail.com

Recent decades are marked by a significant change in studying and understanding of Roman imperialism both in history and archaeology. Scholars have started looking at the phenomenon of once paradigmatic
Empire from other angles and now are paying attention to aspects that can labelled as ‘dark sides’ of Roman imperialism: organized violence, exploitation, extraction of resources and many others. One can only praise
focusing on those issues not only for they were neglected for a long time but because many of them are painfully familiar to us. Still, in most cases scholars tend to look at the past as if it is something dead and silent, a set of objective facts. Battles are presented as rationalized constructs; where fear and panic are just abstract concepts; where losses are numbers not real people. Hunger within such an approach is merely a fact of the critical food storage, and plague is not a human tragedy but a spread of Yersinia pestis. Of course, this modus operandi is rooted in the own nature of academic research with its cult of objectivity. But history is not only what happened, it is also how people lived through ‘what-happened’.

We are interested in and welcome papers that deal with history and historiography, different perspectives on how specific events were represented in art or literature or on the inscriptions, and religion in general or cults.

This session invites papers that challenge the traditional boundaries of objectivity by centering emotion, ethics, and empathy in the study of Roman imperialism. How did individuals (soldiers, subjects, the enslaved) feel
amidst conquest, displacement, or epidemic? How do we, as researchers, grapple with grief, guilt, fascination, or even numbness when reconstructing histories of exploitation? And how do ancient representations (in art,
literature, inscriptions, or religion) mediate these emotional and ethical dimensions?

We welcome contributions that: examine the affective and ethical challenges of researching imperial violence, resource extraction, or forced labor; Reconstruct the sensory and emotional realities of Roman imperialism (e.g., fear in battle, despair in famine, resilience in cult practice); critique historiographical traditions that sanitize or rationalize suffering; explore methodologies for "humanizing" the past, e.g., through microhistory,
narrative approaches, or collaborative work with affected descendant communities; analyze ancient artistic, literary, or epigraphic testimonies that convey subjective experiences of empire.

Key Questions:
How can we balance empirical rigor with empathetic engagement when studying oppression? What responsibilities do historians and archaeologists have toward the "voices" they reconstruct? Can attention to emotion reshape narratives of Roman imperialism—and if so, how? We encourage bold, reflexive, and interdisciplinary approaches that confront the past not as a detached puzzle, but as a visceral, morally fraught legacy.

Papers:

The past is dead?: Introduction (Ljubica Perinić; Anton Ye. Baryshnikov)

Despair in the Forest: The Battlefield Behaviour of Roman Soldiers in the last stages of the Battle of the Teutoburg (AD 9) (Jo Ball, Manchester Metropolitan University)

The ‘Mother’ and Wife’: Using Critical Fabulation to Unlock Women’s Lived Experiences of Abuse from Roman Soldiers (Sabrina Nogueira, University of Sydney)

Shards of the Past, meanings of the present: Broken relationships beyond Roma imperialism (Mauro Puddu, University for Foreigners of Siena)

Fear and lasting in Salona: When the eagles would not rise (Ljubica Perinić, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts)

Beautiful villages burn nicely: things that Caesar said and things he left unsaid about his British expeditions (Anton Ye. Baryshnikov, Independent researcher)

Louise A O’Brien                                    Luis Maia de Freitas

University of Liverpool                          Swansea University

hslobrie@liverpool.ac.uk                   854214@swansea.ac.uk

The Roman Empire was immersed in cross-cultural interactions which led to the influence and integration of diverse cultures within the empire and beyond. This cultural diversity has been studied through the application of various theoretical models and methodologies, including cultural entanglement (first proposed by Stockhammer, 2012), hybridity and third space (theorised by Bhabha, 1994, explored in archaeology by Steel, 2023), or the middle-ground (progressed by Richard White, 1991) to name but a few.
However, such approaches have often been binary in nature, focusing on the classical (or Graeco-Roman) perspective of such assimilation and ignoring the reception or resistance of indigenous groups for a more nuanced and balanced perspective.

