Ethnic Identity and Archaeology
Verslag van de tweede veldbijeenkomst in het kader van
de evaluatie van de archaeologie wetgeving op
donderdag 9 juni 2011. Georganiseerd door de
Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed te Amersfoort.
Available at: http://www.cultureelerfgoed.nl/sites/
default/files/u6/Verslag%20tweede%20bijeenkomst%
20evaluatie%20Malta.pdf
WILLEMS, W.J.H. 2009. Archaeological resource manage-
ment and academic archaeology Europe: some obser-
vations, in A. L. D’Agata & S. Alaura (ed.) Quale
Futuro per l’archaeologia?: 89-115. Roma:
Dipartimento Patrimonio Culturale, Consigno
Nazionale delle Ricerche.
ZORZIN, N. 2010. The political economy of a commercial
archaeology – A Quebec case-study. Unpublished dis-
sertation, University of Southampton.
- 2011. Contextualising contract archaeology in Quebec:
political-economy and economic dependencies.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 26(1):
119-36.
Further Reading
APPADURAI, A. 2001. The globalization of archaeology
and heritage. Journal of Social Archaeology 1(1):
35-49.
COLWELL-CHANTHAPHONH C. & T.J. FERGUSON. (ed.) 2008.
Collaboration in archeological practice. Lanham:
Altamira Press.
HAMILAKIS, Y & P. DUKE. (ed.) 2007. Archaeology and
capitalism: from ethics to politics. Walnut Creek: Left
Coast Press.
HARVEY, D. 2005. Brief history neoliberalism. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
MATTHEWS, C.N. 2010. The archaeology of American
capitalism - the American experience in an archaeo-
logical perspective. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida.
McGUIRE, R.H. 2008. Archaeology as political action.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of
California Press.
OKAMURA, K. & A. MATSUDA. (ed.) 2011. New perspectives
in global public archaeology. New York: Springer.
PEACOCK, A. & I. RIZZO. 2008. The heritage game:
economics, policy, and practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
SABLOFF, J.A. 2008. Archaeology matters – action archae-
ology in the modern world. Walnut Creek (CA): Left
Coast Press.
SCHLANGER, N. & K. AITCHISON. (ed.) 2010. Archaeol-
ogy and the global economic crisis – multiple
impacts, possible solutions. Tervuren: Culture Lab
Editions.
WAINWRIGHT, G. 2000. Time please. Antiquity 74(286):
909-43.
WATERTON, E. & L. SMITH. (ed.) 2009. Taking archaeology
out of heritage. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
2507 E
Ethnic Identity and Archaeology
Florin Curta
History, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL, USA
Introduction
E
Of all forms of identity, ethnicity is possibly
the one that has received attention in archaeology
for the longest time. In fact, from its inception as
an academic discipline in the late nineteenth
century, one of the main goals of archaeology
was the identification of ethnic groups in the
past. In Gustaf Kossinna’s words, “sharply
defined archaeological cultures correspond
unquestionably with the areas of particular
peoples or tribes” (Kossinna 1911: 3). Many
advocates of the archaeological approach to the
past known as culture-history still adhere to those
principles. In doing so, they turn the search for
ethnic identities in the past into the primary goal
of archaeology, to the point that some would now
argue that to abandon the search for ethnicity is
tantamount to denying archaeology its quality of
a historical discipline (Bierbrauer 2008: 6). By
contrast, proponents of the processualist
approach to the past associated with the New
Archaeology had little interest in ethnic (or any
other form of) identity, as their goal was to move
archaeology away from history and to bring it
closer to science. Instead of answering the
normative question “What do cultures relate
to?,” processualist archaeologists of the 1960s
and 1970s concentrated on the adaptive role of
the components of cultural systems, even if they
still continued to accept the idea that some
bounded archaeological distributions (if only in
the domain of stylistic variation) correlated with
past ethnic groups. A revival of interest in ethnic
identity coincides with post-processualist con-
cerns with context, symbols, agency, and history
(Hodder 1982; Jones 1997). However, because in
Central and Eastern Europe the culture-historical
approach is still predominant, some have adopted
E 2508
a completely agnostic approach, according to
which ethnicity in the past is beyond the reach
of archaeology, because the meaning initially
attached to material culture symbols used for
building ethnic boundaries will forever remain
unknown (Brather 2004). Archaeologists should
refrain from doing any research on ethnicity, and
in the meantime focus on what they can really do,
namely, study economic and social structures,
social rank, religious behavior, and the like. At
the root of this skepticism verging on nihilism
seems to be a theoretical malaise and a profound
misunderstanding of what ethnic identity is and
how it works.
