The first meeting of specialists from different fields relating to research on the Roman army in Hispania took place in Segovia in 1998 under the title “Roman Military Archaeology in Hispania”. Its aim was to gather within one forum different experts working in this field.1 The term “military archaeology” was provocative in the Spanish academic world of the late 1990s, as military studies were viewed with slight suspicion in some quarters, both by those researching indigenous contexts and by those who remained anchored in a classical concept of Romanisation which rather neglected the contribution of the army to the process of assimilating Hispania into the Roman world. In Anglo-Saxon scholarship other terms with more historiographic tradition (e.g., “Roman army studies” or “Roman frontier studies”) were preferred. The goal in choosing the title of the 1998 congress was to create debate around a topic on which research efforts were becoming increasingly focused. Despite its limitations,2 the term “military archaeology” since then has become for many Spanish scholars the methodological basis for material-based and topographic studies of the military world and of war in its widest sense. As archaeology in the Iberian peninsula becomes increasingly open to new methodologies and practices being adopted elsewhere (especially in the Anglo-Saxon world), similar terms such as “conflict archaeology” or “battlefield archaeology” are appearing, which all form part of the conceptual frame of reference of military archaeology. In the last 15-20 years, research in this field has increased exponentially in the Iberian peninsula, particularly in the north and northwest where the Roman army had a much longer-lasting presence. This has allowed scholars, for example, to begin interpreting episodes such as the Cantabrian Wars, practically unknown from an archaeological perspective until very recently. In the last few years, progress has extended to earlier periods, affecting other regions such as the peninsula‘s northeast, southeast and E coast, where military topics are starting to be differentiated into Republican and indigenous contexts. A new generation of congresses and their resulting proceedings have generated some of the most significant contributions. The Segovia congress of 1998, its follow-up at León in 2004,3 the Roman Frontier Congress held at León in 2006,4 thematic French-Spanish congresses such as the meetings of the project “La guerre et ses traces dans la péninsule Ibérique” (2007, 2009 and 2010),5 and recent colloquia on the Republican period6 and on the Cantabrian Wars,7 have all become reference works. Coinciding with the first occasion upon which the Roman Frontier Congress was held in Spain, the first monograph — still an essential reference work — on the archaeological evidence for the Roman army in the peninsula was published.8

中文翻译：

---

构建罗马征服西班牙的考古学：新证据、观点和挑战

与罗马军队研究有关的不同领域专家的第一次会议西班牙裔1998 年在塞哥维亚举行，题目是“西班牙的罗马军事考古”。其目的是在一个论坛中聚集在该领域工作的不同专家。1“军事考古学”一词在 1990 年代后期的西班牙学术界颇具挑衅性，因为在某些方面，军事研究受到了轻微的怀疑，无论是那些研究土著背景的人，还是那些仍然坚持罗马化的古典概念的人，忽视了军队对同化过程的贡献西班牙裔进入罗马世界。在盎格鲁-撒克逊的学术研究中，其他具有更多史学传统的术语（例如，“罗马军队研究”或“罗马前沿研究”）更受青睐。选择 1998 年大会名称的目的是围绕一个研究工作越来越集中的主题展开辩论。尽管有其局限性，2从那时起，“军事考古学”一词已成为许多西班牙学者对军事世界和最广泛意义上的战争进行基于材料和地形研究的方法论基础。随着伊比利亚半岛的考古学对其他地方（尤其是盎格鲁-撒克逊世界）采用的新方法和实践越来越开放，出现了类似的术语，例如“冲突考古学”或“战场考古学”，它们都构成了概念的一部分。军事考古学的参考框架。在过去的 15 到 20 年里，这一领域的研究在伊比利亚半岛呈指数级增长，特别是在罗马军队驻扎时间更长的北部和西北部。例如，这使得学者们开始解释坎塔布连战争等事件，直到最近，从考古学的角度来看几乎是未知的。在过去的几年里，进展已经扩展到早期阶段，影响到其他地区，例如半岛的东北部、东南部和东海岸，这些地区的军事话题开始被区分为共和党和本土背景。新一代的代表大会及其产生的程序产生了一些最重要的贡献。1998 年的塞哥维亚大会，2004 年在莱昂举行的后续行动，新一代的代表大会及其产生的程序产生了一些最重要的贡献。1998 年的塞哥维亚大会，2004 年在莱昂举行的后续行动，新一代的代表大会及其产生的程序产生了一些最重要的贡献。1998 年的塞哥维亚大会，2004 年在莱昂举行的后续行动，32006 年在莱昂举行的罗马边境大会，4专题法西会议，例如“La guerre et ses traces dans la péninsule Ibérique”项目会议（2007 年、2009 年和 2010 年），5以及最近关于共和时期的座谈会6在坎塔布连战争中，7都成了参考书。恰逢罗马边境大会第一次在西班牙举行，第一部关于罗马军队在半岛的考古证据的专着——仍然是必不可少的参考书——出版了。8