Creolisation, Pidginisation and the Interpretation of Unique Artefacts in Early Roman Britain

Abstract

Recent advances in understanding identity in Roman Britain have explored concepts of creolisation (e.g.Hawkes 1999; Webster 200 I), which improve upon earlier models of Romani sation by allowing the non-elite native voice to be heard within the complex mix of hybrid Roman and non-Roman identities and counter-cultures which made up Roman Britain.Creole material culture is seen as an ambiguous mix of native and Roman cultures, and often reflects the political inequality seen in the colonial situation.Creolisation as model for interpretation "allows the subjected people the ability to accept or reject in part the package of Roman material culture which was available to them" (Hawkes] 999: 90).It can manifest itself as a Roman-style artefact or practice incorporated into an indigenous sphere of everyday life, and used as part of a social practice which differed to the way in which it might be used as part of the ' Roman ' -style lifestyle (however it may have been defined).How , then, are we to explain artefacts in Roman Britain which were entirely unique -items which do not appear to be hybrid mixes of either native or 'Roman ' -style material culture') In this paper, r return to the field of linguistics to explore a concept related to creolisation and creole languages; I propose to investigate the concept of ' pidginisation' , and 'pidgin ' material culture, and whether this will allow us insight into the interpretation of unique al1efacts.Such an investigation is presented as a possible methodology for dealing with new questions , and is very much work in progress.Later in the paper, I will illustrate my argument with a speCUlative reading of a single grave: that of the so-called 'Stanway doctor' from Colchester, the only known (or assumed) grave of a healer from either Roman or, indeed , Iron Age Britain. Creolisation in theoryCreolisation theory has been put forward as a new model to replace 'Romanisation' as a way of understanding the processes at work in Roman Britain.As Webster (200 I: 209) has argued , 'Romanisation' is a simplistic and outdated model which focuses on the capacity of individuals to find their own way of 'becoming Roman' (or not).It is presented as a civilising process, which was emulated at all levels of society.In her paper, Webster also explores other criticisms which have been levelled against 'Romanisation'.Importantly, she does not doubt that some elites came to identify themselves with the values of Roman civilisation; but asks with what success 'Romanisation' operated at lower social levels.Because 'Romanisation' is 'simply another word for acculturation' , Webster argues that it promotes a one-sided view of cultural change, which is not what the archaeological record of Roman Britain reflects.'Romanisation' does not allow for a two-way exchange of ideas; does not address the cultural mixes that made up Roman Britain, nor the localised choices or developments of counter-cultures.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.