Definition
In the early twenty-first century, ethnicity has
become the politicization of culture, a decision
people take to depict themselves or others
symbolically as bearers of a certain cultural iden-
tity. In the 1960s and 1970s, the debate
was between those who argued that ethnicity
was a matter of primordial attachments
(primordialists) and those who regarded it as
a means of political mobilization (instrumental-
ists). Today, very few would disagree with Max
Weber’s definition of ethnic groups as “human
groups that entertain a subjective belief in their
common descent because of similarities of
physical type or of customs or of both, or because
of memories of colonization and migration;
conversely, it does not matter whether or not an
objective blood relationship exists” (Weber
1922: 219). Ethnicity is not innate, but individ-
uals are born with it; it is not biologically
reproduced, but individuals are linked to it
through cultural constructions of biology; it is
certainly not just cultural difference, but no
ethnic identity can be sustained without reference
to an inventory of cultural traits. As the Norwe-
gian anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen
put it, ethnicity must be regarded as the “collec-
tive enaction of socially differentiating signs”
(Eriksen 1991: 141). Such an approach is largely
due to the extraordinary influence of another
Norwegian anthropologist – Fredrik Barth.
Ethnic Identity and Archaeology
He shed a new light on subjective criteria (ethnic
boundaries) around which the feeling of ethnic
identity of the member of the group is framed
(Barth 1969). He also emphasized the transac-
tional nature of ethnicity, for in the practical
accomplishment of identity, two mutually
interdependent social processes are normally at
work – internal and external definition (the latter
also known as categorization). Barth’s approach
embraced a predominantly social interactionist
perspective derived from the work of the
American social psychologist Erving Goffman.
Objective cultural difference was thus viewed as
epiphenomenal, subordinate to, and largely to be
explained with reference to, social interaction.
Studies of ethnic identity inspired by Barth thus
suggest that an ethnic group is more an idea than
a thing. It is not as much the group that endures as
the idea of the group. It has been noted that
cultural traits by which an ethnic group defines
itself never comprise the totality of the observ-
able culture, but are only a combination of some
characteristics that the actors ascribe to
themselves and consider relevant. People identi-
fying themselves as an ethnic group may in fact
identify their group in a primarily prototypic
manner, with some recognizable members shar-
ing some but not all the traits, and different traits
being weighted differently in people’s minds.
How is this specific configuration structured and
what mechanisms are responsible for its
reproduction?
Attempts to answer this question resurrected
the idea that ethnic groups are bounded social
entities internally generated with reference more
to commonality than to difference. Such an
approach draws heavily from the French sociol-
ogist Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of habitus,
a system of durable, transposable dispositions,
“structured structures predisposed to function as
structuring structures” (Bourdieu 1990: 53).
According to Bourdieu, those durable disposi-
tions are inculcated into an individual’s sense of
self at an early age and can be transposed from
one context to another. Ethnic identity is there-
fore the result of the intersection of one’s habitual
dispositions and the social conditions in existence
within a particular historical context. That is why,
Ethnic Identity and Archaeology
once in action, an ethnic group operates as a type
of status group, the existence of which is
represented through primordial attachments. In
practice, ethnicity results from multiple transient
realizations of ethnic difference in particular
contexts of production and consumption of dis-
tinctive styles of material culture. Ethnic identity
cannot be conceived without the manipulation of
material culture. Ethnicity can be, and truly is,
represented by such things as dress elements,
speech forms, lifestyles, food ways, and the like.
