The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the - KarAnt

systems

The Archaeology of Ethnicity

The study of ethnicity is a highly controversial area in contemporaryarchaeology The identification of lsquoculturesrsquo from archaeological remainsand their association with past ethnic groups is now seen by many ashopelessly inadequate Yet such an approach continues to play a significantrole in archaeological enquiry and in the legitimation of modern ethnic andnational claims

Siacircn Jones responds to the need for a radical reassessment of the ways inwhich past cultural groups are reconstructed from archaeological evidencewith a comprehensive and critical synthesis of recent theories of ethnicity inthe human sciences In doing so she develops a new framework for theanalysis of ethnicity in archaeology which takes into account the dynamicand situational nature of ethnic identification

Opening up the important issues of ethnicity and identity this bookaddresses important methodological interpretive and political issues It willprovide invaluable reading for the student of archaeology and otherdisciplines in the human sciences

Siacircn Jones is Parkes Fellow at the University of Southampton where she isundertaking research on ethnicity in ancient Palestine She is co-editor ofCultural Identity and Archaeology The Construction of EuropeanCommunities (Routledge 1996)


Constructing identities in the past and present

Siacircn Jones

London and New York

First published 1997by Routledge11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE This edition published in the Taylor amp Francis e-Library 2003 Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge29 West 35th Street New York NY 10001 copy 1997 Siacircn Jones Quotation from Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit Jeanette Winterson

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted orreproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronicmechanical or other means now known or hereafterinvented including photocopying and recording or in anyinformation storage or retrieval system without permission inwriting from the publishers British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataJones S (Siacircn) 1968ndash

The archaeology of ethnicity constructing identities in the past and presentSiacircn Jonesp cm

Includes bibliographical references and index1 Ethnoarchaeology 2 Ethnicity I Title

CC79E85J66 19979301089ndashdc20 96ndash32658

CIP ISBN 0-203-43873-6 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-74697-X (Adobe eReader Format)ISBN 0-415-14157-5 (hbk)ISBN 0-415-14158-3 (pbk)

For PJU

and for my mother and father

vii

Contents

List of figures ixPreface xDefinitions xiii

1 Introduction 1

2 The archaeological identification of peoples and cultures 15Culture-history 15Social archaeology and ethnicity an ambivalent relationship 26The case of Romanization 29

3 Taxonomies of difference the classification of peoples in thehuman sciences 40Race culture and language in nineteenth-century thought 40From race to culture the conceptualisation of difference in the early tomid-twentieth century 45The emergence of ethnicity as a primary taxonomic category 51

4 Ethnicity the conceptual and theoretical terrain 56The conceptualisation of ethnicity 56The primordial imperative 65Instrumental ethnicities 72An integrated theoretical approach 79

5 Multidimensional ethnicity towards a contextual analyticalframework 84A working definition of ethnicity 84Towards a practice theory of ethnicity 87Differential loci of ethnicity 92The lsquopure products go crazyrsquo Historical models of ethnicity 100

viii Contents

6 Ethnicity and material culture towards a theoretical basisfor the interpretation of ethnicity in archaeology 106Problems with the idea of archaeological cultures as ethnic entities 106The dichotomy between style and function new archaeology andthe conceptualisation of ethnicity 110Stylistic communication and ethnicity 112Material culture human agency and social structure 116Ethnicity and material culture 119

7 Conclusions constructing identities in the past and thepresent 128A comparative theory of ethnicity 128Romanization reconsidered 129Archaeology and the politics of identity 135

Notes 145References 153Index 176

ix

Figures

11 Map showing supposed lsquoGermanicrsquo territorial expansion

during the Bronze Age 412 Three maps tracing the supposed expansion of the

Slavonic people 721 Schematic diagram illustrating the main elements of the

lsquoWoodbury Culturersquo 1822 lsquoEurope in period III Beaker and Battle-axe culturesrsquo 1923 lsquoEurope in period IV early Bronze Age cultures and trade

routesrsquo 2024 lsquoThe achievement of the European Bronze Age

1800ndash1400 BCrsquo 2225 A typical representation of late pre-Roman Iron Age

tribalethnic boundaries based on the distribution ofregional pottery styles 32

26 Location map showing the main archaeological sites datingto the late pre-Roman Iron Age and early Roman period inEssex and Hertfordshire 37

x

Preface

This book is largely based on my doctoral thesis which was undertaken atthe University of Southampton and completed in 1994 Drawing on recenttheories of ethnicity in the human sciences the aim of my doctoral researchwas to provide a theoretical framework for the analysis of ethnicity inarchaeology Despite a few important pieces of existing work there was verylittle interest in this topic when I started the project in 1989 Manyarchaeologists dismissed the study of ethnicity either as the epitome of aseemingly outmoded paradigm culture-history or as an impossible taskwhich had politically dangerous connotations Consequendy on describingmy research project I was often confronted with questions such as lsquoWhat hasthat got to do with archaeology todayrsquo and lsquoWhy are you doing thatrsquoFortunately at the Department in Southampton I benefited from theforesight and perceptiveness of a number of individuals who made me realizethe importance of the project at times when self-doubt and confusion mighthave made me abandon it altogether

Half a decade later ethnicity along with nationalism has become a verytopical issue both in archaeology and in society generally Both ethnicity andnationalism are high on the agenda at archaeological conferences and theliterature focusing on the use of the past in the construction of contemporaryidentities is expanding exponentially However archaeologists have largelyfocused on the politics of identity in the present frequently lapsing into moregeneral discussions on the politics of archaeological enquiry without takingthe logical step of reconsidering the interpretation of identity groups inarchaeology In the absence of such a re-evaluation providing us with astronger basis for the interpretation of past ethnic groups it is very difficultfor us to engage successfully with the ways in which contemporary groupsnational ethnic indigenous or otherwise use archaeology in theconstruction and legitimation of their own identities I hope that this bookwill contribute to the development of new approaches to the interpretationof past identities and new perspectives on the use of the past in theconstruction of group identities today With this in mind I have written anew introductory chapter and expanded the conclusion of my PhD thesis in

Preface xi

order to highlight the need to consider simultaneously the construction ofidentities in the past and in the present

This book has been a long time in the making and I am grateful to aconsiderable number of people for their advice and support during work onmy thesis and subsequent revision for publication I wish to acknowledge theIsle of Man Board of Education for providing funding for my PhD and theSir Robert Menzies Centre for Australian Studies for a scholarship whichenabled me to go to Australia in 1990 to examine the construction ofAboriginal identity During my time there Ian and Libby Keen GordonBriscoe Iris Clayton Jacquie Lambert and many others were a source ofinsight and advice I am grateful for their help during a period which wasformative in the development of the ideas presented here and it is with muchregret that a substantive discussion of the construction of Aboriginalityeventually had to be left out of my PhD thesis and this book

Thanks to Tim Champion Clive Gamble Paul Graves-Brown ClaireJowitt Kris Lockyear Brian Molynenx Tim Sly Dave Wheatley FrancisWenban-Smith and many other staff and postgraduates at the Departmentof Archaeology University of Southampton and elsewhere whom Iconsulted in the course of my doctoral research They provided a stimulatingand friendly environment in which to study and the comparative andtheoretically informed nature of archaeology at Southampton has influencedmy work immeasurably I would especially like to thank Stephen Shennanwho has been particularly long-suffering over the years providinginvaluable commentary on endless drafts of my work

In revising my thesis for publication Ben Alberti Cressida Fforde AntonyFirth Pedro Funari Martin Hall Richard Hingley Quentin MackieIngereth Macfarlene Maggie Ronayne Mike Rowlands and Jane Websterhave also given their time to discuss problems and ideas I am grateful fortheir input and their constructive criticisms My ideas were also furtherdeveloped whilst teaching a postgraduate course at the University of La Platain Argentina and MA courses at the University of Southampton on the topicsof ethnicity and nationalism Thanks to all the students for their enthusiasmand at times challenging scepticism I also wish to thank my colleagues atthe Parkes Centre for the Study of Jewishnon-Jewish Relations TonyKushner and Sarah Pearce for providing me with the space to work on thisbook despite the demands of other projects

Thanks to Kathryn Knowles who produced figures 21 22 23 and 24BTBatsford Ltd and Dr Anne Ross kindly gave permission for thereproduction of the map illustrating lsquoCulture provinces and expansions ofthe Celtsrsquo from Everyday Life of the Pagan Celts Likewise David Allen thecurator of Andover Museum gave permission for the use of the lsquoIron AgeWarriorrsquo Both illustrations have been used for the cover of the paperbackedition Thanks to Jeanette Winterson and Vintage Books for permission toquote from Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit Thanks also to Vicky Peters at

xii Preface

Routledge for her enthusiasm and help along with the rest of the editorialteam

I owe a great deal to family and friendsmdashwho include many of the peoplereferred to above as well as Maj Bedey Amanda Boulter Sara ChampionSteve Dorney Ruth Gilbert Kat Hall Jane Hubert Ella Leibowitz GustavoMartiacutenez Michael Wells and othersmdashfor their love and support throughdifficult periods as well as good times over the last six years Finally mygreatest debt is to Peter Ucko whose friendship and support has extended farbeyond what is normally expected from a PhD supervisor Many thanks forproviding indispensable advice and criticism as well as being a source ofinspiration without which it is unlikely that I would have completed mythesis

xiii

Definitions

The concept of ethnicity has a complex history and its meaning has beenmuch debated In Chapters 2 and 3 the history of the concept of ethnicityamong others is critically examined and following this a workingdefinition of ethnicity is proposed in Chapter 4 However for the purposes ofclarity it is necessary to define the way in which I use the terms lsquoethnicidentityrsquo lsquoethnic grouprsquo and lsquoethnicityrsquo throughout this book except ininstances where I am discussing other peoplersquos uses of these terms

Ethnic identity that aspect of a personrsquos self-conceptualization which resultsfrom identification with a broader group in opposition to others on the basisof perceived cultural differentiation andor common descent

Ethnic group any group of people who set themselves apart andor are setapart by others with whom they interact or co-exist on the basis of theirperceptions of cultural differentiation andor common descent

Ethnicity all those social and psychological phenomena associated with aculturally constructed group identity as defined above The concept ofethnicity focuses on the ways in which social and cultural processes intersectwith one another in the identification of and interaction between ethnicgroups

She said that not much had happened between us anyway historicallyspeaking But history is a string full of knots the best thing you can do isadmire it and maybe knot it up a bit more History is a hammock forswinging and a game for playing A catrsquos cradle She said these sorts offeelings were dead the feelings she once had for me There is a certainseductiveness about dead things You can ill treat alter and colourwhatrsquos dead It wonrsquot complain Then she laughed and said we probablysaw what happened differently anywayhellip She laughed again and saidthat the way I saw it would make a good story her vision was just thehistory the nothing-at-all facts She said she hoped I hadnrsquot kept anyletters silly to hang on to things that had no meaning As though lettersand photos made it more real more dangerous I told her I didnrsquot needher letters to remember what happened

(Jeanette Winterson Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit 1985)

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

hellipthe crucial theoretical question of archaeology today is that ofnational identity or more specifically that of the relationshiparchaeology enjoys with the construction (or the fabrication) ofcollective identities

(Olivier and Coudart 1995365)

hellipthe expansion of archaeologyrsquos relation to nationalism and ethnicityin the construction of collective identity seems certain to continue Partlythe materiality of the archaeological record will assure this Partly alsothe creation of alternative pasts is increasingly being used to legitimateland claims ethnic territories and access to economic resources

(Rowlands 1994141) The role of archaeology in the construction and legitimation of collectivecultural identities is coming to be perceived as one of the most importantissues in archaeological theory and practice Throughout the history ofarchaeology the material record has been attributed to particular pastpeoples and the desire to trace the genealogy of present peoples back to theirimagined primordial origins has played a significant role in the developmentof the discipline This situation is not surprising given the emergence ofarchaeology as a discipline in the context of European nationalisms and thevery materiality of the evidence which seemingly gives body and substance tocollective origin myths Yet the relationship between archaeology and theconstruction of communities of shared memory has only become subject toself-conscious analysis and criticism at certain times most recently duringthe 1980s and 1990s in the context of increasing concern with the socio-politics of archaeology and in reaction to the perceived intensification ofethnic and national sentiments What follows is in part a contribution to thisre-evaluation of the way in which archaeological enquiry is intertwined withthe construction of contemporary identities Focusing on the nature ofethnicity its relationship to material culture and the validity ofarchaeological attempts to identify past ethnic groups this book explores an

2 Introduction

area which has been both central to traditional archaeologicalinterpretation and at the heart of recent debates about the politicalimplications of archaeological enquiry

The classic example of nationalistic archaeology is the politicalmanipulation of the past in Nazi Germany The name of the Germanphilologist and prehistorian Gustaf Kossinna is inextricably tied to thepractice of ethnic interpretation in German archaeology and the fascistic andnationalistic use of such interpretations by the Third Reich Between 1895 andhis death in 1931 Kossinna developed an ethnic paradigm which he calledlsquosettlement archaeologyrsquo (see Haumlrke 1991 1995 Kossak 1992 Veit 1989Wiwjorra 1996) The basic premise was that artefact types could be used toidentify cultures and that clearly distinguishable cultural provinces reflect thesettlement areas of past tribes or ethnic groups But perhaps the most crucialaspect of his methodology with relation to its nationalistic tone was the directgenealogical technique used in order to trace the presence of historicallyknown peoples back to their supposed prehistoric origins It was on the basisof this technique that Kossinna attempted to delineate the descent of theNordic Aryan Germanic super-race to the Indo-Europeans (or lsquoIndo-Germansrsquo) in the process a deep antiquity was attributed to the Aryan lsquoracersquoalongside a decisive creative role in the course of history through itscontinuous expansion into new areas (see McCann 1990 Veit 198938)

Kossinna was explicit about the nationalistic and racist overtones in hiswork speaking of German racial and cultural superiority over others(Wijworra 1996174) He declared German archaeology lsquoa pre-eminentlynational disciplinersquo in the title to one of his popular books dedicating it inthe post-World War I edition lsquoTo the German people as a building block inthe reconstruction of the externally as well as internally disintegratedfatherlandrsquo (Kossinna 1921 [1914] dedication cited in Arnold 1990465)Moreover Kossinna along with other archaeologists was activelyinvolved in the production of propaganda during World War I andfollowing German defeat he attempted to use the results of archaeologicalresearch to argue that areas of Poland had been part of the territory of theGermanic peoples since the Iron Age (see Arnold 1990467 Wijworra1996176) However it was after Kossinnarsquos death with the rise ofNational Socialism in Germany that his work was elevated to a position ofdogma in support of the myth of the Aryan master race Archaeology heldan important position in the ideology of the Third Reich it receivedconsiderable prestige and institutional support and was appropriated bykey Nazi figures such as Alfred Rosenberg and Heinrich Himmleralthough Adolf Hitler himself was ambivalent towards their efforts (seeArnold 1990469) To obtain lsquoscientificrsquo support for his ideas Himmlerfounded the SS organization Deutches Ahnenerbe (German AncestralInheritance) which organized archaeological investigations carried out bySS officers and involved the obligatory use of Kossinnarsquos lsquosettlement

Introduction 3

archaeologyrsquo method Archaeological remains identified as lsquoGermanicrsquowere prioritized over others and the Ahnenerbe along with otherarchaeologists were particularly concerned to lsquodemonstratersquo Germanicexpansion in pre- and proto-history for instance eastwards into PolandSouth Russia and the Caucasus (McCann 199083ndash4 see Figure 11) Afurther example of the way in which archaeological research wasimplicated in the actions of the Nazi regime is provided by Himmlerrsquosattempts to link the physiology of the Venus figurines from the DolniacuteVestonice excavations with that of Jewish women and supposedlyprimitive lsquoracesrsquo such as the Hottentots (McCann 199085ndash6) Howeverwhilst a number of German archaeologists such as Hans Reinerth andHerman Wirth were actively involved in producing representations of thepast in keeping with Nazi ideology others did not lend explicit support tosuch representations Indeed many archaeologists like other Germancitizens remained passive bystanders (Mitlaufer) under the totalitarianregime ultimately sanctioning the National Socialist Party by defaultwhilst a small minority expressed direct opposition largely throughcritiques of Kossinnarsquos work (see Arnold 1990472ndash3 Veit 198940ndash1)

In his review of archaeological theory in Europe Hodder (1991a x) hasargued that lsquofew archaeologists in Europe can work without the shadow ofthe misuse of the past for nationalistic purposes during the Third Reichrsquo Theimmediate reaction from German scholars in the postwar period was todistance themselves from the overtly racist character of Nazi archaeologyand in particular to vilify Kossinna representing him as lsquothe evil mind behindall chauvinist and fascist exploitation of archaeologyrsquo (Haumlrke 199554) Thiswas a convenient stance for those German archaeologists who had beenpassive bystanders in Nazi Germany but condemnation of Kossinna as themain culprit in the nationalistic abuse of archaeology during the Third Reichwas also the most prevalent response from other European archaeologistsOvert ethnic interpretations were rejected due to the traditional conflation ofethnic groups with races and German archaeologists in particular retreatedinto a descriptive empiricist approach with little reference to peoples such asthe lsquoGermanirsquo or the lsquoIndo-Europeansrsquo (Haumlrke 199556 Veit 198942)Furthermore the direct genealogical method advocated by Kossinna fortracing historically known groups back into prehistory was largelyabandoned Nevertheless despite these changes German archaeologistscontinued to use the basic ethnic paradigm classifying material culture intogroups known as archaeological cultures which were implicitly regarded asthe product of distinct groups of people As Veit (198942) points out lsquotheldquoarchaeological culturerdquohellipbecame a quasi-ideology-free substitute for theterm ldquoethnic unitrdquorsquo but one which still takes for granted the idea thatpeoples must be lurking behind such archaeological groupings

Elsewhere in Europe and in other parts of the world Germanarchaeological methodology continued to exert its influence up until the 1980s

Figure 11 Map showing supposed lsquoGermanicrsquo territorial expansion during theBronze Age which was produced in 1945 by the German archaeologist HansReinerth who worked for the Nazi organization AMT Rosenberg (redrawn fromArnold 1990466)

Introduction 5

either directly for example in Namibia (see Kinahan 1995) and Argentina(see Politis 1995) or indirectly through its initially influential role in thedevelopment of culture-historical archaeology in general Culture-historycan be characterized as the empiricist extraction description andclassification of material remains within a spatial and temporal frameworkmade up of units which are usually referred to as lsquoculturesrsquo and oftenregarded as the product of discrete social entities in the past Despitevariation between different regional and national traditions of culture-historical archaeology it has been the main archaeological paradigmthroughout much if not all of this century in Europe and elsewhere in theworld (see Graves-Brown et al 1996 Hodder 1991b Ucko 1995b see alsoChapter 2) Thus irrespective of whether or not explicit reference is made topast peoples or ethnic groups the same basic paradigm which was used inNazi Germany has also formed the rudimentary framework forarchaeological enquiry worldwide

The celebrated escape of archaeology from the confines of descriptiveempiricist culture-history is often associated with the lsquonew archaeologyrsquo ofthe 1960s and 1970s (see Willey and Sabloff 1974183ndash9 Renfrew and Bahn199134ndash5)1 A predominantly Anglo-American development newarchaeology was influenced by social anthropology and entailed areconceptualization of culture as a functioning system rather than thehomogeneous normative framework of a particular group of people (seeChapters 2 and 6) Analysis was and in many cases still is explicitlyconcerned with social processes and the production of generalizingexplanatory models drawing on anthropology cultural ecology and neo-evolutionary theory As a number of commentators have argued (egHodder 1991b6) the main contribution of the processual archaeologywhich emerged was in terms of the analysis of economic and subsistencestrategies exchange systems and social organization Within this discoursethere was very little concern with problems of nationalism ethnicity andmulti-culturalism Having dismissed the equation of archaeological cultureswith ethnic groups processual archaeologists in general did not regardethnicity as an important focus of archaeological enquiry it was merely seenas the product of an outmoded and unfashionable archaeological paradigm(Olsen and Kobylinski 199110 see also Chapter 2) Furthermore despitethe critical intentions of some of its early exponents (Wobst 1989137ndash8)processual archaeology was and to a large extent still is firmly rooted inscientific notions of objectivity (eg Binford 1983) As a result the use ofarchaeology by nationalists continued to be perceived as a discrete externalpolitical influence on the discipline leading to the distortion of scientificresearch

The recent concern with socio-political issues including a renewedinterest in ethnicity and multi-culturalism has been strongly linked topost-processual archaeology by both its advocates and its opponents Yet

6 Introduction

post-processualism in itself represents a heterogeneous range ofapproaches and a concern with the socio-politics of archaeology is by nomeans restricted to archaeologists whose work would be incorporatedwithin this category In fact the World Archaeological Congress one of themain forums for discussions about ethnicity nationalism and competingperspectives on and uses of the past has brought together a wide range ofpeople representing diverse backgrounds interests and theoreticalperspectives (see Ucko 1987) Hence it can be argued that post-processualarchaeology as a disciplinary movement has in part set the context andprovided important critical perspectives for exploring the nature ofarchaeology as a contemporary practice involved in the construction ofcultural identity However broader social and ideological movements andthe various groups associated with them have also contributed to therecognition of such concerns (see Moser 1995 Layton 1989b Ucko 1983a1983b 1987) Such influences exemplify the complex and recursiverelationships that exist between archaeology as a particular practiceconcerned with the past and the rest of society

In the context of critical reflection on the nature of the discipline therehas been a proliferation of research evident in conferences symposia andpublications focusing on the socio-politics of archaeology in general2 andalso specifically on the ways in which archaeology intersects with theconstruction of cultural identity3 Trigger (1984358) has identifiedlsquonationalist archaeologyrsquo as a specific type of archaeology arguing thatlsquoMost archaeological traditions are probably nationalistic in orientationrsquoFurthermore many case studies have been undertaken which demonstratethat the use of archaeology in the construction and legitimation of nationalidentities and territorial claims is far more extensive than has been generallyassumed In nineteenth-century Denmark prehistoric monuments such asburial mounds and dolmens figured strongly in the construction of anational rural idyll and archaeologists such as Worsaae were openlycommitted to rebuilding the national consciousness in the face of Germanaggression (Kristiansen 199219ndash21 Trigger 1984358) In reaction toGerman expansionist claims based on archaeological distributions thePolish archaeologist Konrad Jazdegdzdegewski published an archaeologicalatlas of Europe in 1949 illustrating the alleged expansion of the Slavonicpeoples during the Bronze Age over much of central and eastern Europe(Kristiansen 199218 and see Figure 12) In France the Gallic resistance tothe Roman Empire has played a central role in the construction of Frenchnational consciousness The site of Bibracte and the heroic figure ofVercingetorix have been invested with particular importance in themodern nation-state reflected in the considerable financial support andpolitical patronage attached to the recent Mount-Beuvray excavation (seeDietler 1994584 Fleury-Ilett 1996196 204) In the shadow of a historyof English colonialism the idea of an ethnically pure Celtic culture played a

Figure 12 Three maps tracing the supposed expansion of the Slavonic peopleproduced by the Polish archaeologist Konrad Jazdegdzdegewski shortly after WorldWar II (redrawn from Kristiansen 199217) The first map relates to the BronzeAge the second to the lsquoMigration Periodrsquo (AD 300ndash500) and the third to theViking Age There are obvious parallels in the mode of representation employedin these maps and that of the German archaeologist Hans Reinerth (see Figure11) despite the fact that they present conflicting claims concerning the culture-history of the region that falls within modern Poland and other areas in centralEurope

8 Introduction

fundamental role in Irish national origin myths by the early twentiethcentury resulting in an emphasis on the archaeology of the La Tegravene and earlyChristian periods and a neglect of later lsquoAnglo-Normanrsquo archaeology (seeWoodman 1995285ndash6) Archaeology has also played an important role inyounger nation-states for example in the legitimation of the modern state ofIsrael a direct genealogical connection has been made with the ancientIsraelite nation resulting in considerable attention to the archaeologicalremains of the Iron Age in contrast to later periods (see Glock 1994)Furthermore the site of Masada which is said to be the scene of an heroicmass-suicide by a group of Jewish rebels in the face of Roman oppressionhas become a particularly important symbol in Israeli nationalconsciousness forming the focus of military pilgrimage and ceremony (seeZerubavel 1994)

However whilst it has been demonstrated that archaeology andnationalism are closely intertwined in many different contexts it has alsobeen shown that archaeology is involved in the construction of a much morecomplex range of collective identities4 Nationalism itself takes diverse forms(see Hutchinsen and Smith 1994 Kapferer 1989) and considerable changecan occur in the historical and cultural representation of particular nationaltraditions Moreover the nation-state is only one of the many possible focifor communal identity in the contemporary world often leading to localrather than global conflicts a point which was highlighted at the 1995annual conference of the Association for the Study of Ethnicity andNationalism in London (Targett 19959) The so-called lsquoethnic revivalrsquo theemergence of indigenous Fourth-World movements the breakup of theSoviet Union and other former Eastern Block countries and secessionistmovements in other areas of the world are some of the developments thathave forced a recognition of the plural multi-cultural realities of mostcontemporary states whether or not diverse identities are acknowledged instate ideology The situation is further complicated by supra-national entitieswhich make a claim to the cultural identity of their members such as theEuropean Union and fundamentalist religious movements such as TheNation of Islam In the face of such diverse manifestations of communalcultural identity many scholars of nationalism and ethnicity (eg Clifford1988 1992 Friedman 1989 Gilroy 1992 Hannerz 1989 Marcus 1989)have renounced the ideal of a world made up of distinct relativelyhomogeneous nation-states as representing either a bygone era or amodernist fantasy Instead they talk about a post-modern worldcharacterized by opposing tendencies towards increasing globalization onthe one hand and the fracturing of identities resulting in hybriditycreolization and indigenization on the other (see Young 1995 for a critique ofthis trend) The image is one of diverse unstable competing configurationsof cultural identity stretching from the local to the global and engaging inmultiple regimes of power (eg Clifford 1992101 108)

Introduction 9

Archaeological representations of the past are interwoven with suchmultiple and diverse forms of cultural identity which frequently do notcoincide with the state In addition to lsquonationalistrsquo archaeology Trigger(1984) identified two further types lsquocolonialistrsquo which refers to thearchaeology of countries where European powers have subjected nativepopulations to various forms of institutionalized domination forconsiderable periods of time and lsquoimperialistrsquo or lsquoworld-orientatedrsquoassociated with a small number of states such as the United Kingdom andthe United States of America which have exerted political domination overlarge areas of the world There are many examples of such colonialist andimperialist archaeologies for instance as in the various attempts by theRhodesian colonial regime to attribute the construction of Great Zimbabweto allochthonous peoples (Garlake 19826 Hall 199532ndash42) orarchaeologistsrsquo denial of any ongoing relationship between living AustralianAborigines and their past which was defined as lsquoprehistoricrsquo and lsquodeadrsquo (seeUcko 1983a 1983b 14)

Yet a decade further on it is being argued that Triggerrsquos categories aretoo superficial and generalized to address adequately the multiplicity ofways in which archaeology is used in the construction of identities indifferent regions of the world (eg Ucko 1995b 9) Trigger (1984368)himself acknowledged that the types of archaeology he had defined were notcomprehensive indicating that there is some ambiguity as to whether Israeliarchaeology should be classified as nationalist or colonialist and whetherGerman archaeology of the Kossinna school was nationalist or imperialistgiven the expansionist aims of National Socialism However what theseambiguities suggest is that such exclusive categories are perhaps not veryuseful for characterizing the archaeology of a particular region or countryFor instance the use of archaeology (eg the Bronze Age and the lsquoCelticrsquo IronAge) in the construction of an exclusive representation of European culturalheritage and identity in the context of the European Union (see Jones andGraves-Brown 1996 Megaw and Megaw 1996) does not seem to fall readilyinto any of Triggerrsquos categories Moreover colonial and neo- or post-colonialcontexts illustrate the complex ambivalent relationship betweenarchaeology and the construction of particular cultural identities In manypost-colonial contexts western scientific archaeology and in particularculture-history has been co-opted for the purposes of cultural regenerationand nation-building following the subordination and dislocation broughtabout by colonialism (eg Mangi 1989) Yet whilst such attempts toconstruct a unified national identity are often viewed in a positive light as thelegitimate empowerment of formerly subjugated peoples it is also evidentthat they sometimes involve the suppression of ethnic pluralism within thenew state and in some instances the continuing denial of the existence ofindigenous minorities (see Politis 1995 Ucko 1994) Furthermore althougha western form of archaeology may have played a role in the mobilization of

