TRAC 2010

Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference

Dragana Mladenovic, Ben Russell, Ben Russell

• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781842175828
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

This volume contains ten papers reflecting current aspects of the debate in theoretical Roman archaeology. They include papers on what the pottery finds from the Nepi Survey Project can tell us about how the local landscape was used and inhabited, poliadic deities in Roman colonies in Italy, Pompeii, the practice of the recycling of architectural materials and personal adornment concerning textile remains and brooches.

British Emigrants in the Roman Empire: Complexities and Symbols of Ethnic Identities

Tatiana Ivleva

Introduction

Diaspora and migration studies, especially those with a focus on ethnic identity issues, are popular topics in archaeological research. In recent decades publications have appeared in the UK concerning the presence of migrants of various origins in Roman Britain (Clay 2007; Swan 2009; Eckardt 2010; Leach et al. 2010). The theme of the presence of foreigners in the various provinces of the Roman Empire is not new in archaeological and historical research; numerous publications have appeared over the past decades (e.g. Fitz 1972; Dietz and Weber 1982;

Wierschowski 2001; Kakoschke 2002, 2004; Oltean 2009). These studies are based on the analysis of epigraphic material, which is understandable, considering that studying inscriptions is the first step in obtaining any information regarding the presence of migrants in any given province.

In view of the number of contemporary projects that focus on the presence of foreigners in Roman Britain, the question may well be asked if there is, or has been, any research on the presence of Britons overseas. The answer is negative, apart from an attempt by Romanian archaeologists who investigated the presence of British auxiliary units in Roman Dacia (Marcu 2002–2003) and one publication looking at Britons in the Roman army (Dobson and Mann 1973). This paper attempts to close the gap by looking at British emigrants who voluntarily or forcedly moved overseas in the period of the first to third centuries A.D. It seeks to answer the following questions: is it possible to trace British emigrants, and if so, how did they transmit messages about their origin to others? Instead of focusing solely on the epigraphic evidence, in this paper I explore what the archaeological evidence, in particular the presence of British-made brooches on the Continent, contributes to this debate.

While in the present article the spotlight is on British emigrants, we must also acknowledge the possibility that people from elsewhere might have spent some of their life in Britain before returning to their native lands. Like British emigrants these individuals were ‘migrants’ but in the present article they will be referred to as ‘immigrants’ to distinguish them from British ‘emigrants’, that is native Britons overseas.

Why brooches?

Jundi and Hill (1998: 136) stated that a brooch should be seen as ‘a communicative tool allowing different types of identities to be expressed or created’. Since brooches were worn to be seen (Jundi and Hill 1998: 132) and could send out a varied set of signals, which might relate to status, gender or age, and perhaps even to a foreign origin. These particular characteristics of brooches make them useful tools for determining the self-representation or self-identification of Britons overseas, although it must be taken into account that brooches in themselves are not evidence for ethnicity (as will be discussed below). All in all, brooches are personal items used to secure clothing and this purpose was the main reason why brooches ‘travelled’. Because of this, brooches are in less danger of being regarded as trade items, as opposed to pottery, although a small-scale trade in exotic brooches cannot be ruled out.

There are at least six major British brooch types, with various derivatives, that originated from and were manufactured on the British Isles: the Colchester derivatives (the ‘dolphin’ and ‘Polden Hill’ types), the trumpet type and its various derivatives, headstuds, the dragonesque type, the umbonate type, and the gilded circular or oval brooch with a central setting of coloured glass. British-made brooches were distinctive in their design, decoration and form. The headloop, in particular, is a typical British characteristic. British-made brooches are also distinguishable by their unusual decorative techniques: the acanthus-shaped moulded decoration in the middle of the bow of trumpet brooches (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 160); ‘the eponymous raised stud near the top of the bow’ on headstuds (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 164). The enamelled patterns, lattices, peltas, triangles and curvilinear motifs on the trumpet and headstud brooches are also considered identifiable features of British-made brooches (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 172). The distinctiveness of British-made brooches also lies in their various forms, which appear to be unique to Britain: the ‘dolphin’ shape of Colchester derivatives and ‘Polden Hill’ types, the T-shaped form of the headstuds, and the raised central rosette of the umbonates.

The dating of these brooches presents problems. The total date range when the brooches were in use will always be uncertain (Snape 1993: 6), although ‘there are a few points in the time scale which are fixed by site evidence’ (Butcher 1977: 44). In the present research the dating of the brooches is based on evidence from sites: where the context was known and datable, the relative time span of the brooch’s use and its appearance on the site were established. Where the context was not recorded in a publication, the dating was based on the general knowledge of the occurrence of a type. A number of thoughtful and detailed discussions on this already exist (e.g. Snape 1993; Jundi and Hill 1998; Bayley and Butcher 2004). Determining how long these various brooches were used for is obviously impossible. It should be emphasized, though, that some of the brooches were clearly used longer than others, as is shown by their condition, in particular signs of extensive wear or repairs. Such bias was also taken into account in this research.