However, the ethnic group is not made up of the
symbols used to mark it as distinct from others.
Selecting symbols to mark ethnic boundaries is
a political strategy in the same way that choosing
a certain dress style may be for the construction
of social status. Material culture with symbolic
meaning is therefore an integral part of power
relations, as symbols of ethnic identity appear
primarily in contexts of collective rituals and
other social activities aimed at group mobiliza-
tion. Paul Brass even defined ethnic identities as
“creations of elites who draw upon, distort, and
sometimes fabricate materials from the cultures
of the groups they wish to represent, in order to
protect their well being or existence, or to gain
political and economic advantage for their groups
and for themselves” (Brass 1993: 111). Material
culture is therefore not a passive reflection of
ethnic identity, but an active element in its
negotiation.
Historical Background and Key Issues
This idea is in fact in direct contradiction with the
basic tenets of the culture-historical approach.
Leaving aside the primordialist understanding of
the ethnic group (to which Kossinna and his
followers constantly referred as Volk), much
more problematic from a strictly archaeological
point of view is the understanding of material
culture. To be sure, attempts to identify ethnic
groups in material culture date back to early
nineteenth-century Romanticist obsessions with
finding primordial languages and homelands.
Because of the Romantic concept of culture as
reflecting the national soul (Volksgeist) in every
2509 E
one of its elements, Kossinna’s idea was to bring
to light one of those elements – the material
culture – bearing the “imprint” of the ethnic
group responsible for its production. Like many
others in the early twentieth century, he defined
(material) culture in monothetic terms on the
basis of the presence or absence of a list of traits
or types, which he had previously and intuitively
considered as the most appropriate attributes for
the definition of the culture. He stressed the use of
E
maps for distinguishing between trait distribution
patterns, which he typically viewed as highly
homogeneous and sharply bounded cultural
provinces. He then equated those cultural
provinces with ethnic groups known from histor-
ical sources. Kossinna and his followers regarded
archaeological cultures as actors on the historical
stage, playing the role for prehistory which
known individuals or group have in documentary
history. Archaeological cultures were thus
equated to ethnic groups, for they were viewed
as legitimizing claims of modern groups to terri-
tory and influence. Because culture was regarded
as a homogeneous, bounded whole, a direct con-
sequence of the culture-historical approach to
ethnic identity was the idea that “diagnostic”
types were in fact ethnic badges. Ethnic groups
could be recognized in the archaeological record
by their specific Volksgeist, particles of which
had been turned into particular types of pottery,
tools, brooches, or houses. Searching for ethnic
groups was thus reduced to typology, under the
assumption that the classifications introduced by
archaeologists approximated the categories pro-
ducers and consumers in the past had in their
minds. Because culture was understood as nor-
mative, wherever they would go, bearers of
a certain (archaeological) culture will almost
unknowingly reveal their ethnic identity to others
(as well as to the archaeologist discovering their
remains) by means of using specific brooches,
axes, or types of pottery. Ethnicity, in other
words, was all about culture, and culture operated
from “behind the backs” of the people in the past
(Veit 1989).