10 Introduction

liberation movements in North Africa (Mattingly 199657ndash9) and India(Paddayya 1995141) it has also been party to ethnic and religious-basedantagonisms which threaten the existence of contemporary states as in thecase of Muslim-Hindu conflict over the site of Ayodhya in northern India(see Rao 1994 Bernbeck and Pollock 1996) Finally the ways in whichindigenous Fourth-World communities conceptualize the past raise thepossibility of alternative perspectives on the relationship between the pastand identity which are not necessarily compatible with existingarchaeological approaches (see Layton 1989b) Nevertheless indigenouspeoples are often forced into engaging with western conceptions ofcontinuous culture-historical development in order to legitimate their claimsto land and heritage (see Clifford 1988336ndash43 Ucko 1983b16 18) In suchcontexts the issue of whether archaeologists can identify ethnic groups andtheir continuity through time on the basis of distinctive material culturestyles takes on immense political importance

For example the archaeological lsquoevidencersquo of cultural continuity asopposed to discontinuity may make all the difference to an indigenousland claim the right of access to a siteregion or the disposal of ahuman skeleton to a museum as against reburial

(Ucko 1989xiii) Thus the intersection of archaeology with contemporary cultural identitiesis complex extensive and often overtly political in nature a point which isacknowledged by a growing number of archaeologists today Yet the issue ofwhat should be done about the potential problems arising from this situationcontinues to be a source of controversy within the discipline Confronted byconflicting interpretations of the past the crucial problem archaeologistsface is when and how they should arbitrate between multiple competinginterpretations of the past Can archaeologists distinguish between balancedobjective interpretations of the past and distorted ones Or are differentinterpretations just a matter of competing subjectivities and arbitrationbetween one and another simply a matter of political expediency

Such questions intersect with fundamental concerns about objectivity andthe place of political and ethical judgements within the discipline ofarchaeology The relationship between archaeology and the construction ofcontemporary identities whether indigenous ethnic or national illustratesthe socially and politically contingent nature of archaeological knowledgeIn the light of this realization the claim that archaeology provides the onlylegitimate and authoritative approach to the past has been questioned (egUcko 1989 xi) and respect for multiple diverse interpretations of the pastadvocated (eg Shanks and Tilley 1992 [1987]245) Others however havebeen extremely critical of this stance which they set up as a form of extremerelativism

Introduction 11

diversity becomes liability as any review of racist or chauvinistnationalist readings of the past would demonstrate The point isobvious and should not require belabouring but apparently manypost-processualists in England and the United States operate under theillusion that such dangerous undesirable tendencies are behind us andrepresent nothing more than an unfortunate episode in the history ofthe discipline In the real world (eg Southeast Asia China the formerSoviet Union the Middle East continental Europe) such lsquoreadingsrsquo arestill ubiquitous and still dangerous the material culture record all toofrequently is used to justify nationalist aspirations and land claims Inthis light post-processual archaeology seems absurdly academic

(Kohl 1993a15)5

Yet amongst most archaeologists the only response to such qualms about thepossibility of a relativistic slide into multiple equal perspectives on the pastseems to be a demand for an orthodox set of disciplinary criteria forestablishing the validity of competing interpretations of the past on anobjective basis independent from the political realities of the present (egAnthony 1995 Kohl and Fawcett 1995a Yoffee and Sherratt 1993 Trigger1995) In effect they invoke the harsh realities of nationalist conflict as amandate for archaeologists to act as arbitrators distinguishing on the basis ofthe evidence between lsquoobjectiversquo lsquobalancedrsquo interpretations of the past andlsquodistortedrsquo or lsquoimplausiblersquo ones (eg Anthony 199583ndash8 Kohl and Fawcett1995a 8 Kohl and Tsetskhladze 1995168ndash9)

Such a position is not new and represents a similar one to that of Germanand other archaeologists in reaction to the use of the past for politicalpurposes in Nazi Germany The retreat to an empiricist position buttressedby the notion of objectivity allowed political interests to be situated as anexternal influence resulting in distorted interpretations of the past distortionwhich could supposedly be revealed on the basis of the objective analysis ofarchaeological data Archaeologists could stand aside or lsquoclaim that ldquotruthrdquowas being manipulated by ldquoothersrdquo for their own political endsrsquo (Ucko1995b16) However as archaeological facts were considered to be neutral inthemselves archaeologists could only dispute competing interpretations onthe basis of the precision with which the facts had been observed includingwhich material remains related to which particular past lsquopeoplersquo or ethnicgroup (see Veit 198941) As Haumlrke (199556) points out this retreat to apositivist and empiricist position was particularly ironic as it was preciselythe kind of stance lsquowhich had facilitated the Nazi exploitation ofarchaeology in the first place and which may still have undesirable politicalconsequences in spite of its claim to ldquoobjectivityrdquorsquo Indeed it is on the basisof claims to scientific objectivity that particular subjective interpretations ofthe past (including nationalist and fascistic ones) have often gainedlegitimating power (see Shanks and Tilley 1992 [1987]258) undermining

12 Introduction

the claim that such interpretations will gain greater validity in the context ofrecent critiques of objectivity (eg Anthony 199585 OrsquoMeara 1995427ndash8)

The idea of a dichotomy between political influence and value-free sciencecontinues to have considerable resonance with present day demands for there-establishment of an orthodox scientific position to counteract the spectreof what is assumed to be extreme relativism However this dichotomy is inpart founded on an ongoing archaeological naivety connected with thefailure to examine the fundamental but often implicit assumptions thatunderlie archaeological interpretations of ethnicity and consequently the useof archaeology in the construction of contemporary cultural identities Untilarchaeologists explore the ways in which conventional archaeologicalepistemology itself may intersect with racist and nationalist ideologies inparticular through the identification of discrete monolithic cultural entitiesa whole series of implicit values and presuppositions will go unrecognized(see Shanks and Tilley 1992 [1987] 46) Furthermore any effectiveengagement with the use of archaeology in the construction of contemporaryidentities must involve a reassessment of the relationship between materialculture and ethnicity (see Ucko 1989 xiii) The need for such a project isamply illustrated by some of the contradictions evident in recent work onnationalism and the politics of archaeology (eg see contributions to Kohland Fawcett 1995a) To give an example Kohl and Tsetskhladze (1995151)begin their case study of nationalism and archaeology in the Caucasus byarguing that it is difficult to identify ethnic groups on the basis of theirmaterial culture They then suggest that Georgian archaeologists have notbeen lsquoimmune to the ubiquitous temptation to identify prehistoric ethnicgroups on the basis of their material remainsrsquo leading to unascertainableattempts lsquoto identify the ethnicity and linguistic affinities of archaeologicallydocumented culturesrsquo (Kohl and Tsetskhladze 1995158ndash9) Yet two pagesfurther on they assert that Georgians have a legitimate historical claim totheir territory on the basis that Christianity has been an integral componentof their culture and lsquoone simply cannot ignore those beautiful monasterycomplexes and churches with their Georgian inscriptionsrsquo (Kohl andTsetskhladze 1995161) Ultimately then it seems that the lsquobalancedrsquolsquoobjectiversquo and lsquoreliablersquo interpretations of past ethnic groups which theyinsist must be produced can only be made on precisely the same principles ofinterpretation that underlie the lsquounbalancedrsquo and lsquodistortedrsquo representationsof certain nationalist archaeologists

Clearly there is considerable ambivalence about the basic interpretativemethods and assumptions conventionally being used but the desire tomaintain the ideal of an objective and empiricist archaeology prevents acritical and theoretically informed re-evaluation of these methods andassumptions Furthermore diatribes against lsquopost-processual scholasticismrsquo(eg Kohl 1993a16) ironically often dismiss the very kind of research

Introduction 13

concerning material culture and the formation of social and culturalidentities (eg Hodder 1982a Shanks and Tilley 1992 [1987] 172ndash240) thatmay ultimately provide archaeologists with a stronger basis for engagingwith nationalist reconstructions of the past

There is a lacuna in the treatment of cultural identity in archaeology Onthe one hand the identification of past ethnic groups or cultures has been amajor concern within the empiricist framework of traditional archaeologyOn the other hand recent critical studies have focused on the ways in whicharchaeological knowledge is used in the construction of identities in thepresent However neither has for the most part been concerned withformulating new theoretical frameworks for the interpretation of ethnicity inthe past There has been very little explicit analysis of the nature of ethnicityand the relationship between material culture and ethnic identity (exceptionsinclude Dolukhanov 1994 Hodder 1982a Olsen and Kobylinski 1991Shennan 1989b) In contrast there has been a rapid increase in research andtheoretical debate about ethnicity in the human sciences since the late 1960sresulting in a number of important changes in our understanding of socio-cultural differentiation As yet these developments are largely ignored byarchaeologists many of whom continue directly to equate lsquoarchaeologicalculturesrsquo defined on the basis of repeated associations of distinctive materialculture with past ethnic groups

The aim of this book is to provide a critical synthesis of a range of recenttheories of ethnicity in the human sciences and to develop a theoreticalframework for the interpretation of ethnicity in archaeology The approachadopted takes into account the ways in which the concepts and meaningsthat frame our present-day understandings of the past and the objects ofarchaeological study form part of one another and help to constitute oneanother (see Shanks and Tilley 1992 [1987] 256ndash7 McGuire 1992217ndash18)Such a dialectic between past and present means that it is necessary toexplore the ways in which the assumptions and concepts used inarchaeological analysis have been and continue to be influenced bydiscourses of identity in the present (see Jones 1996) How and in whatways are the concepts and frameworks that are employed in theidentification of past ethnic groups socially and historically constituted inthemselves Working from such a critical historicization of currentdiscourses of identity the processes involved in the construction of ethnicityand the relationship between ethnicity and culture can be examined in orderto develop a comparative theoretical framework The argument I developcounteracts the idea that ethnicity constitutes the basic underlying essenceor character of a group of people which persists through time and can betraced back to a unique origin Instead I argue that ethnic identity is basedon shifting situational subjective identifications of self and others whichare rooted in ongoing daily practice and historical experience but alsosubject to transformation and discontinuity As discussed in the Conclusion

14 Introduction

such a theoretically informed analysis of the dynamic and historicallycontingent nature of ethnic identity in the past and in the present has thepotential to subject contemporary claims about the permanent andinalienable status of identity and territorial association to critical scrutiny

15

Chapter 2

The archaeological identification ofpeoples and cultures

A desire to attach an identity to particular objects or monuments mostfrequently expressed in terms of the ethnic group or lsquopeoplersquo who producedthem has figured at the heart of archaeological enquiry (see Hides 1996)From the Renaissance period onwards archaeological material has beenattributed to historically attested peoples such as the Britons RomansSaxons and Danes in England and Germanic tribes of the Heruli and Cimbriin Central Europe Moreover the spread of nationalism during thenineteenth century provided fertile ground for an escalation of interest inarchaeological remains and in particular to tracing their national or ethnicpedigree (see Diacuteaz-Andreu and Champion 1996a Sklenaacuter 1983 Trigger1989) By the early decades of the twentieth century such interests hadbecome explicitly formulated in the methodological principle thatarchaeological culture areas reflect past lsquopeoplesrsquo or ethnic groups as in thework of archaeologists such as Kossinna (1911) and Vere Gordon Childe(1929)

CULTURE-HISTORY

Throughout the nineteenth century chronological and spatial frameworkssuch as the Three Age System and its regional variants were being constructedon the basis of European archaeological material A lsquodirect ethno-historicalrsquomethod was also being developed in the 1860s and 1870s by archaeologistssuch as Vocel and Montelius who attempted to trace particular groups ofpeople back into prehistory on the basis of find associations and horizonsstarting from a point where their presence could be documented by thesynchronization of archaeological and historical sources (Sklenaacuter 198391)Other archaeologists such as Rudolf Virchow the founder of the GermanSociety for Anthropology Ethnology and Prehistory were also concerned withchronology and the definition of ethnic groups from archaeological materialthrough the systematic compilation of typical object types and theirgeographical distribution (Kossack 199280ndash2)

16 Archaeological identification of peoples

It was within this context that Kossinna defined and systematicallyapplied the concept of an archaeological culture in conjunction with thelsquodirect ethno-historicalrsquo method in his book Die Herkunft der Germanen(The Origin of the Germans) published in 1911 His lsquosettlementarchaeologyrsquo was based on the axiom that lsquoin all periods sharply delineatedarchaeological culture areas coincide with clearly recognizable peoples ortribesrsquo (as cited in Childe 195628) Cultures were defined on the basis ofmaterial culture traits associated with sites in a particular region and at aparticular time and it was assumed that cultural continuity indicated ethniccontinuity On the basis of this methodology he claimed that it was possibleto identify major ethnic groups such as the Germans the Slavs and the Celtsin prehistory on the basis of culture provinces while individual culturescorrespond with tribes such as the Vandals and the Lombards (Trigger1989165)

The work of Kossinna and others such as Oswald Menghin establishedthe basis of German archaeological methodology until well into thetwentieth century Although there was often opposition to their particularinterpretations and also to the lsquodirect ethno-historicalrsquo method researchcontinued to focus on the identification of archaeological cultures andimplicitly at least ethnic groups or peoples (see Veit 1989) The work ofKossinna and Menghin also had an influence on British archaeology throughthe work of Childe although he rejected Kossinnarsquos Indo-Germanicinterpretation of European prehistory and to a large extent his racistassumptions (eg see Childe 1933a 1933b 1935)

The early work of Childe (eg 1927 [1925] 1929) has come to beregarded as the defining moment in the establishment of culture-historicalarchaeology in Britain and the development of the culture concept in thesense of the distinctive ways of life of discrete groups of people (eg Daniel1978 [1950] 247 Trigger 198040 43) However although Childe was oneof the first to produce a grand synthesis of European prehistory based on thesystematic application of the culture concept its use was fairlycommonplace in the archaeological literature of the early 1920s Forinstance in an attempt to lsquotrack down the historical Doriansrsquo througharchaeological research Casson (1921212) associated the Dorians with lsquotheappearance and steady development of a culture distinguished by objects ofpottery and bronze known as geometricrsquo Both Casson and those discussinghis paper (eg Bosanquet 1921 Hall 1921) used the culture concept liberallydistinguishing between lsquoDorian culturersquo lsquoMycenian culturersquo lsquoDanubianculturersquo and so on Likewise in their discussion of the Llynfawr hoardCrawford and Wheeler (1921137) referred to the lsquoldquolate Bronze Agerdquo culturecharacterized by finger tip urns razors hoards and square campsrsquo and Fox(192385) spoke of the lsquoHalstatt culturersquo and the lsquopre-La Tegravene iron culturersquoin his study of the archaeology of the Cambridge region Furthermore it isnot difficult to find some of the basic assumptions embodied in the culture

Archaeological identification of peoples 17

concept elaborated in earlier literature even though terms such as lsquoracersquo andlsquoarea of cultivationrsquo were used in place of culture For instance in 1905Greenwell argued that two early Iron Age burials in Yorkshire belonged to acommon group because lsquothere is so much in common in their principal andmore important features that they must be regarded as the burial places ofpeople whose habits and manner of life were similarrsquo (1905306) On thisbasis he argued that in the absence of evidence to the contrary such an lsquoareaof cultivation suggests the existence of people united by affinity of bloodrsquo(Greenwell 1905307) Indeed although it is important to note that lsquoties ofbloodrsquo and lsquoracersquo had been replaced by brief references to ancestry andcommon origins the same emphasis on the correlation of distinctive culturalhabits and ways of life with discrete communities or cultural groups isevident in Crawfordrsquos (1921) discussion of techniques for the identificationof cultures He stated that lsquoculture may be defined as the sum of all the idealsand activities and material which characterise a group of human beings It isto a community what character is to an individualrsquo (ibid 79) and also thatarchaeologists should aim to discover lsquohomogeneous culturesrsquo through theanalysis of a broad range of types and their distribution in space and time(ibid 132)

By comparison to these authors Childersquos (1929) early characterization ofculture was minimalistic In the preface to The Danube in Prehistory hedefined an archaeological culture as lsquocertain types of remainsmdashpotsimplements ornaments burial rites house formsmdashconstantly recurringtogetherrsquo (1929v-vi) However during the 1930s Childe (1933b 1935)elaborated on the nature of archaeological cultures in two papers that wereexplicitly engaged with a critique of the correlation of race witharchaeological and linguistic groupings

Culture is a social heritage it corresponds to a community sharingcommon traditions common institutions and a common way of lifeSuch a group may reasonably be called a peoplehellip It is then a people towhich the culture of an archaeologist must correspond If ethnic be theadjective for people we may say that prehistoric archaeology has agood hope of establishing an ethnic history of Europe while a racialone seems hopelessly remote

(Childe 1935198ndash9) Similar arguments were reiterated in Childersquos later discussions ofarchaeological methodology where he stressed that the arbitrarypeculiarities of artefacts are lsquoassumed to be the concrete expressions of thecommon social traditions that bind together a peoplersquo (Childe 1969[1950]2 see also 195616 31)

In contrast to Kossinna and many others Childe emphasized theimportance of the association of particular artefact types under conditions


suggesting their contemporaneous use in the same society (ie he consideredmaterial assemblages to be more important than individual artefact types)Thus the archaeological culture for Childe was a formal not ageographical or chronological unit Its boundaries had to be establishedempirically from the delineation of cultures rather than by seriation ofindividual types (Trigger 198041ndash3) Nevertheless although Childe stressedthe importance of all aspects of the material record in the description ofarchaeological cultures in practice most were defined on the basis of a smallnumber of diagnostic artefacts (eg Childe 1956121ndash3) Such a reliance ona few diagnostic types became quite extreme in the work of somearchaeologists For instance in a re-evaluation of the British Iron AgeHodson (1964) identified a single culture called the Woodbury complex onthe basis of only three widely distributed type fossilsmdashthe permanent roundhouse the weaving comb and the ring-headed pin (see Figure 21)

The definition of culture areas became the principal means by whichEuropean prehistory was delineated in space and time until at least the 1970s(eg Bordes 1968 Burkitt 1933 Childe 1927 [1925] Erich 1954 1965Hawkes 1940 Piggott 1965) This produced a mosaic of peoples andcultures as expressed in maps tables and charts (see Figures 22 23 and24) In North America nineteenth- and early twentieth-century archaeo-

Figure 21 Schematic diagram illustrating the main elements of the WoodburyCulture as defined by Hodson (1964108)


logy also resulted in a culture-historical approach to the past but theconcepts and techniques involved were the product of somewhat differentdevelopments

One of the major distinctions between the development of NorthAmerican and European archaeology was the perceived relationshipbetween the archaeologistrsquos own cultural history and the archaeologicalpast In Europe archaeological material was often assumed to be theancestral remains of various European peoples and the rise of various formsof nationalism established a vested interest in the study of national originsand histories preferably histories illustrating the great antiquity andcontinuity of the nation concerned Moreover evolutionary archaeologyprovided evidence of the supposed progress and superiority of Europeanpeoples In contrast the prehistoric remains of North America were clearlynot the remains of the forebears of the dominant colonial society andmacro-cultural evolutionary shifts were assumed to be absent in NorthAmerican prehistory as Native American society was regarded as static andlsquoprimitiversquo (Trigger 197893ndash5) Partly as a result of these differences theinitial development of descriptive typology in North American archaeology

Figure 22 Europe in period III Beaker and Battle-axe cultures redrawn fromChilde (1957 [1926]351)


was primarily geographical rather than chronological in stark contrast toEuropean archaeology a chronological framework did not begin to becomeestablished in American archaeology until the early decades of the twentiethcentury

The first culture-historical synthesis in North American archaeology wasKidderrsquos study of archaeological material from nine river drainages in thesouthwest published in 1924 He defined four successive periods or stagesthe Basket Maker post-Basket Maker pre-Pueblo and Pueblo He alsodefined regional variants of this sequence referring on occasion to both theperiods themselves and the regional variants as cultures It is clear thatKidder (1962 [1924]161) regarded archaeological cultures as equivalent tochronological stages for instance when he states that lsquothe investigator mustselect for study those phenomena which most accurately reflect changes inculture or what amounts to the same thing chronological periodsrsquo anapproach which was rejected by others (eg Childe 1927 [1925])Nevertheless his culture-historical scheme represented an important step inthe development of the concept of an archaeological culture in NorthAmerica

Figure 23 Europe in period IV early Bronze Age cultures and trade routesredrawn from Childe (1957 [1926]352)


Kidderrsquos study of southwestern archaeology was taken up by otherarchaeologists who were concerned with its chronological implications andin 1927 the Pecos conference was called with the aim of developing a generalclassificatory system for southwestern archaeology based largely on Kidderrsquosscheme (Trigger 1989189 Willey and Sabloff 1974110) However otherculture classificatory schemes were also being formulated principally byGladwin and McKern who each developed hierarchical dendriticclassificatory schemes in the mid-1930s The categories in these schemesranged from very broadly defined units based on superficial trait similaritiesto very narrowly defined units based on a high degree of trait similarity Forinstance in Mckernrsquos (1939308ndash10) system these categories ranging fromthe broadest to the finest units were termed lsquobasesrsquo lsquopatternsrsquo lsquophasesrsquolsquoaspectsrsquo and lsquofocirsquo (which were further subdivided into lsquocomponentsrsquo)Although both classificatory systems were based on similar hierarchicalschemes Gladwinrsquos system involved territorial dimensions and a temporalelement is implicit in the dendritic framework (Willey and Sabloff1974111) whereas Mckernrsquos system eschewed spatial and temporaldimensions (McKern 1939302ndash3)

These systems of classification established the systematic use of culturalunits for the classification of archaeological data in the United StatesAlthough a specialized terminology was developed in preference to the termlsquoculturersquo these categories constituted formal cultural units rather thanchronological stages and were assumed to represent past tribes or groups ofclosely related tribes (eg McKern 1939302 308) In comparison to Britishculture-historical archaeology American culture-history tended to bedominated by a concern with typological and chronological detail to theexclusion of more ambitious culture-historical reconstruction and theinvestigation of past ways of life (Willey and Sabloff 197488ndash130)Nevertheless classificatory schemes such as those developed by KidderGladwin and McKern ultimately contributed to the definition of a mosaic ofcultures defined in space and time in a similar manner to European culture-history (see Willey and Phillips 1958)

Despite variations in the archaeological traditions of different countriesthe culture-historical paradigm in one form or another has provided thedominant framework for archaeological analysis throughout most of theworld during the twentieth century European and North American culture-history has been lsquoexportedrsquo around the world for instance Germanmethodology to Namibia (Kinahan 199586) the Vienna School toArgentina through the work of Imbelloni and Menghin (Politis 1995202)North American culture-history to Andean and Central American countries(ibid 205) Childe almost everywhere Yet such lsquoexportsrsquo (or impositions)are also transformed at least to some extent by the particular conditionscharacterizing the new context in which they are introduced (see Ucko1995b2)

Figu

re 2

4 T

he a

chie

vem

ent o

f the

Eur

opea

n Br

onze

Age

180

014

00 B

C

afte

r Haw

kes

(194

0 m

ap V

I and

tabl

e VI

)


Trigger (197886) has argued that the widespread adoption of the culture-historical approach in archaeology was stimulated by the need to establish asystem for classifying the spatial and temporal variation that wasincreasingly evident in the archaeological record Similar argumentscontinue to be made with relation to lsquovirginrsquo archaeological territory

In the case of regions which are still archaeologically terra incognita theapplication of the culture-historical approach has enormoussignificance In those areas where a skeletal framework is alreadyavailable perspectives developed by processual and post-processualarchaeologies are particularly useful

(Paddayya 1995139 see also Renfrew 197217)

Such statements seem to imply that culture-history involves the descriptionand classification of variation in material remains without reference to anypreconceived concepts or theory It cannot be denied that human ways of lifevary in space and time and that this variation is frequently manifested insome form or another in material culture However the particularclassificatory framework developed in archaeology in order to deal withsuch variation was and still is based on certain assumptions about thenature of cultural diversity These assumptions tend to have been largelyimplicit due to the empiricist nature of traditional culture-history andstatements about the conceptual framework governing the identification ofpast cultures and peoples were often scarce (exceptions include Childe 1935Crawford 1921 Tallgren 1937)

As we have seen one of the principal assumptions underlying the culture-historical approach is that bounded homogeneous cultural entities correlatewith particular peoples ethnic groups tribes andor races This assumptionwas based on a normative conception of culture that within a given groupcultural practices and beliefs tend to conform to prescriptive ideationalnorms or rules of behaviour Such a conceptualization of culture is based onthe assumption that it is made up of a set of shared ideas or beliefs which aremaintained by regular interaction within the group and the transmission ofshared cultural norms to subsequent generations through the process ofsocialization which purportedly results in a continuous cumulative culturaltradition Childe (19568) was explicit about this process arguing that

Generation after generation has followed societyrsquos prescription andproduced and reproduced in thousands of instances the sociallyapproved standard type An archaeological type is just that

It is clear that Childe regarded culture as an essentially conservativephenomenon a view which was common within a diffusionist andmigrationist framework Internal cultural change and innovation wasperceived as a slow and gradual process amongst most cultural groups withthe exception of a few particularly creative groups These latter groups were


considered to be centres of innovation and change either because of theirinherent biological or cultural characteristics or because of theirenvironmental circumstances Gradual change was attributed to internaldrift in the prescribed cultural norms of a particular group whereas suddenlarge-scale changes were explained in terms of external influences such asdiffusion resulting from culture contact or the succession of one culturalgroup by another as a result of migration and conquest lsquoDistributionalchanges [in diagnostic types] should reflect displacements of population theexpansions migrations colonizations or conquests with which literaryhistory is familiarrsquo (Childe 1956135)

Thus the transmission of cultural traitsideas was generally assumed byarchaeologists to be a function of the degree of interaction betweenindividuals or groups A high degree of homogeneity in material culture hasbeen regarded as the product of regular contact and interaction (eg Gifford1960341ndash2) whereas discontinuities in the distribution of material culturewere assumed to be the result of social andor physical distanceConsequently the socialphysical distance between distinct past populationscould be lsquomeasuredrsquo in terms of degrees of similarity in archaeologicalassemblages

This conceptualization of culture has been referred to as the lsquoaquatic viewof culturersquo

culture is viewed as a vast flowing stream with minor variations inideational norms concerning appropriate ways of making pots gettingmarried [and so on]hellip These ideational variations are periodicallylsquocrystallizedrsquo at different points in time and space resulting indistinctive and sometimes striking cultural climaxes which allow us tobreak up the continuum of culture into cultural phases

(Binford 1965204)

Continuities in the flow are a product of contact and interactiondiscontinuities a product of distance and separation However althoughBinfordrsquos lsquoaquaticrsquo metaphor captures the diffusionist orientation of much ofthe culture-historical literature he over-emphasizes the extent to whichculture is conceptualized as a vast continuum in culture-historicalarchaeology Cultures with an emphasis on the plural were often viewed asdistinct entities despite the flow of ideas between them and were reified asactors on an historical stage Hence Childe argued that on the basis ofarchaeological cultures lsquoprehistory can recognize peoples and marshal themon the stage to take the place of the personal actors who form the historianrsquostroupersquo (Childe 19402 see also Piggott 19657) Moreover thelsquocrystallizationrsquo of variation at different points in time and space constitutesthe basis of the culture-historianrsquos framework so that the resultingreconstruction of prehistory comprises a mosaic of cultures a lsquotypologicalrsquoconceptualization of space and time measured in terms of socio-culturally


meaningful events such as contacts migrations and conquests and intervalsbetween them (cf Fabian 198323)

SOCIAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNICITY AN AMBIVALENTRELATIONSHIP

The demise of culture-history as a dominant paradigm in archaeology atleast in Anglo-American archaeology was brought about by theestablishment of processual or new archaeology with its conceptualizationof culture as a system and its emphasis on the functionalist explanation ofsocial process and cultural evolution To a certain extent the development ofprocessual archaeology was stimulated by disillusionment with thedescriptive nature of archaeological research Whilst traditional archaeologyhad been largely satisfied with tracing what happened in prehistory in termsof cultures and their movements archaeologists in the 1950s and 1960sbecame increasingly concerned with how and even why cultural changeoccurred (eg Willey and Phillips 19585ndash6) For instance it was emphasizedthat the correlation of a distinct cultural break in the archaeological recordwith migration does not adequately explain the social processes involvedInstead it is necessary to examine why migration occurred and how itoperated on past societies

As part of their lsquomanifestorsquo the new archaeologists launched an attack onthe normative concept of culture which had dominated traditionalarchaeology It was argued that culture constitutes an integrated system madeup of different functioning sub-systems and as a corollary archaeologicalremains must be regarded as the product of a variety of past processes ratherthan simply a reflection of ideational norms (eg Binford 1962 1965 Clarke1978 [1968]) Culture was conceptualized as an adaptive mechanism and avariety of functionalist-oriented ecological and neo-evolutionary approacheswere developed with the aim of analysing various dimensions of past socio-cultural systems In particular research focused on the application ofpredictive law-like models in the interpretation of technological and economicsystems but other dimensions of society such as ideology politicalorganization and symbolism also became distinct foci of analysis within thesystemic approach (for an historical review see Trigger 1989)

