On Monday evening, October 28th, the North Carolina Humanities Corridor sponsored, and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro hosted, an interdisciplinary discussion on "Empires Across Space and Time." The discussion brought together archaeologists, historians, and literary critics to explore different perspectives on empires and how they construct imperial power and identity.
In her introductory remarks, Jill Bender of UNCG's Department of History emphasized the relevance of empire studies by pointing out that literally millions and millions of people have lived under these political entities over time, and that has left deep-seeded economic, social, and even psychological impressions that reverberate even today. The discussion was split into two sessions of three speakers, each of whom had five minutes to provide their particular perspective on empire.
The first session examined ancient empires. Robyn Le Blanc, an archaeologist and numismatics expert at UNCG, spoke about her work on the Roman Empire. Rome, Jupiter's "empire without end," was, according to Le Blanc, first and foremost an extractive political system that sought to squeeze goods and taxes from its provinces. A sense of belonging to the Roman state was of only secondary importance, especially for a population made up largely of non-citizens. However, even when Roman identity was constructed and/or fostered, it meant very different things to different people. She also emphasized that because our written records were produced for and by the political elite (read: middle-aged men), we must often rely on archaeology and material culture to reveal the lives of non-elites (read: 99.9% of the population). Enter "civic coins," which are coins minted and used in the provinces. While most of these coins portrayed images of their local founding myths, stylistic analysis also reveals how communities outside the Roman heartland of Italy saw themselves within the imperial web. Some coins, for example, used Latin inscriptions to show off their "Roman-ness," while others pictured Roman mythological founding rituals to rework their city's past through a Roman lens. When the empire was at its height, communities were especially active participants in Roman culture, a participation that was reflected through the use of Mediterranean (and, later, Christian) mythology.
The next discussant, my colleague Donna Nash, addressed her research with the Wari Empire, which rose ~600 CE and was South America's first imperial state. She is particularly interested in how expansive polities like the Wari integrated conquered people. One way to identify whether, or to what degree, local peoples adopted aspects of Wari ideology and identity is through the analysis of material culture like art. The appearance of Wari "style" in provincial art may indicate some level of influence by and, thus, integration into, Wari culture. Citing modern Americans' use of Chinese manufactured goods as an example, Nash nevertheless cautioned that simply using the motifs or goods of another culture does not necessarily signal cultural hegemony. Another possible source of data for cultural influence is architecture--there is some evidence that the provinces adopted imperial building layouts.
Malcolm Motley, a student in UNCG's Department of English who also studies the Roman Empire, began his discussion of Roman colonies by reminding us that the source of the word is the Latin colonus, which means "farmer." This highlights the major role of colonies in the empire: providing resources for the state. The goal, then, of the imperial officials was not necessarily to create "little Romes" out of the colonies through forced cultural assimilation but, rather, to extract resources from them. It is tempting, then, to view this relationship as one-sided. Motley pointed out, though, that many colonies actually benefited from their colonial status through access to lucrative traits routes. He argued that many colonies may, in fact, be best understood as communication hubs rather than collections of subjected peoples--a rather different conceptualization of imperial organization.
The audience's questions after this first session raised some interesting issues, too. One thing that was pointed out is that only the elites typically participate fully in imperial culture and view their identity in those terms. Villagers, on the other hand, tend not to do so. This makes sense because elites have the most to gain from assimilating. Someone asked about successful empires, and Nash pointed out that long-lived empires tend to show cultural flexibility (be yourself, we don't care) but maintain economic inflexibility (pay your taxes!).
The second session covered more recent empires, in this case the British Empire. Christopher Hodgkins of UNCG's Department of English began the discussion by exploring Elizabethan-era British literature. The revival and recovery of the Roman/Arthurian Empire (without the trappings of Catholicism or Popery, of course--this was, after all, just after the Reformation) was a consistent theme in the writing of the period.
Perhaps the most interesting story of the evening came from the research of Jill Bender, who is in UNCG's Department of History and focuses on the 19th century British Empire. What, Bender asked, held the British imperial system together, and what happened when a group refused to participate? Her current project involves the government assisted migration of poor Irish women from Irish workhouses to the empire's distant colonies where women were badly needed. In 1857, the British government recruited 50 women from workhouses in Cork--many of whom were forced into the workhouses because of the Potato Famine the previous decade--to migrate to South Africa. Days before they were scheduled to depart, however, officials learned that the women did not, in fact, wish to go. Suspecting some sort of coercion, the women were asked again one-by-one by an all male panel. They all still refused to depart, with 47 out of 50 specifically citing religious concerns about the lack of a Catholic priest in the colony. This is the interesting part: the British acquiesced and were forced to find other recruits. This revealed, Bender argued, that the path of the British Empire could be shaped in very real ways by the decisions of individual actors rather than grand imperial strategy. This highlighted a general theme of the second session, namely that history can proceed both from the "top-down" (that is, from the perspective of elites that shaped imperial policy) and through the lived experience of non-elites, especially the oppressed lower classes and the colonized.