The first critique of the idea that archaeologi-
cal cultures represent ethnic groups came from
within the framework of culture-history, and
E 2510
consisted of cautionary tales, which often
attributed difficulties either to the complexity or
to the incomplete character of the archaeological
record (Wahle 1941). Meanwhile, by the late
1920s, the very concept of “archaeological
culture” was banned from Soviet archaeology,
along with “migration” and “typology.” Marxism
in its Stalinist version was brutally introduced in
archaeology and, because of being so closely
associated with nationalism, the culture-
historical paradigm was replaced with interna-
tionalism that required scholars to study only
global universal regularities that confirmed the
inevitability of socialist revolutions outside
Russia. However, following the introduction of
Stalinist nationalist policies in the late 1930s, an
interest in the ethnic interpretation of the archae-
ological record was revived, and the concept of
“archaeological culture” was rehabilitated. Like
Kossinna, Soviet archaeologists of the 1950s and
1960s believed that archaeological cultures
reflected groups of related tribes in their specific
historical development. Some even claimed that
ethnic identity remained unchanged through
historical change (Curta 2002).
Nor was the culture-historical approach fun-
damentally changed in Central and Western
Europe at the end of the World War II, despite
the grotesque abuses of Kossinna’s theories
under the Nazi regime. “Archaeological cultures”
were now employed as a quasi-ideology-free
substitute for “ethnic groups,” without calling
into question the key assumption of an intrinsic
link between artifacts and groups. Barth’s ideas
had very little impact on the archaeological
understanding of ethnicity, because his social
interaction model was based on the assumption
that stylistic characteristics would diffuse or be
shared among social entities to an extent directly
proportional to the frequency of interactions
between those entities, such as intermarriage,
trade, or other forms of face-to-face communica-
tion (the so-called Deetz-Longacre hypothesis).
In other words, the closer two ethnic groups are to
each other, the greater the probability of them
sharing the same culture, without any ethnic
boundaries, and thus slowly becoming one, single
ethnic group. In order to verify that assumption,
Ethnic Identity and Archaeology
Ian Hodder undertook an ethnoarchaeological
study in the Baringo district of Kenya, in order
to understand how spatial patterning of artifacts
could relate to ethnic boundaries (Hodder 1982).
He found that, despite proximity and intense
cultural interaction, clear material culture distinc-
tions were maintained in a wide range of artifact
categories. In his view, distinct material culture
boundaries were foci of interaction, not barriers.
In fact, material culture distinctions between
neighboring groups were maintained in order to
justify between-group competition and negative
reciprocity, which considerably increased in
times of economic stress. However, boundaries
did not restrict the movement of cultural traits,
and the diffusion of cultural styles was at times be
used to disrupt ethnic distinctions. Hodder thus
suggested that the use of material culture in
distinguishing between self-conscious ethnic
groups would lead to discontinuities in material
culture distributions, which at least in theory may
enable the archaeologist to recognize such
groups. Moreover, the form of intergroup
relations is usually related to the internal organi-
zation of social relationships within the group.
Between-group differentiation and hostility may
be linked to the internal differentiation of age sets
and the domination of women and young men by
older men (Larick 1991). Different groups may
thus manipulate material culture boundaries in
different ways depending upon the social context,
the economic strategies chosen, the particular
history of the socioeconomic relations, and the
particular history of the cultural traits which are
chosen to mark the ethnic boundaries.