As a result of these developments descriptive historical reconstructions ofpast cultures and peoples were pushed into the background of archaeologicalinterpretation by the establishment of a new hegemony focusing on thefunctionalist and processual analysis of past socio-cultural systems Withinthis new framework the interpretation of ethnic groups remained almostindelibly tied to traditional descriptive culture-history relegated to a sterileand marginal position in the interpretative agenda a marginalization whichwas reflected in a decline in explicit references to ethnic entities in theliterature concerned with social analysis and explanation (Olsen and


Kobylinski 199110 Moberg 198521) The main exception has been in thefield of historical archaeology where the existence of historical references tospecific ethnic groups has resulted in the perpetuation of the lsquoethnic labellingrsquoof sites and objects Straightforward correlations between particular formsand styles of material culture and particular ethnic groups have continued todominate historical archaeology (eg Elston et al 1982 Etter 1980 Staski198753ndash4) but the continued interest in ethnicity has also resulted in someinnovative theoretical approaches (eg Burley et al 1992 Horvath 1983McGuire 1982 1983 Praetzellis et al 1987)

Although the identification of archaeological cultures and their distributionin space and time ceased to be regarded as an adequate explanation of thearchaeological record or an end in itself such concerns were not discardedaltogether Indeed whilst social archaeology has been committed to theexplanation of settlement systems trade networks social ranking politicalsystems and ideology the traditional culture unit has survived as the basic unitof description and classification inevitably shadowed by the implicitconnotation of a corresponding social or ethnic group even where such acorrelation has been criticized For instance Bradley (198489 94) makesfrequent references to the lsquoWessex Culturersquo Renfrew (1972187 1911973187) to the lsquoPhylokopi I Culturersquo and the lsquoCopper Age cultures of theBalkansrsquo and Sherratt (198217) refers to the lsquoSzakaacutelhaacutetrsquo and lsquoTiszarsquo cultures

For some (eg Binford 1965) the retention of a normative culture conceptwas justified because whilst functional aspects of material culture were nolonger considered to be appropriate for the identification of cultures orethnic groups such information was still assumed to be held in non-functional stylistic traits (see Chapter 6) However many people adopted apragmatic position similar to Renfrew (1972 1979 see also Hodson 1980)arguing that the archaeological culture and the typological method were stillnecessary for the basic description and classification of the lsquofactsrsquo prior to theprocess of explanation

While the simple narration of events is not an explanation it is anecessary preliminary We are not obliged to reject Crocersquos statement(quoted in Collingwood 1946 192) lsquoHistory has only one duty tonarrate the factsrsquo but simply to find it insufficient The firstpreliminary goal of an archaeological study must be to define theculture in question in space and time Only when the culture has beenidentified defined and described is there any hope of lsquotaking it apartrsquo totry to reach some understanding of how it came to have its ownparticular form

(Renfrew 197217)

This statement reveals the distinction between empirical description andclassification (lsquowherersquo and lsquowhenrsquo questions) and social explanation andinterpretation (lsquohowrsquo and lsquowhyrsquo questions) which has been and continues to


be intrinsic to socialprocessual archaeology Cultures and ethnic groupsremain firmly located at the empirical descriptive level of archaeologicalresearch whilst other aspects of society are seen as components making up adynamic cultural system (eg Renfrew 1972) Furthermore whilst such adistinction between empirical description and explanation has been the focusof post-processual critiques (eg Hodder 1986 Shanks and Tilley 1992[1987]) these have not for the most part been associated with areconsideration of the interpretation of ethnicity in archaeology focusinginstead largely on symbolic and ideological systems

There are a number of exceptions to this general picture all of whichinvolve the transposition of ethnic groups and ethnicity from the domain ofdescription and classification to that of explanation and interpretation asdistinguished within processual archaeology Thus Olsen (198513) remarksthat Odnerrsquos (1985) re-analysis of Saami ethnogenesis lsquois mainly concernedwith the question why Saami ethnicity emerged and how it has beenmaintainedrsquo rather than the traditional when and where questions This shiftinvolves a reconceptualization of ethnicity as an aspect of socialorganization often related to economic and political relationships and inparticular inter-group competition Ethnic identity it is argued involves theactive maintenance of cultural boundaries in the process of socialinteraction rather than a passive reflection of cultural norms Ethnicity thusbecomes an aspect of social process and yet another component in the socialsystem alongside subsistence economics politics religion and so on whichrequires processual analysis in stark contrast to its previous status as apassive normative backdrop1

Such a reconceptualization of ethnicity as an aspect of social organizationhas resulted in two main areas of research (1) Studies that are concernedwith the relationship between material culture and ethnic symbolism (egHodder 1982a Larick 1986 Haaland 1977 Praetzellis et al 1987 Shennan1989b Washburn 1989) For instance on the basis of ethno-archaeologicalresearch Hodder (1982a) has argued that there is rarely a one-to-onecorrelation between cultural similarities and differences and ethnic groupsHe demonstrated that the kinds of material culture involved in ethnicsymbolism can vary between different groups and that the expression ofethnic boundaries may involve a limited range of material culture whilstother material forms and styles may be shared across group boundaries (2)Research that is concerned with the role of ethnicity in the structuring ofeconomic and political relationships (eg Blackmore et al 1979 Brumfiel1994 Kimes et al 1982 McGuire 1982 Odner 1985 Olsen 1985 PerlsteinPollard 1994) For instance Brumfiel (1994) argues that in the Aztec stateethnicity was a tool fashioned to suit the needs of particular politicalfactions The Aztecs sought to override particularistic ethnic identities withinregional elites but at the same time promoted derogatory ethnic stereotypeswhich served to reinforce the superiority of the civil state culture (an


argument which has parallels with recent explanations of Romanization seepp 33ndash6 below)

However such studies are sporadic and tend to be confined to specificisolated case studies Despite the important implications for archaeologygenerally this recent research into ethnicity has not had an extensive impacton the discipline Consequently ethnicity and the relationship betweencultures and ethnic groups remains a problematic area of archaeologicalanalysis On the one hand the identification of ethnic groups is based uponimplicit assumptions inherited from traditional archaeology and located inthe domain of the supposedly pre-theoretical description of the empiricalevidence On the other ethnicity has been elevated in a few instances to thestatus of social process subject to archaeological explanation Thus anartificial dichotomy between empirical description and social interpretationpersists in a great deal of archaeological research and the position of ethnicgroups within this dichotomy is ambivalent This situation can be furtherexplored through a more detailed consideration of existing interpretations ofa particular region and period the late Iron Age and early Roman period inBritain

THE CASE OF ROMANIZATION

The historical moment of the Roman conquest has profoundly structured theinterpretation of the archaeological remains dating to between 100 BC andAD 200 in northwestern Europe including a large area of Britain Theincorporation of late Iron Age societies2 within the Roman Empire has beentaken to constitute a temporal boundary between past cultures and betweennon-literate and literate societies and this in turn has provided the basis fora period boundary and a split between prehistoric and classical archaeologywhich can be traced back as far as the eighteenth century (Cunliffe 1988)Recent research has focused on the nature of interaction between late pre-Roman Iron Age and Roman societies and the persistence andtransformation of late Iron Age socio-economic and political structuresfollowing their incorporation within the Roman Empire (see pp 33ndash6below) However throughout much of the history of archaeological researchthe boundary between the late Iron Age and Roman periods has constituteda rigid framework which has structured the interpretation of culturalidentity as it has other dimensions of past social and cultural organization3

The interpretation of cultural identity or ethnicity in the late pre-RomanIron Age in Britain has traditionally been subsumed within a culture-historical framework Hawkes (1931) developed the first standard culturalclassification for the entire Iron Age defining three major archaeologicalcultures Iron Age A B and C and the scheme was subsequently popularizedby Childe (1940) The ABC classification was based upon a migrationistframework in which continental Iron Age societies were regarded as the


major source of innovation and change which spread to peripheral areassuch as Britain as a result of the movement of peoples Iron Age A wasdefined on the basis of Halstatt-style material culture Iron Age B on thebasis of La Tegravene-style material culture and Iron Age C on the basis of adistinctive cremation burial rite wheel-turned pottery and late La Tegravenemetalwork in restricted areas of Britain4 Within these major culturecategories distinctive distributions of material culture such as regionalpottery styles have been interpreted in terms of immigrant peoples such asthe Marnians and the Belgae who were supposedly derived from differentregions of the continent For instance Childe regarded the Iron Age Ahaematite pottery present at All-Cannings Cross Meon Hill andHengistbury Head as the cultural manifestation of Jogassian immigrants(1940204ndash6) Similarly he interpreted burials and stray objects regarded ascharacteristic of the La Tegravene tradition in East Anglia as the culture oflsquoMarnian Chieftainsrsquo who established control of the lsquoHalstatt peasantryrsquo andlater founded the Iceni tribe (ibid 222)

Such peoples and their cultures provided the framework for the spatialand temporal classification of data and the explanation of culture changethroughout the Iron Age However as Champion (1975128) points out intheir analysis of the Iron Age lsquoarchaeologists have too readily constructed aldquoculturerdquo from nothing more than a single pottery type and invoked theethnic interpretation for its distributionrsquo The strict definition of anarchaeological culture as a regularly recurring assemblage of artefacts waswaived by Childe (1940) in his identification of immigrant peoples and theircultures in Britain on the basis of fine-ware pottery styles alone Heexplained the absence of recurring and parallel assemblages as a result ofeither the invasion of only the elite members of society or a supposedcultural degeneration due to the stress of migration The unrestrainedapplication of the culture concept in the identification of immigrant groupsof people was subjected to a critique by Hodson (1960 1962 1964) whodeveloped an alternative framework based on the definition of a broadindigenous culture the lsquoWoodbury complexrsquo which was itself only based onthree cultural traits (see Figure 21) However the underlying ideas remainedthe same that is the archaeological culture as the basic unit of analysis andthe explanation of culture change in terms of invasion or trade (Champion1975 1984 [1979]) Within this framework Iron Age research has beenlargely preoccupied with typology and chronology and the desire to traceprototypes and parallels between Britain and the European continent(Champion 1984 [1979]146)

The identification of cultures and peoples in the archaeological record hasbeen reinforced in the late Iron Age by the existence of historical referencesto the inhabitants of pre-Roman Britain which have dominatedarchaeological interpretation Historically attested peoples have beenconceptualized as tribes and chiefdoms as well as ethnic groups and it


appears that ethnic groups are often implicitly regarded as commensuratewith the former two categories which have also been attributed politicaldimensions Stylistic variations in late pre-Roman Iron Age pottery and thedistribution of coin types have been used in the identification of these tribesor ethnic groups such as the Dobunni the Durotrigues the Iceni theCatuvellauni the Belgae and so on (eg Cunliffe 1978 [1974] see Figure25)5

Attempts to force archaeological evidence into an historical frameworkbased on the activities of individuals and groups has often provedunproductive For instance the appearance of the distinctive wheel-turnedpottery and burial rites of the Aylesford-Swarling culture has beenassociated with the migration of the Belgae into south-eastern England onthe basis of Caesarrsquos observations in Gallic War (V 12) (eg Hawkes andDunning 1930) However Birchallrsquos (1965) chronological reassessment ofthe Aylesford-Swarling type pottery demonstrated that most of it was laterthan Caesarrsquos incursion into south-eastern England underminingassertions that this pottery provides evidence for Belgic invasions around75 BC6

Nevertheless these historically attested categories have beenmaintained and to some extent integrated within the broader ABC culture-historical framework The Iceni have been interpreted as descendants ofthe supposed Iron Age B Marnian invaders (eg Childe 1940222) whereasthe Belgae are associated with Iron Age C and there is some debate as towhich of the Iron Age tribes in south-east England are Belgic and which arenot (eg Rodwell 1976) However for the most part the historical evidencefor particular named peoples constitutes a distinct superstructure which israrely explored in a detailed manner in terms of the nature of such peoplesand the meaning of the stylistic patterns which have been traditionallyassociated with them Consequently these abstract cultural and historicalcategories have persisted alongside and as a backdrop to the analysis ofIron Age socio-economic and political organization (eg Cunliffe 1978[1974]) In a few instances the distribution of particular styles of potteryhas been re-examined and socio-economic explanations advocated inopposition to the traditional ethnic interpretation (eg Peacock 1969 seealso the debate between Blackmore et al 1979 and Peacock 1979)Moreover the nature of late Iron Age stylistic distributions and theirrelationship to ethnic groups has occasionally been critically examined(eg Blackmore et al 1979 Hodder 1977a 1977b Kimes et al 1982)Nevertheless the ethnic entities themselves remain intact Whether or noteconomic explanations are offered for particular styles of material (egPeacock 1969 1979) or the boundaries of ethnic groups themselves are re-analysed in terms of socio-economic and political factors (eg Blackmoreet al 1979) the late Iron Age is still conceptualized as a mosaic of boundedmonolithic ethnic or tribal units

Figure 25 A typical representation of late pre-Roman Iron Age tribalethnicboundaries based on the distribution of regional pottery styles (redrawn afterCunliffe 1990535 where the caption reads lsquoEthnogenesis in southern BritainDistribution of distinctive pottery styles reflecting possible ethnic divisionsrsquo)


In contrast to the investigation of spatial boundaries marking thesupposed territories of discrete groups in the late pre-Roman Iron Age theanalysis of culture and identity following the Roman conquest isreconfigured in terms of a temporal boundary between the broad culturalcategories of lsquonativersquo and lsquoRomanrsquo Close contact between Roman andnative societies following the Roman conquest in Britain is assumed to haveinitiated a brief period of culture change ultimately resulting in the synthesisof Romano-British culture and societymdasha process which has been calledRomanization

There are few detailed theoretical statements about what Romanizationmight have entailed but several elements can be isolated from the literaturePrimarily it is taken to describe the cultural processes which result from theinteraction between two supposedly distinct cultures The nature of thischange has been assumed by most to involve the progressive adoption ofRoman culture by indigenous populations including Roman speech andmanners political franchise town life market economy material culturearchitecture and so on (eg Haverfield 1923 [1912]) Although it has beensuggested that Romanization was a two-way process resulting in thesynthesis of both Roman and native culture (eg Haverfield 1923 [1912]Millett 1990a) it is still assumed primarily to involve the adoption of Romanculture by indigenous populations Moreover this adoption of Romanculture has also been taken to reflect the adoption of Roman identity Forinstance in The Romanization of Roman Britain Haverfield (1923[1912]22 my emphasis) stated that

Romanization extinguished the difference between Roman andprovincial through all parts of the Empire but the East alike in speechin material culture in political feeling and religion When theprovincials called themselves Roman or when we call them Roman theepithet is correct

As a form of culture change resulting from the incorporation of one culture byanother the concept of Romanization has many parallels with the concept ofacculturation as used in anthropology and sociology between the 1920s and1960s (see Chapter 3) Both concepts have been developed within a commonframework of thought derived from the colonial era and a widespread interestin the assimilation and modernization of non-western societies (Hingley199191 1996 Slofstra 198371 Webster 19964ndash5) The use of the conceptof Romanization in British archaeology was embedded in a framework ofnineteenth- and early twentieth-century imperial politics with particularreference to India (eg Haverfield 1911) Anthropological studies ofacculturation and culture contact were often related to the practicalapplication of anthropology in colonial areas in the 1920s and 1930sparticularly in British anthropology (Beals 1953376ndash9) Furthermore as wellas sharing a concern with colonial and imperial relations the study of both


Romanization and acculturation tends to consist of the description of culturaltraits with little theoretical discussion or analysis of the dynamics ofacculturation (eg Beals 1932 Redfield et al 1936)7

The concepts of Romanization and acculturation sit easily within aculture-historical framework The processes of change traditionallyassociated with both concepts are based on the assumption of a one-to-onecorrelation between culture and ethnic identity and the idea that culturalcontact and conquest result in the rapid transmission of cultural traits andideas Hence the traditional interpretations of late Iron Age tribalboundaries and Romanization are based upon similar principles the maindifference being that Romanization constitutes an all-encompassingtemporal boundary which seemingly obliterates pre-conquest spatialdifferentiation

Recent research into Romanization has attempted to break down thetemporal boundary between late Iron Age and Roman society in order toexamine the heterogeneous social and cultural processes transcending theRoman conquest The analysis of cultural change in the early Roman Empirein western Europe is still largely embedded in acculturation theory forinstance Millet (1990a1ndash2 see also Slofstra 1983) considers Romanizationto be a form of acculturation which he defines as the interaction of twocultures leading to the exchange of information and traits However there isa shift in the nature of research away from the description of cultural traitsand towards a concern with the economic and political dimensions ofRomanization and the nature of Roman imperialism (Millett 1990b35)Within this framework greater emphasis is placed upon the analysis ofpotential variation between the indigenous socio-cultural systems of thepeoples involved in Romanization at different times and in different regionsof the western Empire

It has been argued that the Roman Empire did not have the bureaucraticapparatus to sustain widespread intervention nor did it follow an activepolicy of Romanization in the provinces (eg Blagg and Millett 1990Haselgrove 1987a 1990 Millett 1990a 1990b) On the contrary it has beensuggested that although the Romans may have encouraged the adoption ofRoman practices and cultural styles in some instances the impetus for suchprocesses was essentially locally driven the lsquomotor for Romanization can beseen as internally driven rather than externally imposedrsquo (Millett 1990b38)Although there is some variation in theoretical approach the protagonists ofsuch a position have tended to argue that the development of the westernEmpire was assisted by underlying similarities in the principles of socialreproduction that characterized both the late Iron Age societies of westernEurope and the patron-client relationships of the Roman Empire(Haselgrove 199045) It has been suggested that late Iron Age societies wereessentially characterized by a hierarchical system of ranking based oncompetitive emulation and relationships of clientage Within such a system


of social reproduction power and identity were already dependent uponparticipation in groupings of increasing scales of inclusion (Haselgrove1987105) The Roman Empire was able to extend this scale of participationand dependency through the establishment of patronmdashclient relationshipswith the local elite enabling the Empire to maintain power over the westernprovinces through existing social structures with minimal military andadministrative intervention (Haselgrove 1987 Millett 1990a 1990b) In thiscontext it is argued Roman culture became the focus of the existing systemof competitive emulation access to Roman material items and the adoptionof Roman ways of life became the means by which the hierarchical positionsof the elite were constituted and maintained (Haselgrove 1987117 Millett1990a 69) In turn it is argued that the behaviour of the elite was emulatedby other sections of society providing the impetus for the more widespreadchanges in architecture and material culture associated with Romanization(Haselgrove 199045 see also Millett 1990a)

This approach suggests that the changing circumstances surrounding theRoman conquest of large areas of western Europe were associated with ashift in the locus of power and status but at the same time many of theseprocesses represent a continuation if in a transformed state of existing pre-conquest structures of social reproduction (Haselgrove 199067) A furtherimportant element is that the social and cultural change resulting from theRoman conquest is regarded as the product of the varying social structuresand histories that characterized relationships between different late Iron Agesocieties and the Roman Empire (eg Haselgrove 1990 Hingley 19841989) For instance Haselgrove (199046 my emphasis) argues thathowever uniform the eventual outcome in material terms Romanizationrepresents lsquothe aggregate of processes operating essentially at a local levelpeople by people Even within a single province the form and degree ofchange varied between different groups and regionsrsquo

Such research has contributed to a broader understanding of the socialand cultural processes transcending the Roman conquest and has played animportant role in the analysis of socio-political relations and their potentialintersection with the process of Romanization However this work has beenalmost exclusively concerned with the emulation of Roman material culturein the legitimation of political power There has been very little considerationof the ways in which the production and consumption of Roman-stylematerial culture may have become enmeshed in the reproduction andtransformation of ethnic identity In this way recent research intoRomanization reflects a general trend in archaeological analysis in whichvariation in material culture which was traditionally perceived in terms ofcultural and ethnic relationships is now interpreted in terms of socio-economic and political relationships Yet at the same time the assumedexistence of bounded monolithic ethnic groups or tribes in the late Iron Ageremains a part of the interpretative framework of such research (eg


Haselgrove 199046) and the boundaries of these groups are still identifiedon the basis of stylistic variation (eg Millett 1990a esp ch 2)Furthermore the adoption of Roman-style material culture is still assumedimplicitly at least to reflect an identification with the Roman Empire Therehave been very few attempts to explore critically the relationship betweencultural variation and ethnic identity For the most part assumptions aboutthe relationship between culture and ethnicity remain part of a receivedimplicit framework rather than the subject of analysis

An examination of a number of late Iron Age and early Roman sites inEssex and Hertfordshire (see Figure 26) reveals that assumptions about thebounded monolithic nature of cultural and ethnic entities also continue tounderlie the chronological and spatial classification of material culture Ingeneral the detailed description and interpretation of particular artefactassemblages and site histories in addition to the interpretation ofRomanization is ultimately based upon lsquoreading from style to historyrsquo(Davis 199023) That is a stylistic grouping whether in a single class ofartefact or an assemblage of artefacts is held to be lsquoco-extensive with someother grouping of historical data or with actual historical entitiesmdashwithartists workshops ldquoperiodsrdquo or ldquophasesrdquo of cultural and social historyrsquo(ibid 24) Furthermore it is often the case that whereas the traditionalculture-historical narrative has been abandoned the associated classificatoryframework has been maintained reinforcing an empiricist tendency inarchaeology to substitute the mere identification of material entities in placeof the interpretation of social entities (Miller 19852ndash3)

For instance the categories lsquolate Iron Agersquo lsquoRomanrsquo and to a lesserdegree lsquoRomanizedrsquo play an important role in the description andinterpretation of material remains Of the locally produced pottery grog-tempered wheel-turned pottery is classified as lsquonativersquo whereas sand-tempered kiln-fired pottery which increases in incidence throughout the firstand second centuries AD is classified as lsquoRomanrsquo (eg Hawkes and Hull1947157 Parminter 1990178 181 Partridge 1981351) Changes inarchitectural style are generally regarded as a reflection of Romanization(eg Partridge 198152) and classified as such in site reports For instancetimber rectilinear buildings of sill-beam construction are usually categorizedas a lsquoRomanrsquo architectural style (eg Neal et al 199034 91) Suchcategories which accommodate a heterogeneous set of artefacts andarchitectural styles and tend to compress them into a neat temporal andspatial framework are maintained at the expense of a detailed analysis ofvariation in the material remains incorporated within them For instanceHawkes and Hull (1947257) argue that whilst it is possible to define avariety of types of lsquopure nativersquo and lsquoRomano-British or Romanrsquo pottery themass of fine-ware pottery lsquoexhibits intermediate Romanizing character insuch a variety of gradations that any attempt at close definition would bemislie the neglect of so-called Romanized locally produced pottery in the

Figu

re 2

6 L

ocat

ion

map

sho

win

g th

e m

ain

arch

aeol

ogic

al s

ites

datin

g to

the

late

pre

-Rom

an Ir

on A

ge a

nd e

arly

Rom

an p

erio

d in

Esse

x an

d H

ertfo

rdsh

ire


more recent excavation reports for the sites in Essex and Hertfordshire bothin terms of publication and detailed classification (eg Rodwell 1988Parminter 1990)

Even the dating of material on the sites considered here is structured bypreconceived ideas about the nature of reified historical entities such ascultures and peoples Dating is almost entirely achieved through acombination of the historical association of artefacts such as Samian potteryand coinage relative typological chronologies and the stratigraphicsequences of particular sites In practice there tends to be a heavy reliance ondating by historical association and the seriation of types The assignation ofcalendar dates to Romano-British (and late Iron Age) sites depends upon achain of association which ultimately stops with the Classical textsHowever this historical method relies upon the assumption that artefacts ofa similar style andor known date of manufacture were deposited at the sametime thus disregarding potential fluctuations in the production circulationand consumption of artefacts (Going 199296 111)

The dating of much of the material on the sites such as brooches andlocally produced pottery tends to be based on relative typological sequenceswhich are also ultimately tied into calendrical dates by association withSamian and coinage chronologies The basic principle underlying relativetypological sequences is that lsquothe genealogy of objects [can] be established byinspecting them and by arranging them in an appropriate order so that likegoes with likersquo (Renfrew 197914) Such a principle when used as anindicator of temporal progression is based upon two crucial assumptions (1)that change is a gradual regular process which occurs in a uniform mannerusually throughout a spatially homogeneous area and (2) that a prime causein variation in design is date of manufacture (Spratling 1972279ndash80 seealso Davis 1990) These assumptions are enshrined in techniques of seriationin archaeology and are derived from ideas about culture and cultural changewithin traditional culture-historical archaeology Namely that dissimilarassemblages reflect social and or physical distance and are either the productof different peoples or of different periods whereas similar artefacts andassemblages are a product of the same group of people at a particular periodof time In the case of both historical and typological dating these ideas aretaken as given and used in the construction of temporal frameworks withthe result that assumptions about the bounded monolithic nature of cultureand identity are substantiated and reinforced (eg Partridge 198151ndash2Butcher 1990115)

The case of Romanization illustrates that abstract cultural and ethniccategories remain a fundamental part of the conceptualization of the past inarchaeology despite critiques of culture-history Such categories provide abasic framework for the classification and description of the evidence andtheir assumed existence continues to underlie the analysis of other aspects ofsocio-cultural organization Hence in many instances an essentially culture-


historical framework persists disguised by the recent explicit concern withsocial relations and social process

It is only through such an examination of a particular body ofarchaeological knowledge that it is possible to dissect the complex matrix ofpreconceived ideas concerning cultures and peoples which are perpetuatedwithin the discipline The extent to which such ideas inform variousdimensions of archaeological theory and practice highlights the need tomake explicit the nature and origins of these ideas and to re-evaluate themin the light of current theories of ethnicity All too often concepts such aslsquoethnic grouprsquo and lsquoculturersquo are regarded as natural categories and it isimportant to consider the historical contingency of these concepts within thehuman sciences

40

Chapter 3

Taxonomies of differenceThe classification of peoples in the humansciences

In the social sciences the progress of knowledge presupposes progress inour knowledge of the conditions of knowledge That is why it requiresone to return persistently to the same objectshellip each doubling-back isan opportunity to objectify more completely onersquos objective subjectiverelation to the object

(Bourdieu 19901)

In the history of the lsquowesternrsquo human sciences a concern with humanphysical and cultural diversity has been primarily located in the realm ofanthropology where diversity has been a central motif Indeed Stocking(19883) has retrospectively characterized the history of anthropologicalthought as lsquothe systematic study of human unity-in-diversityrsquo Howeverdespite this enduring concern with diversity the concepts that have beenused in the classification of difference have not remained static and theirmeaning and orientation have been influenced by different questions atdifferent times during the history of anthropology In the last two to threedecades there has been a rapid growth in the study of ethnicity and the termlsquoethnicrsquo has been applied to a wide range of socio-cultural groups formerlydefined as racial cultural tribal linguistic andor religious The adoption ofthe concept of ethnicity did not merely represent a change in terminology italso embodied one of a number of theoretical shifts in the way in whichhuman groups have been conceptualized and understood within the historyof the human sciences Concepts such as lsquoethnicrsquo lsquoracersquo lsquotribersquo and lsquoculturersquodo not reflect universal and unchanging divisions of humanity On thecontrary they represent specific historically contingent ways of looking atthe world which intersect with broader social and political relationsFurthermore earlier approaches to the classification of human diversityoften constrain influence and persist alongside more recent perspectives

RACE CULTURE AND LANGUAGE IN NINETEENTH-CENTURYTHOUGHT

The early nineteenth century witnessed the re-emergence of a concern withhuman diversity per se and consequently the classification of human groups

Taxonomies of difference 41

Prior to this period an interest in diversity had been side-tracked by theEnlightenment concern with the universal development of civilization(Stocking 198719) Although knowledge of lsquoexoticrsquo customs had beenincreasing throughout the eighteenth century philosophers such as LockeFergusen and Kames were largely interested in diversity with relation todefining the temporal stages of human progress The concepts oflsquocivilizationrsquo or lsquoculturersquo related to a singular process through which all ofhumanity progressed There was lsquono real notion of culture as the constitutingmedium of different worldsrsquo (ibid) Thus the early nineteenth century marksa significant shift in the study of humanity with the emergence of the ideathat human groups were essentially distinct primordial entitiescharacterized by specific physical qualitiesmdasha transformation primarilyembodied in the concept of lsquoracersquo (Banton 197718 Biddiss 197911Stocking 196821ndash41)1

