Globalizing the local in Roman Britain: An anthropological approach to social change

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 493–506

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / jaa

Globalizing the local in Roman Britain: An anthropological approach to social change

Martin Pitts *

Department of Classics and Ancient History, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 6 February 2008Revision received 21 August 2008Available online 1 October 2008

Keywords:GlobalizationLocalizationWorld-systemsRoman BritainConsumptionFeastingSocial practicePottery

0278-4165/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.jaa.2008.08.003

* Fax: +44 1392 264195.E-mail address: [email protected]

a b s t r a c t

This article considers the incorporation of part of Britain into the Roman empire in the context of glob-alization theory and world-systems history. Emphasis is placed on the local effects of the expansion ofglobal systems and their impact on the social practices of eating and drinking at a range of settlementsin the southeast of Britain in the Iron Age to Roman transition, c. 50 BC–AD 200. Through the analysis ofconsumption practices via quantitative pottery assemblage data, it is argued that globalization offers amore sophisticated framework to describe change than current archaeological approaches to Romaniza-tion and identity. The results show that while much of the populace was subject to a progressivelyhomogenizing supply of food-related pottery vessels, the use of such technologies was negotiated withinsocial practices drawing on the integration of both local and global cultural elements. Such findings high-light the potential of critical applications of globalization theory to conceptualize economic, social, andcultural changes in Roman provincial societies.

� 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

This study aims to explore the potential of globalization theoryas a lens to view the impact of global processes on everyday life inIron Age to Roman Britain. The first section discusses the merits ofglobalization as an approach to conceptualize cultural, social, andeconomic changes in the ancient world. A second section seeksto apply this framework to the archaeological case-study of lateIron Age to Roman south-east Britain. Here, emphasis is placedon understanding changing social practices of eating and drinkingas acting out the negotiation of global and local cultural trajecto-ries at a broad range of settlements, as approached through the sta-tistical analysis of domestic and funerary pottery assemblages.

Contrary to popular perception, globalization is not a new phe-nomenon. Although the term was first coined in the late 20th cen-tury, the process it describes has been underway for severalmillennia. A compelling range of interdisciplinary visions of thelong evolution of large-scale human social organization is pre-sented in the thought provoking volume World-system history:the social science of long-term change (Denemark et al., 2000). Nota-ble among the contributors are Frank and Gills (2000) who arguefor a single world-system beginning c. 5000 years ago, andChase-Dunn and Hall (2000), who suggest that from c. 12,000 BCworld history has been characterised by the waxing, waning, merg-ing, and separation of a series of interconnected world-systems.This long-term perspective implies that the process now called

ll rights reserved.

globalization has parallels and antecedents long before the adventof global capitalism, and moreover, was not always driven exclu-sively by Europe or the West (Frank, 1998). In this light, it is some-what curious that ancient historians and archaeologists of theGreco-Roman period have been largely reluctant to examine thepotential of globalization. Although it has been argued that global-ization should be on the research agenda in Roman archaeology(Laurence, 2001, 101), this call has not been widely heeded, withthe notable exception of Hingley (2005) and a few others (e.g.Wells, 1999; Sweetman, 2007; Morley, 2007, 90–102). However,even Hingley’s Globalizing Roman culture (2005) only sparinglydeals with the implications of globalization as a concept for bring-ing new understanding of social change, despite introducing muchof the conceptual apparatus associated with the term. World–sys-tems analysis has had greater impact on the sub-discipline (Woolf,1990,1993), not least in the proliferation of core-periphery modelspopular in the 1970s and 80s (e.g. Hopkins, 1978; Hopkins, 1980;Cunliffe, 1988; Haselgrove, 1987). However, these approachestended to focus on macro-scale economic inter-relationships, andconsequently are less well suited to explaining the localized im-pact of such wide-ranging processes.

The utility of globalization: interpretive framework orinterdisciplinary folly?

Globalization is a word increasingly used to describe a broadspectrum of social, economic, cultural, political, and environmentalchanges taking place in the contemporary world. Although thereare undeniable similarities between Roman imperialism and

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

494 M. Pitts / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 493–506

present-day globalization, caution should be exercised in applyingthis concept in blanket fashion to the ancient world. The main dif-ferences between what might be termed globalizing processes inthe ancient and modern worlds are those of scale (the size andcomplexity of networks), speed (of communication and transport),and structure (of political and economic relationships). For exam-ple, in strict economic terms, globalization did not begin untilthe late 18th century with the beginnings of a single world marketcharacterized by the convergence of international commodityprices (O’Rourke and Williamson, 2002). However, Robertson’s(1992, 8), oft-cited sociological definition of the concept as ‘thecompression of the world and the intensification of consciousnessof the world as a whole’ does not place any historical restrictionson its usage. From this point of view, globalization is not limitedto the manifestation of global capitalism, a point accepted by Frankand Gills (2000, 17), who do not regard modes of production asplaying a vital role in understanding transitions in world history.

Most recent studies that seek to understand the effects of glob-alization place emphasis on the concept of connectivity, which isseen to promote ‘the intensification of worldwide social relationswhich link distant localities in such a way that local happeningsare shaped by events occurring miles away and vice-versa’(Giddens, 1990, 64), and ‘time-space compression’ (Harvey, 1989,260). Approaches to connectivity emphasise the role of networksof fast intercontinental air transport and electronic communica-tions, in order to understand the transformative effects of globaltrends on regional societies and cultures (e.g. Tomlinson, 1999).The effect of globalizing processes on specific localities is neatlydescribed by the word ‘glocalization’, deriving from the Japaneseterm dochakuka, loosely translating as ‘global localization’ (Clarke,2003, 191). This term helps to conceptualize how global change isnegotiated among large sections of the world’s population who arenonetheless tied into a predominantly local existence. As Bauman(1998, 2) states, ‘globalization divides as much as it unites; it di-vides as it unites—the causes of division being identical with thosewhich promote the uniformity of the globe’, with social depriva-tion described as ‘being local in a globalized world’. Therefore,the idea that globalization is a synonym for cultural homogeniza-tion is a myth (Appadurai, 1996). Like imperialism, it is a processthat involves the hybridization of culture among the upper eche-lons of society, and the simultaneous marginalization of thosenot sufficiently empowered to engage in new forms of global cul-tural practice.

As with the similarly popular interdisciplinary concept of iden-tity, globalization suffers as a catch-all term that teeters betweendescriptive category and an explanatory concept. In a series ofpolemical essays, Rosenberg (2000, 2) has effectively characterizedglobalization as the intellectual equivalent of the architecturalfolly, stating that ‘globalisation as an outcome cannot be explainedsimply by invoking globalisation as a process tending towards thatoutcome’. Whilst Rosenberg is happy for globalization to be used asa descriptive term, he argues that it cannot in itself be used to ex-plain the changes it depicts. To escape this trap I mean to use theterm not as an explanatory framework in its own right, but ratheras a means of conceptualizing change in terms of the effects oftime-space compression fostered by intensifying networks of con-nectivity. In doing so, my intention is to investigate the extent towhich a focus on globalizing processes presents a viable alternativeto current approaches to describing cultural change in Romanarchaeology, particularly Romanization and identity.

Globalization and Roman imperialism

Under the umbrella heading of Romanization, archaeologists,and ancient historians have long been interested in the various ef-

fects of Roman expansion on newly incorporated societies. How-ever, it is increasingly apparent that conventional text-driventheories of Romanization are flawed, being unable to account forthe increasingly diverse responses to Roman imperialism as re-vealed through archaeology (Mattingly, 2004 provides a more de-tailed overview of this debate), especially those changes relatingto non-urban environments and lower orders of society ( James,2001). Many now regard Romanization as an outdated concept,promoting a narrow vision of social change rooted solely in thedimensions of Roman and native. Whilst such flaws are acknowl-edged in more recent studies that have attempted to addresschange in terms of the negotiation of identities (e.g. Woolf, 1998;Roymans, 2004; Mattingly, 2006) or to redefine Romanization ina more complex fashion (Keay and Terrenato, 2001), the issuesunderpinning why societies changed in different ways often re-main unaddressed. Indeed, I have argued elsewhere (Pitts, 2007b)that in many cases identity is simply replacing Romanization asthe dominant paradigm in Anglo-American Roman archaeologywithout any change in analytical mindset, in which emphasis isplaced on the search for Roman and native cultural identities inprovincial societies (Pitts, 2007b). Consequently, a question markremains over whether many current approaches to identity repre-sent the best means of addressing the effects of Romanimperialism.

As with identity, one of the main advantages of globalizationover Romanization is that it provides a culturally neutral interpre-tive framework. Although Roman influence is not ruled out, theterm facilitates a more inductive and holistic approach, wherebyno single cultural trajectory is privileged to the exclusion of others.Whilst theories of Romanization implicitly assume a unidirectionaltransfer of culture from Rome, an emphasis on globalizing pro-cesses acknowledges a more complex world view in which culturalchange could be multidirectional and differentially negotiated inindividual localities. Moreover, unlike studies of identity, whichare often focused primarily on the outward expressions of culturaldifference, globalization encourages the understanding of such dif-ferences in the context of overarching processes, such as the effectsof connectivity and economic integration. In this sense, globaliza-tion provides a perspective which offers the potential for incorpo-rating local experience and diversity into grand narrative,something which previous attempts at applying large-scale modelssuch as core-periphery and world-systems analysis had failed toachieve (Woolf ,1993 provides a useful critique).

The emphasis on connectivity in globalization theory is particu-larly relevant in terms of understanding the interface of top-downmanifestations of the Roman world-system with pre-Roman socialstructures, especially through the imperial economy, the imposi-tion of road networks and other transport infrastructure, the sup-ply of mass-produced material culture, and migrations of people.Although lacking in modern technology, the Roman empire wasnonetheless dependent on connectivity for its expansion and con-tinued survival. Whilst writing facilitated efficient communicationover long distances, a literate education for elites around the em-pire encouraged the creation of global networks based aroundshared notions of paideia and humanitas, vital for effective admin-istration and maintenance of a degree of shared culture across longdistances (Woolf, 1998). Such forms of cultural connectivity couldbe projected through time and space through the growth of net-works of physical connectivity. Transport by sea, rivers and roadsencouraged further long-distance communication and the move-ment of bulk goods and manpower essential for the maintenanceof Roman military power and fledgling urban networks. Indeed,Laurence’s (1999) study of roads in Roman Italy demonstratesthe value of connectivity in the early expansion of the Roman state.Consciousness of the effects of time-space compression is by nomeans a recent development, as Polybius indicates writing of the

M. Pitts / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 493–506 495

late 3rd century BC, following Rome’s victory over Carthage in thesecond Punic War, the last major obstacle to the Roman dominanceof the Mediterranean:

‘Now in earlier times the world’s history had consisted, so tospeak, of a series of unrelated episodes, the origins and resultsof each being as widely separated as their localities, but fromthis point onwards history becomes an organic whole: theaffairs of Italy and of Africa are connected with those of Asiaand of Greece, and all events bear a relationship and contributeto a single end.’ Polybius, Histories 1.3, 1979.