Really enjoyable event, and I learned quite a bit.
In her introductory remarks, Jill Bender of UNCG's Department of History emphasized the relevance of empire studies by pointing out that literally millions and millions of people have lived under these political entities over time, and that has left deep-seeded economic, social, and even psychological impressions that reverberate even today. The discussion was split into two sessions of three speakers, each of whom had five minutes to provide their particular perspective on empire.
The first session examined ancient empires. Robyn Le Blanc, an archaeologist and numismatics expert at UNCG, spoke about her work on the Roman Empire. Rome, Jupiter's "empire without end," was, according to Le Blanc, first and foremost an extractive political system that sought to squeeze goods and taxes from its provinces. A sense of belonging to the Roman state was of only secondary importance, especially for a population made up largely of non-citizens. However, even when Roman identity was constructed and/or fostered, it meant very different things to different people. She also emphasized that because our written records were produced for and by the political elite (read: middle-aged men), we must often rely on archaeology and material culture to reveal the lives of non-elites (read: 99.9% of the population). Enter "civic coins," which are coins minted and used in the provinces. While most of these coins portrayed images of their local founding myths, stylistic analysis also reveals how communities outside the Roman heartland of Italy saw themselves within the imperial web. Some coins, for example, used Latin inscriptions to show off their "Roman-ness," while others pictured Roman mythological founding rituals to rework their city's past through a Roman lens. When the empire was at its height, communities were especially active participants in Roman culture, a participation that was reflected through the use of Mediterranean (and, later, Christian) mythology.
The next discussant, my colleague Donna Nash, addressed her research with the Wari Empire, which rose ~600 CE and was South America's first imperial state. She is particularly interested in how expansive polities like the Wari integrated conquered people. One way to identify whether, or to what degree, local peoples adopted aspects of Wari ideology and identity is through the analysis of material culture like art. The appearance of Wari "style" in provincial art may indicate some level of influence by and, thus, integration into, Wari culture. Citing modern Americans' use of Chinese manufactured goods as an example, Nash nevertheless cautioned that simply using the motifs or goods of another culture does not necessarily signal cultural hegemony. Another possible source of data for cultural influence is architecture--there is some evidence that the provinces adopted imperial building layouts.
Malcolm Motley, a student in UNCG's Department of English who also studies the Roman Empire, began his discussion of Roman colonies by reminding us that the source of the word is the Latin colonus, which means "farmer." This highlights the major role of colonies in the empire: providing resources for the state. The goal, then, of the imperial officials was not necessarily to create "little Romes" out of the colonies through forced cultural assimilation but, rather, to extract resources from them. It is tempting, then, to view this relationship as one-sided. Motley pointed out, though, that many colonies actually benefited from their colonial status through access to lucrative traits routes. He argued that many colonies may, in fact, be best understood as communication hubs rather than collections of subjected peoples--a rather different conceptualization of imperial organization.
The audience's questions after this first session raised some interesting issues, too. One thing that was pointed out is that only the elites typically participate fully in imperial culture and view their identity in those terms. Villagers, on the other hand, tend not to do so. This makes sense because elites have the most to gain from assimilating. Someone asked about successful empires, and Nash pointed out that long-lived empires tend to show cultural flexibility (be yourself, we don't care) but maintain economic inflexibility (pay your taxes!).
The second session covered more recent empires, in this case the British Empire. Christopher Hodgkins of UNCG's Department of English began the discussion by exploring Elizabethan-era British literature. The revival and recovery of the Roman/Arthurian Empire (without the trappings of Catholicism or Popery, of course--this was, after all, just after the Reformation) was a consistent theme in the writing of the period.
Perhaps the most interesting story of the evening came from the research of Jill Bender, who is in UNCG's Department of History and focuses on the 19th century British Empire. What, Bender asked, held the British imperial system together, and what happened when a group refused to participate? Her current project involves the government assisted migration of poor Irish women from Irish workhouses to the empire's distant colonies where women were badly needed. In 1857, the British government recruited 50 women from workhouses in Cork--many of whom were forced into the workhouses because of the Potato Famine the previous decade--to migrate to South Africa. Days before they were scheduled to depart, however, officials learned that the women did not, in fact, wish to go. Suspecting some sort of coercion, the women were asked again one-by-one by an all male panel. They all still refused to depart, with 47 out of 50 specifically citing religious concerns about the lack of a Catholic priest in the colony. This is the interesting part: the British acquiesced and were forced to find other recruits. This revealed, Bender argued, that the path of the British Empire could be shaped in very real ways by the decisions of individual actors rather than grand imperial strategy. This highlighted a general theme of the second session, namely that history can proceed both from the "top-down" (that is, from the perspective of elites that shaped imperial policy) and through the lived experience of non-elites, especially the oppressed lower classes and the colonized.
Really enjoyable event, and I learned quite a bit.