This conclusion has been at the center of the
“style debate” of the 1980s, in which a number of
archaeologists argued over the communicative
role of material culture. The traditional approach
borrowed from art history held that each (ethnic)
group had its own style, which it had preserved
through history, given that cultures were assumed
to be extremely conservative. In their criticism of
this culture-historical approach, processualist
archaeologists argued that style was a “residue,”
i.e., properties of material culture not accounted
for in functional terms. They also argued that
material culture is primarily practical and only
Ethnic Identity and Archaeology
secondarily expressive (Wobst 1977). However,
style and function are not distinct, self-contained,
mutually exclusive realms of form in themselves,
but complementary dimensions or aspects of var-
iation which coexist within one and the same
form. If both style and function are simulta-
neously present in the artifactual form, then how
can one tell when, and to what extent, the
observed makeup of an assemblage reflects eth-
nicity, and when, and to what extent, it reflects
activity? James Sackett attempted to make
a radical break with the residual view of style
by invoking “isochrestic variation,” which he
defined as the practical or utilitarian variation in
objective properties of material culture things
that makes no functional mediation difference
(Sackett 1977). To Sackett, style was an intrinsic,
not added-on, or adjunct, function. As an intrinsic
function of artifacts, the isochrestic variation was
to be found in all aspects of social and
cultural life, an idea remarkably similar to the
notion of Volksgeist which had inspired the cul-
ture-historical approach. The isochrestic varia-
tion was the attribute of material culture through
which members of an ethnic group expressed
their mutual identity, coordinated their actions,
and bound themselves together. Polly Wiessner
argued that style was a form of nonverbal com-
munication through doing something in a certain
way that communicated about relative identity. In
identity displays, efficiency of message is not
a major concern. On the contrary, identity dis-
plays are often extravagant, the resources and
effort expended being an index of ability and
worth. Moreover, style is an intentional, struc-
tured system of selecting certain dimensions of
form, process or principle, function, significance
and affect from among known, alternate, possi-
bilities to create variability. When style has
a distinct referent and transmits a clear message
to a defined target population, it is “emblemic
style,” not isochrestic variation. Given that
emblemic styles are supposed to carry distinct
messages, they must be consistently uniform
and clear in order to make recognition and under-
standing possible. Since they are typically used to
mark and maintain boundaries of group member-
ship, they should be therefore relatively easy to
2511 E
recognize in the archaeological record (Wiessner
1983). Emblemic styles often appear at critical
junctures in the regional political economy,
namely, at times of changing social relations,
which call for stronger or broader displays of
group identity. Emblemic styles are typically
associated with attempts to mobilize members
of an ethnic group in situations of competition
for resources with members of other groups.
Material culture is therefore fundamentally
E
social, and artifacts are rendered “appropriate”
for use only in social context. Decisions about
the use of artifacts are embodied in the artifacts in
terms of conventions of culture. Artifacts are not
properties of a society, but part of the life of that
society. They cannot and should not be treated as
“phenotypic” expressions of some preformed
identity. In other words, what should concern
archaeologists is not so much what people do,
what kind of pots or brooches they make, what
shape of houses they build, but the way they go
about it.
International Perspectives and Future
Directions
The second decade of the twenty-first century
finds the archaeological research on ethnic iden-
tity in good shape. Ethnicity in the past has fre-
quently mobilized and divided scholarly opinion.
Despite a phase of devastating post-war and more
recent critique, and the reticence on the part of
some archaeologists, as to whether ethnicity can
be recognized in the archaeological record, the
topic experienced a remarkable comeback in
recent years. This may be in part because scholars
can now distinguish between the archaeological
study of ethnicity in the past and the historio-
graphic study of the uses and abuses of ethnicity
in more recent times. While much has been writ-
ten on the influence of nationalist ideologies on
the development of the discipline, there has been
comparatively less preoccupation with how
archaeologists participate in the production of
the nationalist discourse. After all, land, when
imbued with symbols, intensifies ethnic identifi-
cation by means of the reclamation of
E 2512
archaeological sites and the repatriation of ances-
tral remains. The debates in the United States
surrounding the Native American Graves Protec-
tion and Repatriation Act and its application in
the case of the Kennewick Man have shed a new
light on issues of legitimacy associated with sci-
entific research. Yannis Hamilakis and Eleana
Yalouri have applied Bourdieu’s concept of
“symbolic capital” to the treatment of antiquities
in modern Greece (Hamilakis & Yalouri 1996).