Although the onset of Roman domination fostered the develop-ment of more stable, complex, and geographically integrated formsof connectivity (particularly in north-west Europe), it is importantto recognise that this did not occur in a vacuum. The imposition ofRoman roads in freshly annexed territories probably had no smallsymbolic impact on the experience of the landscape by indigenouspopulations, especially if this meant disrupting or bypassing exist-ing corridors of movement (Witcher, 1998). It must be recognizedthat different forms of connectivity existed in pre-Roman societies,and these need to be taken into account alongside the more glob-alizing forces of change. Indeed, it can be argued that the dynamicof social change would have been largely dependent on the extentto which pre-Roman forms of connectivity could be successfullymaintained and integrated within the new global system.

Discussions on the nature and extent of connectivity in the Ro-man world have particular relevance within the context of the an-cient economy. This topic generated much debate in the 1970s and80s, not least in terms of the extent of the Roman economy’s sim-ilarity with early modern capitalism. The most balanced view re-mains that of Hopkins (1980,1983,2002). In a manner notdissimilar to world-systems analysis, Hopkins envisaged Rome’simposition of taxes in the provinces as stimulating long-distancetrade and the creation of an integrated economy within the Romanempire. Put simply, taxes collected in the core provinces such asSpain, northern Africa and Egypt were spent on provisioning fron-tier armies and the burgeoning urban population and imperialcourt at Rome, in turn encouraging inter-regional trade as the coreprovinces sought to recoup their losses to pay further taxes. Inunderdeveloped areas lacking a monetary economy, taxes couldbe levied in kind in the form of surplus agricultural produce tobe converted into money through sale in urban markets, with theproceeds being sent to the frontiers or Rome (Hopkins, 2002,216–7). The necessity of taxation guaranteed some degree of inte-gration within a single economy, forcing an interface of local so-cially embedded ‘natural economies’ (Hopkins, 2002, 217) withthe overarching global monetised economy. Critically, Hopkinsdemonstrated that the Roman economy was geographically inte-grated, but not to the extent seen in the 19th and 20th centurieswith the development of global capitalism. Integration in the Ro-man economy was politically determined through the impositionof taxes, rather than being governed by market forces. This is notto deny the existence of markets in the Roman empire, but rathertheir integration into a single unit of supply and demand (Saller,2002, 254).

A groundbreaking article by Going (1992) provides a vital in-sight into the extent of the integration of Roman Britain into theimperial economy as envisaged by Hopkins. Going’s analysis of alarge sample of Romano-British and continental pottery industriesmakes a compelling argument for the existence of synchronouschange across the Roman economy. Going showed that potterysupply to a range of Romano-British settlements was not constant,and fluctuated according to cycles of c. 50-year periods of peakproduction (log) and decline (lag). Moreover, these log and lagperiods coincided with similar chronological patterns in the circu-

lation of silver coinage in Britain and published ceramic data fromother western provinces, which could be in turn linked to widerhistorical occurrences (Going, 1992, 106–110). Going’s study hastwo important corollaries. Firstly, it demonstrates the strong possi-bility that the economy of one of the most peripheral areas of theRoman world was directly tied into much bigger processes. Sec-ondly, the existence of cycles of economic ‘boom and bust’ suggestthat the production and supply of mundane material culture inRoman Britain had much less to do with local consumer demandthan is often envisaged. Therefore, the application of the term glob-alization to Roman Britain is potentially appropriate not simply atthe level of the incorporation of various regions in Britain into theRoman empire, but more critically in the sense that the productionand supply of everyday artefacts was subordinate to global eco-nomic trends.

Although Going’s (1992) argument for synchronous economicchange remains persuasive, he does not address the underlyingmechanisms for the processes he identifies. Whilst the notion ofsynchronous change might superficially fit with traditional formal-ist views of the Romano-British economy which assume the exis-tence of a ‘free-market’ economy, this need not be the case.Recent critical studies of ceramic evidence such as Gerrard(2002) have called into question the basis of such interpretations,with greater emphasis being placed on the role of the military-orientated command economy facilitated by the Roman state(e.g. Allen and Fulford, 1996). The debate over the free marketversus command economies in Roman Britain is further muddiedby substantivist approaches railing against the uncritical applica-tion of modern economic concepts to the ancient world. For exam-ple, Hodder (1979) suggested that the Romano-British economywas largely socially embedded (i.e. not functioning independentlyfrom social relations) until the maturation of market trade in thelater Roman period. Nevertheless, a socially embedded economyis not an obstacle economic integration by taxation (according tothe Hopkins model), which potentially accounts for the patternsobserved by Going (1992).

Methods and data

To archaeologically investigate the impact of globalization in agiven locality, this study has two methodological objectives. Thefirst is to investigate the existence of overarching patterns of arte-fact production and supply within the region, and how this relatesto changing networks of connectivity. To address this problem, it isvital to assess the region before and after the period of Romanannexation, and moreover, to include the widest possible cross sec-tion of society in analysis. The second goal is to investigate the im-pact of such material change on local cultures, in terms of theextent of conservatism or change in cultural practice, and the roleof material culture in negotiating such change or continuity. Whilstit may be possible to identify a degree of convergence or homoge-nization in artefact supply, it remains to be seen whether thistranslated into meaningful change in everyday social practice. Inother words, the spread of ‘Roman’ material culture does not implya corresponding transfer of associated cultural values (Woolf,1998). The following case-study explores these concerns throughthe detailed analysis of archaeological data, in order to demon-strate the utility of approaches to globalization in the ancientworld through the elucidation of globalizing trends and the chang-ing geography of local engagement with them.

The principal unit of analysis in this study is the pottery assem-blage, having several important advantages over other classes ofarchaeological material for the consideration of economic and cul-tural change. Occurring in a diverse range of forms and fabrics, pot-tery provides a sensitive indicator of chronological change, being

Table 1Phasing structure for analysis: settlement and funerary assemblages

Settlement assemblagedate

Settlementphase

Funerary assemblagedate

Funeraryphase

50–15 BC 1 50 BC–AD 40 115 BC–AD 20 2AD 20–55 3AD 55–80 4 AD 40–70 2AD 80–125 5 AD 70–100 3AD 125–170 6 AD 100–150 4AD 170–210 7 AD 150–200 5


used at all levels of society in the region and period in question,and being highly visible archaeologically through its redundancyonce broken and its chemical resistance to taphonomic decay. Per-haps most importantly, while studies of ceramic provenance andsupply can enhance the understanding of economic networks, pot-tery also acted as a vehicle for everyday social practices of con-sumption through its role as a container for food and drink,permitting insights into the negotiation of identity (Pitts,2007a,b). Such a concern with the social and cultural roles of cera-mic evidence runs against the grain of traditional economic ap-proaches to Roman pottery (as reviewed by Greene, 2005a,b),and should be seen in the context of other more recent social ap-proaches to Roman pottery (e.g. Willis, 1997; Hawthorne, 1998;Monteil, 2004; Roth, 2007) and finds assemblages (Eckardt, 2002;Cool, 2006; Derks and Roymans, 2006; Hingley and Willis, 2007).

The methodology of this study focuses on the comparison of dif-ferent settlements in terms of the relative proportions of differentvessel forms in closely dated pottery assemblages. Whilst thishelps to address patterns of changing pottery supply in the region,the emphasis on vessel form and function facilitates further in-sights into how patterns of supply might have favoured certainstyles of food consumption in different localities. However, to fullyaddress the local impact of globalizing trends, more detailed anal-ysis of pottery deposition in domestic and funerary contexts is in-cluded to provide further understanding of the role of pottery insocial practice. Whilst the general methodological approach out-lined here has been applied previously by the author to individualsites (Pitts and Perring 2006; Pitts, 2007a) and periods (Pitts,2005a,b), this study represents the first sustained attempt to inte-grate all such data to address the wider complexities of globalizingprocesses at work in the study region.

Complete pottery assemblages were selected from several sitesin the region of modern day Essex and Hertfordshire in southeastBritain, roughly corresponding to the pre-Roman tribal territoriesof the Trinovantes and Catuvellauni (Fig. 1). The high intensity ofrecent archaeological fieldwork in the area makes it one of the

Fig. 1. Late Iron Age and Roman sites in Essex and Hert

most data-rich in the Roman empire, presenting a unique opportu-nity to investigate the impact of global processes on lesser under-stood non-urban settlements in Roman Britain. Over 20settlements yielding high quality stratified pottery assemblageswere selected for analysis, from urban centres to rural farmsteads,in addition to over 700 cremation burials accompanied by potteryvessels. Assemblages known to contain excessive residual or intru-sive material were omitted. The period of c. 50 BC–AD 200 waschosen to account for patterns of pottery use and deposition inthe generations immediately preceding and following the Romanconquest in AD 43. The close dating of ceramic assemblages fromthe different sites permitted the delineation of several phases foranalysis of domestic and funerary assemblages, respectively (Table1). The funerary assemblages were assigned to broader date-rangesthan their domestic equivalents, being smaller and containing lesschronologically diagnostic pottery. Non-ceramic consumptionaccoutrements (i.e. glass and metal objects) were included in anal-ysis of funerary assemblages to provide a more holistic picture ofmortuary practice. This was not feasible for domestic assemblagesowing to the relative scarcity of glass and metal objects in stratifiedpottery groups, with such objects being more susceptible to recy-cling than pottery. Full references for published data sources areprovided in the appendix. All the assemblages had been quantified

fordshire included in analysis (apart from London).


by either estimated number of vessels (ENV) or estimated vesselequivalent (EVE). These values were subsequently converted intopercentages to minimize the error in comparing two differentquantification measures.

