Recently a new approach has arisen that addresses the diversity found within the provinces o f the Empire. Jones’ (1997) approach to ethnicity promoted the idea that within Britain in the Roman era there were multiple identities that co-existed, undermining the uniformity o f the Romanization paradigm and many o f its explicit and implied assumptions.
James (1999; 2001a) has shown that even some o f the most basic categories used by
archaeologists and historians had multidimensional aspects o f self-identification. Looking at the Roman military, he found that the identities o f the soldiers were affected by ethnic, situational, and relative factors. Mattingly recently developed the concept o f “discrepant identity” which “combines elements o f post-colonial theory on discrepant experience with aspects o f creolization theory and work on identity in Iron-Age societies” (2004, 9). Other studies have begun to look at specific artifacts and what they can tell us about the identity of people in the Roman era (Allason-Jones 2001; Hill 2001;Eckardt 2002 and 2005).
The use o f identity and the theories associated with how people create, maintain, and change their self-identity over time holds promise. The meanings associated with the use o f material culture in self-definition and self-perception, especially in relation to other groups, has particular importance in examining the conquered regions o f the Roman Empire. Architecture, both personal and public, can reveal much about an individual and a community. Few things are as personal as the buildings in which people choose to live. In relation to this study, the primary question becomes: did the choice in architecture reflect a desire by individuals to make
a statement about how they identity themselves within the heterogeneous society? If so, what can these tell us about the identities o f the population o f Britain during the Roman Era?
To understand how architecture can reflect the identity o f individuals, it is important to understand current research in the field o f individual and group identity. Two theories dominate social psychology’s approach to the creation and maintenance o f identity: Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social Identity Theory relates to why people choose to associate with a particular group or groups o f people. Identity Theory concerns how individuals distinguish themselves within the groups they choose to associate with. Both accept that personal identity is multifaceted, dynamic, and generally responsible for mediating the relationship between the individual and social structures in regard to an individual’s behavior (Hogg, et al. 1995).
The concept o f Social Identity originated in the 1950s based on Festinger’s (1954) study o f social comparison where he concluded that individuals will attach themselves to groups o f people who they perceive as similar to or better than themselves. Membership within a group reinforces personal and collective identification as members strive to maintain and promote a positive social image through favorable comparisons with other groups and individuals (Tajfel and Turner 1986; Tajfel 1981; Alexander et al. 1999; Jetten et al. 1997). When examining motives o f the elite in Roman Britain, Millett (1990) reinforces this theory. The indigenous elite, recognizing the new political and economic reality the Romans imposed after the
conquest, strove to identify with them and used ostensibly Roman material culture as symbols to promote identification and a positive image.
Within any given group, however, individuals often strive to distinguish themselves.
Here, Identity Theory enlightens us as to the motivation for the choices they made. Identity Theory is based on the importance o f roles within a group which individuals will seek to create through formal and informal social relationships that reinforce these meanings (Petkus 1996).
The subjective value and importance o f these roles to the individual is directly proportional to
the relevance or saliency o f the identity as a whole. The choices people make are reflective o f the importance or saliency o f that identity in a given situation and the desire to obtain or maintain roles within it (Borgatta and Borgatta 1992, 873). Therefore, the more important or salient that a Roman identity was for individuals in Britain during the Roman period, the more elements o f Romanitas we would expect to find in the archaeological record. The power o f a Roman identity could be relative to the expectations o f a given situation. As James (1999;
2001a) shows, there were many different concurrent identities within the Roman legionnaires stationed in Britain, and in certain contexts the meaning o f Roman identity was greater, and therefore more salient, than others. M illett’s (1990) theory also supports this in his model that indigenous elites found meaning in roles they associated with the new Roman reality.
The increased value or saliency o f any identity was dependent upon the importance each identity held for a group and the desire o f the individual to conform to the expectations o f that group. Therefore, identities in Britain after the Roman conquest were dependent upon the value o f both Roman and indigenous identity and/or the ability o f the population to negotiate a
personal meaning between the two. In a synergistic fashion, this process was dependent upon the individual and the various groups with which that individual associated such as
occupational, religious, gender, social, and geographic groups (see below). A specific sub
group o f the latter worthy o f mention for this study in particular is the community. Individuals within a settlement may have had greater or lesser affinity for a Roman identity. This group meaning would affect the choices that individuals made. As will be seen, however, specific elements o f a community’s identity affected individual identity as much as elements o f
individual identity affected a community’s. Therefore, the saliency o f a Roman identity was not just an internal decision but subject to external influences.
The way in which the value or importance o f an identity was established is more
difficult to elucidate. The basic psycho-social process o f conditioning attempts to create a link
between experiencing certain events (in this case Roman conquest and administration) and personal behavior (the choice in architecture). The most prevalent type o f associative learning is operant conditioning where actions are modified based on the positive and/or negative
consequences o f individual behavior. A system o f explicit or implicit rewards and punishments is present in any given social context. The ability o f an individual to cognitively recognize and respond to these outcomes directly shapes his or her actions (Rescorla and Holland, 1982;
Carpenter, 1985). In the case o f identity formation in Roman Britain, the saliency or resonance o f a Roman identity was dependent upon the real or perceived rewards o f operating within the guidelines o f the new Roman reality. These did not have to be intentionally or directly imposed by Rome. Rather, they may be less intentional, such as simply being able to make a living within the new economic system. Being able to accept, negotiate, and exploit the new Roman economic scheme would be a process o f operant conditioning as those who could not adapt would be excluded from positive rewards. As will be seen, the better integrated into the Roman economy, the more elements o f Romanitas a site typically had.
As both Social Identity and Identity Theory are concerned about how individuals choose to identify with and distinguish themselves within a group, it is important to identify what groups existed within Britain during the Roman era. On one inscription (RIB 1065), Mattingly (2004, 11) identified eleven different indicators, each o f which could be considered identities that created an overall composite identity. The “Identity Types” as identified by Mattingly were:
1. Status 2. Wealth 3. Location 4. Employment 5. Religion 6. Origin
7. Links to Roman State 8. Legal Jurisdiction 9. Language/literacy
10. Gender 11. Age
These broad categories are good places to start. Since the line o f thought regarding identities is relatively new, there is potentially more that can be done. What has been done has yielded promising results. James (1999; 2001a) has exposed the complex and diverse identities o f the “Roman” soldiers, once thought to be a monolithic group, as well as those who were tied officially and unofficially to the army. Eckardt (2002) found that choices Britons made
regarding lighting equipment during the Roman era revealed significant variation over both space and time and may reveal expression's o f identity. Millett (1995, 110) revealed a geographic division o f identities with the examination o f Romanized altars and those traditionally characterized as “Romano-Celtic.” The southeast, traditionally seen as the
“Romanized” villa landscape, shows a concentration o f the Romano-Celtic variety while the highland frontier zone had more Roman inscribed altars.
For the purposes o f this study, it is hoped that architecture will help illuminate some aspects o f the identities o f Britons during the Roman era. The town, as a social organization, becomes an important group for the interplay o f Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. In fact, the town itself has its own identity created by the composite identities o f its inhabitants.
Thus, how its inhabitants view the town, and in a circular way themselves, was also dependant upon categories such as those identified by Mattingly.
III. Methodology