We have more documentary evidence about the Roman Empire than about any earlier society, or even most societies for the millennium following the founding of the empire. So it would seem that archaeology would be less important in helping us to understand the empire. Yet this is not so. The archaeological evidence complements the historical evidence, leading to a greater understanding, though there is still so much that is not known, that every little bit of evidence helps. Not that there is only a small amount of archaeological evidence. We also have more and better archaeological evidence about the Roman Empire than about almost any society before or in the millennium following.
The most obvious way that archaeology can supplement the historical evidence is by discovering more documentary evidence. This can come in lots of forms: tombstones; inscriptions and graffiti on tiles, glass and amphorae. At Bath curses written on lead sheets that were thrown into the water have been found. (Alcock 1996, 11) Possibly the most important Roman find made in Britain is a large numbers of slivers of wood found at Vindolanda. These were the Roman equivalent of postcards. Infrared photography has revealed the writing which gives us a unique view of life in Roman Britain between AD 101 and 104. (de la Bédoyère 1977 and Fagan 1996, 742)
Archaeology can also confirm the accuracy of the histories. For example, Diocletian wrote a history of the invasion of Britain by Claudius, but this was written many years afterwards. Archaeological evidence such as coins issued to celebrate the event provides corroboration. (de la Bédoyère 1997) Sometimes the archaeology casts doubts on the history. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that quarries used the forced labour of convicts and captives, but excavations at Mons Claudianus in Egypt have shown that, there at least, the quarry workers well payed and well fed skilled civilians. (Van de Veen 1997, 6-7)
Most of the archaeological evidence of the Roman Empire is about the towns. Many buildings have always been known, such as those that survived from the Forum of ancient Rome, though the bases were buried. (Renfrew 1996, 68) The most important though are the towns that were buried by the eruption of Versuvius in AD 79: Pompeii and Heculaneum. There all the buildings are preserved, not just the larger and monumental ones like bath houses and temples, but also bakeries (Carpiceci 1977, 56), a gambling house (Carpiceci 1977, 53), and a brothel (Carpiceci 1977, 59). The best part though is that it is possible to walk along the streets, though the forum, past the fountains, and into the houses, just as the inhabitants must have done, nearly two thousand years ago. This gives one a feeling for those those people, and an understanding, which nothing else could do. When one also considers the paintings of the town found in Pompeii (Carpiceci 1977, 95-97), it is clear that the disaster of AD 79 has provided us with the most important evidence for understanding the towns of the Roman Empire.
Of course, archaeology's contribution to understanding the towns of the Roman Empire is not limited to Rome, Pompeii and Herculaneum, important as they are. Studies in other places help broaden our understanding, particularly of those places and times for which there is little or no documentary evidence. They help us understand the work of the urban Romans, such as the evidence for goldsmiths at Cirencester and Verulamium (McWhirr 1982, 7) and for silversmiths at Silchester (McWhirr 1982, 10). Our understanding of their recreations is helped by the remaind of civic baths at Bath and Leicester, theatres at Canterbury and Verulamium, and amphitheatres at Caerlon, Chester, Carmarthen, Caerwent, etc. (Alcock 1996, 58-60)
Some of the pictures at Pompeii help us understand how trade was carried out by the Romans. There is a market scene, a baker's shop, and a pedlar. (Carpiceci 1977, 104) Most of the archaeological evidence concerning trade is of a less personal nature, though still important in its own way. One example is the study of the extent of the Roman wine trade by studying the distribution of amphorae sherds. This shows the importance of rivers for transport, and how far into barbarian lands Roman goods were reaching. (Cunliffe 1998, 417) The distribution of these and others goods beyond the Roman borders have caused the three zones to be distinguished. Just beyond the border Roman coins are very common, indicating a market economy with regular trade with the Empire. Then there is a wider area where coins are rare, but a limited range of Roman luxury goods are found, particularly metal drinking vessels, often in rich burials. This seems to indicate a more primitive form of trade controlled by the local elite. Beyond this region are the areas that don't seem to have been reached by Roman traders. (Cunliffe 1998, 441-443)
Archaeology also throws light on trade within the Roman Empire. Wooden barrels found at Silchester show that amphorae were not the only means of transport. (McWhirr 1982, 51) Querns found in Britain made from stone from Andernach show that it was just luxuries and food that were traded, but also everyday objects. (McWhirr 1982, 11)
The most common type archaeological investigation of the Roman countryside has been the excavation of villas. Many have been investigated, throughout the Roman Empire. This is one of the oldest type of archaeology to have excavated. The villa at Bignor was fully excavated before 1817, and has been open to the public since 1812. (de la Bédoyère 1997)
More recently archaeologists have look at the rest of the countryside. Aerial photography has revealed the layout of Roman fields. (Fagan 1996, 615) The remains of timber houses have been discovered, such as the circular ones found at Odell in Bedfordshire. (Alcock 1996, 68) At Claydon Pike in Gloucester a pre-Roman settlement was reorganised with regular roads and enclosures around AD 70, seemingly indicating the introduction of Roman methods of farming. (Darvill, 1996)
Archaeology also provides information of the activities carried out in the countryside. Hunting is frequently depicted, for example on a mosaic in villa site at East Coker in Somerset (Alcock 1996, 57) A bronze figurine of a ploughman found at Piercebridge in County Durham tells us more about how the Romans did ploughing than a whole book could. (Alcock 1996, 92)
Though the literary sources for the Roman empire are very interesting, they were mostly written by men of the senatorial class. We can learn more about the majority of people of the empire from archaeological sources. (Fagan 1996, 609)