The pottery assemblage data were interrogated using the mul-tivariate statistical technique of correspondence analysis (CA),which presents a visual means of highlighting relationships incomplex data-sets. CA has already had applications to finds datain Roman archaeology (e.g. Cool and Baxter, 1999), and has wideruse in disciplines such as sociology (e.g. Bourdieu, 1984). Furtherdetails of the previous use of the technique with pottery assem-blages (Pitts, 2005a,b,2007a; Pitts and Perring, 2006) and in thestudy of the globalization of modern food distribution and con-sumption can be found elsewhere (Pitts et al., 2007). CA is relatedto the more popular method of principal components analysis,with the main difference being that CA is better suited to the anal-ysis of categorical variables (e.g. numbers of pots) rather than nu-meric measurements (e.g. the dimensions of pots). The main valueof CA here is its ability to highlight contextual relationships be-tween different types of pot, between pots and certain contextsor sites, and between different sites in terms of trends in potterysupply. Each run of CA produces two plots (relating to the rowsand columns of the original tables of data). In this study, one plotdisplays the individual pottery forms according to their occurrencein different assemblages (e.g. Fig. 2a), whereas the other presentsthe different composite assemblages according to their similaritiesand differences in pottery composition (e.g. Fig. 2b).

Interpretation of CA is as follows. Pottery forms occurring insimilar assemblages will cluster together in one plot, while assem-blages with similar compositions will cluster in the other. Eacharea of the first plot directly corresponds to the same area on thesecond, hence the term ‘correspondence analysis’. The axes of theCA plots essentially measure the amount of variability or inertiain the sample, with the most typical assemblages and the mostcommon pottery types occurring closest to the axial intersectionof the graphs (Greenacre, 1993 details the mathematical underpin-ning of this technique). Given the size of the data-sets analysedhere, the sheer number of items in the graphs renders visual inter-pretation problematic. To account for this, the results of CA for pot-tery consumption by settlement are presented by focusing on onesite-type at a time while stripping out the rest (Fig. 2a–f), whereasthe funerary CA results are clarified by zooming in on a large clus-ter of similar assemblages (Fig. 3a–d).

Globalization and domestic consumption, c. 50 BC–AD 200

Discussion of consumption patterns in this section is based onthe results of CA (Fig. 2), supported by the simplified raw data (Ta-ble 3). To aid interpretation of CA, the results are filtered and dis-cussed by site-type (Fig. 2b–f). Each composite assemblage iscoded and numbered according to the phasing structure outlinedin Tables 1 and 3, to allow the reader to follow chronologicaltrends. In general, the CA plots show that, moving from left to right,the horizontal axis can be seen to indicate the passage of time, withthe middle vertical line broadly coinciding with the onset of theFlavian period (c. AD 70–100), and the shift from consumptionbased on Gallo–Belgic imported and locally copied pottery(emphasizing drinking vessels) to a Romano-British urban tem-plate (focusing on dining).

Oppida and other settlements with pre-conquest origins,c. 50 BC–AD 80

The first assemblages under scrutiny come from sites describedas oppida (here used as an archaeological term for very large set-

tlements of pre-Roman origin) and other large sites with begin-nings in the period between Julius Caesar’s abortive conquest ofthe region in 54 BC and its annexation by the emperor Claudiusin AD 43. Although such new foundations were related to theextension of the Roman world-system, they are best understoodas independent developments involving a combination of indige-nous, Gallic and Roman interventions, possibly representing themanifestation of Gallic colonization in the region (Fulford, 2000,563–5644). The southeastern oppida and related settlements rep-resent a wholly new phenomenon in Britain, with some exhibitingpotential urban characteristics such as co-axial planning (e.g. ElmsFarm, Heybridge). The assemblages selected for analysis come fromthe oppida at Sheepen, Camulodunum (Colchester) and Verulami-um (St. Albans), and the nucleated settlements of Braughing–Puckeridge, Baldock, and Elms Farm, Heybridge. All these settle-ments have either their origins or major settlement reorganizationdating to or shortly after the period c. 25–15 BC. This section exam-ines pottery consumption at these settlements from the pre-Ro-man period to a generation or so after Roman conquest of the area.

CA of pottery consumption at the oppida reveals that all theassemblages cluster in the two left quadrants of the CA plot, withlater phases generally occurring towards the right (compareFig. 2a and b). This broad spectrum of assemblages correspondsto a range of pottery forms, particularly vessels in Gallo–Belgicand Central Gaulish imported fabrics, Italian wine amphorae, anda series of locally produced vessels for drinking and associatedpractices (cauldrons, pedestal jars, and spouted strainers), somecopied from the Gallo–Belgic range (butt-beakers, cauldrons, cra-ters, cups, girth beakers, tazze, pedestal jars and spouted strainers).The emphasis on beakers, cups, and other similar accoutrementshighlights the role of drinking practice in pre-Roman society,which can be seen to have been of continued importance at siteswith pre-conquest origins at least until the beginning of the Flavianperiod (Table 3). Such concern with drinking is also present in theevidence for funerary feasting in the region, and should be seen inthe wider context of pre-Roman societies in north-west Europe, inwhich feasting and excessive alcohol consumption are likely tohave fulfilled a range of important social functions (e.g. Dietler,1990).

The main receptacles for social drinking at the oppida and re-lated sites were Gallo–Belgic pottery, a hybridized conglomerateof forms resulting from the fusion of Roman military and indige-nous northern Gallic styles of ceramic production in the late 1stcentury BC (Hawkes and Hull, 1947, 202–5). It differed from earlierforms of ‘Belgic’ pottery in Britain (predominantly large drinkingvessels such as pedestal jars) by the inclusion of certain Romaninfluenced forms, particularly dining vessels such as platters andbowls, whilst differing substantially again from contemporarysamian pottery, which was statistically more focused on diningvessels in its repertoire of forms. Therefore, it is over-simplisticto regard the consumption of Gallo–Belgic pottery at British oppidaas ‘Romanization before conquest’, but rather as part of a globaliz-ing process involving the active integration of parts of southernand eastern Britain into a larger system of connectivity, prior to Ro-man annexation in AD 43.

A further distinction can be made in CA (Fig. 2a and b) betweenassemblages in the bottom-left quadrant from larger pre-conquestsites such as Sheepen, Braughing and Verulamium, largely corre-sponding to Gallo–Belgic imports and amphorae, and assemblagesin the upper-left quadrant from Elms Farm and Baldock, corre-sponding to Central Gaulish imports and typologically older laterpre-Roman Iron Age (hereafter LPRIA) drinking forms such as caul-drons and pedestalled tazze. Such patterning shows the correlationof important settlements such as Camulodunum with more cosmo-politan suites of imported material culture. Camulodunum standsout in this regard, known from numismatic and textual evidence

Fig. 2. (a) CA: pottery forms from domestic assemblages. Amph, amphorae; GB, Gallo–Belgic ware; CG, Central Gaulish ware; I, other imported wares; ped, pedestalledvessels; PR, Pompeian red ware and Smn, samian ware. Horizontal and vertical axes account for 18.93% and 14.71% of total inertia, respectively. (b) CA: assemblages fromoppida and larger sites of pre-conquest origin, c. 50 BC–AD 70. (c) CA: assemblages from rural sites with pre-conquest origins, c. 50 BC–AD 70. (d) CA: assemblages from urbansites, c. AD 40–200. (e) CA: assemblages from larger nucleated settlements, c. AD 70–200. (f) CA: assemblages from rural sites, c. A.D. 70–200.


to have been the pre-eminent royal centre in the region, exhibitingthe widest global links in terms of its pottery supply. In contrast,

those sites plotted towards the upper-left quadrant are character-ized by their relative emphasis on older ceramics such as pedestal

Fig. 3. (a) CA: pottery forms from funerary assemblages, c. 50 BC–AD 200. Cu, copper alloy vessels; Gs, glass vessels and Fe, iron accoutrements. Horizontal and vertical axesaccount for 18.55% and 13.29% of total inertia, respectively. (b) CA: funerary assemblages, c. 50 BC–AD 200. (c) CA: zoomed section from (a). (d) CA: zoomed section from (b).


jars, perhaps indicating a more rustic style of consumption gearedmore towards traditional local drinking practices (e.g. Hill, 2002).

CA of pre-Flavian assemblages from pre-conquest rural sites(compare Fig. 2a and c) shows very similar results to those of theoppida. Whilst most early rural assemblages corresponded to thearea characterized by older LPRIA drinking forms in the upper leftquadrant, a few overlapped with the more cosmopolitan importedpottery in the lower left quadrant. Notable among these wereassemblages from sites that became villas in the generation follow-ing the Roman conquest (Park Street and Lockleys), reinforcing thesuggestion that Gallo–Belgic fine wares offered a mechanism forhigh-status consumption practice in the early 1st century AD.

The watershed for material change in the region occurredshortly after the quelled Boudican revolt in AD 61, evidenced inboth the written sources (e.g. Tacitus, Annals 14.31–33, 1977) andarchaeological record through destruction horizons at the principalRoman towns of Colchester, London and Verulamium. Followingthis short interlude, Flavian pottery assemblages from indigenoussites were both qualitatively and quantitatively different fromthose preceding them. In the decade or so following the rebellion,while the ransacked Roman towns were completely rebuilt,Gallo–Belgic pottery and its local imitations ceased to be produced,

with occupation of the elite center at Sheepen, Camulodunum com-ing to an abrupt halt. Although it is unlikely the revolt had a directcausative effect on changes in pottery consumption, the destructionand abandonment of Sheepen pronounced the regional effect ofmore widespread changes in pottery production and supply at theend of the 1st century AD.

Post-conquest settlements, c. AD 40–200

This section accounts for trends in the supply and changingcharacter of pottery assemblages in the aftermath of direct Romanannexation in the region after AD 43, starting with urban settle-ments and moving on to consider smaller nucleated and rural sites.Urban assemblages selected for analysis come from Colchester(including the short-lived legionary fortress and later veteran col-ony at Head Street), Verulamium, and the smaller town of Chelms-ford (Caesaromagus), which featured a mansio in the early 2ndcentury AD, as a rest-stop for travelers on the road between Col-chester and the provincial capital at London.