This session panel, therefore, welcomes papers that propose or discuss the application of new interdisciplinary concepts that decolonise and go beyond such binary methods to approach the study of cultural interactions, shared identity and syncretic material evidence between indigenous groups and the
Roman empire. Papers must consider not only the Roman perspective, but also the reception or impact of indigenous peoples, or their role in cultivating or resisting cultural assimilation within the Roman state, as well as colonies and provinces and other empires Rome had contact with. This work will reconsider previous binary approaches to cultural contact, considering the introduction of Roman rule or culture not solely as a form of conquest but as a form of emulation. Such interactions, whether they be through art, religion, politics, or language, indicate that indigenous communities were active participants in the assimilation process, whether this be through the integration of Roman material into native culture or the cultivation of shared cultural identity in an environment which cannot be defined solely by cultural labels such as ‘Roman’, ‘Greek’, ‘Egyptian’, or ‘Syrian’. This panel aims to foster a collaborative approach to crosscultural interactions and the conceptualisation of identity within both Roman and indigenous cultural
contexts.

Papers:

Beyond Binaries: Introduction (Louise A. O’Brien; Luis Maia de Freitas)

The Gallic Vulcan is not the Italian Vulcan: Assimilation and Localisation of Vulcan worship in Roman Gaul (Xie Sisi, University of Edinburgh)

Economic Interaction and Ritual Exchanges: Applying social economics to Gallo-Roman figurative votives (Christiane-Marie Cantwell, University of Cambridge)

Understanding the self-representation of the auxiliary cavalry in Germania through Social Practice Theory: the case of the totenmahl motif' (Carlos Enríquez de Salamanca, University of Warwick)

The Etruscan ‘House’: Social Resilience in the Face of Subjugation (Alexis Daveloose, Ghent University)

Beyond the Empire, Beyond Binaries: exploring Irish engagement with the Roman Empire by re-centering elite Irish agency, Beyond Binaries (Karen Murad, University College Dublin)

“Egyptian”, “Roman”? Spaces of differentiation and/or contact in podium temples in Roman Egypt (Esperanza Macarena Ródenas Pere, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla)

Nature and Indigeneity in Vergil’s Aeneid (Alicia Matz, Boston University)

Hannah M. Moots                                                   N. Ezgi Altınışık

Centre for Palaeogenetics                                    Human-G Laboratory          Stockholm                                                               Hacettepe University hannah.moots@su.se                                        ezgialtinisik@hacettepe.edu.tr

The rapid growth of the ancient DNA field has often meant that its integration with archaeological theory has not been widespread in the discipline as of yet. However, we hope that interdisciplinary settings like this will provide an opportunity to bridge archaeogenetic research with archaeological theory and praxis, and to explore how this integration can contribute to theory building. As one example, “migration” often serves as
the dominant explanatory framework in archaeogenetic interpretations of past population change. Yet mobility has always occurred in diverse and context-specific patterns, encompassing a range of modalities and motivations. Migration-focused interpretations may, even when unintended, bring concepts with it across disciplines and from past theoretical approaches, such as culture-historical archaeology. We hope a deeper engagement with archaeological theory and existing archaeology scholarship and data will help ancient DNA researchers study identity, community, and mobility and the complex ways they shaped ancient societies, influencing kinship and family-formation practices, social stratification, cultural identity,
and the development of urban infrastructure. Interpreting such diversity requires moving beyond reductive models and engaging with theoretical work that conceptualizes mobility as a socially embedded, multifaceted phenomenon.

This session invites contributions that explore the intersections between archaeology theory and ancient DNA. We welcome a broad range of topics that foster dialogue across allied approaches, including theoretical, archaeogenetic, biological, and historical. We welcome diachronic and cross-cultural comparisons that situate the Roman world within broader theoretical debates and consider the longue durée in relation to imperial and post-imperial transformations, especially those attentive to the political and epistemological stakes of reconstructing the past.