There was considerable disagreement about the nature of race during thenineteenth century (see Hunt 1863) and a complex relationship existedbetween cultural and historical conceptions of race and biological andhereditary notions of race To a certain extent these different conceptions ofrace coincided with the development of the concept within two distincttraditions of thought which persisted if in different forms throughout thenineteenth century (1) a physical lsquoanthropologicalrsquo tradition which wasclosely aligned with comparative anatomy (Stocking 19884ndash5) (2) anlsquoethnologicalrsquo tradition which was closely related to comparative linguistics(philology) and existing national traditions of Christian chronology datingfrom the sixteenth century (Stocking 1973xindashxli 198750)2

In the earlier part of the nineteenth century the conceptualization of racewithin these two traditions differed in a number of important respects Theanthropological tradition can be traced to the work of early anatomists suchas Cuvier who produced racial classifications on the basis of physiologicaland anatomical studies (see Banton 1977 Stocking 1968)3 Cuvier himselfdid not challenge the Biblical paradigm of the essential unity of the humanspecies (Kennedy 1973143) but others such as Knox in Britain and Nottand Gliddon in America used the rigidity of anatomically defined racialtypes to argue that different races had distinct originsmdasha theory known aspolygenism4 In support of their claim polygenists placed considerableemphasis on the permanent nature of racial types arguing that hybridoffspring were infertile (Banton 197751) Furthermore the concept of racecame to be used in a deterministic fashion in that mental and culturalcharacteristics were seen to be a direct reflection of physical structure(Biddiss 197912 Odum 19677)

The concept of race was also central to the ethnological tradition but theemphasis was placed on philology and national genealogy an approachwhich was reinforced by the Romantic movement of the late eighteenth andearly nineteenth centuries Linguistic characteristics were considered to be

42 Taxonomies of difference

the most reliable indicators of race and ethnologists such as Prichard (1973[1813]) used linguistic similarities to trace historical relationships betweendifferent races (Poliakov 1974 [1971]258 Stocking 198751) In contrast tothe anthropological tradition the ethnologists endorsed the monogenistictheory that all human groups possessed a common origin In support of thisview they emphasized the fluidity of racial categories over time and usuallyargued that races had diverged as a result of different environmentalconditions (Stocking 198750ndash1)

The forms of classification and explanation which characterized physicalanthropology and ethnology during the earlier part of the nineteenth centurywere structured by the debate between the monogenists and the polygenistsabout the question of a single versus multiple human origins (see Banton1977 Odum 1967 Stocking 1987) However the basis of this debate wasdestroyed during the 1860s and 1870s following the acceptance ofpalaeontological evidence for the deep antiquity of humanity and the impactof Darwinian evolutionary theory (Odum 196714 Stocking 196845)Together these developments served to establish the essential unity of thehuman species (see Harris 1968 Hurst 1976) and further stimulated atradition of social evolutionary thought which had started to emerge in the1850s5

The development of ideas about socio-cultural evolution in the 1860s and1870s in the context of a radically altered temporal framework resulted inthe formulation of a different mode of classifying human diversity Incontrast to the existing racial classifications of humanity which resulted inhistorical or abstract hierarchical classifications of physical types socio-cultural evolutionism involved the classification of cultural stages within adevelopmental and evolutionary framework (eg Morgan 1974 [1877]Tylor 1873 [1871])6 Furthermore in contrast to the preceding ethnologicaltradition the socio-cultural evolutionists were no longer primarilyconcerned with tracing the history of particular races or nations but ratherwith the classification of the universal stage or condition of developmentwhich such races or nations were assumed to represent7

Nevertheless whilst race was a subsidiary issue for the socio-culturalevolutionists this did not lead to the abandonment of the concept Ratherthe establishment of an evolutionary framework led to a reconfiguration ofexisting racial categories within a spatial and temporal hierarchy ofprogress often explained in terms of the evolutionary notions ofcompetition lsquonatural selectionrsquo and lsquosurvival of the fittestrsquo (see Haller 1971Stocking 1987224 Trigger 1989116) Even in the work of EBTylor whodid not attribute any hereditary value to the notion of race (Tylor 1873[1871]7) the establishment of a hierarchy of races is evident lsquoFew woulddispute that the following races are arranged rightly in [ascending] order ofculture-Australian Tahitian Aztec Chinese Italianrsquo (ibid 27) Othersocio-cultural evolutionists went further using ideas about the inheritance of


acquired cultural characteristics to develop biosocial theories of race withinthe new evolutionary framework The anthropologist Herbert Spencer wasparticularly influential in this area (Bowler 1989154) Like Tylor heaccepted the lsquopsychic unityrsquo of humanity but at the same time placed muchgreater emphasis on variation in the mental makeup of different racesDrawing on Lamarkian ideas he claimed that the utility of certain modes ofsocio-cultural behaviour resulted in the transformation of the mentalmakeup of the individual and that this was then inherited by subsequentgenerations (Bowler 1989153ndash4 Stocking 1968240ndash1)

Socio-cultural evolution and Lamarkian theories of change allowed forconsiderable fluidity in racial categories over time as did the long-standingtraditions of philology and national genealogy which persisted alongsideevolutionary thought in the later nineteenth and early twentieth century (egBeddoe 1885 Fleure 1922) However a rigid conception of race and theexplanation of cultural diversity and inequality on the basis of physicalbiological diversity also persisted and became even more entrenched withinthe Social Darwinist milieu of the later nineteenth century (Biddiss 197920Stocking 196842ndash68) For instance Galton (186568) who was the founderof the eugenics movement argued for a deterministic view of hereditaryprocesses and a fixed hierarchy of inherited mental and physical talentslargely unmodified by social circumstance and nurture

Thus throughout the nineteenth century the concept of race albeit indiverse forms remained the dominant mode of conceptualizing humangroups and it was used as a synonym for national cultural and linguisticgroups in much of the literature (Huxley and Haddon 193520) Moreoverexplanations for cultural social and moral diversity were often subordinatedto the concept of hereditary physical racial types (eg Jackson 1866) In thissense Barthrsquos (1969a13) generalization that traditional modes of classifyingpeoples in the human sciences can be characterized by the equationrace=language=culture appears to be valid Yet it has to be emphasized thatthe conflation of culture and language with notions of biological race in thenineteenth century was the combined product of a number of quite differenttheoretical approaches (1) the linguistic notion of race which was central tothe lsquoethnologicalrsquo and comparative philological traditions (2) the racialdeterminism of the physical lsquoanthropologicalrsquo tradition which assumed adirect fixed correlation between physical form and structure and mentaland cultural capabilities (3) the widespread adoption of the Lamarkianproposal that acquired cultural characteristics could become inheritedwhich served to reinforce a vague correlation of race with national culturaland linguistic groups (4) the Social Darwinist conception of a parallelrelationship between cultural and physical evolution Although all thesetheoretical approaches did contribute to a dissolution of the boundariesbetween physical and cultural diversity in the classification of peoples it is


evident that the relationship between race language and culture innineteenth-century thought was far from straightforward

Despite contemporary critiques of prevailing nineteenth-century ideasabout race (eg Babington 1895 Freeman 1877 Huxley 1870 Muumlller1877) the concept persisted into the twentieth century as an all-encompassing form of classification and explanation in the face of empiricalevidence and theoretical argument to the contrary8 The role of racialclassifications in broader social and political contexts provides someindication as to why the concept of race was so powerful and why it becameso entrenched towards the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of thetwentieth century Modes of racial classification and explanation penetratedmany aspects of social life and were certainly used to mediate and justifyrelationships between groups of people in the context of Europeancolonialism and nationalist and class unrest within Europe (see Biddiss1979 Gossett 1975 [1963] Montagu 1945 Stocking 1987) With theemergence of Romantic nationalism in the early nineteenth century the ideathat race and nation naturally coincided with one another and that the stateshould represent a homogeneous racial-cum-national unit became widelyaccepted leading to divisive and exclusive forms of nationalism by the midto late nineteenth century (see Huxley 1870 for a critical discussion) Racialtheories were also enmeshed in various debates about slavery colonial policyand the social status of groups belonging to the supposed lsquolowerrsquo races andclasses (eg Cairnes 1865 Farrar 1867 Jackson 1866 Mackay 1866)However the relationship between political doctrines and particular formsof racial classification and explanation was complex For instance in themid-nineteenth century monogenists argued both for and against theinstitution of slavery (Gossett 1975 [1963]62ndash3) Furthermore rigid racialtypologies and associated notions of racial determinism were used to endorsethe worst of colonial exploitation and subordination (eg Jackson 1866) aswell as to support the need for western philanthropy (eg Farrar 1867)

The ambiguity of the relationships between particular ideas about raceand specific political arguments suggests that the persistence of race as ataxonomic category and mode of explanation cannot be interpreted in asimplistic manner solely in terms of the legitimation of political aimsHowever the role that nineteenth-century ideas about race played in theconstruction of instrumental social categories both in the lsquowesternrsquo andlsquonon-westernrsquo worlds was undoubtedly a significant force in thedevelopment and perpetuation of the concept of race as a means ofclassifying and explaining the variability of peoples Moreover theinterrelationships between the category of race and broader nationalist andimperialist discourses in the nineteenth century have in part set the agendafor subsequent modes of classifying human groups Initially during theearlier twentieth century the social and ideological purposes which theconcept of race served contributed to a reaction against the concept itself


and a concerted attempt to separate the analysis of cultural and biologicaldiversity in the human sciences

FROM RACE TO CULTURE THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OFDIFFERENCE IN THE EARLY TO MID-TWENTIETH CENTURY

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries a concern with thestudy of culture and society as distinct from the study of the physicalsocalled racial divisions of the human species resulted in the classification ofpeoples on a cultural as opposed to a racial basis This shift away from anall-encompassing notion of race and the reorientation of social thoughtaround the concepts of lsquoculturersquo and lsquosocietyrsquo drew upon a long tradition ofideas about custom and civilization (see Gruber 1973) However it was theformulation of the concept of culture by anthropologists such as Tylor andBoas and the institutionalization of the disciplines of social anthropologyand sociology which provided the basis for the shift in emphasis from race toculture

The work of the socio-cultural evolutionists in the later nineteenthcentury was important in the establishment of social and culturalanthropology (traditionally known as ethnology) a discipline which hasbeen defined as lsquothe science which deals with the ldquoculturesrdquo of humangroupsrsquo and is lsquonot primarily concerned with races as biological divisions ofHomo Sapiensrsquo (Lowie 19373) However as already noted the socio-cultural evolutionists tended to see culture as a universal process ofdevelopment which was measured in terms of cultural stages rather than aplurality of cultures representing the patterned ways of life of distinctpeoples (see Harris 1968 Honigmann 1976 Stocking 1968 1987) Forinstance the idea of culture as a universal process of development is evidentin the work of Tylor who formulated the classic anthropological definition ofculture lsquoCulture or civilizationhellipis that complex whole which includesknowledge belief art law morals custom and any other capabilities andhabits acquired by man as a member of societyrsquo (Tylor 1873 [1871]1)Although such a definition could be used in the analysis of a plurality ofdiscrete cultures it is clear that Tylor was concerned with the definition ofcultural stages As Stocking (196873 emphasis in original) points out

The concept of a plurality of civilizations had existed since the earlynineteenth century and is at least implicit in portions of Tylorrsquos workbut when he went on tohellipspeak of the lsquocivilization of the lower tribesas related to the civilization of the higher nationsrsquo it is clear that hemeant the degree rather than the type or style of civilization

Tylor referred to a plurality of lsquoracesrsquo lsquotribesrsquo and lsquonationsrsquo but not tocultures in the sense of the organized and patterned ways of life of particularpeoples Furthermore the concept of race was still an important aspect of


social evolutionary thought providing the basic unit of humandifferentiation and in many instances an explanation of developmentalinequalities between peoples as in Spencerrsquos biosocial theory of evolution

It was not until the late nineteenth century that the concept of culture inthe plural sense was established and there were concerted attempts toseparate cultural and racial classifications (see Stocking 1968 1988) TheGerman anthropological tradition was important in terms of the rejection ofthe idea of unilinear evolution in favour of an emphasis on cultural contactsand diffusion (Heine-Geldern 1964411) In his book Voumllkerkundepublished in 1885ndash8 the German geographer and ethnologist FriedrichRatzel sought to show that diffusion created lsquoculture areasrsquomdashrelativelyhomogeneous organically integrated cultural complexes which becameconceptualized as Kulturkreise (culture circles) in the work of Froebeniusand Graebner Taking the Kulturkreis as the primary analytical concept theyestablished an elaborate Kulturhistorische Methode (culture-historicalmethod) in an attempt to ascertain historical sequences on the basis of thecontemporary geographical distribution of culture complexes an approachwhich characterized the so called lsquoVienna Schoolrsquo of the early 1900s (Heine-Geldern 1964411ndash12 see also Zwernemann 1983)

The work of the German-American anthropologist Franz Boas whichwas undoubtedly influenced by the German Kulturkreise School wasparticularly important in the development of the concept of culture in thesense of a plurality of historically conditioned distinct cultural wholes inopposition to a sequence of cultural stages (Stocking 1968213) As part ofhis critical stance against evolutionism Boas (eg 1974 [1887] 1974[1905]) developed a particularistic historical approach to the study of thecultures of diverse tribes and the diffusion of traits and ideas between suchcultures Furthermore his work was also instrumental in underminingprevailing ideas about racial determinism in the early decades of thetwentieth century (see Barkan 1988 Stocking 1968 1974) Much of Boasrsquosresearch was concerned to illustrate that neither race nor language werebarriers to the diffusion of ideas and that human behaviour is determinedby a habitual body of cultural traditions passed on from one generation toanother through processes of learning (Stocking 1968214ndash33) That is hemaintained that human behaviour is culturally determined an idea whichbecame one of the central tenets of twentieth-century anthropology

Boasrsquos work was particularly influential in the North American traditionof cultural anthropology (Singer 1968529 Stocking 197417ndash19) Hereculture was the core concept and it was taken to be composed of implicit andexplicit patterns of behaviour which constituted the distinctive achievementof human groupsmdashtheir material culture beliefs myths ideas and values(see Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952 Singer 1968) The primary research taskof the cultural anthropologist was to lsquodelineate cultural patterns and beyondthat to compare and classify types of patternsrsquo (Singer 1968530) The study


of the cultural patterns of a given region also involved the reconstruction ofits cultural history in terms of diffusion culture contact and acculturation(see Honigmann 1976)

Both the American historical tradition and German culture-history alsobear some resemblance to the diffusionist approach which was formulated inBritain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as in theanthropological works of Rivers Elliot-Smith and Perry (Honigmann 1976Zwernemann 1983) There were important differences between the threetraditions for instance Boas (1974 [1905]) emphasized the complexity ofprocesses of diffusion and acculturation whereas Elliot Smith (eg 19281735ndash6) and Perry (eg 19242 64ndash7) adopted a more extreme positionsuggesting that ultimately processes of diffusion could be traced to onesourcemdashEgyptmdashthe lsquofount of civilizationrsquo Nevertheless all three werecharacterized by their opposition to unilinear socio-cultural evolution and inparticular the idea of independent invention In countering this idea theyfocused on demonstrating the importance of diffusion between cultures froman historical perspective

It is in the context of this interest in the geographical and historicaldimensions of cultural variation and the conceptual framework it providedthat archaeologists began to classify spatial variation using the cultureconcept (Daniel 1978 [1950]242 Trigger 1989150ndash5) Kossinna andChilde were influenced by the German ethnological tradition and Boashimself certainly saw a role for archaeology in tracing the historicalmovements of distinct tribal units (Gruber 1986179ndash80) Indeed some ofthe earliest systematic stratigraphic excavations were carried out by hisstudents (Willey and Sabloff 197489) Thus as in the case of socio-culturalevolution anthropologists (ethnologists) and archaeologists worked in closeassociation with one another particularly in North America using bothanthropological and archaeological data in the reconstruction of culturehistories ranging from a local to a worldwide scale

In North American cultural anthropology a concern with theclassification of cultures and the reconstruction of culture-histories persistedduring the first half of the twentieth century However in Britishanthropology extreme diffusionism and social evolutionism were bothsuperseded rapidly by functionalist and structural-functionalist theories ofsociety In contrast to culture-historical and diffusionist traditions ofanthropology British structural-functionalist anthropology was stronglyinfluenced by Durkheimian sociology and was anti-historical in characterFurthermore the concepts of lsquosocietyrsquo and lsquosocial structurersquo rather thanculture have tended to be the central focus of research Society was regardedas an organic coherent system made up of interdependent social institutions(Malinowski 1944 Radcliffe-Brown 1952) and the study of social structureinvolved lsquothe ordered arrangement of parts or componentsrsquo within a socialsystem (Radcliffe-Brown 19529) The social relationships and institutions


of lsquotribal societyrsquo were the primary focus of research and the notion of lsquotribalsocietyrsquo constituted one of the main classificatory concepts (see Lewis 1968Kuper 1988)9 Tribal societies were assumed to be isolated homogeneousautonomous units based on kinship territorial ties a shared set of values andan awareness of a common social and cultural identity (see Lewis 1968Rosaldo 1993 [1989]31ndash2)10

Nevertheless despite variations in the classification of socio-culturalentities within different anthropological traditions during the first half of thetwentieth century there were a number of underlying similarities in theabstract concepts employed The need to counter racial determinism hasconstituted an important agenda in the social sciences throughout thetwentieth century11 The separation of the concepts of race and culture whichis evident in the work of Boas was reinforced between the 1920s and 1940sin response to the use of racialist doctrines for political purposes (eg Huxleyand Haddon 1935) and in particular in reaction to the Holocaust To acertain extent the concept of culture emerged as a liberal alternative to racistclassifications of human diversity (Clifford 1988234) and the notions of lsquoaculturersquo and lsquoa societyrsquo became used in place of lsquoa racersquo as synonyms for agroup of people

However although the emergence of the concept of culture reflects a shiftaway from racial classifications of human diversity the concept carried overmany assumptions which were central to nineteenth-century classificationsof human groups (ibid 234 273) In particular there remains an overridingconcern with holism homogeneity order and boundedeness which has beenattributed to the development of ideas concerning human diversity in thecontext of nineteenth- and twentieth-century nationalist thought (Handler19887ndash8 Spencer 1990283 288ndash90 Wolf 1982387) The perpetuation ofthese concerns in twentieth-century conceptions of culture and societyresulted in a general representation of the world as divided up into discretehomogeneous integrated cultures (and societies) which were implicitlyequated with distinct peoples or lsquotribesrsquo (Clifford 1988232ndash3 Rosaldo 1993[1989]31ndash2 Wolf 19826ndash7) Group identity or lsquopeoplehoodrsquo was assumedto be a passive reflection of cultural similarities

Such a picture is the combined product of various kinds of analysis in thehuman sciences As Rosaldo (1993 [1989]) has shown in his critique of socialanalysis the norms of a specific culture (or society) have been determinedthrough the generalization of particular localized observations in the idiomof classic ethnography Such a mode of analysis is based on the a prioriassumption lsquothat stability orderliness and equilibrium characterizedtraditional societiesrsquo (Rosaldo 1993 [1989]42) and that therefore culturalpractices and beliefs are likely to be uniform throughout society As a resultof such assumptions which should themselves be the subject of analysis thesociety in question becomes represented as an homogeneous unitunchanging through time This view of culture (or society) as a discrete


homogeneous entity has been reinforced through empiricist syntheses ofcultural and political geography and literature adopting the Human AreaRelations Files style of comparison (Pardon 1987168 184) The results ofnormative modes of ethnographic description have also been elevated togeneral principles in abstract theoretical statements of various types (egRadcliffe-Brown 1952) producing lsquoideal systemsrsquo in contrast to lsquoempiricalrsquoones (Leach 1964 [1954]283)

A similar picture of discrete homogeneous cultural entities is generatedthrough archaeological theory and practice At a methodological level thesame kind of objectification of specific localized traits takes place in thedefinition of cultures as in ethnographic contexts Such a process isepitomized by the phenomenon of the lsquotype sitersquo which supposedlycontains the archetypal traits of a particular lsquoarchaeological culturersquo Theconcept of the lsquotype sitersquo is based on the assumption that material culturaltraits reflect the mental makeup or cultural norms of the people whoproduced them and that these norms would have been homogeneousthroughout a bounded socio-cultural group Moreover this assumption isthen reinforced by the tendency to focus on similarities and continuitiesrather than differences and discontinuities between the lsquotype sitersquo andother sites within a particular region At a broader level traditionalempiricist reconstructions of particular periods or regions have beenconcerned with the distribution of cultures in space and time and theinteraction between them Furthermore although such reconstructions areno longer the ultimate aim of recent research in archaeology boundedsocio-cultural units still provide the basic framework for the analysis ofpast social processes in much of the research carried out in the last threedecades (see Chapter 2)

As a result of the way in which different kinds of analysis intersect withand reinforce one another assumptions about the holistic monolithicnature of cultures and societies have persisted stubbornly in the face ofevidence to the contrary It has been clear for some time that reality is moreheterogeneous and untidy than such concepts acknowledge For instance inethnographic studies where researchers have been faced with defining theboundaries of lsquotheir grouprsquo the concepts of culture society and tribe raisedmethodological problems even at the height of their authority (Cohen1978380ndash2 Narroll 1964283ndash4) Consequendy it has long beenacknowledged that as analytical units concepts such as culture and tribe arenot absolute but arbitrary

The lines of demarcation of any cultural unit chosen for descriptionand analysis are in a large part a matter of level of abstraction and ofconvenience for the problem at hand Occidental culture Graeco-Roman culture German culture Swabian culture the peasant culture


of the Black Forest of 1900mdashthese are all equally legitimateabstractions if carefully defined

(Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952367)

Nevertheless specific case studies of named groups of people requiredjustification as well as careful definition For instance in his study of theTallensi Fortes (1969 [1945]14ndash29) argued that it was difficult todistinguish the Tallensi from other lsquoso-called ldquotribesrdquorsquo on the basis of anypolitical cultural or linguistic unity and singularity In order to overcomethis problem he suggested an alternative abstract concept as the basis for thedefinition of the unit of study

For the concept of a society as a closed unithellipwe must substitute theconcept of the socio-geographic region the social elements of whichare more closely knit together among themselves than any of them areknit together with social elements of the same kind outside of thatregion

(Ibid 231 my emphasis)

A great deal of anthropological fieldwork carried out between the 1920s and1960s was concerned with similar situations in that there was a distinct lackof coincidence between the boundaries of cultural linguistic and socio-structural phenomena but the concept of a unit culture served to obscure thesignificance of such facts (Leach 1964 [1954]282) The inevitablemethodological problems concerning boundary definition were overcome byconceptual modifications such as Fortesrsquos (1969 [1945]) lsquosocio-geographicregionrsquo without fundamentally challenging the anthropological concepts oftribe culture and society In British structural-functionalism at least thedefinition of group boundaries tended to be merely an initial step in theanalysis of the internal structural interrelationships of the social system Inother areas such as American cultural anthropology a concern withdiffusion and acculturation meant that cultural boundaries were a moreprominent aspect of analysis However even here cultural traits wereassumed to be passed between autonomous discrete cultures as a result ofinstances of lsquocontactrsquo or in the case of acculturation to lead toamalgamation of one culture with another ultimately resulting in a singlehomogeneous bounded entity Discontinuity and heterogeneity wereconsidered to be fleeting exceptions abnormalities which are lsquodestructive oflaw logic and conventionrsquo (Wilson 1945133 cited in Leach 1964 [1954]287) and except in a few instances (eg Fortes 1969 [1945] 16 Leach 1964[1954] 17) they were certainly not regarded as a focus of overarching socialrelations and interaction

Thus in the context of the notion of lsquoprimitive societyrsquo (Kuper 1988) anabstract and idealized concept of lsquotribal societyrsquo has prevailed in theanthropological literature at least throughout the early to mid-twentieth


century Although the concept of race had been vehemently attacked theidea of a bounded holistic social unit defined by language culture andpolitical autonomy remained intact seemingly close enough to manyempirical situations to serve the purposes of most anthropologists It is thisgeneral picture that provided the backdrop to critiques of the concepts oftribe culture and society and to the emergence of the concept of ethnicity asa central category in the classification of peoples

THE EMERGENCE OF ETHNICITY AS A PRIMARY TAXONOMICCATEGORY

The surge of interest in the phenomenon of lsquoethnicityrsquo during the late 1960sand 1970s was initially evident in the increasing number of journal articlesand index entries devoted to the subject and was eventually transformedinto a major academic and political enterprise with journals conferencesand research units devoted entirely to the subject12 The sudden interest inethnicity represented both a further shift in classificatory terminology due tothe pejorative connotations of existing taxonomic categories and asignificant change in the theoretical conceptualization of cultural groupsHowever it is not possible to describe a coherent series of lsquodiscoveriesrsquo whichculminated in the conceptual and theoretical shifts embodied in the notion ofethnicity Rather the emerging concern with ethnicity in the late 1960s and1970s resulted from attempts to deal with a variety of empirical theoreticaland ideological problems with existing anthropological and sociologicalcategories alongside an increase in the political salience of ethnic self-consciousness in various regions of the world

In anthropology growing dissatisfaction with concepts that hadtraditionally formed the basis of research in the humanitiesmdashnotablylsquoculturersquo lsquosocietyrsquo and lsquotribersquomdashwas a significant factor in the development ofan interest in ethnicity Methodological problems with such concepts wereparticularly acute in anthropology as the discipline was largely concernedwith the study of individual tribal societies in their entirety and consequentlythe society culture or tribe constituted the basic unit of research In contrastthe problem of defining lsquosocietyrsquo was not of such immediate methodologicalconcern in sociology as sociologists were traditionally involved with theanalysis of particular elements of what was assumed to be an essentiallymonolithic society Furthermore the nature of anthropological fieldworkinvolving long-term participant observation meant that anthropologistswere often confronted with inconsistencies between the general models theyused and particular empirical situations in contrast to sociologists whotended to deal with lsquoidealrsquo models based on generalizing comparativeanalysis (Leach 1964 [1954] 283)

During the 1950s and 1960s anthropological critiques of the concepts ofculture society and tribe emphasized the non-correlation of different


boundary phenomena and in some instances the very existence of discretesocio-cultural entities was questioned (eg Jaspan 1964298 Leach 1964[1954]299 Moerman 19651215) For instance in his influential study ofthe Kachin and Shan of Burma Leach (1964 [1954]17) argued that

there is no intrinsic reason why the significant frontiers of socialsystems should always coincide with cultural frontiershellip the mere factthat two groups of people are of different cultures does not necessarilyimplymdashas has always been assumedmdashthat they belong to two quitedifferent social systems

Such studies stimulated demands for the development of theoreticalframeworks enabling the analysis of the interrelation of social systems andthe relationships between social and cultural boundaries (eg Leach 1964[1954]284)

At the same time the demise of formal colonialism between the 1950s and1970s provided the background to further critiques of anthropologicalconcepts in particular the concept of lsquotribersquo which was attacked for itspejorative connotations of lsquoprimitivenessrsquo and lsquobackwardnessrsquo anddismissed as a construct of colonial regimes (eg Colson 1968 Fried 1968Ranger 1983250) Furthermore ideas about lsquoprimitive societyrsquo embodiedin the concept of the tribe as a bounded homeostatic integrated andessentially static whole became difficult to sustain in the light of the large-scale change brought about by colonialism that was so visibly demonstratedby growing national liberation movements

In the context of such internal and external critiques of the discipline andits concepts the development of theories of ethnicity in anthropologyembodied both a terminological and a theoretical shift On the one hand theconcept of an lsquoethnic grouprsquo became regarded as an acceptable substitute forthe concept of tribe by a number of anthropologists (eg Arens 1976)13 Onthe other hand the concept of ethnicity was for the most part embedded in atheoretical approach which seemed much more appropriate to the socialphenomena being studied Focusing on the processes involved in theconstruction of group boundaries in the context of social interaction newtheories of ethnicity accommodated the broader colonial context whichcould no longer be ignored with ease Moreover the ethnic categories usedby the people being studied started to be taken into consideration partly inresponse to increasingly active demands from colonized minority groups forself-determination Consequently whilst traditional definitions of lsquotribesrsquo orlsquopeoplesrsquo involved the enumeration of various traits relating to languagematerial culture beliefs and values research increasingly focused on the self-definitions of particular ethnic groups in opposition to other groups (egBarth 1969a Gulliver 1969 Moerman 1965) In effect there was areorientation of research focusing on the role of ethnic phenomena in the


organization of social groups and social relations in contrast to thetraditional concern with cultures and their historic boundaries areorientation that was consolidated by Barth (1969a) in his introduction toEthnic Groups and Boundaries (see Chapter 4)