In CA (compare Fig. 2a and d), a clear pattern emerges, withassemblages from the urban sites occurring almost exclusively inthe two right quadrants of the plot, corresponding to a range of


samian vessels in the lower half, in addition to forms such as mor-taria, flagons, and olive oil amphorae which are typically associatedwith Roman eating habits in the north-western provinces. Suchpatterning unsurprisingly indicates that these sites were provi-sioned in a similar manner up to the end of the 2nd century AD.Such consistent trends can be seen to represent the manifestationof an imposed system of connectivity, with towns sited at nodalpoints within the network facilitating the coordinated supply ofbulk goods. Most urban assemblages featured high proportions ofimported wares, with a coherent suite of material culture beingavailable to the inhabitants of all three towns. Eckardt (2002)noted similar patterning in the distribution of oil lamps in RomanBritain, favouring major urban and military sites. The combinationof samian dining vessels, flagons, mortaria and olive oil probablyencouraged some coherence in social practice, perhaps forming atemplate of consumption for Romano-British urban populations.

Several further observations of note can be made from the anal-ysis of urban supply. First is the striking disparity between theconsumption patterns at oppida and related sites (emphasizingGallo–Belgic drinking vessels) and early Romano-British towns(emphasizing samian imports and dining vessels). This differencehas significant ramifications for how social change is described inthis period, not least in view of the fact that many of the oppidaassemblages overlap chronologically with some of the urban pot-tery groups in the generation after conquest (c. AD 43–60). Suchpatterning suggests two opposing styles of consumption, as thecultural manifestation of competing global power structures; onone hand the oppida system with likely roots in Roman clientageand Gallic colonization in the late 1st century BC, and on the othera more actively expansionist network resulting from the Romanannexation of the region in AD 43.

The contrast between the two styles of consumption couldnot have been greater than at Claudio-Neronian Colchester (AD49–60), where intra-site analysis of pottery deposition hasshown that the inhabitants of the oppidum at post-conquestSheepen preferred to consume in a manner emphasizing largeGallic drinking vessels, despite access to the material culture ofthe Roman colonists at Head Street, who eschewed Gallo–Belgicimports in favor of a template of consumption based around din-ing (Pitts and Perring 2006). It is notable that the ‘urban’ assem-blage with the most statistical similarity with the LPRIAsettlements is from the short-lived fortress at Head Street (ColH3 on Fig. 2d), possibly indicating that the army supplementedtheir supply with local products, as witnessed in pre-Flavian mil-itary sites further north (Willis, 1996, 217–218). Critically, suchlocally acquired pottery consisted mainly of jar forms rather thanGallic fine wares, hinting at the direct provisioning of food ratherthan locally preferred fine wares less suitable for military stylesof consumption.

The second observation of note (Fig. 2d) is the discrepancybetween the assemblages from the temple area at Chelmsford(NE sector) in the upper-right quadrant, and those from themansio area (SE sector) in the lower-right quadrant. Whereasthe latter followed an urban style of pottery consumption, thetemple assemblages from Chelmsford were marked out by a rel-ative absence of this material, instead emphasizing the consump-tion of generic Romano-British locally made pottery, notably jarforms and dining vessels. Such disparity suggests a dual functionof the site, with the temple (located outside the encircling ram-part of the town) likely to have catered for the local populace,and the mansio for traveling imperial officials (Black, 1995). Inthis context, the concept of globalization has particular valuein describing the material consequences of overarching changein creating sharp distinctions between global and local culturesin close proximity to one another. The mansio can be viewedas fulfilling a similar function to the modern airport, as a means

of making a distant place more culturally close for globalizedtravelers, with the manufactured proximity and familiarity ofthe mansio compound minimizing the cultural difference thatwould have otherwise been experienced in the wider landscape(Tomlinson, 1999, 7).

Fig. 2e summarizes the consumption patterns at former opp-ida and other large sites of pre-Roman origin in the post-con-quest period (Fig. 2b). CA (compare Fig. 2a and e) shows auniversal transition from the left to right quadrants of the plot.Whilst the assemblages from Elms Farm and Great Dunmowgravitated into the upper-right quadrant, corresponding to a ser-ies of locally produced Romano-British pottery forms (dishes,beakers and bowls), the assemblages from Baldock and Braug-hing moved towards the bottom-right quadrant, encroaching onthe area characterized by the largely imported collection of pot-tery forms evident at the main urban sites (Fig. 2d). The distinc-tion between the two groups of sites seems to be a factor ofconnectivity, with the more urban-style provisioned Baldockand Braughing situated at important nodal points in the roadnetwork, being ideally placed to tap into overarching imperialsystems of supply (Fig. 1). This suggests that the consumptionof imported pottery beyond the urban sphere in Roman Britainwas largely dependent on proximity to major roads, highlightingthe importance of the imposed network of provincial connectiv-ity in determining changes in material culture at sites with pre-conquest origins.

The final group of assemblages to be considered for analysiscomprises a range of post-conquest material from both high- andlow-status rural sites in the region (compare Fig. 2a and f). In starkcontrast to the pre-Flavian rural sites discussed above, the laterrural assemblages converge upon the upper-right quadrant of theCA plot, corresponding to a range of locally produced Romano-Brit-ish wares such as dishes, beakers and bowls. With the exception ofPark Street villa, located in the environs of Verulamium, whichexhibited a close affinity with urban assemblages, the high-statusrural sites were not tangibly differentiated from their lower-statuscounterparts. Although the sample of villa sites is comparativelysmall, such patterning potentially indicates that early villas inthe region functioned primarily as agricultural establishmentsrather than elite dwellings.

Compared to the urban assemblages, the homogenizing charac-ter of rural pottery assemblages was a pale imitation, probablyreflecting the usurpation of control of pottery production, eitherdirectly or indirectly, by the imperial authorities (Millett, 1990a,124). Given the lack of textual evidence on pottery production inthe provinces, we can only speculate on the circumstances sur-rounding such change. One possibility is that taxation providedthe main impetus for change, with new pottery forms being pro-duced to suit the demands of urban consumers. Pottery could haveeither functioned as a form of taxation in kind (as a container forfoodstuffs), or alternatively could have been converted directlyinto cash in urban markets. Whilst the new style of pottery wasevidently produced to supplement supplies of imported wares tothe main urban and military complexes, its dominance at non-ur-ban sites in the region created a homogenizing effect which hasbeen problematically termed ‘Romanizing’ (e.g. Going, 1987). Inthis instance, the term ‘globalizing’ offers a better means ofdescribing the widespread changes resulting from an overarchingsystem of production and supply imposed from the top-down,without implying any corresponding blanket acquisition of Romansocial practice by the recipients of Roman-influenced pottery. Fur-thermore, the comparative absence of imports on rural sites addsweight to the suggestion that the supply of imports was ultimatelya product of proximity to roads and the province’s urban and mil-itary connective infrastructure, rather than being a simple matterof consumer choice (Cooper, 1996).


Globalization and cultural practice, c. 50 BC–AD 200

Although analysis suggests that the homogenizing provision ofpottery to non-urban sites was dictated by the imposition of over-arching systems of production and supply, it does not follow thatmaterial change was accompanied by blanket acceptance of im-ported consumption practices (‘Roman’ or otherwise). Where in-tra-site analysis of pottery deposition is feasible at some of thelarger non-urban settlements with pre-Roman origins such asBaldock and Elms Farm, it is possible to identify the persistenceof traditional pre-Roman consumption practices as late as theend of the 2nd century AD. Table 2 shows the likely re-emergenceof LPRIA drinking practices at both sites, involving the use of cu-rated pre-Roman and older Gallic influenced pottery in combina-tion with widely available mass-produced material culturerelating to the post-conquest period. LPRIA-style feasting is sug-gested from contemporary several pit assemblages at both sites,each pit containing significantly higher than average proportionsof drinking vessels for the period, being contemporary and depos-ited in immediate proximity to one another (all pits are either fromarea K at Elms Farm and area B at Baldock), and also containing‘‘heirloom” pottery forms associated with drinking in LPRIA phasesat both sites (butt-beakers at Elms Farm, and cauldrons at Bal-dock). Although the practice appears to reference 200 year old tra-ditions, the most numerous components of all seven drinkingsuites were Romano-British beakers, part of the urban-orientatedRomano-British pottery industry.

In more traditional narratives of Romanization, such patterning(assuming it would be identified) might be cited as an example of‘native resistance’, involving the subversion of Roman material cul-ture towards native ends. This kind of interpretation is problem-atic, implying an intentional degree of anti-Roman sentimentthat is untestable archaeologically, and an over-simplistic staticunderstanding of so-called ‘native’ culture. However, such appar-ent continuity in social practice at Baldock and Elms Farm neednot be forced into either category of Romanization or resistance.An alternative reading of the data suggests that although ceramichomogenization occurred to an extent at both Baldock and ElmsFarm, a form of glocalization took place by which local identitieswere re-asserted through the use of globalizing material culturein traditional forms of cultural practice. This interpretation recog-nizes the role of both macro-scale socio-economic processes andindividual agency in empowering practices (feasting) to re-definelocal identities, and yet avoids the harsh cultural determinism ofRomanization.

Pottery in funerary practice, c. 50 BC–AD 200

Whilst patterns of domestic pottery consumption can providemuch information pertaining to networks of supply, the theme of

Table 2Selected pottery assemblages from Baldock and Elms Farm, Heybridge

Feature no. Feature type Site Assemblage date Jars (%) Drinking vessels (%)

Beakers Butt-beake

K4153 Pit EFH AD 170–210 45.3 47.4 —K4536 Pit EFH AD 170–210 51.6 22.0 2.7K4943 Pit EFH AD 170–210 25.8 37.1 —K14041 Pit EFH AD 170–210 34.7 — 40.3

Composite N/A EFH AD 170–210 48.7 12.8 1.0B50 Pit Bdk AD 150–180 12.5 75.0 —B60 Pit Bdk AD 150–180 15.4 30.8 —B78 Pit Bdk AD 150–180 18.2 36.4 —

Composite N/A Bdk AD 150–180 30.2 16.7 —

Composite period assemblages in bold.

social practice has thus far been only addressed in limited fashionin reference to examples of ritual deposition facilitating insightsinto pottery usage. As this approach is mostly limited to largearchaeological sites yielding multiple pottery assemblages, it isnecessary to supplement such insights into the explicit elaborationof identity through domestic food practices with a consideration ofthe role of pottery in funerary practice. Therefore, although subjectto the same supply systems as domestic assemblages, the place-ment of pottery in mortuary contexts is more likely to have beenthe product of conscious choice and agency.