By fostering dialogue across disciplines, this session seeks to explore the intersection between archaeological theory and archaeogenetics, and examine how these nexus can contribute to the building and development of theoretical approaches.

Papers: 

Mobility in the Eastern Adriatic from a bioarchaeological perspective in the Roman Period (Tisa Loewen, Arizona State University)

Bridging archaeological theory and ancient DNA to study the population of Çatalhöyük (Eren Yüncü, Middle East Technical University)

Origins, migrations and mobility: the Etruscan ancestry as an archaeological problem (Ulla Rajala, Stockholm University)

Moving Beyond Migration: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Mobility in the Ancient Mediterranean (Hannah Moots, University of Stockholm)

Isabella Bossolino                          Dario Monti

ULB                                                  UCLouvain

isabella.bossolino@ulb.be          dario.monti@uclouvain.be

Despite its foundational role in critical social theory, Marxism remains marginalised in much of contemporary Roman and pre-Roman archaeology. Yet recent works (e.g. Vanni 2021; Milevski 2023) demonstrate a renewed interest in Marxist perspectives, not as a unified doctrine but as a dynamic strand of research. In this sense, Marxist archaeology emerges as a “third way” beyond the worn-out dichotomy between the rationalist and keen-to-generalisation processualism and the postmodern particularism of postprocessualism. This session seeks to reclaim and expand the role of Marxist approaches as powerful interpretative tools for understanding ancient societies across the Mediterranean and beyond. Rather than
privileging systems models or hermeneutic relativism, we propose to prioritise the analysis of material relations, while critically engaging with and further developing the analytical categories of Marxist thought in
dialogue with the specificities of the ancient world.

We invite contributions that reassess the socio-economic foundations of ancient communities, examining inequality, exploitation, surplus extraction, and ideological reproduction. Particular attention is welcome to approaches that integrate Marxism with post-colonial and feminist frameworks, expanding the notion of subalternity to encompass a plurality of marginalised subjectivities. How do colonisation, resistance, and social transformation appear when reinterpreted through a historical materialist lens? What are the limits
and potentials of Marxist analysis in addressing the complexities of pre-Roman and Roman-period societies?

In addition to case studies focused on specific regions, periods, or social groups, we particularly encourage reflections that interrogate the theoretical and methodological implications of applying Marxist categories to the archaeological record. We invite not only the use of Marxist conceptual tools, but also their critical testing, refinement, and adaptation to ancient contexts. In particular, we view materialist analysis as providing a clearer, more grounded, and intellectually rigorous framework for interpreting Roman
imperialism and the dynamics of intercultural interaction.

Contributions may range from re-readings of classical sites and material culture to comparative studies linking the Roman and pre-Roman worlds to broader global or longue durée frameworks. Analyses of subaltern lives, household economies, rural and urban production, and labour relations are especially encouraged. This session aims to provide a space for rethinking the theoretical foundations of ancient Mediterranean archaeology, and to explore how materialist approaches can yield deeper insights into the historical dynamics of power, economy, and social change.

Papers:

Reclaiming Materialism: Introduction (Isabella Bossolino; Dario Monti)

Marxism and class in antiquity: towards a historicist approach (Kostas Vlassopoulos, University of Crete)

On the morphology of certain Marxian categories for the study of ancient societies (Dario Monti, UCLouvain and Edoardo Vanni, Università per Stranieri di Siena).