In sociology and psychology the recognition of ethnicity as a major topicof research was a product of somewhat different problems The concept ofan ethnic group had already been incorporated within sociological andpsychological terminology during the early twentieth century as it wasbelieved to have fewer political and derogatory connotations than theconcept of race (eg as argued by Montagu 1945 UNESCO 1950)However in classical sociology of the early to mid-twentieth century ethnicand racial groups were generally considered to be secondary sociologicalphenomena in contrast to what were assumed to be central aspects of societysuch as class divisions Thus the study of race or ethnicity was considered aperipheral area of research in sociology

ethnicity was never really regarded by early sociologists as one of thedefining attributes of the social systemmdashthat is as a necessary anduniversal featuremdashthe possibility or even the need for a general theoryof ethnic conflict was not seriously considered

(Parkin 1978621 see also Lockwood 1970)

In countries with a high immigrant population such as the United Statesethnic groups constituted a significant area of applied research in bothsociology and psychology However an underlying assumption was thatcontinuous contact between cultural groups would result in a decrease incultural diversity (eg Gordon 1964) and that as a result ascriptively basedidentities lsquowould progressively give way under the homogenizing influenceof the modern industrial orderrsquo (Parkin 1978621)14 The process ofhomogenization was a central assumption underlying notions such as thelsquomelting potrsquo and lsquoAnglo-conformityrsquo in the United States and in the contextof such ideas research tended to focus on the pace and extent of assimilation(Bash 197980)

To a certain extent such assumptions about the nature of ethnicdifferences and the inevitability of acculturation and assimilation were aproduct of a similar kind of conceptualization of lsquoculturersquo and lsquosocietyrsquo tothat which dominated anthropology throughout much of this centurySociety was assumed to be essentially homogeneous in culture and as inanthropology continuous culture contact was assumed to lead to a reductionin cultural difference and the assimilation of originally discrete groupsAnother important element in the assimilationist model was the liberalmodernist myth that the development of lsquoadvancedrsquo complex societiescharacterized by large-scale industrialism democracy integrated educationand mass media would lead to the dissolution of ethnic differences As Smith(19812) points out


Liberals have generally taken the view that as mankind moved from aprimitive tribal stage of social organization towards large-scaleindustrial societies the various primordial ties of religion languageethnicity and race which divided it would gradually but inexorablyloose their hold and disappear

During the 1960s and 1970s sociologists became increasingly aware that thesituation was more complex than acknowledged by such theories ofassimilation and development Ethnic groups had not disappeared even inthe heartlands of the modern industrial west (see Glazer and Moynihan1975 Gordon 1975) and whilst a degree of acculturation had occurredcultural distinctiveness had been maintained and in some instances newelements of cultural diversity introduced (Roosens 19899) In response tothese observations there has been a vast increase in research on ethnicgroups and as in anthropology a concerted attempt to develop theoreticalexplanations for the phenomenon of ethnicity As with recentanthropological theories of ethnicity sociological theories have tended toemphasize the subjective construction of ethnicity in the process of socialinteraction However there is a greater tendency in sociology toconceptualize ethnic groups as economic and political interest groups aposition which is intimately linked to the mobilization of ethnicity as a basisfor political action in the last three decades

Indeed the development of an interest in ethnicity across a number ofdisciplines was not solely a product of internal empirical and theoreticalproblems within the human sciences broader social and political trendsplayed an important role In western societies minority ethnic groups gainedincreasing power and voice in the context of the civil rights movement and adeveloping national and international discourse on cultural relativism andself-determination Furthermore the demise of formal colonialism and theestablishment of independent nation-states in regions previously undercolonial rule created new contexts for the articulation of national and ethnicidentities (see Sharp and McAllister 199318ndash20) In these diverse contextsethnic alliances and interests became increasingly salient in the domain ofnational and international politics stimulating greater attention fromdisciplines such as anthropology and sociology in response to what has beenhailed as an lsquoethnic revivalrsquo or the development of a lsquonew ethnicityrsquo (Glazerand Moynihan 1975 Smith 1981 see also Chapter 5)

Throughout the history of the human sciences the transformation of thetaxonomic categories involved in the classification of peoples has been aproduct of both internal and external developments A dialecticalrelationship exists between the classification of groups in the human sciencesand the organization of human diversity The emergence of the concept ofethnicity as a major taxonomic category in the classification of peoples waspartly stimulated by a theoretical shift away from the fixed reified


categories of lsquoracersquo lsquoculturersquo lsquosocietyrsquo and lsquotribersquo towards a processualanalysis of ethnicity as a form of social interaction Yet other factors havebeen involved including the meanings which concepts such as race tribe andethnicity have accumulated within the context of a number of differentfunctioning ideological discourses and the increasing salience of ethnicity inthe realm of national and international politics in the last two to threedecades

56

Chapter 4

EthnicityThe conceptual and theoretical terrain

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF ETHNICITY

The prolific use of the term ethnicity to refer to diverse socio-culturalphenomena in the last two to three decades has resulted in considerabledisagreement about the nature of ethnic groups What is ethnicity and howshould it be defined In the human sciences definitions of ethnicity havebeen influenced by a variety of factors which intersect with one anotherThese include bull the impact of different theoretical and disciplinary traditions (such as neo-

Marxism or phenomenology psychology or anthropology)bull the particular aspects of ethnicity being researched (ranging from the

socio-structural dimensions of ethnicity in a plural society to the culturalconstruction of ethnic difference to the effects of ethnic identity onindividual performance in education and so on)

bull the region of the world where research is being conducted (eg thehighlands of Papua New Guinea American inner cities the former SovietUnion)

bull the particular group that is the subject of research (eg the AustralianAborigines migrant Turkish workers in Europe or the Jewish people (seeBentley 1983 Isajiw 1974))

This picture is further complicated by the fact that few people explicitlydefine what they mean by the terms ethnicity and ethnic group In a survey ofsixty-five sociological and anthropological studies of ethnicity Isajiw(1974111) found only thirteen that included some kind of definition ofethnicity and the remaining fifty-two had no explicit definition at allHowever despite the distinct lack of explicit definitions of ethnicity in muchof the literature it is possible to identify two central issues which cross-cutdifferent conceptualizations of ethnicity

(1) The classic anthropological debate concerning the prioritization of etic oremic perspectives1 has been reconfigured in the form of a distinction between

Ethnicity the conceptual terrain 57

lsquoobjectivistrsquo and lsquosubjectivistrsquo definitions of ethnicity (Burgess 1978 Isajiw1974 Ross 1980) In a generic sense lsquoobjectivistsrsquo regard ethnic groups associal and cultural entities with distinct boundaries characterized by relativeisolation and lack of interaction whereas lsquosubjectivistsrsquo regard ethnic groupsas culturally constructed categorizations that inform social interaction andbehaviour Hence in practice the lsquoobjectivistsrsquo tend to take an eticperspective and define ethnic groups on the basis of the analystrsquos perceptionof socio-cultural differentiation In contrast the lsquosubjectivistsrsquo giveprecedence to the emic perspective and define ethnic groups on the basis ofthe subjective self-categorizations of the people being studied

It has long been recognized that such a simplistic distinction betweenlsquoobjectiversquo and lsquosubjectiversquo definitions of ethnicity is problematic as it entailsthe naive pre-supposition of a value-free objective viewpoint located withthe researcher versus the subjective culturally mediated perceptions of thepeople being studied The ideal of objectivity has been extensively critiquedin the human sciences for the past forty years at least and a variety ofpositions which acknowledge the subjectivity of research have beendeveloped2 As a result it is generally accepted that the categories of thesocial scientist and the people being studied are equally subjective andconstitute different although sometimes overlapping taxonomies embeddedwithin diverse frameworks of meaning However the situation is morecomplex because the distinction between lsquoobjectivistrsquo and lsquosubjectivistrsquodefinitions of ethnicity also relates to a difference of opinion about thenature of ethnicity itself Are ethnic groups based on shared lsquoobjectiversquocultural practices andor socio-structural relations that exist independentlyof the perceptions of the individuals concerned or are they constitutedprimarily by the subjective processes of perception and derived socialorganization of their members At this level the opposition betweenlsquoobjectivismrsquo and lsquosubjectivismrsquo continues to plague the definition ofethnicity as it does broader studies of society and culture where it is inherentin oppositions between different theories of society and culturemdashstructuralist and phenomenological and materialist and idealist (seeBourdieu 1977)

(2) Definitions of ethnicity are also characterized by a tension betweenspecificity and generality that is between generic definitions which areconsidered to be too broad to be of any analytical use in the analysis ofparticular cases and definitions that are so narrow that their comparativepotential is minimal and their principal function is descriptive Theformulation of an adequate comparative definition of ethnicity is thwartedby the lack of a developed theory of ethnicity and the tendency to elevateobserved regularities in ethnic behaviour to the level of causal principles inthe conceptualization and explanation of ethnicity For instance to assume

58 Ethnicity the conceptual terrain

that because ethnic identity is manipulated for economic gain in someinstances ethnic groups should be defined as interest groups

The disparity that results from the application of the lsquoobjectivistrsquo andlsquosubjectivistrsquo approaches to the definition of ethnic groups is clearlyhighlighted by a debate between Narroll (1964 1968) and Moerman (19651968) about the definition of the Lue people of northern Thailand In acritique of Narrollrsquos (1964) definition of the lsquocultunitrsquo Moerman (1965)argued that the Lue cannot be defined on the basis of objective coterminousdiscontinuities in language culture polity and territory and that suchdiscontinuities are rarely discernible in ethnographic situations The Lueshare a wide range of cultural traits with their neighbours in northernThailand and are only distinguished by a small number of cultural traits(Moerman 19651217ndash21 1968157) Yet identification as Lue and thevalidation of this identity in social life is an important aspect of socialorganization in contrast to many aspects of cultural variation that areirrelevant to group organization and the mediation of inter-group relationsMoerman concluded that the self-identification of ethnic groups should betaken into account in anthropological definitions and that ethnic groupssuch as the Lue can only be understood in a broader social context ininteraction with other groups

the Lue at least cannot be viewed in isolation if one is to define theirldquoLuenessrdquo identify them as a tribe and understand how they survivein modern Thailandhellip The Lue cannot be identifiedmdashcannot in asense be said to existmdashin isolation

(Moerman 19651216)3

In response to Moermanrsquos analysis Narroll (1968) defined the Lue as part ofa broader cultunit lsquoNorthern Thairsquo on the basis of a number of culturaltraits primarily focusing on language With relation to the use of the labellsquoLuersquo by the inhabitants of Ban Ping he argued that lsquothe Lue are the Lue Butto us for global comparative purposes perhaps they are not the real Luersquo(Narroll 196878) rather they are lsquopost-Luersquo or lsquoex-Luersquo as they no longerpossess all the cultural traits that originally defined the group Moreover healso uses this argument with relation to other ethnic groups

Many so-called Basque communities today consist of people who callthemselves Basques and who have many Basque characteristics andwho are the biological and cultural descendants of true BasquesHowever they lack one essential Basque characteristic They no longerspeak the Basque language Such people might well be called lsquopost-Basquesrsquo

(Ibid)

It is clear that the purpose of Narrollrsquos classification of the Lue is verydifferent from that proposed by Moerman His concept of the cultunit was


developed within the traditional anthropological framework of cross-cultural research which requires the definition of comparable socio-culturalunits In this context ethnic groups are not the primary focus of researchrather their definition is a means to an end In contrast although Moermanis also concerned with defining a unit for the purposes of analysis hisresearch involved a detailed study of social systems in the region of BangPing Hence he was primarily concerned with formulating a definition of theLue that was meaningful in terms of the ascription of ethnic identity and themediation of social relations in that region

Classificatory systems quite rightly vary depending on the issues they aresupposed to address and Moerman and Narroll are attempting to classifythe Lue people for quite different purposes Nevertheless Moermanrsquosanalysis does question the kind of universal system of cross-culturalclassification Narroll is proposing by illustrating the significance of ethniccategories such as that of the Lue in the structuring of social relations andsocial practices in northern Thailand For how useful is the categorylsquoNorthern Thairsquo even as a basis for the cross-cultural comparison of socialand cultural practices if it holds very little importance in ongoing social lifein this region Furthermore Narrollrsquos notions of lsquotruersquo Lue and lsquopostrsquo Lueassume that culture-bearing units are relatively permanent entities that havean original lsquopurersquo culture This concern with static pristine cultural entities issymptomatic of an essentially synchronic perspective of human societiesembedded in western notions of cultural continuity and tradition (seeClifford 1988 Williams 1989)4 As argued in Chapter 3 the representationof lsquotribesrsquo and lsquosocietiesrsquo as abstract static entities each with an unchanginglsquoprimitiversquo culture was commonplace between the 1920s and the 1960sparticularly in British anthropology However such an approach has provedinadequate in the face of the complexity revealed by many ethnographicsituations (Jaspan 1964298 Messing 1964300) and the challengepresented by the political mobilization of ethnic groups that were formerlythe focus of such studies (see Chapter 3)

Moermanrsquos (1965 1968) approach to the definition of the Lueanticipated the main direction of subsequent research on ethnic groupsDuring the 1960s and 1970s a straightforward lsquosubjectivistrsquo approach to thedefinition of ethnicity prevailed in the literature Yet Moerman like manyothers was primarily concerned with the detailed ethnographic analysis of aparticular group and it was Barth (1969a) who was the first to incorporatea lsquosubjectiversquo approach to ethnicity into a programmatic theoretical model inhis introduction to Ethnic Groups and Boundaries

Barthrsquos primary objective was to investigate the social dimensions ofethnic groups and in particular the maintenance of ethnic boundaries whichhe distinguished from the traditional investigation of isolated cultural units(Barth 1969a9ndash11) In keeping with this emphasis on the social dimensionsof ethnicity he argued that ethnic groups should be defined on the basis of


the actorrsquos own categorizations of themselves and others Furthermore acategorical ascription

is an ethnic ascription when it classifies a person in terms of his basicmost general identity presumptively determined by his origin andbackground To the extent that actors use ethnic identities to categorizethemselves and others for the purposes of interaction they form ethnicgroups in this organizational sense

(Ibid 13ndash14) From this perspective cultural variation is not endowed with a determiningrole and Barth (1969a14) suggests that whilst lsquoethnic categories takecultural differences into account we can assume no one-to-one relationshipbetween ethnic units and cultural similarities and differencesrsquo For instancethe Pathans of Afghanistan and Pakistan constitute a self-aware ethnic groupdespite considerable social and cultural differences within the group (Barth1969b118ndash19) Barth argues that Pathan identity is based on theorganization of social relations in certain key areas hospitality public affairsand the seclusion of domestic life which provide the basis for shared valuesand judgements (ibid 120ndash2) It is through the performance of acceptedmodes of behaviour in these social domains that Pathan identity isreconfirmed and validated (ibid 123)

Barthrsquos approach to the definition of ethnic groups based on the actorrsquosown perceptions of ethnicity was not new in itself For instance as early as1947 Francis argued that the ethnic group constitutes a community basedprimarily on a shared lsquowe-feelingrsquo and that lsquowe cannot define the ethnicgroup as a plurality pattern which is characterized by a distinct languageculture territory religion and so onrsquo (Francis 1947397)5 However Barthrsquosreiteration of the subjective and ascriptive aspects of ethnic identity within aprogrammatic theoretical framework is widely recognized as a turning pointin the anthropological analysis of ethnic groups (eg Buchignani 19825Eriksen 1993a37 Vermeulen and Covers 19941) Subsequently thedefinition of ethnic groups as lsquoself-defining systemsrsquo (Just 198974) placingprimary emphasis on the cognitive categories of the people concerned hasbeen pervasive in academic research

Such a definition has also played an important role in legislation andpublic policy since the late 1960s For instance for certain (Federal)government purposes during the early 1970s Australian Aboriginal peoplewere defined on the basis of self-identification by an individual andacceptance of that identity by an Aboriginal community (Ucko 1983a31)The definition of ethnic groups as self-defining systems has also permeatedsocial policy in Britain through policy-oriented research institutions such asthe Research Unit on Ethnic Relations (University of Bristol) established in1970 and maintained by the government-funded Social Science Research


Council In the Unitrsquos ethnicity programme which initially focused on thesphere of work Wallman (1977532) states that

lsquoEthnicityrsquo refers here to the perception of group difference and so to thesocial boundaries between sections of the population In this sense ethniclsquodifferencersquo is the recognition of a contrast between lsquousrsquo and lsquothemrsquo

Yet there are a number of problems with lsquosubjectivistrsquo definitions of ethnicityThe insistence that all social phenomena involving the ascription of culturallybased collective identity and the maintenance of group boundaries should beconsidered as lsquoethnicrsquo regardless of other differentiating characteristics hasled to the incorporation of a wide range of groups within the category ofethnic group (eg see Hunt and Walker 1974 Roosens 1989) These groupsinclude minority groups indigenous groups ethno-nationalist groupsgroups based primarily on religion language political organization racialcategorizations groups formerly regarded as lsquonationsrsquo lsquotribesrsquo lsquominoritiesrsquolsquoculturesrsquo lsquoracial groupsrsquo andor lsquoreligious groupsrsquo In effect the concept ofethnicity has been used in the analysis of a wide range of groups subject todifferent kinds of classification embedded in different forms of socialorganization and constituted in diverse social and historical contextsMoreover as pointed out earlier the concept of ethnicity has been influencedby different disciplinary traditions and used in the analysis of diverse areassuch as the political mobilization of ethnic groups the psychological aspectsof ethnicity and the social stratification of ethnic groups

This expansion of the category of ethnicity in social scientific researchhas resulted in doubts about the analytical utility of the concept (eg Blu1980 Pardon 1987 Hinton 1981 Just 1989) On the basis of a processuallsquosubjectivistrsquo definition of ethnicity there is little to distinguish it from otherforms of group identity such as gender class and caste groups andconsequently there is a risk that ethnicity will disappear as a separate fieldof enquiry Defined as the social reproduction of basic categories of groupidentity on the basis of self-definitions and definitions by others ethnicityis lsquodevoid of any substantial contentrsquo as a comparative analytical concept(Eriksen 19928ndash9) For instance in an analysis of the Greek lsquoethnosrsquo Just(198975) argues that social entities such as ethnic groups are self-definingsystems but he concedes that

Though my definition of the criteria for defining the Greek lsquoethnosrsquo is I trustformally sound it is also essentially empty In practice empirical criteria arereferred to and however vague fuzzy-edged and inconsistent historicallymisleading or scientifically invalid these criteria may be they are what givesubstance to the claim of ethnic identity

In reaction to this problem the lsquoempirical criteriarsquo that Just refers to havebeen reincorporated into processual definitions of ethnicity in order to


qualify the character quality or condition of belonging to an ethnic groupFor instance de Vos (1982 [1975]9) defines an ethnic group as a group thatis lsquoself-consciously united around particular traditionsrsquo which includecommon territory language religion and racial uniqueness but emphasizesthat none of them is an essential criterion Such a definition differs from thetraditional definition of ethnic groups on the basis of the enumeration ofsupposedly objective cultural traits because the lsquotraditionsrsquo de Vos (1982[1975]) refers to are not lsquogivenrsquo fixed traits but rather those traits that heconsiders to be most salient in peoplesrsquo consciousness of ethnicity Howeveras the importance of specific aspects of culture in the definition of ethnicityvaries between ethnic groups the character of ethnicity as an abstractphenomenon is still elusive Consequently de Vos (1982 [1975]16 myemphasis) concedes that lsquothe ethnic identity of a group of people consists oftheir subjective symbolic or emblematic use of any aspect of culture in orderto differentiate themselves from other groupsrsquo Ultimately as Blu (1980224)points out it is still difficult to pin down exactly lsquojust what it is that setsldquoethnicrdquo groups apart from other symbolically differentiated groups with astrong sense of identityrsquo

Despite these problems others have also attempted to produce a narrowerdefinition emphasizing the primacy of specific cultural criteria such aslanguage or a consciousness of common descenthistory in emic classificationsof ethnicity (eg see Cohen 1978385ndash7 de Vos 1982 [1975]19) However itis clear that there is very little agreement as to what particular aspects ofculture are essential to the category of ethnicity and narrow substantivedefinitions are likely to hinder the analysis of any common processesunderlying various culturally based identity groups Furthermore socialscientific approaches that combine a subjectivist definition of ethnicity with anemphasis on particular aspects of cultural differentiation have a tendency toconform to the ideologies of cultural difference prevailing in the particularsocial and historical contexts that are the focus of study

Aside from the cultural content of ethnicity socio-structural and politicalfactors have also been used in an attempt to distinguish ethnic groups fromother kinds of grouping and to distinguish different kinds of ethnic groupsMany such definitions combine different elements in the conceptualizationof ethnicity For instance Yinger (1983ix my emphasis) defines ethnicgroups broadly as part of a multi-ethnic society

An ethnic grouphellipis a segment of a larger society whose members arethought by themselves andor others to have a common origin and toshare important segments of a common culture and who in additionparticipate in shared activities in which the common culture and originare significant

Vincent (1974) prefers a more specific regional definition and argues thatethnic groups in the United States should be distinguished from minority


groups on the basis of political mobilization Minority groups she arguesare subject to economic social and political subordination by thecategorizations of the dominant society whereas ethnic groups arecharacterized by political mobilization and a re-appropriation of thedefinition of self6 Still others have attempted to develop various sub-categories based on empirical variations in the social context of ethnicity inaddition to an overarching processual lsquosubjectivistrsquo definition For instanceEriksen (1993a13ndash14) divides ethnic groups into lsquourban ethnic minoritiesrsquolsquoindigenous peoplesrsquo lsquoproto-nationsrsquo (ie those aspiring to nationhood) andlsquoethnic groups in plural societiesrsquo He argues that such empirical categoriesmay be useful in defining forms of ethnicity that are more readily comparedthan others but nevertheless he is adamant that it is necessary to maintain abroad lsquosubjectivistrsquo definition for the purposes of analysis

Notwithstanding the dominance of lsquosubjectivistrsquo definitions some havemaintained a more essentialist and internally oriented lsquoobjectivistrsquoconceptualization of ethnicity in terms of fixed cultural and historical traitsIn the lsquowesternrsquo social sciences such an emphasis on the primacy of culturaland historical traits is related to the idea that ethnicity is a primordial givenascribed at birth which exerts overwhelming coercive ties on members of thegroup due to the deep-seated psychological desire for rootedness in humannature (eg Connor 1978 Isaacs 1974) It is claimed that such a lsquobasic groupidentityrsquo (Isaacs 1974) is an essential aspect of an individualrsquos identity andethnicity is often conceptualized as an ineffable static and inherent identity(see pp 65ndash8 below)

The conceptualization of ethnicity in the former Soviet and EasternEuropean intellectual traditions also places considerable emphasis on thecultural and historical continuity of the ethnic unitmdashthe lsquoethnosrsquo (Shennan199129) Although self-identification is generally recognized as animportant element it is argued that the essence of the ethnos is constitutedby very real cultural and linguistic components which constitute the lsquoinnerintegrityrsquo of a grouprsquos identity (Bromley 1980153) For instance in theSoviet discipline of ethnic cartography self-awareness usually as obtainedfrom population censuses is considered to be an important criterion foridentifying ethnoses (eg Brook 198339 51) However it is assumed thatthis self-awareness is something that has developed over long periods and isa reflection of other lsquoobjectiversquo components of identity such as languagebeliefs and values the material culture of everyday life and so on (eg seecontribitions to Kochin 1983) Ethnicity is not considered to be primarily arelational construct in the sense of a lsquowersquolsquotheyrsquo opposition between groups ina plural society (Fortes 1980) Furthermore ethnic identity is regarded asdistinct from socio-structural and economic circumstances it pertains to thesocial life of people regardless of these conditions and has greatercontinuity than such phenomena

Nevertheless as in lsquowesternrsquo intellectual traditions there is considerable


diversity of opinion about the nature of ethnicity and in particular itsrelationship to socio-economic formations For instance Dolukhanov(199423) in contrast to traditional Soviet theory considers the ethnos to bemore integrally linked to economic relations such as the spatial division oflabour and also to environmental adaptation Whereas others such asBrook (198339) argue that ethnic groups pass through differentevolutionary stages in a parallel fashion to the socio-economic organizationof societies

[The] eariest typemdashthe tribemdashis typical of the primitive communalsystem In slave-owning and feudal social formations a new type ofethnic entitymdashthe nationality (narodnost)mdashmade its appearence Thedevelopment of capitalist relations and the intensification of economiccontacts gave rise to ethnic entitiesmdashnationsmdashwhich stood at a higherlevel of development

Irrespective of the many permutations discussed here a conceptualization ofethnic groups as self-defining systems and an emphasis on the fluid andsituational nature of both group boundaries and individual identificationhas prevailed in the last two to three decades Within this broad genericdefinition the analysis of particular ethnic groups has been largelyconcerned with the perception and expression of group boundaries ethnicityis considered to be a consciousness of identity vis-agrave-vis other groupsmdasha lsquowersquolsquotheyrsquo opposition The incorporation of a definition of ethnic groups as self-defining systems within a theoretical framework focusing on boundarymaintenance the situational aspects of ethnic identification and themovement of personnel across boundaries has facilitated the analysis of thesocial dimensions of ethnic groups and filled a theoretical void in the analysisof inter-group relations Up until the 1950s anthropologists (and socialscientists generally) did not have an analytical vocabulary to examine theongoing interrelations between socio-cultural groups As Leach (1964[1954]) convincingly demonstrated there was an urgent need to develop sucha vocabulary and the formulation of the concept of ethnicity by Barth andothers served that purpose implying contact and interrelationship as well asambiguity and flexibility

At the same time the extensive application of the concept of ethnicity to awide range of socio-cultural phenomena in the social sciences has raisedquestions about the analytical validity of such a broad category In responsetighter definitions of ethnicity have been developed either in terms of anarrower definition of the concept itself or a sub-classification of differentkinds of ethnicity Such definitions generally involve an elaboration of thelsquosubjectivistrsquo definition of ethnicity on the basis of cultural content andorsocio-structural organization However attempts to amalgamate lsquosubjectiversquoand lsquoobjectiversquo elements within a single definition of ethnicity have largelyfailed due to the absence of an adequate theoretical framework a theoretical


framework that addresses the relationship between peoplesrsquo perceptions ofethnic identity (their own and othersrsquo) and the cultural practices and socialrelations in which they are engaged

THE PRIMORDIAL IMPERATIVE

[M]anrsquos essential tribalism is so deeply-rooted in the condition of hisexistence that it will keep cropping out of whatever is laid over it liketrees forcing their way through rocks on mountainsides a mile high

(Isaacs 197416)

The lsquoprimordialrsquo perspective is one of two theoretical approaches which havedominated the literature on ethnicity in the last two to three decades theother being known as the lsquoinstrumentalistrsquo perspective The concept ofprimordial attachments was developed by Shils (1957) in order to describethe particular relational qualities inherent in kinship ties He claimed that thesignificance of these primordial qualities is not merely a function ofinteraction but lies in the lsquoineffable significance attributed to ties of bloodrsquo(Shils 1957122 my emphasis) The concept was then applied to socialgroups of a larger scale than those based on immediate kin relations byGeertz (1963109) who argued that primordial attachment stems from

the lsquogivensrsquohellipof social existence immediate contiguity and kinconnection mainly but beyond them the givenness that stems frombeing born into a particular religious community speaking a particularlanguagehellipand following particular social practices These congruitiesof blood speech and custom and so on are seen to have an ineffableand at times overpowering coerciveness in and of themselves One isbound to onersquos kinsman onersquos neighbour onersquos fellow believer ipsofacto as the result not merely of personal affection practical necessitycommon interest or incurred obligation but at least in great part byvirtue of some unaccountable absolute import attributed to the very tieitself

Hence it is argued that primordial bonds between individuals result fromthe givens of birthmdashlsquobloodrsquo language religion territory and culturemdashwhichcan be distinguished from other social ties on the basis of the lsquoineffable andunaccountablersquo importance of the tie itself Following Shils and Geertzprimordial attachments are involuntary and possess a coerciveness whichtranscends the alliances and relationships engendered by particularsituational interests and social circumstances

Both Shils and Geertz use the concept of primordialism as a means ofdescribing certain kinds of social attachment rather than as an explanatoryconcept (Scott 1990150) However Isaacs develops the concept ofprimordial ties as a means of explaining the power and persistence of ethnic


identity which he calls lsquobasic group identityrsquo He describes basic groupidentity as

the identity made up of what a person is born with or acquires at birthIt is distinct from all the other multiple and secondary identities peopleacquire because unlike all the others its elements are what make agroup in Clifford Geertzrsquo phrase a lsquocandidate for nationhoodrsquo

(Isaacs 197415)