CA of funerary assemblages from the region (compare Fig. 3aand b) reveals patterning even more striking than observed in anal-ysis of the settlements. Most of the earliest pre-Roman and transi-tional period assemblages cluster in the upper half of the CA plot,corresponding to a range of Gallo–Belgic fine wares and other im-ports such as amphorae, the same combination of vessels associ-ated with oppida in the analysis of domestic assemblages.Moreover, most of the funerary assemblages from this period con-tained significantly higher proportions of drinking vessels thancontemporary domestic assemblages. Such patterning would ap-pear to confirm the importance of feasting rituals in LPRIA society,and furthermore, underlines the significance of both imported andlocally produced Gallo–Belgic pottery vessels in more explicit ritu-als of high-status display. The exceptions to this pattern comprise acollection of richly furnished ‘Welwyn’ graves (Stead, 1967) andthe Lexden tumulus (located within the Camulodunum oppidum),both plotted in the lower-right quadrant of the CA plot. Althoughclearly part of the wider picture owing to the prominence of drink-ing vessels, these assemblages stood out due to high proportions ofimported wine amphorae and metal drinking accoutrements(including cauldrons and fire dogs presumably used for spittingmeat).

From the Flavian period onward (c. AD 70), funerary potteryconsumption underwent a spectacular transition, mirroring thepatterns noted in domestic assemblages. The accompaniment ofcremated human remains with pottery tended to become almostprogrammatic in character, illustrated in CA by the intense cluster-ing of cemeteries dating to AD 70 and beyond. Indeed, the Flavianperiod onward assemblages were so similar in CA that it was nec-essary to magnify the central portion of the plot to allow visual dif-ferentiation of the individual cemeteries (compare Fig. 3c and d).The majority of assemblages tended to contain a jar (for the cre-mated remains), a drinking vessel (usually a beaker), a flagon,and a samian dish, a pattern also borne out in basic functional anal-ysis, with values roughly split between the 4 categories of jars,drinking, pouring and dining (Table 4). This is in stark contrast tothe pre-Flavian assemblages which were dominated by drinkingvessels, and often contained a much greater variety of potteryforms. Given that most of the later cemeteries in the sample are lo-cated at nodal points in the road network at nucleated centers, it is

Dining vessels (%) Pouring vessels (%) Cauldrons (%)

rs Smn cups Total

— 47.4 7.3 — —3.8 28.6 11.5 8.2 —— 37.1 37.1 — —— 40.3 25.0 — —

1.93 15.7 20.9 5.91 —— 75.0 12.5 — —7.7 38.5 30.8 7.7 7.727.3 63.6 18.2 — —

3.7 20.8 36.5 6.25 0.5

Table 3Details and contents of composite assemblages selected for analysis of domestic pottery supply

Site type Site Assemblagedate

CA label Size Jars(%)

Drinkingvessels (%)

Diningvessels (%)

Pouringvessels (%)

Mortaria(%)

Lids (%) Cauldrons(%)

Amphorae(%)

Urban Head Street, Colchester AD 44–49 ColH 3 12.16 52 16 8 12 6 2 — 4AD 49–70 ColH 3–4 64.16 39 17 12 17 5 7 — 3AD 70–100 ColH 4–5 44.01 30 21 22 14 4 5 — 4AD 80–120 ColH 5 14.57 33 19 22 13 5 5 — 2

Colchester AD 80–120 Col 5 67 31 10 33 9 9 7 — —AD 140–160 Col 6 62 24 19 45 2 10 — — —

Verulamium AD 1–40 Ver 2–3 15 53 27 20 — — — — —AD 40–70 Ver 3–4 462 18 27 48 3 2 — — 2AD 70–100 Ver 4–5 1108 20 23 48 5 4 — — 1AD 100–130 Ver 5–6 921 16 21 54 4 4 — — 2AD 130–170 Ver 6 2617 18 20 50 6 5 — — 1AD 170–200 Ver 7 346 18 16 51 10 3 — — 1

Small towns Chelmsford, SE sector AD 65–80 ChSE 4 85 56 16 21 5 1 — — —AD 80–125 ChSE 5 112 44 22 23 6 1 1 — 3AD 125–170 ChSE 6 49 35 2 45 10 6 2 — —AD 170–210 ChSE 7 146 36 23 35 1 4 1 — —

Chelmsford, NE sector AD 65–80 ChNE 4 18.18 77 3 16 5 — — — —AD 80–125 ChNE 5 14.41 90 3 4 1 3 — — —AD 125–170 ChNE 6 23.62 71 9 18 — 1 — — —

Oppida Folly Lane, Verulamium AD 1–50 VerFL 2–3 104 52 23 21 4 — — — —Sheepen, Colchester AD 5–45 CamS 2–3 34 32 38 18 6 — 3 — 3

AD 44–49 CamS 3 247 32 34 21 5 3 2 — 4AD 49–61 CamS 3–4 2232 25 29 26 9 3 1 — 7

Nucleated Baldock 25 BC–AD 25 Bdk 1–2 167 62 16 5 12 — 1 3 2AD 25–50 Bdk 3 86 60 28 3 7 1 — — —AD 50–70 Bdk 3–4 200 44 23 23 8 1 3 — —AD 70–90 Bdk 4–5 60 50 15 13 13 5 3 — —AD 90–120 Bdk 5 110 37 27 26 5 2 — 2 —AD 120–150 Bdk 5–6 160 44 16 28 6 4 1 1 1AD 150–180 Bdk 6–7 192 30 21 36 6 3 1 1 2AD 180–220 Bdk 7+ 81 35 31 27 5 1 1 — —

Braintree 25–1 BC Bt 1–2 8 63 25 — 13 — — — —Braughing–Puckeridge 15 BC–AD 25 BP 2–3 856 38 28 23 4 — 6 — 2

AD 25–70 BP 3–4 208 45 21 21 7 — 6 — —AD 80–125 BP 5 20 35 25 35 — — 5 — —

Elms Farm, Heybridge 50–15 BC EFH 1 27.71 76 16 5 3 — 1 — —15 BC–AD 20 EFH 2 59.53 57 21 18 4 — 1 — —AD 20–55 EFH 3 70.01 62 17 14 4 — 3 — —AD 55–80 EFH 4 130.62 63 15 14 5 — 3 — —AD 80–125 EFH 5 37.15 66 9 19 1 1 4 — —AD 125–170 EFH 6 61.80 60 12 22 5 — 1 — —AD 170–210 EFH 7 33.69 49 16 21 6 7 1 — —

Great Dunmow AD 180–230 GD 7+ 66 53 21 23 — 2 — — 2High status

ruralBrightlingsea AD 125–170 Bri 6 21.78 52 2 37 — 7 1 — 2Great Holts Farm, Boreham AD 120–160 GF 5–6 6.32 61 15 20 3 — — — —

AD 140–200 GF 6–7 21.10 43 25 25 7 — — — —Lockleys, Welwyn AD 20–60 Lk 3–4 67 55 22 18 1 — 1 — 1Park Street, Verulamium AD 20–60 PS 3–4 15 27 47 20 7 — — — —

AD 70–80 PS 4 13 46 31 15 8 — — — —AD 70–140 PS 4–6 42 29 17 43 2 2 7 — —

Rivenhall AD 190–230 Rivl 7+ 8.00 54 30 16 — — — — —

Rural Ardleigh AD 1–50 Ard 2–3 36 75 11 3 6 — 6 — —AD 40–80 Ard 3–4 96 55 21 10 4 — 3 1 5AD 70–100 Ard 4–5 57 53 14 23 5 — 4 — 2AD 140–180 Ard 6–7 11 36 9 36 — 9 9 — —

Church Langley, Harlow AD 120–160 CL 5–6 3.67 74 7 8 11 — — — —Buildings Farm, Great Dunmow AD 1–60 BF 2–4 36 22 53 17 — — 8 — —

AD 70–100 BF 4–5 74 55 19 22 4 — — — —Ivy Chimneys, Witham AD 40–100 IC 3–5 7.99 96 — 4 — — — — —

AD 100–200 IC 5–7 8.48 74 — 21 2 3 — — —Nazeingbury AD 1–60 Naz 2–4 42 76 14 7 2 — — — —

AD 70–100 Naz 4–5 84 63 15 8 10 2 1 — —AD 100–140 Naz 5–6 115 43 18 23 5 1 8 — 2

Curry Hill, Rettendon AD 120–160 Ret 5–6 6.04 60 11 12 12 4 — — —AD 80–120 Ret 5 3.86 78 5 16 — — — — —

Woodham Walter AD 45–70 WW 3–4 98 67 16 7 5 — 3 — 1AD 70–100 WW 4–5 15 67 7 20 — — 7 — —

Assemblage sizes by EVE in italics; otherwise pottery groups are quantified by ENV.


tempting to interpret this collective phenomenon as the manifes-tation of a unified and upwardly mobile middle tier of society. Thisidea adds weight to the suggestion that such graves might indicate

the emergence of middling-status burial societies or collegia, pro-viding their members with a standard funeral with pottery ac-quired in bulk and stockpiled over time (Biddulph, 2005, 37).