Maintaining that the acquisition of undocu-
mented antiquities by museums encourages the
looting of archaeological sites, countries such as
Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Peru, and China
have claimed ancient artifacts as state (or even
national) property, while calling for their return
from museums all around the globe. Meanwhile,
the deliberate destruction of historical monu-
ments and archaeological sites during the
military conflicts in former Yugoslavia or under
the fundamentalist regime of the Taliban in
Afghanistan has brought the issue of cultural
heritage to the center of the archaeological
debates surrounding ethnicity. In such cases, it
is not only a question of global cultural heritage,
but also a matter of the meaning of “other”
attached to those monuments and sites by the
perpetrators of destruction, who perceive them
as different in ethnic terms without or with very
little consideration for the distance in time
separating them from past populations on that
same territory (Stone 2011). Conversely, there
is so far very little research on the relatively
widespread phenomenon of inventing archaeo-
logical cultures to serve the nationalist propa-
ganda, although several cases have been now
recorded in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and
Latin America. The transfer of ethnic meaning
from artifacts in a (national) museum to architec-
tural monuments and archaeological sites raises
the equally unexplored issue of how ethnicity
participates in shows of “staged authenticity” –
contrived presentation of sites as if they were
authentic – which are the substance of heritage
tourism. It has been noted, for example, that
tourists visiting the Jorvı́k Viking Center in
York do not contrast the staging of authenticity
against direct experience of the original, but
Ethnic Identity and Archaeology
rather with a mental template of the past, which
is largely shaped by mediating influences. Very
little is known about the contribution of
archaeology to those mediating influences.
After dwelling for years upon the mistakes of
the past, especially the tendency in mortuary
archaeology to “read” in ethnic terms what could
otherwise be interpreted as symbols of gender
identity, scholars are now beginning to realize
that just as in the modern world, women in the
past often symbolized ethnic collectives and were
regularly regarded as biological reproducers of
ethnic groups, since the ethnic group’s culture is
commonly structured around gendered institutions
such as marriage, family, and sexuality. As ethnic
identity remains a topic associated more often with
research on cemetery, not settlement sites, new
studies have pointed out that emblemic styles
appear more often with the funerary dress of
women of marriageable age. This has recently
prompted a shift in research emphasis to burial
assemblages which stand out from their local and
regional context by cultural elements – pottery or
dress accessories – apparently signaling a different
ethnic background. In principle, if emblemic styles
may be identified on the basis of their repetitive
nature at the level of the site, then anomalies may
equally be interpreted as stylistic variation in sharp
contrast to the uniform background of the
majority. Finally, it has become clear that the
most appropriate perspective for understanding
how ethnicity worked in the past is the (micro-)
region (Hakenbeck 2011). By working at a local
level, and with complex tools for teasing out dis-
crete differences in material culture items which
may signal emblemic styles and ethnic boundaries,
and for mapping distribution patterns within and
between sites, archaeologists have begun to iden-
tify the contexts of social action in which ethnic
identities in the past may have been created
through everyday practices.
Cross-References
▶ Agency in Archaeological Theory
▶ Archaeology and Anthropology
▶ Authenticity and the Manufacture of Heritage
Ethnic Identity and Archaeology
▶ China: Domestic Archaeological Heritage
Management Law
▶ Cultural Heritage Management and Native
Americans
▶ Greece: Cultural Heritage Management
▶ Histories of the Archaeological Discipline:
Issues to Consider
▶ Hodder, Ian (Modern World)
▶ Jorvik Viking Centre
▶ Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and
Legal Issues
▶ Nationalism and Archaeology
▶ Style: Its Role in the Archaeology of Art
▶ Wobst, H. Martin
References
BARTH, F. (ed.) 1969. Ethnic groups and boundaries.
The social organisation of culture difference. Bergen/
London: Universitets Forlaget/George Allen &
Unwin.
BIERBRAUER, V. 2008. Ethnos und Mobilität im 5.
Jahrhundert aus archäologischer Sicht. Vom
Kaukasus bis Niederösterreich. Munich: Verlag der
Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
BOURDIEU, P. 1990. The logic of practice. Stanford:
Stanford Univeristy Press.
BRASS, P. 1993. Elite competition and the origins of ethnic
nationalism, in J. G. Berameni, R. Maiz & X. Nuñez
(ed.) Nationalism in Europe. Past and present: 111-
126. Santiago de Compostela: University of Santiago
de Compostela.