Isaacs (ibid 27) follows Shils and Geertz in identifying the primordial bondsof basic group identity with a range of characteristics that are ascribed atbirth for example the individual acquires names (individual and group) thehistory and origins of the group nationality (or other national regional ortribal affiliation) language religion and value system However Isaacs alsodraws on psychological theories of identity in order to explain the strengthand endurance of lsquotribalrsquolsquoethnicrsquo sentiments and attachments in the modernworld He argues that individuals acquire such primordial bonds throughearly processes of socialization and that such attachments have anoverwhelming power because of a universal human psychological need fora sense of belongingness and self-esteem (ibid 29ndash30) The manifestation ofthis human condition according to Isaacs (ibid 16) can be seen in the

hellipmassive re-tribalization running sharply counter to all theglobalizing effects of modern technology and communications hellipgreatmasses are retreating and withdrawing in the face of the breakdown orinadequacy of all the larger coherences or systems of power and socialorganization

Similar explanations are adopted by other authors who argue that ethnicidentity has its roots in human nature It is claimed that as ethnic identity isbased on primordial attachments that are lsquogivenrsquo at birth it is a more naturaland fundamental form of identity than other forms of social identity (egConnor 1978 Isaacs 1974 Keyes 1976) The cultural characteristicsascribed at birth are important elements in the definition of ethnic groupsand serve to distinguish ethnicity from other forms of group identity (seeKeyes 1976) The appeal to basic psychological needs constitutes a furtherdimension of the primordialist approach particularly with relation to theperceived ethnic revival in modern industrial nation-states (eg Connor1978 Isaacs 1974 Stack 1986) Ethnicity and its relation tribalism areregarded as deep-seated destructive tendencies leading to inter-grouphostilities and conflicts which are suppressed by liberal democratic socialstructures but which always threaten to break through this supposedlytranquil and harmonious existence It is in many ways part of the myth ofcivilization overcoming the barbarian in all of us which is so pervasive inpopular culture and in media representations of conflict and social strife


Further elaborations on the primordialist thesis have focused on thepsychological and biological explanation of conflict which is seen in terms ofingroup amity and outgroup emnity For instance drawing on socialpsychological research Kellas (199112ndash13) argues that humans have apropensity for communal sentiments within a defined group and hostilitytowards members of an outgroup and that these psychological processesunderlie ethnic phenomena It has also been suggested by those adopting asocio-biological approach that ethnic groups and inter-ethnic competitionhave a biological basis (eg Kellas 1991 Reynolds et al 1987 van denBerghe 1978) For instance within an overarching socio-biologicalframework van den Berghe (1978403) argues that both race and ethnicityrepresent an extended or attenuated form of kin selection (see also Reynoldset al 1987) As such ethnicity has a biological basis not because

we have a gene for ethnocentrism or for recognising kin ratherhellipthatthose societies that institutionalised forms of nepotism andethnocentrism had a strong selective advantage over those that did not(assuming that any such ever existed) because kin selection has beenthe basic blueprint for animal sociality

(van den Berghe 1978405) Within the socio-biological framework kinship sentiments form the basis ofthe primordial component of ethnicity and cultural criteria are merelyproximate explanations lsquoJust as in the smaller kin units the kinship was realoften enough to become the basis of these powerful sentiments we callnationalism tribalism racism and ethnocentrismrsquo (ibid 404)

Socio-biological theories of ethnicity raise their own specific problemsThey are essentially based on the notion of kin selection which has beencriticized at a number of levels At an evolutionary level it is predicated onthe claim that throughout most of the history of the human species peoplehave lived in small endogenous groups with some degree of isolation and atendency towards inter-group hostility in the context of resource stressmdashresulting in fairly distinct gene pools However whilst it seems likely thatearly Homo sapiens lived in small groups the other claims have beenquestioned undermining the evolutionary dimension in the socio-biologicalargument (Reynolds 1980312) At another level the connection betweenkin selection and the primordial basis of ethnic groups can also bechallenged7 If ethnic groups are often based on lsquoputative rather than realrsquo(van den Berghe 1978404) kin relations then the logic of the socio-biologicalargument breaks down unless lsquoprimordial inter-group theory based onsociobiology can explain why the new non-genetic transmission of kinshipand group affiliation has to follow the logic of the old genetic onersquo (Reynolds1980311) The mechanism of kin selection is concerned with the survival ofclosely related genetic material into the next generation and if this is not the


outcome of ethnic chauvinism because ethnic ties often consist of putativerather than real kinship then it is difficult to see how societies that haveinstitutionalized ethnocentrism will be lsquoselectedrsquo for in terms of biologicalevolution (as argued by van den Berghe 1978405) The only way out of thisimpasse is to posit a genetic basis for ethnocentrism as a result of thousandsof years of biological evolution an idea which van den Berghe (1978405)himself explicitly rejected

To return to the overall primordial perspective its main advantage is thatit focuses attention on the strong emotions often associated with ethnic andnational attachments and the potency of the cultural symbols involvedaspects which are not adequately addressed by many recent instrumentalistapproaches to ethnicity Primordialist approaches also offer an explanationfor the persistence of some ethnic groups over considerable periods of timewhen it appears to be to their own social disadvantage (McKay 1982397)However a number of serious problems can be identified with the basicprimordialist argument

(1) Primordialist theories result in a romanticization and mystification ofethnic identity It is argued that ethnic identity is based on the ineffablecoerciveness of primordial attachments such as name territory languageand culture but the psychological potency of such attachments is onlyvaguely explored Ultimately primordial ties or ethnic sentiments are positedas primitive and atavistic attributes which gain power from an instinctivepredisposition in human nature (eg Isaacs 1974 Connor 1978 Kellas1991) For instance Kellas (199118ndash19) claims that lsquohuman nature andhuman psychology provide the ldquonecessary conditionsrdquo for ethnocentric andnationalist behaviour and such behaviour is universalrsquo and also that lsquothebiological and psychological characteristics of humans have not evolvedgreatly since the ldquohunter-gathererrdquo society of several thousand years agorsquo(ibid 14) Although Kellas elaborates on the psychological and biologicalbasis of ethnicity to a greater extent than many advocates of the primordialperspective his consideration of these areas is vague and general For othersprimordialism itself is a mystical psychological disposition almost bydefinition lsquoshadowy and elusiversquo (eg Connor 1978379) Consequentlyprimordial approaches are either too general or too obscure to possess agreat deal of explanatory power lsquothe intangible aspects of the primordialapproach constitute at best an ex post facto argument In searching for thegivens of social existence the primordial approach explains everything andnothingrsquo (Stack 19862)

Despite such problems Stack (1986) and others argue that primordialapproaches capture an essential aspect of ethnicitymdashthe psychological andemotional strength of ethnic attachments Yet there is no reason why suchpsychological dimensions should be shadowy or atavistic leaving theanalysis of this aspect of ethnicity devoid of any rigour or explanatory


power For instance de Vos (1982 [1975]17) argues that ethnic identityoften constitutes a significant dimension of an individualrsquos concept of self

Ethnicityhellipis in its narrowest sense a feeling of continuity with the pasta feeling that is maintained as an essential part of onersquos self-definitionEthnicity is also related to the individual need for collective continuityThe individual senses to some degree a threat to his own survival if hisgroup or lineage is threatened with extinction

De Vos (1982 [1975]) goes on to examine the psychological dimensions ofthe imposition of pariah and outcast status on some ethnic groups ofchanges in group status of individual passing and social mobility and theforms of sanctioning alienation and withdrawal that these processes mayengender There is nothing particularly mystical about the need to maintain asense of self that is not completely at odds with onersquos cultural and socialcircumstances and hence to avoid assimilation into ethnic or nationalgroups in order to limit the psychological stress engendered by suchprocesses The transformation of ethnicity in multi-ethnic societies is acomplex process mediated by the articulation of psychological needs as wellas socio-economic interests (see de Vos 1982 [1975] de Vos and RomanucciRoss 1982a [1975] and 1982b [1975])

(2) Primordial approaches suggest that ethnic identity is a determining andimmutable dimension of an individualrsquos self-identity because the primordialattachments that underlie ethnicity are involuntary and coercive (Scott1990151) The cultural traits that represent these sentiments such aslanguage descent place of birth are also often viewed as fixed andinvoluntary However such an approach cannot explain the fluid nature ofethnic boundaries the situational quality of ethnic identity at the level of theindividual or the fact that the importance of ethnicity itself variessignificantly in different social contexts and between different individuals8

A number of people have attempted to accommodate the fluid andinstrumental aspects of ethnicity within a primordialist framework (egKeyes 1981 Stack 1986) For instance Keyes (19815) argues that ethnicidentities entail a primordial relationship between peoplemdashprincipallyinvolving a cultural interpretation of descent At the same time he suggeststhat cultural symbols that represent the identity of a particular group areoften transformed in the context of social change (ibid 14ndash15) and thatindividuals may draw upon differing representations of their ethnicity indifferent social circumstances (ibid 10) Nevertheless the relationshipbetween the psychological dimensions of ethnicity and the cultural symbolsthat signify it is still largely unexplored

(3) From a primordial perspective ethnicity becomes an abstract naturalphenomenon which can be explained on the basis of lsquohuman naturersquo with


little if any analysis of the social and historical contexts in which particularethnic groups are formulated In a simplistic form primordial explanationssuggest that ethnic groups are formulated in a social and political vacuum Aclassic example is the naturalization of ethnic and national conflict

Citizens are expected to be ready to die for their lsquoFatherlandrsquolsquoMotherlandrsquo and it may even be natural to want to do so One wouldhardly die willingly for onersquos job onersquos social class or even onersquos stateif that is not seen as the lsquoFatherlandrsquo

(Kellas 19919)

However class religious and political disputes which are not related toethnicity in a straightforward manner can also lead to violent conflict Theexplanation of ethnic and national conflict as a romantic and instinctiveresponse to primordial alliances given through birth or simply as an innatereaction to cultural diversity obscures analysis of the economic and politicalinterests that are often a central aspect of such conflicts (Lloyd 1974223) Itshould be asked why ethnic relations are amicable in some situations andlead to conflict in others and whether conflicts would disappear if inequalitywere eradicated (McKay 1982399) The way in which primordialapproaches treat the issue of conflict reflects a general neglect of the role ofsocio-structural factors in the formulation of ethnicity Ethnicity becomessituated as a transcendental essence which persists through time irrespectiveof diverse and changing social and historical contexts

In the light of research that highlights the relationship between ethnicity andpolitical and economic relations a number of authors have attempted toincorporate these aspects within a primordial framework (eg Bell 1975 Kellas1991 Keyes 1981) The primordial dimensions of ethnic identity are placed as abaseline for the construction of particular forms of ethnicity and for themobilization of ethnic groups with relation to political and economic interests

Identity and behaviour are partly genetic but they are also shaped bycontext and choice In politics they are resources waiting to be used bypoliticians and their supporters to their own advantage Human natureprovides the necessary conditions for ethnocentric behaviour butpolitics converts this into the lsquosufficient conditionsrsquo for nationalism aswe understand it today

(Kellas 199119)

Nevertheless the relationship between the psychological and culturaldimensions of ethnicity and the instrumental aspects of ethnicity remainslargely unexplored in such attempts to add a superficial instrumentaldimension to the primordialist model

(4) In addition to a neglect of the historical and social grounding ofparticular ethnicities primordialist approaches also fail to consider the


historically situated and culturally constructed nature of the very conceptsthat are central to their argumentmdashmost notably lsquoethnic grouprsquo and lsquonationrsquoThe national or ethnic unit becomes situated as the natural and universalunit of human organization and collectively oriented emotional attachment(eg Kellas 1991)9 despite historical studies that patently contradict such anassumption10

Moreover in a broader sense the primordialist approach itself is part of amuch older intellectual current associated with the romanticization andnaturalization of the ethnic or national unit Representations of national andethnic groups which have emerged within such academic traditions are notfar removed from the conceptualization of the nation inherent in manynationalist discourses For instance Connor elevates the ideology ofnationalism to the very essence of the nation through his argument thatkinship and blood lineage are the central dimensions of nationhood

Bismarckrsquos famous exhortation to the German people over the headsof their particular political leaders to lsquothink with your bloodrsquowashellip[an] attempt to activate a mass psychological vibrationpredicated on an intuitive sense of consanguinity

(Connor 1978380) He claims that such discourses implicate the true nature of the nation becausepeople invariably think that descent and blood lineage are the basis of theirnational identities irrespective of anthropological and biological evidence tothe contrary (ibid 380ndash1) On this basis the American people are

not a nation in the pristine sense of the wordhellip [The] unfortunatehabit of calling them a nation and thus verbally equating Americanwith German Chinese English and the like has seduced scholars intoerroneous analogies Indeed while proud of being lsquoa nation ofimmigrantsrsquo with a lsquomelting potrsquo tradition the absence of a commonorigin may well make it more difficult and conceivably impossible forthe American to appreciate instinctively the idea of the nation in thesame dimension and with the same poignant clarity as do the Japanesethe Bengali or the Kikuyu It is difficult for an American to appreciatewhat it means for a German to be German or for a Frenchman to beFrench because the psychological effect of being American is notprecisely equatable

(Ibid 381)

Connorrsquos argument embodies many of the flaws in the primordialistapproach the complexities of particular nationalisms are ignored a notionof lsquopristinersquo nationalism (or ethnicity) is reinforced raising the spectre ofdeviance from this seemingly lsquonaturalrsquo unit of human social life (cf Williams


1989) and the historical specificity of the notion of a homogeneous nationbased on descent or lsquoblood relationsrsquo is disregarded through a naiveattribution of validity to a particular formulation of the concept derivedlargely from lsquowesternrsquo nationalist discourses Clearly the complexrelationship between social-scientific concepts and broader discourses ofidentity requires a more critical analysis than that embodied in theprimordialist approach (see Chapter 5)

To summarize primordialist approaches to ethnicity and relatedphenomena attempt to explain the psychological dimension of ethnicity andthe potency of particular symbols which are inadequately addressed bymany instrumentalist theories of ethnicity However at present knowledgeabout the purported psychological andor biological bases of primordialattachments is vague and the level of explanation fails to address thedynamic and fluid nature of ethnicity in varied social and historical contextsMoreover primordialist approaches often incorporate ideas derived fromnationalist ideologies without adequately historicizing these ideas

INSTRUMENTAL ETHNICITIES

In a fairly short time we have moved from metaphors of blood and stoneto clay and putty

(Horowitz 19777 cited in McKay 1982399) The last two to three decades have witnessed a large-scale shift towards theconceptualization of ethnicity as a dynamic and situational form of groupidentity embedded in the organization of social behaviour and also in theinstitutional fabric of society Research focusing on these dimensions hasbeen broadly defined as the lsquoinstrumentalistrsquo theoretical approach (Bentley198725)mdashbeing characterized by a concern with the role of ethnicity in themediation of social relations and the negotiation of access to resourcesprimarily economic and political resources11 However despite theircommon ground studies focusing on these aspects of ethnicity also reflect awide range of theoretical perspectives for instance ranging from neo-Marxism (eg Hechter 1976) through cultural ecology (eg Barth 1969a1969b) to social interactionalism (Eidheim 1969) They also accommodatea general division in the human sciences between those approaches thatemphasize the primacy of individual behaviour (eg Patterson 1975) andthose that focus on social structures or cultural norms (eg Cohen 1974) orput more simply a contrast between emphasizing freedom or constraint inthe interpretation of social behaviour and in particular human agency(Eriksen 1993a57) As noted earlier the former approach tends to beassociated with a subjectivist approach whilst the latter tends to involve anobjectivist approach

In anthropology the works of Barth (1969a) and Abner Cohen (1974)


are generally regarded as having played a pivotal role in the developmentof the instrumental approach The starting point for Earthrsquos theoreticalframework was that ethnic groups are not the result of geographical orsocial isolation and importantly they are not merely the bearers ofdiscrete cultural entities Instead he argued ethnic boundaries are oftenthe very foundations of embracing social systems (Barth 1969a10) As aresult interaction between members of different ethnic groups does notalways lead to the loss of cultural differences due to processes ofacculturation Cultural diversity can persist despite inter-ethnic contactand interdependence (ibid)

Much of Barthrsquos argument was then taken up with the explanation ofboundary persistence for if ethnic groups are not the passive product ofcultural differentiation there must be some other explanation for theformation and persistence of organizationally relevant ethnic categoriesFocusing on the interaction and interdependence of ethnic groups Barth(1969a) argued that the persistence of boundaries can be explained asadaptation to a particular social or ecological niche Furthermore he arguedthat the interdependence of groups occupying different niches can takeseveral forms ethnic groups may occupy distinct niches or territories in anatural environment with minimal competition for resources except alongthe boundaries they may occupy the same niche and be in competition forresources or they may occupy different but reciprocal niches in closeinterdependence (ibid 19ndash20) For instance the Fur and the Baggaraoccupy separate niches in the Darfur region of Sudan the Fur engage insedentary hoe agriculture relying mainly on the production of millet whilstthe Baggara are nomadic cattle pastoralists In terms of subsistence the Furand Baggara provide complementary resources and there is little competitionbetween them except when the cattle invade the irrigated gardens of the Furduring the dry season (Haaland 196958ndash9) In other cases where groupscompete for the same resources hierarchical ethnic relationships can developbetween the groups as in the case of Italian and Turkish lsquoguestworkersrsquo andthe Walloons and Flemings in Belgium (see Roosens 1989) the Sami and theNorwegians in Norway (see Eidheim 1969) and the Ndendeuli and theNgoni in Malawi (see Cohen 1978)

As well as suggesting that ethnic categories are a function of participationin particular social niches Barth (1969a24) argued that changes inindividual ethnic identity leading to a flow of personnel across ethnicboundaries are related to the economic and political circumstances of theindividuals concerned For example some of the hoe-agricultural Fur ofSudan have adopted the lifestyle and identity of the nomadic cattle Arabsthe Baggara (see Barth 1969a25ndash6 Haaland 1969) a shift in identity whichis explained by both Haaland and Barth as a function of the limitedopportunities for capital investment in the Fur economy in contrast to theopportunities presented by Baggara cattle pastoralism


Barth along with a number of others (eg Eidheim 1969 Haaland 1969Salamone and Swansom 1979) adopts an approach which can be seen as anextension of pre-existing social theories such as phenomenology and socialinteractionalism and the classic emphasis on lsquostatusrsquo and lsquorolersquo in sociology(Calhoun 199413) Such an approach is conducive to looking at ethnicity asan individualistic strategy For instance Barth (1969a22ndash3) argues thatindividuals pass from one categorical identity to another in order to advancetheir personal economic and political interests or to minimize their lossesSimilarly Eidheimrsquos (1969) study of Lapp identity suggests that peoplesuppress their identity in some situations and emphasize it in othersdepending on the social advantages and disadvantages which a particularidentity engenders in different situations In contrast Cohen (1969 1974)who also interpreted ethnic groups as interest groups has argued that it isnecessary to take into account the normative effects of culture and its powerin constraining individual actions

An ethnic group is not simply the sum total of its individual membersand its culture is not the sum total of the strategies adopted byindependent individuals Norms and beliefs and values are effectiveand have their own constraining power only because they are thecollective representations of a group and are backed by the pressure ofthat group

(Cohen 1974xiii) As a result Cohen placed greater emphasis on the ethnic group as acollectively organized strategy for the protection of economic and politicalinterests He argued that in the course of social life a variety of groupsemerge whose members share common interests In order to pursue theseinterests collectively such a group has to develop lsquobasic organizationalfunctions distinctiveness (some writers call it boundary) communicationauthority structure decision making procedure ideology and socializationrsquo(ibid xvindashxvii) It is possible for these organizational functions to bedeveloped on a formal basis however Cohen (ibid xvii) argues that inmany instances formal organization is not possible and under thesecircumstances the group will articulate its organization by drawing onexisting cultural practices and beliefs such as kinship ritual ceremony andcultural values According to Cohen (ibid xxi) this use of culture tosystematize social behaviour in pursuit of economic and political interestsconstitutes the basis of ethnicity

There are a number of similarities in the work of Cohen (1974) and Barth(1969a) they both focus on the organizational features of ethnicity andethnicity is regarded as constituting the shared beliefs and practices thatprovide a group with the boundary maintenance and organizationaldimensions necessary to maintain and compete for socio-economic


resources They can both then be defined as instrumentalists However theyalso reflect two persistent positions within instrumental approaches toethnicity those who focus on the socio-structural and cultural dimensions ofethnicity and adopt a more objectivist approach and those who focus on theinterpersonal and behavioural aspects of ethnicity and take a moresubjectivist stance

During the 1970s and 1980s the instrumentalist perspective came todominate research on ethnicity often following on from the work of Earth(1969a) and Cohen (1974) For example in his analysis of the strategic use ofethnic solidarity in American urban society Hannerz (1974) draws uponCohenrsquos (1969) characterization of ethnic groups as interest groups Asresearch on the instrumental dimensions of ethnicity flourished it alsodiversified focusing on various different aspects of ethnicity such as inter-ethnic competition (eg Despres 1975 Otite 1975) the political mobilizationof ethnicity (eg Bell 1975 Roosens 1989 Ross 1980 Vincent 1974) or thestratification of ethnic relations within multi-ethnic societies (eg Shibutaniand Kwan 1965) For instance Glazer and Moynihan (1975) have focused onthe political dimensions of ethnicity in contemporary western societies(especially the United States) and claim that ethnicity has gained strategicefficacy since the 1960s as a basis for asserting claims against governments(Glazer and Moynihan 197510 see also Roosens 1989)

Research in the 1970s and 1980s has also placed considerable emphasison the fluid and situational aspects of both individual and group identity(eg see Cohen 1978 Handelman 1977 Horowitz 1975) These aredimensions of ethnicity that were neglected by writers such as Barth (1969a)who regarded ethnic categories as all-encompassing and relatively fixeddespite the movement of individuals across the boundaries The group as anintegrated fixed entity is even further reified by a continued emphasis onethnicity as a reflection of shared norms (eg Cohen 1974) or the socio-structural basis of ethnicity As Vincent (1974376) has argued

We tend to seek the embodiment of ethnicity in overly corporate formsPossibly as we move further away from holistic organismic systemsmodelsmdashfrom descent to alliance from group to non-group from alsquocookie-cutterrsquo concept of culture to a finer understanding of theephemerality and inconsistency of social relationsmdashthis concept ofethnicity will be clarified

In order to avoid such reification of the group Vincent and others (egCohen 1978 Handelman 1977 Wallman 1977) have suggested that it isimportant to explore the perception and negotiation of ethnicity byindividuals in different contexts of interaction In doing so they have shownthat the perception and expression of a personrsquos ethnic identity can vary indifferent situations depending on the context and scale of interactionresulting in a series of nesting dichotomizations (Cohen 1978378) For


instance Gulliver (196922ndash3) points out that the Kikuyu of Kenya havebeen regarded as one tribe but in pre-colonial times they were made up of alarge number of overlapping more or less autonomous communitiesdistinguished in varying degrees by residence dialect organization customsand so on For certain purposes they amalgamated into larger groupingsknown as lsquosub-tribesrsquo which were then consolidated under colonial rule Inorder to defend old and new interests and in opposition to colonial rulethese sub-tribes also joined up to form the group known as the Kikuyu aunity that was central to the Mau Mau revolt and yet again with othergroups to form what has been referred to as the northeastern Bantu blockAll the time the constituent segments of such groupings may remain active incertain spheres whilst suppressed in other spheres of social life

Furthermore ethnic identity may be suppressed in situations where itpossesses a social stigma and in still other situations it may be irrelevant as abasis for interaction (Cohen 1978395ndash7) Thus in addition to itssegmentary and fluid character ethnicity itself is a variable and its saliencechanges in different contexts depending upon whether it is a meaningfulelement in the structuring of social interaction Recognition of the shiftingand segmentary nature of ethnicity has also revealed the way in whichculture and tradition are drawn upon in the construction of ethnicity oftenbeing transformed in the process The invention and re-invention of historyand tradition in the mobilization and legitimation of ethnicity have been aparticular focus of attention in recent literature (eg see contributions toHobsbawm and Ranger 1983 Tonkin et al 1989)

The rapid growth of what can be broadly termed instrumentalistapproaches to ethnicity has contributed to an understanding of the commonprocesses and structures underlying the formation of ethnic groups and thepoliticization of ethnic identity By breaking away from essentialistperspectives such as those involving a one-to-one correlation betweenculture and ethnicity or the biologicalpsychological determinism of theprimordial perspective instrumentalist approaches have contributed to thedescription and explanation of the dynamic and situational aspects ofethnicity which are clearly evident in many cases However there are also anumber of problems with aspects of this perspective

(1) Many instrumentalist approaches fall into a reductionist mode ofexplanation whereby ethnicity is defined in terms of the observed regularitiesof ethnic behaviour in a particular situation

Thus analystsrsquo mental models are transformed into causal principleslocated in the (conscious or unconscious) minds of the people whosebehaviour is being studied In ethnicity studies this meant that if ethnicgroups act in ways that appear strategically advantageous then strategicadvantage must be the raison drsquoecirctre of these groups

(Bentley 198748)


Thus the essence of ethnicity is frequently reduced to the mobilization andpoliticization of culture in the organization of interest groups (eg Cohen1974 Ross 1980 Vincent 1974) However as Epstein (1978310 cited inMcKay 1982399) points out lsquoto describe an ethnic group as having interestsis one thing to define it in these terms is something quite differentrsquo

Whilst the analysis of the economic and political dimensions of ethnicityhas been productive in revealing and explaining the dynamic and situationalaspects of ethnic organization the reduction of analysis to these factorsalone can lead to an overly deterministic argument For instance theultimate implication of some instrumental approaches (eg Cohen 1974) isthat ethnicity comes into existence in order to serve the purposes of interestgroups There are many examples which patently contradict such anargument where ethnicity cannot be explained in terms of the pursuit oftemporary economic and political interests For instance as in the continuedrecognition of Aboriginal identity by the indigenous population of Australiaat least prior to the 1970s in the context of severe negative discrimination inAustralian society The construction of Aboriginal identity followingEuropean colonization of Australia indicates that the manifestation ofethnicity is the product of a range of processes embedded in relations ofpower between groups which are reproduced and transformed in thecommunication of cultural difference (see contributions to Beckett 1988bKeen 1988)

(2) The reduction of ethnicity to economic and political relationshipsfrequently results in a neglect of the cultural dimensions of ethnicity (Deshen1974281ndash4) This neglect is a consequence of the idea that ethnic categoriesprovide an lsquoempty vesselrsquo into which various aspects of culture may bepoured

one cannot predict from first principles which [cultural] features willbe emphasized and made organizationally relevant In other wordsethnic categories provide an organizational vessel that may be givenvarying amounts and forms of content in different socio-culturalsystemshellip The cultural features that signal the boundary may changeand the cultural characteristics of the members may likewise betransformed indeed even the organizational form of the group maychangemdashyet the fact of continuing dichotomization between membersand outsiders allows us to specify the nature of continuity andinvestigate the changing cultural form and content

(Barth 1969a14) From this perspective culture plays a secondary role in the formation andtransformation of ethnic identity if an individualrsquos lifestyle becomestransformed to the extent that it is incompatible with existing ethnic


categorizations she will adopt a more appropriate ethnic identity based ondifferent cultural diacritica and value orientations (eg Earth 1969a25) orif interest groups coalesce they will use existing cultural practices and beliefsor even create new ones in order to provide the organizational features ofthe group such as the monopoly of particular socio-economic domainsmodes of appropriate social interaction and behaviour and so on (eg Cohen1974 and see Williams 1989409 for a critique)

The distinction made by Barth between culture and ethnicity and theemphasis that he and others have placed on the organizational aspects ofethnicity has maintained a central position in subsequent theoriesEncompassed within this framework most instrumental studies take theexistence of group identity and the cultural diacritica which symbolize thatidentity for granted and proceed to describe the socio-structural andinstrumental dimensions of ethnicity For instance in an analysis of ethnicidentity amongst migrant and urban-born Mossi in Kumasi NigeriaSchildkrout (1974187 216ndash17) claims that culture is irrelevant to thepersistence of ethnicity as a basis for personal and group identity and thatethnic categories are maintained by structural factors Consequently ethnicidentity and cultural symbols become conceptualized as detached attributeswashed on the tides of economic and political relations

A few instrumentalists do grant culture a significant if secondary role inthe organization of ethnic groups however the relationship between cultureand the instrumental dimensions of ethnicity is not adequately explored Forinstance Barth acknowledges that whilst there is not a one-to-onerelationship between culture and ethnic units lsquoethnic groups only persist assignificant social units if they imply marked difference in behaviour iepersisting cultural differencesrsquo (Barth 1969a15ndash16) Moreover he definesethnic identity as an ascriptive identity lsquopresumptively determinedbyhelliporigin and backgroundrsquo (ibid 13) How then do people such as the Furadopt a Baggara lifestyle and identity to suit their economic aspirationswhen Baggara identity is presumably defined on the basis of origin andshared cultural knowledge Barth (1969a28ndash9) does recognize thislsquoanomaloushellipfeature of ethnic identityrsquo and the ambiguity engendered bychanges in ethnic categorization however he does not confront thisproblem or the problematic status of culture in his theoretical approach