Table 4Details and contents of composite assemblages selected for analysis of funerary pottery supply

Date (phase) Site CA label No. ofgraves

No. ofvessels

Jars(%)

Drinkingvessels(%)

Diningvessels(%)

Pouringvessels(%)

Mortaria(%)

Lids(%)

Cauldrons(%)

Amphorae(%)

Firedogs(%)

Paterae(%)

50 BC–AD 40 (1) King Harry Lane VerKH 1 76 179 16 56 16 11 — 1 — 2 — —Verulam Hills Field VerHF 1 20 28 14 61 7 18 — — — — — —Welwyn Garden City WwGC 1 1 42 5 60 10 12 — 2 — 12 — —Welwyn graves WwG 1 4 36 — 39 14 6 — — 6 22 11 3Stansted St 1 8 19 53 32 5 11 — — — — — —Lexden and Colchester CamL 1 11 58 10 53 7 16 — 9 2 3 — —Lexden tumulus CamLx 1 1 22 9 5 — — — — — 86 — —Misc. sites Misc 1 8 90 30 62 3 3 — 1 — — — —

AD 40–70 (2) Folly Lane VerFL 2 7 12 58 8 — 33 — — — — — —Folly Lane shaft VerFS 2 1 48 2 29 52 4 — — — 13 — —King Harry Lane VerKH 2 238 435 27 43 15 14 — 1 — 1 — —Welwyn Grange WwG 2 7 20 15 25 35 25 — — — — — —Stansted St 2 6 27 11 41 41 7 — — — — — —Great Dunmow HL GDHL 2 33 75 44 24 16 16 — — — — — —Lexden and Sheepen CamLS 2 7 39 5 46 28 18 — 3 — — — —Misc. sites Misc 2 7 40 3 40 25 10 — — — 18 5 —

AD 70–100 (3) King Harry Lane VerKH 3 13 31 48 23 16 10 — 3 — — — —Welwyn Grange WwG 3 7 24 17 29 29 25 — — — — — —Braughing BP 3 9 38 21 29 26 24 — — — — — —Stansted St 3 7 19 32 26 21 21 — — — — — —Great Dunmow HL GDHL 3 39 68 49 29 9 13 — — — — — —Misc. sites Misc 3 11 32 19 25 28 28 — — — — — —

AD 100–150 (4) Welwyn Grange WwG 4 67 157 32 20 17 31 — — — — — —Braughing BP 4 5 16 31 13 38 19 — — — — — —Stansted St 4 6 23 39 22 17 17 — — — — — 4Stansted grave 25 St25 4 1 20 0 45 20 20 — — — 5 — 10Great Dunmow CL GDCL 4 8 25 40 28 24 8 — — — — — —Misc. sites Misc 4 8 26 23 19 23 35 — — — — — —

AD 150–200 (5) Welwyn Grange WwG 5 13 44 23 27 25 25 — — — — — —Braughing BP 5 66 229 25 26 23 26 — — — — — —Great Dunmow CL GDCL 5 8 33 48 24 18 6 3 — — — — —Little Waltham LH 5 5 8 25 13 13 50 — — — — — —Kelvedon Kel 5 8 21 33 14 24 29 — — — — — —Misc. sites Misc 5 7 26 31 19 27 19 4 — — — — —


The last pattern of note in CA of funerary pottery assemblages isthe lone outlier of Stansted grave 25, dating to the mid-2nd cen-tury AD and corresponding to a rare carrot amphorae (likely tohave contained imported dried fruit) and several metal alloy andglass drinking vessels and dining accoutrements (compare Fig. 3aand b). This grave is unusual in a 2nd century AD context as itexhibits strong links in mortuary practice with the high-statusLPRIA ‘Welwyn’ tradition, in terms of the presence of an amphora,and a large suite of pottery and alloy vessels with a very high pro-portion of drinking vessels (Table 4). However, some of the findsfrom this grave, particularly the copper alloy jug and patera, havebeen interpreted by Cool (2006, 193–199) as evidence for a rangeof elite Roman practices, including dining, sacrifice and bathing,with the contents being paralleled in the nearby contemporaryelite barrow grave assemblages from Bartlow Hills in Cambridge-shire (Gage, 1834,1835,1840; Gage-Rokewood, 1842). Further-more, Cool argues that the type of samian cup (Dr.35) prevalentin the grave was more suitable for dining purposes as opposed todrinking, again hinting at a shift towards Roman dining practice.Therefore, taken together, the burial rite (in LPRIA tradition) andfinds contents (emphasising Roman dining) of this grave point to-wards the hybridization of elite culture, involving elements of localand global practices of elite display. However, rather than repre-senting a cultural watershed of ‘Romanization’, this change shouldbe seen in the wider context of evolving strategies of elite statusdisplay, with similar transformations in elite funerary practice inthe region occurring with the earlier intensification of global rela-tions associated with the oppida.

In a global context, the changes in funerary assemblages fromc. AD 70 onward seem to signal the end of traditional forms offunerary feasting as a means of expressing and competing forpower and status. In this sense, changes in funerary practice re-late to significant global transformations in the way power wasstructured and elaborated following the incorporation of Britaininto the Roman empire. For some of the non-elite, this may havenecessitated joining globalizing groups such as collegia, evi-denced in the homogenizing tendency of post-Flavian cremationcemeteries in the region, emphasizing the articulation of identitythrough solidarity. In contrast, the contents of Stansted grave 25and those at nearby Bartlow Hills indicate that whilst indige-nous elites may have begun to consume in style resonant withelite consumption elsewhere in the empire, they neverthelessfelt the need to do so in the context of traditional LPRIA funer-ary ritual. With its greater emphasis on the assimilation of glo-bal cultural practice, such patterning represents a different formof glocalization to that witnessed in the largely localizing contin-uation of LPRIA drinking practices in the domestic sphere at Bal-dock and Elms Farm.

Discussion: south-east Britain in context

The observations made in this study on both the supply of pot-tery and changes in cultural practice in the south-east have broad-er correlations in the rest of Roman Britain. In a study of potteryassemblages from the north-east, Willis (1996, 214) reported verysimilar results, with the late 1st century AD being identified as the


critical period of widespread change in most pottery assemblages,as part of a broader trend noted elsewhere in the north-west Ro-man provinces. This picture of globalizing change in pottery supplyin the east of Britain presents further confirmation of the first ofGoing’s (1992) log phases of synchronous change in the Romaneconomy at the end of the 1st century AD. In terms of the supplyof imports, both Willis (1996) and Evans (2001) note the tendencyof military sites in Britain to receive greater quantities than at non-military sites. Although the absence of long-lived military sites inthe south-east prevented similar observations being made in thisstudy, such patterning confirms the notion that the consumptionof imported pottery in the province was determined by state-dri-ven supply networks rather than market forces. Against this back-ground, it is likely that non-urban settlements of pre-Roman originwere able to tap into this supply during periods of saturation atmilitary and urban centres, explaining the greater prevalence ofimports at nucleated settlements in close proximity to the roadnetwork. Unfortunately Willis’ (1996) study lacked a comparablesample of rural settlements, although Evans’ (2001, 27–28) func-tional analyses of pottery in central-southern and south-west Eng-land confirm the patterns here that the general distinctionbetween urban and rural assemblages is much greater than thatbetween villas and lower-status rural sites. Even though significantregional traditions remained in some areas, such as the emphasison drinking vessels at rural sites in the Severn Valley (Evans,2001, 29), these patterns should be seen to represent the successfulintegration of pre-Roman traditions within the globalizing systemrather than a conscious choice of ‘resistance’.

One of the main features of this study is the influence of pre-conquest dynamics on post-conquest trajectories of develop-ment. In particular, it was noted that against the backdrop ofoverarching changes in the supply of pottery from c. AD 70 on-ward there was a strong element of continuity in the social prac-tices of pottery use, in both domestic and funerary contexts.Such continuity is by no means a new observation in RomanBritain, especially in elite society. Perring’s (2002, 216–217)analysis of 4th century architecture and mosaics shows a strik-ing correspondence of the distribution of late Roman mosaicstyles with the boundaries of LPRIA tribal entities (see also Mil-lett, 1990a, 175–176), suggesting that regional networks of elitepower in 4th century Britain had been inherited from the pre-Roman period. Crucially, the allegorical and mythological imageson the more elaborate mosaics represent ideological engagementwith global forms of knowledge that defined the late Romanelite as an enlightened entity in the Roman empire. The mainimplication here is that whilst the late Romano-British elitewere part of an exclusive global cultural group, change was sub-tly negotiated in a way that allowed them to simultaneously re-tain their regional identities.

Conclusions

The principal conclusion arising from this study is that the con-cept of globalization can be fruitfully applied to the ancient world.One of the main strengths of the theory is that it offers a comfort-able means of reconciling the evidence for diverse local culturaltrajectories with models of global economic change. Lacking theinherent cultural determinism of approaches to Romanization,and providing a broad perspective from which to approach the is-sue of identity, globalization provides some useful conceptualapparatus to more effectively characterize social change in the Ro-man empire. The case-study used here concerning changing pot-tery supply and consumption practices in LPRIA to Romansoutheast Britain provides several examples of how globalizationas a theoretical perspective can alter the reading of empirical data.

In some cases, particularly relating to the transformation andhybridization of elite culture, such alteration is minimal. Despitethe flaws of elite-negotiation models of Romanization in failingto address change amongst the lower orders of society (e.g. Millett,1990a; Woolf 1998), such theories of change among the upper ech-elons are nevertheless compatible with globalization; the babyshould not be thrown out with the bathwater. However, movingbeyond the elite sphere, clearer distinctions can be made betweenRomanization and globalization. Theories of Romanization eitherexplicitly or implicitly view changes in material culture in non-elite society in terms of cultural acceptance or resistance. TakingMillett’s (1990b, 38) tentative general model of Romanization asan example, such changes would count as the ‘self generating’ ‘pro-gressive emulation’ of Roman symbolism down the social hierar-chy as people ‘aspire to things Roman’. This position is clearlyunsatisfactory, not only because it assumes a universal desire tobecome Roman, but perhaps more critically, because it assumesmaterial change among non-elites was facilitated through a formof cultural connectivity (i.e. patronage links) as opposed to otheralternatives.

In contrast, rather than interpreting material changes as primafacie evidence of cultural change, globalization emphasizes therole of all forms of connectivity, be they cultural, economic orotherwise. In the present study, whilst the general trends in re-gional ceramic provision appeared driven by incorporation intooverarching economic networks, detailed contextual analysis re-vealed a range of divergent cultural trajectories against this back-drop. Significantly, the nature of such trajectories can be seen tovary according to location within the new provincial infrastruc-ture. Whereas the sharpest cultural distinctions were evident atpre-eminent nodal impositions and extensions of global space atthe early Roman colony at Colchester and the Hadrianic mansioat Chelmsford, in the later 2nd century the phenomenon of glo-calization is visible at more peripheral locations in both high-sta-tus (e.g. Stansted grave 25) and lower-status contexts (Baldockand Elms Farm), involving the subtle re-negotiation of local iden-tities in the face of globalizing economic changes. Such findingsare not necessarily intended to argue for a renewed primacy ofeconomic interpretations in understanding identity, but ratherto promote the view that cultural change did not occur in avacuum. Indeed, whilst similar observations elsewhere of post-conquest cultural non-uniformity (e.g. Terrenato, 1998) haveprompted substantial redefinitions of Romanization (e.g. Keayand Terrenato, 2001), such diversity already fits comfortablywithin contemporary theories of the cultural dimensions of glob-alization (e.g. Appadurai, 1996; Tomlinson, 1999).

