Innovation and Agency: to what extent did cultural appropriation affect the development of jewellery in Britain from 50 BCE to 150 CE?

Abstract

‘Native’ style objects from the Roman period are rather frequent in many regions of Britain and have often been considered as evidence for a ‘Celtic resurgence’ or ‘cultural resistance’. Through the examination, with a metallurgical focus, of three prominent jewellery types of the period – brooches, finger rings and hairpins – this paper aims to demonstrate that the conventional cultural theories applied to the material development between 50 BCE and 150 CE are outdated, inaccurate, and no longer applicable. Instead of ‘resistance’ we need to focus on innovation and the individual social agent. \nDo ‘native styles’ then express a form of cultural resistance? We find native and standard Roman objects side-by-side in the same archaeological contexts. Moreover, these ‘native’ styles are innovations with the social agent having consciously adopted specific ‘Roman’ forms and techniques and adapting them to local ‘taste’ and cultural understandings. This resulted in art forms which were often quite different from late Iron Age artefacts. Significant change and development only seem to start occurring as a result of increasing interactions within an interconnected ‘global’ empire, demonstrating that Britain’s integration into empire-wide socio-economic structures served as a catalyst for speeding up already existing developments that were occurring in pre-Roman times. Through the detailed examination of prominent jewellery types of the period, this paper aims to demonstrate that we need to go beyond concepts of ‘cultural resistance’ and ‘Celtic resurgence’ in order to understand the Roman impact on Britain and the extent to which cultural appropriation was feasible.\nMost cultural theories applied to British jewellery during this period attribute development to appropriation of Roman culture or conform to the understanding that the introduction to a ‘global’ market was the sole cause for change. However, in the case of the latter it accounts for very little in way of innovative developments, and in the case of the former it seems to have merely acted as a catalyst for the speeding up and continuation of developments which were occurring during the LPRIA. \nThe study of jewellery allows us to identify distinct choices of style, colour and techniques in different parts of Roman Britain. Prominent examples include dragon brooches, snake-figure rings, trumpet brooches and so on. Some designs are unique to specific ‘native’ regions, while others conform to a more global ‘zeitgeist’ across the Roman empire. We can identify a continuing development by which ‘native’ and ‘Roman’ styles and techniques were amalgamated. But this process was much more complex than the theory of cultural appropriation presupposes. We need to consider the social agents involved in the process, the regional variations across Britain, and the diverging identities expressed through the various types and designs of jewellery. \n