(3) The reductionist mode of analysis in many instrumentalist studies alsoresults in the neglect of the psychological dimensions of ethnicity Researchhas suggested that cultural ascriptions of ethnic identity may comprise animportant aspect of an individualrsquos sense of self creating conflict for peoplewhose social relations and cultural practices become removed from theirsense of identity (see Bentley 1987 Keyes 1981 de Vos 1982 [1975])Consequently psychological factors may have a significant influence on the


instrumental manipulation of ethnicity and need to be taken into account instudies that tend to reduce human agency to rational self-interest

(4) The assumption in many instrumentalist approaches that humanbehaviour is essentially rational and directed towards maximizing self-interest results in an oversimplification of the perception of interests byculturally situated agents and disregards the dynamics of power in bothintra-group and inter-group relations Membership in a particular ethnicgroup (or nation) does not confer a homogeneous perspective on theindividuals concerned (Asad 1980645) and it cannot be assumed thatmembers of an ethnic group will agree as to what is in their lsquointerestsrsquo Theperception of appropriate or possible gains and desires is culturallymediated engendered by the dispositions that individuals possess as a resultof their experience of the lsquoobjectiversquo structures that define their socio-cultural practices (Bourdieu 1977 see also Chapter 5) Consequentlymembers of different ethnic groups and to some extent members of the sameethnic group will perceive their interests and their identities differently andfollow different courses of action (Sharp and McAllister 199320)

(5) Finally as a result of the tendency to define ethnicity as a politicized ormobilized group identity and the neglect of the cultural and psychologicaldimensions of ethnicity it is difficult to distinguish ethnic groups from othercollective-interest groups (Hechter 198619) Consequently within someinstrumental perspectives ethnic identity is regarded as a variant of class (egPatterson 1975) As McKay (1982340) points out it is important to explorethe complex interrelationships between different social identities such asclass ethnic and gender identity rather than conflate such identities withinthe framework of a crude economic or cultural determinism

Overall instrumentalist approaches have contributed to the comparativeanalysis of ethnic groupsmdashtheir relation to socio-economic and politicalrelations boundary maintenance and inter-ethnic relations aspects whichare neglected by primordialist approaches However instrumentalistapproaches tend to be reductionist and fail to explain the generation ofethnic groups Moreover like the proponents of the primordial perspectiveinstrumental approaches do not provide an adequate theory of therelationship between culture and ethnicity

AN INTEGRATED THEORETICAL APPROACH

The primordial and instrumental approaches have often been positioned bytheir proponents as diametrically opposed alternative explanations of theemergence and persistence of ethnic behaviour As causal explanations ofethnic behaviour the two approaches are contradictory


we are told on the one hand that the continued salience of ethnicfactors is because they are deep-seated irrational atavistic allegiancesincapable of being altered and on the other hand because they areperipheral loyalties which can be readily manipulated in a rational wayfor pursuing political and economic goals

(McKay 1982396)

However the instrumental and primordial perspectives concentrate onpotentially complementary aspects of ethnicity and a number of people haveindicated the sterility of this debate12 As McKay (1982401ndash2) points out

ethnic tension or conflict which is purely ideal or purely materialconstitutes a minority of all cases It is surely the case that allpolyethnic societies are characterized by a combination of instrumentaland affective bonds hellipit seems pointless to bifurcate lsquotheoriesrsquo intoprimordial or mobilization camps when it is obvious that bothdimensions are involved

In an effort to transcend the opposition between primordial andinstrumental perspectives a number of people have attempted to incorporateboth perspectives within a single theoretical framework (eg Doornbos1972 McKay 1982 Smith 1981 Stack 1986) For instance McKay(1982403 my emphasis) reformulates the two perspectives into a matrixmodel whereby rather than lsquoasking which approachmdashprimordialist ormobilizationistmdashhas more explanatory power it is now possible to enquireabout the extent to which both are operative to varying degreesrsquo His modelleads to the formulation of a typology of different types of ethnic behaviourinvolving varying degrees of primordial and instrumental factors Forexample he identifies lsquoethnic traditionalistsrsquo such as the Jews whoseprimordial interests are he suggests more salient than material oneslsquopseudo-ethnicsrsquo such as Appalacian Americans and other lsquowhite ethnicsrsquo inthe US whose primordial and material interests are both low and lsquoethnicmilitantsrsquo such as Basque militant groups whose primordial andinstrumental interests are both very prominent (McKay 1982403ndash7)

However McKay (1982408) himself notes that his model is purelydescriptive and empirical making no attempt to explain why groups emergepersist or disappear or why the salience of primordial and instrumentaldimensions varies Others such as Smith (1981 1984) who also suggest thatthe intensity of ethnic behaviour varies along a continuum attempt todevelop an explanatory model rather than just a descriptive one Smithrsquos(1981) theory is grounded in an analysis of the socio-historical contexts inwhich ethnicity is constructed and he argues that the economic conditionsassociated with modern industrial nation-states have exacerbated ethnicmovements leading to greater intensity of sentiment and the mobilization ofgroups However Smith (198187) claims that the importance of economic


factors lies only in their ability to activate historically rooted culturalcommunities which have been an important element in human social lifethroughout recorded history

Economic deprivation economic exploitation economic growth areall grist to the nationalist mill but in themselves they do not generateethnic sentiments or nationalist movements The uneven developmentof industrialisation which roughly coincided with the development ofnationalism has undoubtedly sharpened ethnic tensions andcontributed to a new store of national grievances but the cleavagesand antagonisms so accentuated together with the aspirations andideals based upon them have their roots and inspiration elsewhere

(Smith 198144)

Ultimately Smithrsquos explanation of ethnicity remains within the primordialistframework (see Smith 198166ndash7) and the instrumental dimensions ofethnicity are situated as secondary phenomena which emerge in particularsocial and historical situationsmdashone being the development ofindustrialization As a result a chronological continuum is created betweenlongstanding ethnic traditions that can be understood in terms of primordialties and those that have been transformed by present interests and strategiesand have only a dimly remembered heritage (Douglass 1988199) Whilstsuch an approach enables the analysis of primordial and instrumentalaspects as variables it situates them as distinct but mutually influencingprocesses along a temporal scale This scale progresses from naturalprimordial entities in the misty depths of history to the instrumental andseemingly arbitrary manipulation of ethnicity in pursuit of economic andpolitical resources in the modern society

An alternative response to the need to break down the opposition betweeninstrumental and primordial perspectives can be found in theoreticalapproaches that attempt to account for the interaction between psychologicaland socio-structural aspects of ethnicity in the context of social change (eg deVos 1982 [1975] de Vos and Romanucci-Ross 1982b [1975] Keyes 19761981) For instance Keyes (1976 1981) emphasizes the need to look at bothcultural and social aspects of ethnic identity in dialectical relation to oneanother particularly when they are rendered problematic in situations ofchange The basis of his analysis of change is the premise that a tension existslsquobetween cultural meanings that people construct to differentiate theirprimordial identities from those of others and the patterns that emerge insocial interactions as individuals and groups seek to pursue their interestsrsquo(Keyes 198114) In relatively stable social situations mechanisms to resolvethese tensions such as sanctions may be maintained However a radical shiftin the social context may bring about changes in the form and pattern of socialinteraction resulting in the construction of new cultural meanings and areassessment of ethnic identities


In many respects Keyesrsquos theoretical approach is similar to the lsquopsycho-culturalrsquo approach put forward by de Vos De Vos (1982 [1975]) argues thatin order to understand why certain peoples maintain symbolic forms ofsocial differentiation over long periods despite a lack of political autonomyand often to their own disadvantage it is necessary to give priority to theemotional and even irrational psychological features underlying socialidentity However he also claims that both the instrumental and primordialdimensions of ethnic phenomena are present and it is this that creates anessential tension for the individual De Vos advocates a conflict approach tothe analysis of change very similar to that proposed by Keyes and maintainsthat the locus of change lies in the tension between the cultural andinstrumental dimensions of ethnicity (see also de Vos and Romanucci-Ross1982b [1975])

It is evident that most attempts to develop an integrated theoreticalapproach for the analysis of ethnicity involve the assertion of some kind ofprimordial basis for ethnicity which is then articulated with epiphenomenalsocial stimuli such as economic and political competition As noted abovesuch an approach often leads to the construction of a diachronic model ofethnic groups and their relation to specific economic and political contextsHowever the primordial and socio-political aspects of ethnicity are stillsituated as discrete although mutually influencing processes with causalexplanations specifying the source and direction of ethnic change

This superficial articulation of the primordial and instrumentalperspectives within an overarching framework overlooks a fundamentaldifference between them which undermines the formulation of a generaltheory of ethnicity Primordial and instrumental perspectives tend to bebased on conflicting notions of human agency manifested in an unproductiveopposition between rationality and irrationality and the economic andsymbolic domains of social practice Many of the integrated theoreticalapproaches discussed above implicitly accept such dichotomies betweendifferent modes of human behaviour as a baseline for their analysis andproceed to try to identify the different forms of ethnicity which areengendered by these conflicting modes of behaviour Hence ethnic groupsare considered to be the product of both the rational pursuit of economic andpolitical interests in the mode of lsquoHomo economicusrsquo and the forces ofcoercive and atavistic primordial affinities Such a distinction is orientedaround a restricted ethnocentric definition of rational economic interestwhich as Bourdieu (1977177) points out

can find no placehellipfor the strictly symbolic interest which isoccasionally recognised (when too obviously entering into conflictwith lsquointerestrsquo in the narrow sense as in [some] forms of nationalism orregionalism) only to be reduced to the irrationality of feeling orpassion


In addition to the absence of a coherent theory of human action that cantranscend the primordialmdashinstrumental dichotomy both perspectives sharea critical gap in their explanatory logic they fail to address the question ofhow people recognize commonalities of interest or sentiment underlyingclaims to a common identity As Bentley (198727) points out lsquoethnicidentity claims involve a symbolic construal of sensations of likeness anddifference and these sensations must somehow be accounted forrsquo In order toaddress such issues it is necessary to reconsider the relationship betweenculture and ethnicity without resorting either to the idea that culturallydetermined ethnic affinities possess an innate primordiality or to ateleological functionalist argument which assumes that cultural boundariesand associated ethnic identities come into being on an arbitrary basis inorder to serve instrumental purposes

84

Chapter 5

Multidimensional ethnicityTowards a contextual analytical framework

A WORKING DEFINITION OF ETHNICITY

As we saw in Chapter 4 the definition of ethnicity both in a generic senseand in the case of particular ethnic groups has been beset by difficultiesNevertheless from the late 1960s onwards the dominant view withinlsquowesternrsquo social scientific traditions has been that ethnic groups are lsquoself-defining systemsrsquo and consequently particular ethnic groups have beendefined on the basis of self-identification and identification by others Sucha definition has largely been set within a theoretical framework focusingon the construction of ethnic boundaries in the context of social interactionand their organizational properties Ethnicity has been regarded asessentially a consciousness of identity vis-agrave-vis other groups a lsquowersquolsquotheyrsquoopposition

In what follows a similar processual and relational approach to thedefinition of ethnicity is adopted Ethnic groups are culturally ascribed identitygroups which are based on the expression of a real or assumed shared cultureand common descent (usually through the objectification of culturallinguistic religious historical andor physical characteristics) As a processethnicity involves a consciousness of difference which to varying degreesentails the reproduction and transformation of basic classificatory distinctionsbetween groups of people who perceive themselves to be in some respectculturally distinct (Eriksen 19923) The cultural differences informing ethniccategories are to varying degrees systematic and enduring because they bothinform modes of interaction between people of different ethnic categories andare confirmed by that interaction that is ethnic categories are reproduced andtransformed in the ongoing processes of social life

This processual approach to the definition and analysis of ethnic groupshas a number of advantages over the traditional lsquoobjectivistrsquo definitions andthe associated view of cultures as fixed and monolithic entities It enables theanalysis of the processes involved in the construction of ethnicity and theirrole in the mediation of social interaction and social relations thus providinga basis for the comparative study of ethnicity whilst avoiding the problems

Multidimensional ethnicity 85

derived from the reification of ethnic groups as discrete integrated socialentities As Eriksen (199228) indicates a focus on social process as opposedto group characteristics enables lsquostudents of ethnicity to discardunsatisfactory strategies of empiricist ldquobutterfly collectingrdquo to replacesubstance with form statics with dynamics property with relationship andstructure with processrsquo

Yet despite such analytical advantages there have been a number ofcritiques of processual approaches to the definition and analysis of ethnicitywhich warrant further consideration

(1) The use of ethnicity as a central concept for the comparative analysis of awide range of socio-cultural phenomena has been questioned (eg Blu1980219 Chapman et al 198916ndash17 Pardon 1987175) For instance ithas been argued that processual definitions of ethnicity whatever theirtheoretical orientation are lsquoessentially emptyrsquo (Just 198975) and could beapplied to any lsquosymbolically differentiated groups with a strong sense ofidentityrsquo (Blu 1980224) such as gender class and kin-based groupings Theessence of this critique is the legitimate claim that at a basic level theprocesses entailed in the construction of ethnicity are essentially similar tothe processes involved in the construction of gender class and kinship in thatthey are all culturally constructed categories based on the communication ofreal or assumed difference

However ethnicity can be distinguished from other forms of socialgrouping on the basis of the constituents of such categories of group identityand the kind of interpersonal relationships and formal organization theyentail For instance gender categories are cultural constructs that inscribeaspects of sexual differentiation and inform the cultural practices and socialrelations of and between men and women (although not necessarily in abinary opposition) (see Moore 1988) Classes are categories of peopledifferentiated on the basis of their unequal access to economic political andcultural resources resulting in the division of society into horizontal strata(Seymour-Smith 1986) Thus in contrast to ethnic groups class and genderdivisions do not entail the reproduction of classificatory differences betweenpeople who perceive themselves to be culturally distinct instead theygenerally relate to divisions within a broad cultural grouping (cf Eriksen19926ndash7 50) However the boundaries between these different forms ofidentity are not clear-cut and ethnic differences are frequently enmeshed ingender and class divisions in a complex manner For instance in plural socialcontexts ethnic groupings may become embedded in hierarchical powerrelationships characterized by differential access to economic resources in asimilar manner to class (see Cohen 1969 Gluckman 1971 Roosens 1989)Consequently in any particular analysis it is necessary to consider theintersection of different kinds of identitymdashethnic class gender and so onmdash

86 Multidimensional ethnicity

and the ways in which they become institutionalized in different societies(see Eriksen 1992173ndash9)

(2) A number of critics have also argued that formalprocessual definitions ofethnicity are ahistorical and fail to take into account wider social andhistorical contexts (eg Fardon 1987175 Khan 1992173ndash4 Muga198410ndash14) Having excluded substantive characteristics such as linguisticand cultural traits from the definition of ethnic groups there is a tendency toignore the differences between them in varying social and historical contextsethnicity it is suggested becomes a unitary socio-cultural phenomenonpresent in vastly different situationsmdashboth modern and pre-modern ThusFardon (1987171) argues that

Once there was a large vocabulary to describe types of differences (ofrace of language of nation (in its old sense) and so on) Thesecategories were often ill-defined and sometimes pejorative but they didpreserve the important and I think justifiable sense that not all ofthese differences were of the same type Since ethnicity gobbled upthese distinctions and regurgitated them as variants of a single type oflsquoethnicrsquo difference it seems that many notes on the scale of differencehave become muted if not lost

Blu (1980219) makes a similar point

When ethnicity has come to refer to everything from tribalism toreligious sects from City men in London to the shifting identities of theShan and Kachin from regionalism to race it is difficult to see that ithas any universal utility either as an analytical tool or a descriptiveone

There are likely to be important distinctions between different ethnic groupswhich are not accommodated within the processual definition proposedabove For instance there are obviously differences between indigenousethnic groups such as the Australian Aborigines immigrant minorities suchas Bengali communities in Britain and ethno-nationalist groups such as theBasques Furthermore there may be considerable variation between ethnicgroups in pre-modern societies as opposed to modern societies and non-state societies as opposed to state societies The potential differences betweensuch groups as well as the similarities between them need to be exploredNevertheless attempts to restrict the application of processual definitions ofethnicity by reinstating a number of substantive criteria have largelyresulted in teleological reasoning Regularities in the behaviour andcharacteristics of a particular ethnic group are attributed to ethnicity ingeneral and are frequently seen as causal (functional) principles (Bentley198748) Hence if the regularities of ethnic behaviour appear to be relatedto particular socio-structural positions such as a segment of a broader multi-


ethnic society (eg Yinger 1983ix) or fundamental changes in theorganization of society such as the emergence of world capitalism (Muga198417ndash19) then ethnicity becomes defined and explained in these termsSuch teleological definitions of ethnicity do not facilitate the explication andanalysis of the general processes involved in the formation andtransformation of ethnic groups as they are restricted to the form that ethnicphenomena take in particular social and historical contexts Furthermoreattempts to incorporate substantive content such as specific culturalcharacteristics or particular socio-structural relations into the definition ofethnicity risk the reification of ethnic groups and obscure themultidimensional contested and situational nature of ethnicity

It is possible to carve up socio-cultural phenomena along various lines forthe purposes of analysis and inevitably the particular definition adoptedmust be evaluated with relation to the purposes of the classification The aimhere is to produce a theoretical framework facilitating the analysis of theformation and transformation of ethnic groupings in various social andhistorical contexts In order to achieve such an analysis it is necessary toadopt a formal processual definition of ethnicity of the most general kindrather than produce a detailed classification of various kinds of groupidentity and culturally constructed idioms of difference An unashamedlybroad formal definition of ethnicity can be used as an analytical tool toexplore diverse expressions of ethnicity in different cultural contextswhereas a minutely detailed substantive or historical classification can reifytypes of ethnic group and in so doing actually close down appreciation of thediffering manifestations of ethnicity in particular social and historicalcontexts (see Eriksen 19923 17 1993a12ndash13) Nevertheless in using sucha broad processual definition in the analysis of any particular ethnic group itwill be necessary to examine the kinds of cultural difference involved in thecommunication of ethnicity and the way in which ethnicity isinstitutionalized in particular social and cultural contexts

TOWARDS A PRACTICE THEORY OF ETHNICITY

The opposition between lsquoobjectivistrsquo and lsquosubjectivistrsquo definitions highlightsa fundamental problem in the analysis of ethnicity which needs to beaddressedmdashthat is the relationship between agentsrsquo perceptions of ethnicityand associated modes of interaction and the cultural contexts and socialrelations in which they are embedded What is missing is an adequate theoryof the relationship between ethnicity and culture including culturallyinscribed relations of production and reproduction

The absence of such a theory bridging the objectivistsubjectivistdilemma is evident in both primordial and instrumental explanations ofethnicity In primordial theories the importance of cultural symbols isstressed but there is little consideration of the relationship between culture


and ethnicity Primordialists simply claim that the enduring significance ofparticular aspects of culture in the ascription of ethnicity is due to thepsychological importance of ethnic identity In contrast to primordialapproaches instrumental theories of ethnicity rightly place greater emphasison the distinction between culture and ethnicity However having dismissedthe idea of a one-to-one relationship between culture and ethnicityinstrumentalists tend to focus on the organizational aspects of ethnicity andtake the cultural differences on which it is based for granted Culture isreduced to an epiphenomenal and arbitrary set of symbols manipulated inthe pursuit of changing group interests

The most common (tacit) reduction of culture has consisted in showinghow ethnic signifiers may change due to changes in context therebyindicating that the signifiers themselves are really arbitrary and thatthe fundamental aspect of ethnicity is the very act of communicatingand maintaining cultural difference

(Eriksen 1991129 see also Bentley 198726 48)

The lack of a developed theory of culture addressing the relationshipbetween objective conditions and subjective perceptions underlies a criticalgap in both primordial and instrumental theories of ethnicity in that neitherapproach adequately addresses lsquohow people come to recognize theircommonalities in the first placersquo (Bentley 198727)

Bourdieursquos theory of practice transcends the dichotomy betweenobjectivism and subjectivism1 and associated oppositions such asdeterminism and freedom conditioning and creativity society andindividual through the development of the concept of the habitus

The structures constitutive of a particular type of environment (eg thematerial conditions of existence characteristic of a class condition)produce habitus systems of durable transposable dispositionsstructured structures predisposed to function as structuring structuresthat is as principles of the generation and structuring of practices andrepresentations which can be objectively lsquoregulatedrsquo and lsquoregularrsquowithout in any way being the product of obedience to rules

(Bourdieu 197772)

Thus for Bourdieu the habitus is made up of durable dispositions towardscertain perceptions and practices (such as those relating to the sexualdivision of labour morality tastes and so on) which become part of anindividualrsquos sense of self at an early age and which can be transposed fromone context to another (ibid 78ndash93) As such the habitus involves a processof socialization whereby new experiences are structured in accordance withthe structures produced by past experiences and early experiences retain aparticular weight In this way structures of power become embodiedresulting in certain dispositions (cognitive and motivating structures) which


influence practice often at an unconscious level For instance Bourdieu(ibid 77) argues that

the practical evaluation of the likelihood of the success of a givenaction in a given situation brings into play a whole body of wisdomssayings commonplaces ethical precepts (lsquothatrsquos not for the likes of usrsquo)and at a deeper level the unconscious principles of the ethos whichbeing the product of a learning process dominated by a determinatetype of objective regularities determines lsquoreasonablersquo andlsquounreasonablersquo conduct for every agent subjected to those regularities

The dispositions of the habitus are generated by the conditions constituting aparticular social environment such as modes of production or access to certainresources (ibid 77ndash8)2 However Bourdieursquos theory differs from normativeand structural theories of culture where the practices produced with relation tocertain conditions are assumed to involve the mechanistic enactment of asystem of rules existing outside of individual and group history Instead hesuggests that structural orientations only exist in the form of the embodiedknowledge and dispositions of the habitus and their very substance dependson the practices and representations of human agents which in turn contributeto the reproduction and transformation of the objective conditionsconstitutive of the habitus (ibid 76ndash8) Consequently the dispositions of thehabitus lsquoare at once ldquostructuring structuresrdquo and ldquostructured structuresrdquo theyshape and are shaped by social practicersquo (Postone et al 19934) In this respectBourdieursquos theory of practice bears some similarity to other practice theoriesdeveloped in the late 1970s and 1980s such as Giddensrsquos (1984) theory oflsquostructurationrsquo and Sahlinsrsquos (1981) exploration of lsquocosmological dramasrsquowhich seek to locate the existence and therefore the reproduction andtransformation of social or cultural structures in the domain of practice (seeOrtner 1984 for an overview)

It has been argued that Bourdieursquos conceptualization of the processesinvolved in the reproduction of social structures and the relationshipbetween social structure and human agency is conservative and deterministic(eg DiMaggio 19791470 Jenkins 1982272ndash3 278) Certainly there arepassages in Bourdieursquos work which suggest that societies have a tendencytowards stasis and the reproduction of established modes of domination Forinstance he argues that peoplesrsquo lsquosubjectiversquo perceptions have a tendencytowards correspondence with the structural conditions of social existenceand they fail to recognize the real nature of the social order ie the structuresof domination thus reproducing the structures of their own subordination(Bourdieu 1977164) However Bourdieursquos account of cultural reproductiondoes accommodate the possibility of strategic agency within the limits of thehabitus and the possibility of social change in terms of continuoustransformations in the structured dispositions of the habitus within changing


contexts of social practice (ibid 78)3 Furthermore he also explores thepossibility of active resistance to prevailing modes of domination as a resultof exposure to the arbitrariness of taken-for-granted subconscious (doxic)knowledge in the context of radical social and economic change (ibid 168see also pp 94ndash5 below)

Extrapolating from Bourdieursquos theory of practice Bentley (198727) hasemployed the concept of the habitus as a means of providing an objectivegrounding for ethnic subjectivity which involves lsquothe symbolic construal ofsensations of likeness and differencersquo The subliminal dispositions of thehabitus derived from the conditions of existence provide the basis for theperception of shared sentiment and interest which ethnicity entails

According to the practice theory of ethnicity sensations of ethnic affinityare founded on common life experiences that generate similar habitualdispositionshellip It is commonality of experience and of the preconscioushabitus it generates that gives members of an ethnic cohort their sense ofbeing both familiar and familial to each other

(Ibid 32ndash3) Such a practice theory of ethnicity facilitates the analysis of the relationshipbetween ethnic consciousness and social structures and more generallyethnicity and culture as such it has the potential to transcend the lsquoobjectivesubjectiversquo dichotomy Ethnicity is not a passive reflection of similarities anddifferences in the cultural practices and structural conditions in which peopleare socialized as traditional normative and primordial approaches assumeNor is ethnicity as some instrumental approaches imply produced entirelyin the process of social interaction whereby epiphenomenal cultural symbolsare consciously manipulated in the pursuit of economic and politicalinterests Rather drawing on Bourdieursquos theory of practice it can be arguedthat the intersubjective construction of ethnic identity is grounded in theshared subliminal dispositions of the habitus which shape and are shapedby objective commonalities of practice lsquo[a] shared habitus engendersfeelings of identification among people similarly endowed Those feelingsare consciously appropriated and given form through existing symbolicresourcesrsquo (Bentley 1987173)

Moreover these lsquosymbolic resourcesrsquo are not essentially arbitrary Thecultural practices and representations that become objectified as symbols ofethnicity are derived from and resonate with the habitual practices andexperiences of the people involved as well as reflecting the instrumentalcontingencies and meaningful cultural idioms of a particular situation AsEriksen (199245) argues ethnic symbols

are intrinsically linked with experienced practical worlds containingspecific relevant meanings which on the one hand contribute to


shaping interaction and on the other hand limit the number of optionsin the production of ethnic signs

Thus just as ethnic sentiments and interests are derived from similarities inthe habitus so is the recognition of certain cultural practices and historicalexperiences as symbolic representations of ethnicity

The application of Bourdieursquos concept of the habitus to the developmentof a theory of ethnicity also provides a means of integrating the so-calledprimordial and instrumental dimensions of ethnicity within a coherenttheory of human agency As the recognition of ethnicity is to some extentderived from commonalities of habitus it can be argued that the strongpsychological attachments often associated with ethnic identity and ethnicsymbolism are generated by the critical role that the habitus plays ininscribing an individualrsquos sense of social self (see Bourdieu 197778ndash93)However this is not to suggest that ethnic identifications or associatedsymbolic representations are fixed and determinative Drawing on the logicof the habitus Bentley (198735) argues that different dimensions ofethnicity will be activated in different social contexts

Since ethnic identity derives from situationally shared elements of amultidimensional habitus it is possible for an individual to possessseveral different situationally relevant but nonetheless emotionallyauthentic identities and to symbolize all of them in terms of shareddescent

Furthermore ethnicity is also influenced by economic and political interestsresulting in changes in the perception and expression of ethnic identity byindividuals and also in the representation of group identity as a whole Asthe instrumentalists have pointed out ethnic identities are continuouslyreproduced and transformed within different contexts as individual socialagents act strategically in the pursuit of interests Nevertheless themanipulation of ethnic categories does not as instrumental theorists implytake place in a vacuum whereby individual agents maximize their interestsRather such processes are structured by the principles of the habitus whichengender perception of the possible and the impossible As Bourdieu(197776) has maintained human agency is defined by the intersection of the

socially constituted system of cognitive and motivating structures[which make up the habitus] and the socially structured situation inwhich the agentsrsquo interests are defined and with them the objectivefunctions and subjective motivations of their practices

Ethnicity is also embedded in economic and political relations at a collectivelevel in that the shared dispositions of the habitus which underlie ethnicaffinities tend to result at least to some extent in the recognition of common


sentiments and interests in a given situation providing the basis for thepolitical mobilization of an ethnic group However such mobilization doesnot represent a form of communal consensus and in many instances it isclear that members of an ethnic group possess different experiences anddivergent interests (see Devalle 1992237 Roosens 1989 Sharp andMcAllister 199319ndash20) To some extent these divergent positions may bebased on relations of domination embedded in the shared dispositions of thehabitus and as a result leaders lsquowhose personal identity myths resonate withevolving configurations of habitus practice and experiencersquo (Bentley198747) will gain support despite the fact that their interests do notcorrespond with those of the entire group (see also Bourdieu 197781)However in other instances the politicization of ethnicity may involve theactive use of force within the group in an attempt to fix an authoritativerepresentation of the grouprsquos identity (Sharp and McAllister 199320)