BRATHER, S. 2004. Ethnische Interpretationen in der
frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Geschichte,
Grundlagen und Alternativen. Berlin/New York:
Walter de Gruyter.
CURTA, F. 2002. From Kossinna to Bromley: ethnogenesis
in Slavic archaeology, in A. Gillett (ed.) On Barbarian
identity. Critical approaches to ethnicity in the early
Middle Ages: 201-18. Turnhout: Brepols.
ERIKSEN, T.H. 1991. The cultural context of ethnic differ-
ences. Man 26: 127-44.
HAKENBECK, S. 2011. Local, regional, and ethnic identities
in early medieval cemeteries in Bavaria. Florence:
All’Insegna del Giglio.
HAMILAKIS, Y. & E. YALOURI. 1996. Antiquities as sym-
bolic capital in modern Greek society. Antiquity 70:
117-129.
HODDER, I. 1982. Symbols in action. ethnoarchaeological
studies of material culture. Cambridge/New York:
Cambridge University Press.
JONES, S. 1997. The archaeology of ethnicity. Constructing
identities in the past and present. London/New York:
Routledge.
2513 E
KOSSINNA, G. 1911. Die Herkunft der Germanen. Zur
Methode der Siedlungsarchäologie. Würzburg:
C. Kabitzsch.
LARICK, R. 1991. Warriors and blacksmiths: mediating
ethnicity in East African spears. Journal of Anthropo-
logical Archaeology 10: 299-331.
SACKETT, J. 1977. The meaning of style in archaeology.
A general model. American Antiquity 42 (3):
369-80.
STONE, P. (ed.) 2011. Cultural heritage, ethics, and the
military. Woodbridge/Rochester: Boydell Press.
VEIT, U. 1989. Ethnic concepts of German prehistory:
a case study on the relationship between E
cultural identity and archaeological objectivity, in
S. Shennan (ed.) Archaeological approaches to cul-
tural identity: 35-56. London/Boston/Sydney: Unwin
Hyman.
WAHLE, E. 1941. Zur ethnischen Deutung
frühgeschichtlicher Kulturprovinzen. Grenzen der
frühgeschichtlichen Erkenntnis, Volume 1. Heidel-
berg: C. Winter.
WEBER, M. 1922. Grundriss der Sozialökonomik. III.
Abteilung. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen:
J. C. B. Mohr.
WIESSNER, P. 1983. Style and social information in
Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48
(2): 253-76.
WOBST, M. 1977. Stylistic behavior and information
exchange, in C. E. Cleland (ed.) For the director:
research essays in honor of James B. Griffin: 317-42.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Further Reading
BÁLINT, C.S. 2009. A contribution to research on ethnicity:
a view from and on the east, in W. Pohl & M. Mehofer
(ed.) Archaeology of identity - Archäologie der
€
Identität: 145-82. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
BENTLEY, G.C. 1987. Ethnicity and practice. Comparative
Studies in Society and History 29: 25-55.
BIERBRAUER, V. Zur ethnischen Interpretation in der
frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, in W. Pohl (ed.)
Die Suche nach den Ursprüngen. Von der Bedeutung
des frühen Mittelalters: 45-84. Vienna: Verlag der
€
Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
BRATHER, S. 2008. Archaeology and identity. Central and
east central Europe in the earlier Middle Ages.
Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
COMAROFF, J.L. & J. COMAROFF. 2009. Ethnicity, Inc. Chi-
cago/London: Chicago University Press.
GASSOWSKI, J. 2003. Is ethnicity tangible?, in M. Hardt, C.
Lübke & D. Schorkowitz (ed.) Inventing the pasts in
north central Europe. The national perception of early
medieval history and archaeology: 9-17. Bern: Peter
Lang.