In spite of the arguments given here, it must be stressed thatglobalization remains a descriptive term rather than an explana-tory concept in itself, and like Romanization, comes with muchunhelpful baggage. If globalization is to become a successful inter-pretive framework for the study of material culture, it is vital thatthe concept is not used uncritically or as a casual substitute for theword ‘Romanization’. Despite the potential of globalization as amethodological lens to provide alternative perspectives to the an-cient world, no doubt many reading this article will remain skepti-cal about applying the term in the context of the Roman empire.Such skepticism is partly justified given the overtones of moder-nity associated with globalization, and for some it may be prefera-ble to explore associated concepts such as connectivity without theburden of yet another controversial catch-all concept (e.g. Hordenand Purcell, 2000). Nevertheless, I believe that globalization offersan unrivalled perspective for archaeology to address long-termchanges in human history, going beyond the notion that historicalperiods represent discreet units offering only limited potential forfruitful comparative analysis. Although a great deal of furtherresearch is required to determine the underlying mechanisms of


ancient globalizing processes, the potential contribution of suchstudies to understanding the social evolution of humanity shouldnot be underestimated.

Acknowledgments

This paper was previously presented at the interdisciplinarynetwork on Migrations at the University of Exeter, arranged byProf. Regenia Gagnier (English) and Dr. Elena Isayev (Ancient His-tory). I am especially grateful for the comments received fromDr. Paul Young (English) and my discussant Dr. Nick Vaughan-Wil-liams (Politics). I thank Essex County Council and ColchesterArchaeological Trust for allowing me to use unpublished data fromElms Farm and Head Street, respectively. Finally, I thank Dr. ElenaIsayev (University of Exeter), Prof. Martin Millett (University ofCambridge), Dr. Rebecca Griffin (University of Liverpool) and mytwo anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestionson the drafts.

Appendix A

Data source

Brown (1999), Buckley and Hedges (1987), Drury (1978,1988),Foster (1986), Frere (1972,1983,1984), Garwood and Lavender(2000), Germany (2003), Going (1987), Havis and Brooks (2004),Huggins (1978), Hull (1958), Lavender (1997), Martin (1996),Medlycott (1994,2000), Niblett (1985, 1999), O’Neill (1945),Partridge (1978,1981,1982), Potter and Trow (1988), Rodwell(1988), Rodwell and Rodwell (1993), Rook (1978), Stead (1967),Stead and Rigby (1986,1989), Thompson (1982), Turner (1999),Ward-Perkins (1938), Wickendon (1988,1992), and Wymer andBrown (1995). Unpublished data was also included from ElmsFarm (Heybridge), Head Street (Colchester), Curry Hill (Rettendon)and Haslers Lane (Great Dunmow).

References

Ancient Sources

Polybius., Histories. Penguin, London (Translated by Scott-Kilvert, I, 1979).Tacitus., Annals. Penguin, London (Translated by Grant, M, 1977).

Modern Sources

Allen, J.R.L., Fulford, M.G., 1996. The distribution of south-east Dorset blackburnished category 1 pottery in south-west Britain. Britannia 27, 223–281.

Appadurai, A., 1996. Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Bauman, Z., 1998. Globalization: The Human Consequences. Polity Press,Cambridge.

Biddulph, E., 2005. Last Orders: Choosing Pottery for Funerals in Roman Essex.Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24, 23–45.

Black, E.W., 1995. Cursus publicus. The infrastructure of government in RomanBritain. British Archaeological Reports British Series 241, Oxford.

Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.Routledge, London.

Brown, N.R., 1999. The archaeology of Ardleigh, Essex: Excavations 1955–1980. EastAnglian Archaeology Report 90, Chelmsford.

Buckley, D.J., Hedges, J.D., 1987. Excavation of a cropmark enclosure complex atWoodham Walter, Essex, 1976. East Anglian Archaeology Report 33,Chelmsford.

Chase-Dunn, C., Hall, T.D., 2000. Comparing world-systems to explain socialevolution. In: Denemark, R.A., Friedman, J., Gills, B.K., Modelski, G. (Eds.),World System History. The Social Science of Long-term Change. Routledge,London, pp. 85–111.

Clarke, D.B., 2003. The Consumer Society and the Postmodern City. Routledge,London.

Cool, H.E.M., 2006. Eating and Drinking in Roman Britain. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Cool, H.E.M., Baxter, M.J., 1999. Peeling the Onion: An Approach to ComparingVessel Glass Assemblages. Journal of Roman Archaeology 12, 72–100.

Cooper, N., 1996. Searching for the blank generation: consumer choice inRoman and post-Roman Britain. In: Webster, J., Cooper, N. (Eds.), RomanImperialism: Post-colonial Perspectives. Leicester Archaeology Monographs3, Leicester, pp. 85–98.

Cunliffe, B., 1988. Greeks, Romans and barbarians: Spheres of interaction. GuildPublishing, London.

Denemark, R.A., Friedman, J., Gills, B.K., Modelski, G. (Eds.), 2000. World SystemHistory. The Social Science of Long-term Change. Routledge, London.

Derks, T., Roymans, N., 2006. Returning Auxiliary Veterans: Some MethodologicalConsiderations. Journal of Roman Archaeology 19, 121–135.

Dietler, M., 1990. Driven by drink: the role of drinking in the political economy andthe case of early Iron Age France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9,352–404.

Drury, P.J., 1978. Excavations at Little Waltham 1970–1971. Council for BritishArchaeology Research Report 26, Chelmsford.

Drury, P.J., 1988. The mansio and other sites in the south-eastern sector ofCaesaromagus. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 66, London.

Eckardt, H., 2002. Illuminating Roman Britain. Éditions Monique Mergoil,Montagnac.

Evans, J., 2001. Material approaches to the identification of different Romano-British site types. In: James, S., Millett, M. (Eds.), Britons and Romans: advancingan archaeological agenda. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 125,York, pp. 26–35.

Foster, J., 1986. The Lexden Tumulus: a re-appraisal of an Iron Age burial fromColchester, Essex. British Archaeological Reports British Series 156, Oxford.

Frank, A.G., 1998. ReOrient: global economy in the Asian age. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley.

Frank, A.G., Gills, B.K., 2000. The five thousand year world system in theory andpraxis. In: Denemark, R.A., Friedman, J., Gills, B.K., Modelski, G. (Eds.), WorldSystem History. The Social Science of Long-term Change. Routledge, London, pp.3–23.

Frere, S., 1972. Verulamium Excavations Volume 1. Society of Antiquaries ofLondon, London.

Frere, S., 1983. Verulamium Excavations Volume 2. Society of Antiquaries ofLondon, London.

Frere, S., 1984. Verulamium Excavations Volume 3. Oxford University Committeefor Archaeology, Oxford.

Fulford, M., 2000. Synthesis. In: Fulford, M., Timby, J., Late Iron Age and RomanSilchester: Excavations on the site of the forum-basilica, 1977, 1980–1986.Britannia Monograph Series No. 15, London, pp. 545–81.

Gage, J., 1834. A letter from John Gage Esq. F.R.S. to Hudson Gurney Esq. F.R.S.,accompanying a plan of the Barrows called Bartlow Hills, in the parish ofAshdon, in Essex, with an account of Roman sepulchral relics recentlydiscovered in the lesser Barrows. Archaeologia 25, 1–25.

Gage, J., 1835. A letter from John Gage Esq. F.R.S. Director to Hudson Gurney Esq.F.R.S., Vice President, communicating the recent discovery of Roman sepulchralrelics in one of the greater Barrows at Bartlow in the Parish of Ashdon in Essex’.Archaeologia 26, 300–311.

Gage, J., 1840. A letter from John Gage Esq. F.R.S. Director to Hudson Gurney Esq.F.R.S., Vice President, containing an account of further discoveries of Romansepulchral relics at the Bartlow Hills’. Archaeologia 28, 1–6.

Gage-Rokewood, J., 1842. A letter from John Gage Rokewood, Esq. F.R.S., Director toHudson Gurney Esq. F.R.S., Vice President, with an account of the finalexcavations made at Bartlow Hills’. Archaeologia 29, 1–4.

Garwood, A., Lavender, N.J., 2000. Late Iron Age and Roman sites at GrenvilleRoad and College Road, Braintree. Essex Archaeology and History 31, 94–111.

Germany, M., 2003. Excavations at Great Holts Farm, Boreham, Essex, 1992–1994.East Anglian Archaeology Report 105, Chelmsford.

Gerrard, J., 2002. Pots for cash? A critique of the role of the ‘free market’ in the lateRoman economy. In: Carruthers, M., van Driel-Murray, C., Gardner, A., Lucas, J.,Revell, L., Swift, E. (Eds.), TRAC 2001. Proceedings of the eleventh annualTheoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Glasgow 2001. Oxbow, Oxford, pp.13–23.

Giddens, A., 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press,Stanford.

Going, C.J., 1987. The Mansio and Other Sites in the South-eastern Sector ofCaesaromagus: The Roman Pottery. Chelmsford Archaeological Trust andCouncil for British Archaeology, Chelmsford.

Going, C.J., 1992. Economic ‘long waves’ in the Roman period? A reconnaissance ofthe Romano-British ceramic evidence. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11, 93–117.

Greenacre, M.J., 1993. Correspondence Analysis in Practice. Academic Press, London.Greene, K., 2005a. The economy of Roman Britain: representation and

historiography. In: Bruhn, J., Croxford, B., Grigoropoulos, D. (Eds.), TRAC 2004.Proceedings of the fourteenth annual Theoretical Roman ArchaeologyConference, Durham 2004. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 1–15.

Greene, K., 2005b. Roman pottery: models, proxies and economic interpretation.Journal of Roman Archaeology 18, 34–56.

Harvey, D., 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Blackwell, Oxford.Haselgrove, C.C., 1987. Culture process on the periphery: Belgic Gaul and Rome

during the late Republic and early Empire. In: Rowlands, M., Larsen, M.,Kristiansen, K. (Eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 104–124.

Havis, R, Brooks, H., 2004. Excavations at Stansted Airport, 1986-91. East AnglianArchaeology Report 107, Chelmsford.