Why epigraphy?

Inscriptions have been successfully used in many studies to trace mobility in the provinces of the Empire (e.g. Kakoschke 2002, 2004; Oltean 2009). Inscriptions left by emigrants can indicate the choices they made when stating their origin, the places they settled in, and their reasons for migration overseas. In this paper the questions of origin and the projection of the origin by the emigrants are of major importance.

These inscriptions, however, should not be taken at face value. What was included, and in what form, was not solely determined by a commemorator, but ‘by what was considered appropriate to communicate or to record’ (Bodel 2001: 34). This is clearly visible on epitaphs, which were usually made by the relatives of the deceased (there are, of course, also tombstones commissioned by a person while he or she was still alive): the information was often ‘filtered through the medium by which it is transmitted’ (Bodel 2001: 46). It can be argued that such epigraphic bias determined the relatively low number of the surviving inscriptions on which emigrant Britons and their relatives mentioned their origin. In some cases, (cf. Appendix 1), in the absence of a clear origin indicator on the monument, the onomastic analysis of a person’s name can suggest the geographical origin of the bearer. It is unclear what made these people hide their origin, but if the same occurs on more than one inscription, this may suggest that it was not the custom to mention one’s place of birth. In the British case, the limited adoption of the so-called ‘epigraphic habit’ can be suggested, with other forms of display being preferred.

Together with inscriptions, military diplomas are used in this paper to determine the ways in which emigrants indicated their origin. While military diplomas are highly standardized, and tend to employ the same lay-out and formulae, it is notable that the soldiers concerned used different ways of expressing their origin, ranging from provincial (Britain) to regional (tribe) and urban (city).

Why a combination of both?

This paper aims to illustrate that the combination of epigraphic and archaeological material in the search for emigrant communities potentially reveals where the migrants settled. The data from two different types of sources, material culture and written text, can be combined and contrasted in order to shed light on the complexities thrown up by the evidence.

For instance, it has been suggested that brooches were sexless (Allason-Jones 1995: 24), making it difficult to investigate the presence of migrant women. Through analysis of the epigraphic sources, however, the presence of female migrants can be detected. A brooch without context does not allow for any conclusions concerning a person’s religious belief, status or age. An inscription or military diploma at least often provides these data, adding to them the ethnic origin of the deceased or of a soldier and his wife. Moreover, the occurrence of the British brooches overseas can not only indicate the presence of British emigrants, but also of non-Britons (our immigrants), who, after living in Britain for some years, chose to return home. These returnees were discharged soldiers, veterans, who are known from the evidence of diplomas (Tully 2005: 380). The occurrence of British brooches overseas might indicate the presence of such returning veterans from various communities of which there are no surviving records in the form of military diplomas. After their discharge they returned to their homelands and tribes, possibly bringing back belongings, perhaps as souvenirs, from their time in Britain.

‘Material culture is by definition multivocal’ (Derks 2009: 241), when various identities, not just ethnicity, are being projected. Through wearing a brooch, an individual may have projected various aspects of his or her identity, which also depended on the circumstances in which the brooch was worn. Epigraphy and military diplomas, on the contrary, are static. They represent an individual at the time of receiving Roman citizenship, making a vow or at the time of death. They are snapshots of the identities individuals wanted to project, in contrast to material culture in general, where such snapshots of identities are extremely rare. When bringing these two types of evidence together, the issues concerning the expression of ethnicity in migrant communities can be looked at from various angles and contrasted to provide a broader and more balanced view.

This paper is structured around three major sections. The first section is concerned with the distribution of British-made brooches overseas. What might have influenced the distribution of brooches; did these objects travel with Britons or other groups of people? The second section is concerned with epigraphic data and what these can tell us about the British emigrant community. Finally, the third section deals with expressions of the British emigrant identity in the light of the results from analysis of the epigraphic and archaeological sources. Before proceeding to the analysis of the evidence, though, a brief introduction to the dataset is required.

The dataset

A total dataset of 31 epigraphic records and 241 British-made brooches has been compiled, though only particular examples have been selected in this paper to illustrate their interpretive potential. The first group of data involves inscriptions of various kinds, as well as military diplomas, on which 31 persons were identified as Britons (Appendix 1, Fig. 1). On 24 inscriptions the emigrants mention their British origin directly. On six inscriptions and military diplomas the origin of a person was identified through onomastic studies (Raybould and Sims-Williams 2009; Mullen and Russell 2009) or on the ...