An Identity That Rises from the Ashes - Essay Example

An Identity That Rises From the Ashes Man has been in constant search of his identity. Usually, he looks around himself and derive information from the environment he has been accustomed to which tells him much about himself. For example, a caveman, upon looking around, learns that part of his identity is living within a dark cave, with a few tools for hunting. Food comes to him, or hunts it down himself, and such food, whether it be a wild animal or an overgrown, edible shrub becomes part of his identity as well. Even his manner of dressing, the kinds of tools he uses, his personal effects – these all point out to what kind of individual he is. Careful scrutiny of these materials may be a helpful method of establishing one’s identity, in this case, the caveman’s identity. It is particularly more appropriate in studying the identities of people who are long gone, and the only things that remain tell their story. Martin Pitts attempted to clarify Roman identity with archaeological evidence. He surveyed literature that wrote about Roman identity, specifically those that pertained to cultural, class/ status and gender identity. Under cultural identity, it was explained that a group of people with similar culture recognizes their differences with other groups in terms of “acting and being… the possession of similar cultural traits, such as language, styles of dress, personal adornment, material objects and particular ways of behaving” (Pitts: 695). It was evident from Pitt’s comparison of literature that sociocultural change in the Roman period is punctuated by a great diversity of cultural identity rather than a convergence of one Roman culture. Studying such diversity enriches one’s understanding of Roman identity, however, Pitts argues that there is danger in this approach in that one can look for diversity for diversity’s sake instead of seeing how the diversity played within the context of the Roman empire (696). Although this was only a warning, it pre-empts an individual’s intention to go deeper in learning about diversity. Pitt’s contention of “looking for diversity for diversity’s sake” is quite shallow and underestimates a reader’s capacity to see the whole picture. In the category of class and status, the positioning of individuals in Roman social hierarchy is studied. Most of the literature surveyed was dominated by topics on elites and state institutions such as the military. However this category has triggered interest in material culture identified with certain social segments. For example, the higher echelons of society generated material culture related to epigraphy, monumentality, literature and art while those pertaining to small finds and pottery had more distinct differences in terms of design and use by the high and low-status social spheres. It is actually interesting to learn what things were used by people and how this represented their status in society, and how such us reflected the culture of the times. However, one should have adequate knowledge about the diversity of Roman culture to explain such material culture and correlate it with the period it was used. Pitts explains that the category on gender identity was not discussed much in the literature, although in recent years, there was more interest in this area of Roman culture. The lack of knowledge regarding gender differences or how each gender was regarded gives a lopsided study on Roman culture. The emphasis on cultural or ethnic identities should be balanced with the investigation of class, status and gender in Roman culture (698). It is apparent that Pitts has given a lot of thought about the consequences of relying on the limited literature that merely inferences Roman identity. It is true that more theorization should be gained from the study of identity in Roman archaeology, but limiting it to a conceptual level or simply “reading” material culture to denote identity will not make it holistic enough. Pitts’ contends that archaeologists may encounter a dilemma in incorporating the investigation of Roman identity because it is a modern construct that may not be compatible with their study of the past. The study of identity in such a context involves social analysis of subjective categories which archaeologists may not be accustomed to. However, with the availability of material culture examined by archaeologists, people in the present may be given a glimpse of how various social groups and cultures lived during their time. Still, inferences derived from such material culture may not be enough to strongly establish Roman identity because it is not a matter of imposing it due to present-time analysis (700). The thoroughness of Pitts’ study considered Jones’ definition of identity as something that is “rooted in ongoing daily practice” (701) and can be subject to change and discontinuity. Such openness in the interpretation of material culture gives a new perspective in the examination of such materials in relation to the study of identity. Evidence of the use of specific materials does not bind the people from the past to it as they are also subject to change preferences and adopt newer and more improved materials, so such interpretation of the material’s use should be appropriately dated so that it is limited to that time frame. Pitts’ article covered two approaches to studying identity through Roman archaeology. The first one was review and content analysis of the available literature pertaining to various aspects of Roman culture. The other one was examining two cases of narratives of identity. In undertaking the study of the narratives, social variability in the ancient world is better understood. Royman’s study focused on the evolution of Batavian identity. Over time, the Batavians’ culture became much closer to the formation of Roman identity. With Royman’s information, Pitts took the readers back in time and travelled forward to witness how Batavian’s dealt with various changes in their culture. Although the case study focused on one group of people, it was successful in examining the cross-section of social hierarchy that existed with them over the years. It showcased the disparity between members of high and low society with regards to the material culture. The risk of this methodology in coming up with the identity of the Roman people is that there are just too many details that need to be considered, that some details may be left out. For example, Pitts observed that Royman focused more on cultural identities and did not maximize the opportunities to delve deeper into the Batavian culture to come up with class or status of the people and the gender factor relevant to the study of the Batavian culture. The second case study explored the various roles of pottery in Roman culture to depict the differences in function as well as the social differentiation with regards to its use. Again, Pitts traversed historical periods to describe the dominant functions of pottery. Attempting this approach to study identity in Roman culture is quite creative. Although Pitts limited material culture to one aspect, he was able to derive deep and wide information about Roman culture and arrived at logical and relevant inferences to its identity. Since pottery played a huge part in Roman culture, such as in their eating, drinking and burial practices, studies of archaeological finds of pottery can reveal much about the status of the user of the jar and how it was used. Throughout the article, Pitts’ deductive approaches and methodologies in studying identity in Roman archaeology ranged from very general sources (review of literature), to more focused cases (study of Batavian culture and study of pottery across function and social stratification). His use of the case studies proved to be richer in terms of the information derived which is directly related to the formation of Roman identity. Referring to the works of various authors, Pitts has come up with his own interpretations of material culture, as well as the establishment of cultural, class and gender identities. Admittedly, he lacks theorization in his study, however, the vast research he has done seems to be going to the direction of formulating certain theories about identity formation through Roman archaeology. What he did was not an easy task, but was very productive in laying the foundation for a theoretical and conceptual framework. For example, in enumerating various areas to study in Roman culture such as pottery, architecture, manner of dressing, literature, art, etc., future researchers may be guided on how all of these come together either towards Romanization or how it contributes to the diversification of Rome. Although Pitts may seem to provide an overwhelming amount of information and write from a highly intellectual and analytical level, he manages to be convincing to readers who may not be as knowledgeable as he is. Provision of evidence from research strengthens his arguments and readers will not dismiss him as merely culling from his stock knowledge. In parallelizing the study of identity in Roman Archaeology to the “Emperor’s New Clothes”, Pitts is expressing his desire to stop conforming to usual strategies especially when seeing gaps that need to be filled. Instead of merely accepting what previous scholars say, one should have the courage to stand up and find his or her voice to express a different opinion, no matter the majority says. Going with the flow may keep one in his or her comfort zone, with the feeling that his position is the established one, as in foraging the literature in pursuit of knowledge about identity in Roman archaeology. If one is not discerning enough with this methodology, identity may be reduced to a construct inferred only from the literature or from suggestions from archaeological remains. Pitts claims that identity should be examined using methods that “elucidate aspects of social practice through archaeological evidence” (693) and not through the” identification of variability in material culture” (693). Pitts is the boy who pointed out to the emperor that he had no clothes on and triggered the emergence of change with the emperor ordering new clothes. Works Cited Jones, S.. The Archaeology of Ethnicity. London: Routledge. 1997 Pitts, Martin, The emperor’s new clothes? The utility of identity in Roman Archaeology, American Journal of Archaeology 111 (2007) 693-713 Royman, N. Ethnic Identity and Imperial Power: The Batavians in the Early Roman Empire. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Read More