Hawkes, C.F.C., Hull, M.R., 1947. Camulodunum. First Report on the Excavations atColchester 1930–1939. Society of Antiquaries of London, Oxford.

Hawthorne, J., 1998. Pottery and paradigms in the early western empire. In: Forcey,C., Witcher, Hawthorne, J., Witcher, R. (Eds.), TRAC 97 Proceedings of theSeventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Nottingham 1997.Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 160–172.

Hill, J.D., 2002. Just about the potter’s wheel? Using, making and depositing Middleand Later Iron Age pots in East Anglia. In: Woodward, A., Hill, J.D. (Eds.),Prehistoric Britain. The Ceramic Basis. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 143–160.

Hingley, R., 2005. Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire.Routledge, London.

Hingley, R., Willis, S. (Eds.), 2007. Roman Finds: Context and Theory. Oxbow,Oxford.

Hopkins, K., 1978. Conquerors and Slaves. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Hopkins, K., 1980. Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire 200 BC–AD 400. Journal of

Roman Studies 70, 101–125.Hopkins, K., 1983. Introduction. In: Garnsey, P., Hopkins, K., Whittaker, C.R. (Eds.),

Trade in the Ancient Economy. Hogarth, London, pp. ix–xxv.Hopkins, K., 2002. Rome, taxes, rents and trade. In: Schiedel, W., von Reden, S.

(Eds.), The Ancient Economy. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp.190–230.

Horden, P., Purcell, N., 2000. The corrupting sea. A Study of Mediterranean History.Blackwell, London.

Huggins, P.J., 1978. Excavation of Belgic and Romano-British farm with MiddleSaxon cemetery and churches at Nazeingbury, Essex, 1975–1976. EssexArchaeology and History 10, 29–117.

Hull, M.R., 1958. Roman Colchester. Society of Antiquaries of London, Oxford.James, S., 2001. ‘Romanization’ and the peoples of Britain. In: Keay, S., Terranato, N.

(Eds.), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization. Oxbow, Oxford,pp. 187–209.

Keay, S., Terrenato, N. (Eds.), 2001. Italy and the West. Comparative Issues inRomanization. Oxbow, Oxford.

Laurence, R., 1999. The Roads of Roman Italy. Routledge, London.Laurence, R., 2001. Roman narratives. The writing of archaeological discourse - a

view from Britain? Archaeological Dialogues 8, 90–122.Lavender, N.J., 1997. Middle Iron Age and Romano-British settlement at Great

Dunmow: excavations at Buildings Farm 1993. Essex Archaeology and History28, 47–92.

Martin, T.S., 1996. A group of finds from the vicinity of the ‘‘Noah’s Ark” Roman villaat Brightlingsea, Essex. Essex Archaeology and History 27, 311–319.

Mattingly, D.J., 2004. Being Roman: expressing identity in a provincial setting.Journal of Roman Archaeology 17, 5–25.

Mattingly, D.J., 2006. An imperial possession. Britain in the Roman Empire. Penguin,London.

Medlycott, M., 1994. Iron Age and Roman material from Birchanger. EssexArchaeology and History 25, 28–45.

Medlycott, M., 2000. Prehistoric, Roman and post-medieval material from Harlow:investigations at Church Langley 1989–1994. Essex Archaeology and History 31,33–93.

Millett, M., 1990a. The Romanization of Britain. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Millett, M., 1990b. Romanization: historical issues and archaeologicalinterpretation. In: Blagg, T.F.C., Millett, M. (Eds.), The Early Roman Empire inthe West. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 35–41.

Monteil, G., 2004. Samian and consumer choice in Roman London. In: Croxford, B.,Eckardt, H., Meade, J., Weekes, J. (Eds.), TRAC 2003. Proceedings of the 13thannual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Leicester 2003. Oxbow,Oxford, pp. 1–15.

Morley, N., 2007. Trade in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Niblett, R., 1985. Sheepen: an early Roman industrial site at Camulodunum. Councilfor British Archaeology Research Report 57, London.

Niblett, R., 1999. The excavation of a ceremonial site at Folly Lane, Verulamium.Britannia Monograph Series No. 14, London.

O’Neill, H.E., 1945. The Roman villa at Park Street, near St. Albans,Hertfordshire: Report on the excavations of 1943-45. ArchaeologicalJournal 102, 21–110.

O’Rourke, K.H., Williamson, J.G., 2002. When did globalisation begin? EuropeanReview of Economic History 6, 23–50.

Partridge, C., 1978. Excavations and fieldwork at Braughing, 1968–1973.Hertfordshire Archaeology 5, 22–108.

Partridge, C., 1981. Skeleton Green. A late Iron Age and Romano-British site.Britannia Monograph Series No. 2, London.

Partridge, C., 1982. Braughing, Wickham Kennels 1982. Hertfordshire Archaeology8, 40–51.

Perring, D., 2002. The Roman House in Britain. Routledge, London.Pitts, M., 2005a. Regional identities and the social use of ceramics. In: Bruhn, J.,

Croxford, B., Grigoropoulos, D. (Eds.), TRAC 2004. Proceedings of the 14th

Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Durham 2004. Oxbow,Oxford, pp. 50–64.

Pitts, M., 2005b. Pots and pits: drinking and deposition in late Iron Age south-eastBritain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24, 143–161.

Pitts, M., 2007a. Consumption, deposition and social practice: a ceramic approach tointra-site analysis in late Iron Age to Roman Britain. Internet Archaeology 21.Available from: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue21/pitts_index.html.

Pitts, M., 2007b. The emperor’s new clothes? The utility of identity in Romanarchaeology. American Journal of Archaeology 111, 693–713.

Pitts, M., Dorling, D., Pattie, C., 2007. Oil for food: the global story of edible lipids.Journal of World Systems Research 13, 12–32.

Pitts, M., Perring, D., 2006. The making of Britain’s first urban landscapes: the case oflate Iron Age and Roman Essex. Britannia 37, 189–212.

Potter, T.W., Trow, S.D., 1988. Puckeridge-Braughing, Herts.: The Ermine Streetexcavations, 1971–1972. The late Iron Age and Roman settlement.Hertfordshire Archaeology 10, 1–189.

Robertson, R., 1992. Globalization. Social Theory and Global Culture. Sage, London.Rodwell, K.A., 1988. The prehistoric and Roman settlement at Kelvedon, Essex.

Council for Britis Archaeology Research Report 63, London.Rodwell, W.J., Rodwell, K.A., 1993. Rivenhall: investigations of a villa, church and

village, 1950–1977. Volume 2—specialist studies. Council for BritishArchaeology Research Report 80, London.

Rook, A.G., 1978. Excavations at the Grange Romano-British cemetery, Welwyn,1967. Hertfordshire Archaeology 3, 1–30.

Rosenberg, J., 2000. The follies of globalisation theory. Polemical Essays. Verso,London.

Roth, R.E., 2007. Styling Romanisation. Pottery and Society in Central Italy.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Roymans, N., 2004. Ethnic identity and imperial power. The Batavians in the EarlyRoman Empire. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Saller, R., 2002. Framing the debate over growth in the ancient economy. In:Scheidel, W., von Reden, S. (Eds.), The Ancient Economy. Edinburgh UniversityPress, Edinburgh, pp. 251–269.

Stead, I.M., Rigby, V.A., 1986. Baldock: the Excavation of a Roman and Pre-RomanSettlement, 1968–1972. Britannia Monograph Series No. 7, London.

Stead, I.M., Rigby, V.A., 1989. Verulamium: the King Harry Lane site. EnglishHeritage Archaeological Report 12, London.

Stead, I.M., 1967. A La Tene III burial at Welwyn Garden City. Archaeologia 101, 1–62.

Sweetman, R.J., 2007. Roman Knossos: the nature of a globalized city. AmericanJournal of Archaeology 111, 61–81.

Terrenato, N., 1998. Tam firmum municipium: The Romanization of Volaterrae andits cultural implications. Journal of Roman Studies 88, 94–114.

Thompson, I., 1982. Grog tempered ‘Belgic’ pottery of south-eastern England. BritishArchaeological Reports British Series 108, Oxford.

Tomlinson, J., 1999. Globalization and Culture. Polity Press, Cambridge.Turner, R., 1999. Excavations of an Iron Age settlement and Roman religious

complex at Ivy Chimneys, Witham, Essex 1978–1983. East Anglian ArchaeologyReport 88, Chelmsford.

Ward-Perkins, J.B., 1938. The Roman villa at Lockleys, Welwyn. Antiquaries Journal18, 339–376.

Wells, P.S., 1999. The barbarians speak. How the Conquered Peoples Shaped RomanEurope. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Wickenden, N.P., 1988. Excavations at Great Dunmow, Essex: a Romano-Britishsmall town in the Trinovantian civitas. East Anglian Archaeology Report 41,Chelmsford.

Wickenden, N.P., 1992. The temple and other sites in the north-eastern sector ofCaesaromagus. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 75, London.

Willis, S., 1996. The Romanization of pottery assemblages in the east and north-eastof England during the first century AD: a comparative analysis. Britannia 27,179–221.

Willis, S., 1997. Samian: beyond dating. In: Meadows, K., Lemke, C., Heron, J. (Eds.),TRAC 96. Proceedings of the sixth annual Theoretical Roman ArchaeologyConference. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 38–54.

Witcher, R., 1998. Roman roads: perspectives on roads in the landscape. In: Forcey,C., Witcher, Hawthorne, J., Witcher, R., (Eds.), TRAC 97. Proceedings of theSeventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Nottingham 1997.Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 60–70.

Woolf, G., 1990. World systems analysis and the Roman empire. Journal of RomanArchaeology 3, 44–58.

Woolf, G., 1993. European social development and Roman imperialism. In: Brun, P.,van der Leeuw, S.E., Whittaker, C.R., (Eds.), Frontières d’Empire. Nature etsignification des frontières romaines. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile-de-France No. 5, Nemours (pp. 13–20).

Woolf, G., 1998. Becoming Roman. The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wymer, J.J., Brown, N., 1995. North Shoebury: settlement and economy in south-east Essex 1500 BC–AD 1500. East Anglian Archaeology Report 75, Chelmsford.

http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue21/pitts_index.html

Globalizing the local in Roman Britain: An anthropological approach to social change

Documents

Transcript of Globalizing the local in Roman Britain: An anthropological approach to social change