“There has been a veritable discursive explosion in recent years around the concept of ‘identity’, at the same moment as it has been subjected to a searching critique” (Hall 2000: 15). “[Identity] has become a ‘hot topic’...just as its everyday application becomes so fluid as to defy coherent definition” (MacInnes 2004: 532)

The above statements, given the burgeoning attitude towards identity within TRAC, could have been made by any number of Roman archaeologists but instead originate in disciplines outside archaeology. The main problem with identity in Roman archaeology is the apparent insularity of our field, where many too frequently ignore anything other than Roman archaeology. Identity studies play a popular role in many subjects—other archaeologies, anthropology, geography, literature, linguistics, sociology, psychology, philosophy, etc.—where identity has been subjected to frequent criticisms of its continuing relevance and general misuse. The fact remains that identity is extremely important, not as a path toward an absolute explanation of human behaviour but as a way of better conceptualizing it. To achieve a clearer sense of ‘identity’, we need to be aware of the work done in these other fields, some of which can show ways out of our conundrums. The second problem with identity, with which other disciplines have been grappling and we have just begun to struggle, is the enormity of the term. If we are to use ‘identity’ in a meaningful way, we must first better understand the concept, at its core a highly abstract sociological/psychological one, and then carefully define how we are using it and what we expect it to tell us about the reality of material culture. As an illustration of these points, this paper will outline my use of community identity in my research on the burial practices of the Roman military. Informed application of the theories about and conceptions of identity from other disciplines in concordance with the proper amount of scope on what ‘identity’ can actually do has proved to be the best way of approaching this large, multifaceted topic.

S. Hall, 2000, “Who needs ‘identity’?” in P. du Gay, J. Evans and P. Redman, eds., Identity: A Reader, Sage Publications: 15-30. J. MacInnes, 2004, “The sociology of identity: social science or social comment?” The British Journal of Sociology 55.4: 531-543.

Back to Curriculum Vitae