Fields, Cities, and Power. Reading Proto-Urban Italy (Agostino Sotgia, University of Groningen)

Examining Gender and Labor Using Social Reproduction Theory (SRT) (Serena Crosson, Stanford University)

Piecing the archaeological fragments of common agendas together: Gramsci’s history of subalterns in dialogue with feminist posthumanism (Mauro Puddu, Università per Stranieri di Siena)

Marxist categories and the end of Eastern Sigillata A production during the Roman Middle Imperial period (2nd – 3rd century AD): the dialectic between structure and superstructure (Paride Parravano, University of Pisa)

The Use and Abuse of Marxism in ‘Classical’ Archaeology (Ian Tewksbury, Santa Clara University)

TRAC Standing Committee

tracconf2025@gmail.com

The General Session of TRAC-TiDA 2025 invites paper proposals that engage critically and creatively with any aspect of Roman archaeology, broadly defined. This session welcomes contributions that do not fall within the scope of a themed panel but nonetheless offer theoretically informed, methodologically innovative, or conceptually provocative perspectives.

We particularly encourage submissions that align with TRAC-TiDA 2025’s emphasis on collaboration, crosscultural dialogue, and diachronic comparison. Papers may explore Roman archaeology in relation to other periods or cultural contexts, engaging with themes such as decolonisation, sustainability, marginalised geographies, and underrepresented regions in Roman studies, as well as methodological experimentation in fieldwork, data analysis, or pedagogy. Work that brings Roman archaeology into conversation with wider theoretical debates—whether through case studies, comparative frameworks, or experimental methodologies—is especially welcome.

Papers:

Introduction

Italian Archaeological Publishing Houses (1950-1970): Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli and Einaudi between methodology, ideology and heritage (Camilla Marraccini, IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca)

Artwork representations on Roman provincial coin reverses – some considerations from Deultum, Thrace (Milena Raycheva, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences)

Making a mark: the social significance of Human footprints in Roman ceramic building materials (Elizabeth Shaw, Independent researcher)

Ideology on the Roman Frontier: Patrons, Clients, and Conquered Peoples of Frontier Landscapes (Mir Kameron Kashani, UCL)

Patterns of Cultivation at the Sanctuary of the Great St. Bernard Pass: An Examination of the Votive Inscriptions using Network Analysis (Zehavi Husser, Biola University)

Thursday 23^rd October 13:30-15:00 GMT +1

Friday 24^th October  12:30-13:30 GMT +1

The Editorial Board of the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal (TRAJ) welcomes you to a publishing open house with members of the editorial team. Come prepared with questions about publishing your first research article, transforming your dissertation or PhD thesis chapters into a manuscript, or general questions about TRAJ and the publishing process! Please also feel free to just drop by for a chat about your research -- all are welcome. The workshop will take place on Thursday 23^rd October 13:30-15:00.  You will have the chance to meet a selection of publishers and editors from archaeology disciplinary areas, ask questions and find out more from them about their specific publication process on Friday 24^th between 12:30-13:30.

Friday 24th October, 17:30-19:00 GMT+1

This keynote will review the growing body of research that focuses on the ‘darker’ sides of the Roman world, including military conquest, slavery, and wealth inequality. I will explore different theoretical and methodological approaches that can aid our understanding of the life experiences of those who suffered the most from the sharp asymmetries that characterised the Empire. Crucially, I will also discuss how these darker sides of the Roman past are presented to the public through museum exhibitions and heritage initiatives, reflecting on ways to communicate the more ‘uncomfortable’ aspects to the broader public. Finally, I will consider why confronting violence and oppression in the Roman world is not just a scholarly exercise, but a matter of key importance for our collective present – and future.

Manuel Fernández-Götz is Professor of Later European Prehistory at the University of Oxford. Previously, he was Abercromby Professor at the University of Edinburgh, where he also served as Head of the Archaeology Department. His main research areas are late prehistoric and Roman societies, specialising in topics such as the archaeology of early cities, migrations, and battlefields. Manuel has carried out fieldwork in the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Croatia, and authored over 240 publications. His memberships and fellowships include, among others, the Academia Europaea, the Young Academy of Scotland, and the Societies of Antiquaries of Scotland and London. He currently a Trustee of National Museums Scotland.