HAKENBECK, S. 2007. Situation ethnicity and nested
identities: new approaches to an old problem.
Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History
14: 19-27.
E 2514
HÄRKE, H. 2007. Ethnicity, “race” and migration in mor-
tuary archaeology: an attempt at a short answer. Anglo-
Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 14: 11-18.
LINDSTROM, R. W. 2001. Soviet ethnogenetic theory and
the interpretation of the past, in J. E. Terrell (ed.)
Archaeology, language, and history. Essays on culture
and ethnicity: 57-78. Westport/London: Bergin &
Garvey.
LUCY, S. 2005. Ethnic and cultural identities, in M‘. Dı́az-
Andreu & S. Lucy (ed.) The archaeology of identity.
Approaches to gender, age, status, ethnicity, and reli-
gion: 86-109. London/New York: Routledge.
MALEŠEVIĆ, S. 2004. The sociology of ethnicity. London:
Sage.
MAMZER, H. 2004. Ethnischer Mythus in der Archäologie,
in G. Fusek (ed.) Zbornik na počest Dariny Bialekovej:
223-27. Nitra: Archeologický ústav Slovenskej
akadémie vied.
MÜLLER, K. E. 2000. Ethnicity, Ethnozentrismus und
Essentialismus, in W. Essbach (ed.) Wir, ihr, sie.
Identität und Alterität in Theorie und Methode:
317-43. Würzburg: Ergon.
PREZELY, I. M. 2000. Re-thinking ethnicity in archaeology,
in P. Kos (ed.) Slovenija in sosednje dežele med antiko
in karolinško dobo. Začetki slovenske etnogeneze:
581-603. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije.
Ethnicity and Identity in the Ancient
Mediterranean World
Naoı́se Mac Sweeney
School of Archaeology and Ancient History,
University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Introduction
Ethnicity and identity are important fields of
research within the study of the ancient Medi-
terranean world. They are crucial social issues
within the modern world, and it seems that they
were also vital in Classical antiquity. Many
different types of identity are evident in the
ancient Mediterranean world – gender, age,
religion, rank status, legal status, professional,
regional, ethnic and cultural identities being
perhaps the most notable. This entry will focus
on the last two forms of identity in this list,
ethnic and cultural. Ethnic and cultural identi-
ties are closely linked, and it is easy to get them
Ethnicity and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean World
confused. Yet they are distinct from each other,
and constitute two separate types of social
categorization.
Definition
Ethnicity is generally understood as a form of
large-scale social group identity, where it is
believed that group members share a common
descent or ancestry (Emberling 1997: 307; Hall
1997: 19-33). It is important to note that it is
belief in a shared ancestry that is important, rather
than the facts of genetic descent. Ethnicity is
a social rather than a biological phenomenon,
and this distinguishes it from the concept of
race. Distinctions drawn along racial lines are
often made with reference to biological phenom-
ena, including physiognomic features such as
skin color, physical build, and structure of facial
features. Ethnicity, in contrast, is concerned with
the socially meaningful distinctions between
identity groups. The determining factor is not so
much whether people share a genetic link, but
rather whether they think of themselves as
a collective and believe that they have a shared
history. For example, there are relatively few
biological distinctions to be made between the
various Iban peoples of Borneo. However, groups
such as the Undup, the Balau, and the Ulu Ai
consider themselves to be ethnically distinct,
and these separate ethnic identities translate into
practical and political distinctions within society.
Ethnicity, then, is about the differences between
identity groups recognized on a social level,
rather than the differences that might be detected
on a biological one. Indeed, people may ascribe
to an ethnic identity (or have it ascribed to them)
without any accurate knowledge about their own
genetic origins.
The belief about a common descent is the
crucial factor distinguishing ethnicity from other
forms of group identity, and it is the essential
criterion that defines an ethnic identity. Other
forms of group identity can also offer a basis for
collective belonging, such as local village iden-
tity, professional identity, and identity associated