DIFFERENTIAL LOCI OF ETHNICITY

Grounding ethnicity in a coherent theory of cultural production andreproduction a practice theory affords the explanation of a number ofdifferent dimensions of ethnicity which have been rendered incompatiblethrough their opposition as causal explanations of ethnic behaviour forinstance as in the primordialinstrumental debate A similar theoreticalargument is developed by Eriksen who draws on both Bourdieursquos concept ofthe habitus (Eriksen 1992167ndash8) and Wittgensteinrsquos concept of language-games (ibid 33ndash4 47) as a way of conceptualizing the system ofinternalized orientations of thought and behaviour that constitute particularmodes of practice and provide the basis for the construction of ethniccategories Developing this idea Eriksen (199228) like Bentley argues thatethnicity is constituted in a similar manner to culture it is both lsquoan aspect ofconcrete ongoing interaction andhellipa meaning-context for the very sameinteractionrsquo

However such an understanding of the relationship between culture orthe habitus and ethnicity is not far removed from the traditional model ofethnicity as a passive reflection of the normative behaviour of a discretegroup of people Bentleyrsquos (1987170) theory differs from traditional modelsprimarily because the notion of the habitus enables a separation betweensurface cultural expressions and deep structural dispositions and as a resulthe is able to accommodate disjunctions between ethnic boundaries and thedistribution of objective cultural traits Nevertheless his theory of therelationship between the habitus and ethnicity results in a partialresurrection of the idea that ethnic groups constitute bounded social entitiesinternally generated with reference to commonality rather than differencean idea that was central to traditional models of the ethnic group


As it stands there are two significant limitations to Bentleyrsquos practicetheory of ethnicity which are derived from the way in which he employs theconcept of the habitus and from Bourdieursquos concept itself (1) Bentley doesnot explore the relationship between the shared subliminal dispositions ofthe habitus and the communication of cultural difference leading to thereproduction of ethnic categories As a result the relationship between thehabitus and ethnicity remains obscure and there is little consideration ofqualitative variation in the kinds of cultural difference that signify ethnicidentity (2) Bentley does not critically examine the comparative value ofBourdieursquos concept of habitus he seems to accept that it is a discreteuniform set of dispositions possessing a high degree of homology acrossseparate but highly integrated social domains

Throughout Bentleyrsquos discussion of ethnicity the precise relationshipbetween the habitus and ethnicity remains ambiguous (see the debatebetween Bentley (1991) and Yelvington (1991)) In his initial paper Bentleyacknowledges that it is difficult to account for the institutional boundednessand internal complexity of ethnic groups in the modern world in terms ofshared sentiment alone

If members of an ethnic group hold different positions in systems ofproduction and distribution and therefore possess differentexperiences and divergent interests this raises the question of whythese differences do not undermine ethnic solidarity

(Bentley 198740ndash1) However rather than following up the possible implications of theseproblems in terms of a partial break between the habitus and theconstruction of ethnicity Bentley (ibid 43ndash4) attempts to accommodate thecomplexity engendered by intra-ethnic differential relations of power andinterest within the workings of the habitus In reply to Yelvingtonrsquos claimthat his argument is based upon an insupportable correlation betweenethnicity and culture (Yelvington 1991158ndash60) Bentley (1991170ndash1 175)defends himself by reiterating the argument that whilst the deep structuresof the habitus provide the basis for the recognition of shared identity thesestructures may produce a wide variety of surface cultural expressions

Overall it appears that Bentley does see ethnic identity as a reflection ofthe habitus of the group and this identity is generated by a subliminalawareness of likeness with others of similar habitus As Yelvington(1991168) points out such a theory of ethnicity ignores the fact thatlsquosensations of ethnic affinity and common experience are not necessarilycovarient Similarities in habitus do not guarantee ethnic sensations anddifferences in habitus do not preclude identificationrsquo There are manyexamples where it seems highly implausible that the people brought togetherby the expression of a common ethnic identity share equally in a common


habitus ironically for instance Bentleyrsquos (1987) own example of blackAmerican ethnicity

Bentleyrsquos failure to explore the processes involved in the appropriation ofsensations of familiarity in the construction of ethnicity constitutes a criticalgap in his argument which is related to his neglect of the role of lsquoethnicothersrsquo in the construction of ethnicity He disregards a number of importantinsights derived from recent research most notably the organizationalaspects of ethnicity and the contrastive dimension of ethnicitymdashthatethnicity is a consciousness of difference vis-agrave-vis others The recognitionthat ethnicity is not primarily constituted by a subliminal recognition ofsimilarities but is essentially a consciousness of difference requires furtherconsideration of the relationship between the habitus and the construction ofethnicity

It can be argued that the kind of social experience and knowledgeinvolved in the emergence of a consciousness of ethnicity and theformulation of ethnic categories is founded on a fundamental break with thekind of experience and knowledge that constitutes a substantial part of thehabitus According to Bourdieu (1977164) the workings of the habitus aresuch that the subjective principles of organization and associated modes ofknowledge such as systems of classification relating to gender and classtend towards a correspondence with the conditions of existence Thiscorrespondence results in a level of social experience called doxa whichentails a misrecognition and naturalization of the real divisions of the socialorder leading to the reproduction of that order and consequently the modesof domination inherent in it (ibid 164ndash5) The political function of suchclassifications tends to go unnoticed because agents are not aware of rival orantagonistic schemes of thought or perception

However the doxic mode of knowledge is not the only form of socialknowledge When a particular mode of living is brought into questionpractically for instance as a result of lsquoculture contactrsquo or political andeconomic crisis the field of doxa undergoes a transformation

The critique which brings the undiscussed into discussion theunformulated into formulation has as the condition of its possibilityobjective crisis which in breaking the immediate fit between thesubjective structures and the objective structures destroys self-evidence practically It is when the social world loses its character as anatural phenomenon that the question of the natural or conventionalcharacterhellipof social facts can be raised

(Ibid 168ndash9) The result is the establishment of orthodox or heterodox forms of knowledgewhich involve an awareness and recognition of alternative beliefsorthodoxy attempting to deny the possibility of alternatives at a conscious


level and heterodoxy acknowledging the existence of a choice betweendifferent forms of knowledge and their evaluation through explicit critiquesBourdieu develops this distinction between doxic knowledge and otherforms of knowledge (orthodox and heterodox) in an analysis of theemergence of class consciousness which can also be applied to ethnicity

Social interaction between agents of differing cultural traditionsengenders a reflexive mode of perception which contributes to a break withdoxic forms of knowledge Such exposure of the arbitrariness of culturalpractices which had hitherto been mastered in a doxic mode permits andrequires a change lsquoin the level of discourse so as to rationalize andsystematizersquo the representation of such cultural practices and moregenerally the representation of the cultural tradition itself (ibid 233) It is atsuch a discursive level that ethnic categories are produced reproduced andtransformed through the systematic communication of cultural differencewith relation to the cultural practices of particular lsquoethnic othersrsquo Therecognition of shared sentiments and interests which ethnicity involves maybe derived at least in part from doxic experience and knowledge in certainspheres of the habitus similarities that cannot really be grasped in discursiveform However the emergence of an ethnic consciousness and the categoriesand symbols it entails involves a break with doxic knowledge due to theobjectified representation of cultural difference involved in the expression ofethnicity (Eriksen 1993b3) In effect a set of cultural practices and beliefswhich had previously formed part of the domain of doxa becomes reified asa coherent and concrete object in opposition to specific lsquoothersrsquo4

This process can be illustrated by reference to a specific example that ofthe construction of Tswana ethnicity in the context of European colonialism(see Comaroff and Comaroff 1992235ndash63) In the process of interactionand communication between Tswana people and evangelist missionariesboth groups began to recognize distinctions between them lsquoto objectify theirworld in relation to a novel other thereby inventing for themselves a self-conscious coherence and distinctnessmdasheven while they accommodated tothe new relationship that enclosed themrsquo (Comaroff and Comaroff1992245) This objectification of culture is not a fabrication an entirelyinstrumental construction Tswana ethnicity is based on the perception ofcommonalities of practice and experience in Setswana (Tswana ways) inopposition to Sekgoa (European ways) Yet the form Tswana self-consciousness takes in this context is different from the cultural identitiesthat prevailed in pre-colonial times when they were divided into politicalcommunities based on totemic affiliations In both pre-colonial and colonialpost-colonial times the construction of (ethnic) identity has involved themarking of contrastmdashthe opposition of selves and othersmdashbut colonialismprovided a new context in which Tswana tradition was objectified as acoherent body of knowledge and practice uniting the Tswana people

Many other cases illustrate similar processes for instance amongst


others the formation of Tsonga ethnicity in southern Africa (see Harries1989) Kayapo ethnicity in Brazil (see Turner 1991) and pan-Aboriginalethnicity in Australia (see Jones and Hill-Burnett 1982 Tonkinson 1990)Each example has its own particularities and European colonialism as awhole is arguably characterized by certain specific concrete historicalconditions in contrast to other periods However despite variations in theparticular conditions in which ethnic identity is constructed and in theform that ethnicity takes it can be argued that similar although in somecases less radical processes of objectification are involved in theconstruction of a consciousness of ethnicity within diverse socio-historicalcontexts

The objectification of cultural difference in the construction of ethnicityinvolves the opposition of different cultural traditions The particular formsuch oppositions take is a product of the intersection of the habitus of thepeople concerned with the conditions making up a particular context ofinteraction These conditions include the prevailing modes of dominationand the relative distribution between the different lsquogroupsrsquo of the materialand symbolic means necessary for imposing dominant modes of ethniccategorization For example in many colonial contexts ethnic or tribalcategories were imposed by colonial regimes (see Colson 1968 Fried1968) As a product of the dialectical opposition of different culturaltraditions which are almost invariably characterized by different socialand environmental conditions ethnic categories encode relations of powerHowever ethnicity does not merely as argued by Diacuteaz-Polanco (1987)reproduce the very social conditions that gave rise to it in the first placethus sustaining relations of domination and subordination and dividinggroups who are similarly disadvantaged It can also form the basis ofpolitical mobilization and a source of resistance when dominated groupshave the material and symbolic means to reject external definitions of theiridentity and importantly when ethnic classifications in one form oranother become the object and instrument of political struggle (see Devalle1992233 239) During the later twentieth century in liberal democraticsocieties ethnic categories have become politicized in this way resulting inthe mobilization of ethnicitymdashthe so-called lsquoethnic revivalrsquo (see pp 100ndash2below) This mobilization is often mistakenly taken to imply that ethnicityhas only recently become embedded in power relations (eg Glazer andMoynihan 19758) However ethnic categories are almost alwaysembedded in power relations of varying degrees of inequality thedifference is that in some cases the social order that they constitute formspart of an established doxa or orthodoxy whereas in others they becomeobjects of debate and critique

In contrast to Bentley I suggest that the extent to which ethnicity isembedded in pre-existing cultural realities represented by a shared habitus ishighly variable The degree of contiguity depends upon the cultural


transformations brought about by the processes of interaction and thenature of the power relations between the interacting lsquogroupsrsquo In someinstances for example as in some colonial situations ethnic groups areformed in the context of large-scale urban migration and associated socialand cultural dislocation (see Comaroff and Comaroff 1992) As a result ofsuch processes minority ethnic groups may be composed of people of diverseorigins and lsquothe substance of their identities as contrived from both withinand outside is inevitably a bricolage fashioned in the very historicalprocesses which underwrite their subordinationrsquo (Comaroff and Comaroff199257) Yet even when ethnicity is as much a product of the historicalrelations of inequality between lsquogroupsrsquo as it is a reflection of pre-existingcultural realities the reproduction of these emergent forms of culturaldifference and relations of inequality over time will lead to theirincorporation as part of the structured dispositions of the habitus5 AsComaroff and Comaroff (ibid 60) point out

ethnic consciousness enters a dialectical relationship with thestructures that underlie it once ethnicity impinges upon experience asan (apparently) independent principle of social organization itprovides a powerful motivation for collective activity And this byturn must perforce realize an everyday world dominated by ethnicgroups and relations thereby reproducing the very social conditionsthat gave rise to ethnic consciousness in the first place

Thus manifestations of ethnicity are the product of an ongoing processinvolving the objectification of cultural difference and the embodiment ofthose differences within the shared dispositions of the habitus Suchprocesses will lead to fluctuations over time in the correspondence betweenthe representation of a particular ethnic identity in terms of objectifiedcultural difference and the cultural practices and historical experience ofthe people involved In some situations there may be a high degree ofcontiguity between ethnicity and the habitus whereas in other situationscharacterized by social dislocation and subordination there may appear tobe very little

The actual manifestation of any particular ethnic identity may also varyin different social and historical contexts The communication of culturaldifference depends upon the particular cultural practices and historicalexperience activated by any given context of social interaction as well asbroader idioms of cultural difference resulting in substantive differences inthe cultural content of ethnicity in different situations Moreover as Eriksen(1991 1992) argues the importance of cultural differences in thearticulation of ethnicity may vary in different contextsmdashcross-culturallyintra-culturally and interpersonally


Ethnicity as a source of cultural meaning and as a principle of socialdifferentiation is highly distributive within any society or set of socialcontexts involving the same personnel Its varying importance orvarying semantic density can only be appreciated through acomparison of contexts which takes account of differences in themeanings which are applied by those acts of communicating culturaldistinctiveness which we call ethnicity

(Eriksen 199233)

In an analysis of ethnicity in Trinidad and Mauritius Eriksen (1991 1992)argues that in differentiated societies the kind of cultural differenceinvolved in the communication of ethnicity varies qualitatively in differentsocial domainsfields6 For instance ethnicity is an important signifier in theinstitutional politics of both Trinidad and Mauritius since the postwarperiod most parties have been organized along ethnic lines and derive theirsupport from an ethnic base (Eriksen 199234) However there is a sharedunderstanding of the meaning of ethnicity and a wide consensus over valuesand modes of discourse and interaction

In other words cultural differences are in themselves unimportant inthese contexts their importance lies in the creation of options forpoliticians and parties to draw upon such differences in their quest forpopularity and power The formal congruence of ethnicity amongpoliticians of different ethnic membership is complete the politicalculture or language game is homogeneous as it is being confirmed inongoing institutionalized political life hellipin so far as ethnicity isrelevant in these contexts of politics cultural difference iscommunicated through a shared cultural idiom

(Ibid 36 original emphasis)

In contrast with institutional politics inter-ethnic interaction in other socialdomains such as the labour market may be characterized by only partialoverlap between the relevant meaning systems (or habitus) of the peopleinvolved (ibid 37ndash40) Moreover in some social domains such as family lifeand sexual relations the recognition and articulation of ethnicity may becharacterized by discrete even incommensurable habitual dispositions andsystems of meaning which inform the social practices of people in differentgroupings (ibid 41) For instance in Trinidad and Mauritius gendersexuality and ethnicity intersect with one another Black male sexualideology encourages promiscuity and the public expression of sexualprowess (ibid 42) In contrast the articulation of Mauritian Indian identityin the domain of gender relations is inscribed in the value placed on thesacred character of matrimony and the sexual purity of women The claimedsexual prowess of black men is perceived by Indian men in terms of thesupposed weakness of Indian women in the face of sexual advances and the


threat which this poses to their own domestic supremacy (ibid 42) Eriksen(ibid 42) argues that in this instance the representation of ethnicity in thedomain of gender relations is based upon the reproduction of discreteincommensurable schemes of meaning

The communication of ethnicity in these different social domains is notisolated and discrete As Eriksen (ibid 43) argues lsquoethnic distinctions arerooted in perceptions of differences between lifestylesrsquo and in order toexplain the mobilization of ethnicity in contexts characterized by a unitarylanguage game it is necessary to understand lsquothe reproduction of discretesocially discriminating language gamesrsquo (ibid 42) in other social domainsNevertheless his analysis indicates that the kinds of communicationinvolved in the reproduction and transformation of ethnic categories mayvary qualitatively as well as substantively in different social domainscharacterized by different forms of individual and institutional agency anddifferent regimes of domination and resistance For instance theinstitutionalization of ethnicity in the modern nation-state and itsrepresentation in national politics is likely to be qualitatively different fromthe activation of ethnicity in the process of interaction between members of alocal community or neighbourhood

Overall the theoretical approach formulated in this chapter suggests thatwhilst Bentleyrsquos practice theory of ethnicity provides a useful starting pointfor a comparative analytical framework it is necessary to develop a broaderconceptualization of the habitus Bentleyrsquos notion of the habitus is takenfrom Bourdieursquos (1977) study of cultural production and reproduction inKabyle society and this particular conceptualization of the habitus reflectsthe highly integrated uniform system of dispositions which Bourdieuargues are characteristic of a small-scale society where the same agents arelinked to one another in a variety of social fields As Calhoun (1993) pointsout it is necessary to take into account the dislocation of different socialdomainsfields which is typical of highly differentiated complex societies inorder to develop a valid comparative concept of the habitus Highlydifferentiated lsquocomplexrsquo societies are characterized by an lsquouncoupling offieldsrsquo which

manifests itself first of all as a reduction in the extent to which the sameagents are linked to each other in a variety of fieldsmdashsay kinshipreligion and economic productionmdashin other words a reduction in thelsquomultiplexityrsquo of relationships to use Max Gluckmanrsquos (1962) conceptBut the uncoupling also manifests itself in a growing heterogeneityamong fields a reduction in the extent to which each is homologouswith others

(Calhoun 199377)

Moreover this uncoupling of fields results in the rupture and transformationof informal doxic knowledge and consequently a higher degree of


codification of tradition than in small-scale societies For instance inTrinidad and Mauritius such forms of codification are aspects of theinstitutionalized representation of ethnic difference in the context of nationalpolitics

Ethnicity is a multidimensional phenomenon constituted in different waysin different social domains Representations of ethnicity involve the dialecticalopposition of situationally relevant cultural practices and historicalexperiences associated with different cultural traditions Consequently there israrely a one-to-one relationship between representations of ethnicity and theentire range of cultural practices and social conditions associated with aparticular group From a lsquobirdrsquos eye viewrsquo the resulting pattern will be one ofoverlapping ethnic boundaries constituted by representations of culturaldifference which are at once transient but also subject to reproduction andtransformation in the ongoing processes of social life As Eriksen (1992172emphasis in original) points out

ethnic oppositions are segmentary in character the group createdthrough a common cause expands and contracts situationally and ithas no absolute existence in relation to unambiguous principles ofinclusion and exclusion This mechanism of segmentation does notalways create a neat system of concentric circles or lsquoChinese boxes ofidentitiesrsquo or an otherwise internally consistent segmentaryclassificatory system

Such a view of ethnicity undermines conventional methodologicalapproaches which telescope various spatially and temporally distinctrepresentations of ethnicity onto a single plane for the purposes of analysisand attempt to force the resulting incongruities and contradictions into anabstract conceptualization of the ethnic group as a discrete internallyhomogeneous entity characterized by continuity of tradition The theoreticalapproach developed here suggests that such a methodological andconceptual framework obliterates the reality of the dynamic and creativeprocesses involved in the reproduction and transformation of ethnicity

THE lsquoPURE PRODUCTS GO CRAZYrsquo HISTORICAL MODELS OFETHNICITY7

a new word reflects a new reality and a new usage reflects a change inthat reality The word is lsquoethnicityrsquo and the new usage is the steadyexpansion of the term lsquoethnic grouprsquo from minority and marginal sub-groups at the edges of societymdashgroups expected to assimilate todisappear to continue as survivals exotic or troublesomemdashto majorelements of society

(Glazer and Moynihan 19755)


Glazer and Moynihanrsquos (1975) position represents just one of many recenttheoretical arguments which situate ethnic groups as the product ofparticular social and historical conjunctures Along with a number ofothers (eg Bell 1975141ndash2 Banton 1977145ndash6) they have argued thatthe recent increase in the political salience of ethnic and sub-nationalgroups in national and international contexts represents a new form ofethnicity in that ethnic groups are acting as economic and political interestgroups For many this political mobilization has been brought about byincreasing recognition at both a national and international level ofprinciples of cultural and political self-determination in the second half ofthe twentieth century

Others (eg Clifford 1988 1992108 Comaroff and Comaroff 1992Friedman 1992837) take a different frame of reference and locate theemergence of ethnicity in the context of European colonialism which hasresulted in the displacement and fragmentation of pre-existing communitiesand the imposition of new categories of difference Furthermore it issuggested that the subsequent deterioration in the hegemony of the westernmodernist world order since the 1960s has contributed to a furtherproliferation and politicization of lsquosubalternrsquo or ethnic identities (egClifford 1988 1992)

For still others the increasing salience of ethnic groups is the product ofthe specific conjunctures between ethnic and racial categories and relationsof production intrinsic to the capitalist world system (eg Muga 198417ndash19) Meanwhile moving deeper into the past it has also been suggested thatethnic groups are the product of specific transformations in socialorganization which took place towards the end of the European Bronze Age(eg Renfrew 199557)

The proliferation of arguments concerning the specific socio-historicalcontexts of ethnicity are potentially boundless and to some extent purely aquestion of whether a highly specific or highly generalist definition isadopted However historical models of ethnicity merit further explorationhere as they are of particular significance to archaeologists if we wish to usecontemporary concepts and theories of ethnicity in the analysis of pastsocieties To what extent can it be assumed that processes involved in theconstruction of ethnic identities in the contemporary world resemble thosethat took place in the past Has there been a relative shift from homogeneityto heterogeneity as many theories suggest Are the pure products of the pastgoing crazy

The so-called lsquoethnic revivalrsquo (Smith 1981) has been connected with anumber of different but in many instances interrelated macro socio-historical developments which impinge on local contexts in various waysClearly many of these developments have contributed to a disintegration ofpre-existing forms of cultural identity and domination and subsequently thereconfiguration of relations of identity and power For instance European


colonialism undoubtedly provided the context (one that is particularlyprominent in the theoretical discourses of the human sciences) for radicaltransformations and cultural confrontation in which new forms of ethnicself-consciousness were inscribed Furthermore in the context of the demiseof colonial regimes and the disintegration of the dominant westernmodernist culture ethnic groups have drawn upon existing ideologies ofnationalism and cultural relativism in the legitimation of their identity andthe articulation of political and economic rights The most importantelements in this ideological complex are generally felt to be the right tocultural autonomy lsquoof ethnic self-respect andhellipcontinued experience as apeoplersquo (Roosens 1989150) and the right to political and economic self-determination many aspects of which are enshrined in international law(see Michalska 1991 Nettheim 199221) It is with relation to suchrhetoric that ethnic groups such as the Quebecois (see Handler 1988) andthe Canadian Assembly of First Nations (see Moody 1984149ndash51) havemade secessionist demands for political and cultural self-determinationand autonomy In other instances ethnic groups have insisted on varyingdegrees of autonomy within the nation-state and sought special culturaleconomic and political rights (see Bell 1975 Glazer and Moynihan 1975Smith 1981)

However whilst such recent developments may have brought aboutimportant transformations in the manifestation of ethnicity they do notmerit the restriction of ethnicity to specific social and historic contexts Forinstance the mobilization of ethnicity as a basis for political action sincethe 1960s has resulted in an apparent increase in ethnic consciousness andnumerous transformations in the meaning and practical salience ofethnicity in certain social domains Yet it does not constitute a completelydifferent form of group identity from that which existed before one basedon politics rather than culture as suggested by Glazer and Moynihan(19758) Such a distinction between instrumental ethnicity and culturalethnicity is based on a false dichotomy between culture and socio-politicalrelations The communication of cultural difference both structures and isstructured by the distribution of material and symbolic power betweencommunities (see pp 96ndash7 above) Thus recent mobilizations of ethnicityin the negotiation of political rights may involve a transformation of thematerial and symbolic conditions in which ethnic relations are embeddedand the emergence of new lsquostylesrsquo of cultural self-consciousness Howeverethnicity is just as likely to have been embedded in socio-political relationsin the past as in the present what have changed and are always changingare the historical conditions and the idiomatic concepts in which ethnicity isembedded

Moreover there is no reason why ethnicity should be restricted to thecontext of European colonialism or to any other macro socio-historicaldevelopments if it is seen as the kind of group consciousness that is based on


the dialectical opposition of different cultural traditions in the process ofsocial interaction In these terms the cultural categories intrinsic to theformation of the Aztec state (see Brumfiel 1994) and Aboriginalmythological representations concerning interaction exchange and relationsof power between themselves and the Maccassans prior to Europeancolonialism (see Maddock 1988) can both be seen in terms of the symbolicrepresentation of ethnic boundaries There are undoubtedly variationsbetween diverse contexts of ethnicity in relations of power modes ofrepresentation and forms of social organization which require historical andcontextual analysis However I suggest that there are certain basic processesinvolved in the construction of ethnic identity across socio-historicalcontexts which can be used as a framework for the analysis of similaritiesand differences in the manifestation of ethnicity in radically differentsituations

Nevertheless in adopting such a framework it is necessary to examinethe ways in which specific discourses of identity in the present inform andinfiltrate such a comparative theory of ethnicity The principles of self-determination and cultural autonomy which structure the politicalmobilization of ethnicity in many situations today are embedded in acomplex of ideas about the nature of authentic cultural difference (Clifford1988337ndash9 Handler 1988) As pointed out in Chapter 3 expectations ofboundedness homogeneity and continuity have been built into lsquowesternrsquoideas concerning cultural authenticity since the nineteenth century andhave since been reproduced in numerous variants throughout the world(Clifford 1988232ndash3 Handler 19862ndash4 Spencer 1990283 Williams1989423ndash6) It is important to recognize that in the formulation of thismode of cultural classification our own societies lsquodid not discover thegeneral form of a universal difference rather they invented this form ofdifferencersquo (Pardon 1987176 my emphasis) However once objectifiedand given autonomy such modes of cultural classification have providedthe basis for practical relationships and strategies and consequentlystructure the recognition and representation of cultural difference8 Studiesof Mashpee (Clifford 1988) and Chambra (Pardon 1987) ethnicity andQuebecois (Handler 1988) Sinhala (Spencer 1990) and Palestinian(Bowman 1993) nationalism all reveal that the construction of ethnic andnational identities involves an ongoing dialogue between the reproductionof localized cultural practices and existing modes of cultural self-consciousness and broader discourses which seek to produce images oflsquoauthenticrsquo culture and identity (Norton 1993) The latter are located in therepresentations of various lsquospecialistsrsquo such as journalists noveliststeachers ethnic and national organizations and in the rationale ofgovernment institutions

Anthropologists and social scientists are themselves deeply implicated inthe construction of a vision of cultural authenticity in the form of bounded


coherent cultural traditions trained as they are lsquoto suppress the signs ofincoherence and multiculturalismhellipas inessential aspects of modernizationrsquo(Barth 1989122)9 In his analysis of the representation of lsquopurersquo culturalproducts in ethnography literature and art Clifford (19884 14) argues thatthe association of cultural change and fragmentation with lost authenticityand cultural decay has been a powerful image in anthropology as in westernthought generally Within this framework anthropologists have oftenlamented the disintegration of lsquoauthenticrsquo cultures (eg Legravevi-Strauss 1975[1955]) and the revival of ethnic consciousness has been perceived as aretreat from the alienation and dislocation of modern society through therevival of primordial identities (eg Isaacs 1974 Novak 1974) Furthermorewhilst it is also argued that contemporary ethnic identities are constantlyconstructed re-invented and contested resulting in multiple configurationsof cultural identity and invented tradition these aspects of ethnicity haveoften been interpreted as a specific product of the increasinginterconnectedness of social and cultural institutions in the context ofmodern world systems (eg Clifford 198811 13 Friedman 1992855)

To a greater or lesser degree these models contribute to the construction ofan historical trajectory along which ethnic groups have developed fromdiscrete quasi-natural primordial cultural entities into complex poly-ethnicmultidimensional interest groups in modern industrial societies Such anevolutionary trajectory restores the lsquocookie-cutterrsquo view of ethnic groups asspatially and temporally discrete culture-bearing units which has been acentral theme in both nationalist discourses and academic theories aboutethnicity by imposing it on the past A critical historicization of the veryconcepts of ethnic group and nation reveals that the idea of a boundedculture-bearing unit has impinged upon the articulation of ethnicity in somerecent socio-historical contexts However viewed as a unitary principle ofhuman differentiation the idea of a bounded monolithic cultural cum ethnicunit is also a modern classificatory myth projected onto all of human history(Handler 1988291) Ethnic groups are not neatly packaged territoriallybounded culture-bearing units in the present nor are they likely to have beenin the past

The formation and transformation of ethnicity is contingent on particularhistorical structures which impinge themselves on human experience andcondition social action (Comaroff and Comaroff 199254) In this mannerprocesses such as the imposition of colonial regimes the development ofmass education and communication and the emergence of ideologies ofcultural relativism and self-determination all constitute new structureswithin which ethnicity is potentially reproduced and transformed Howeverthe imposition of a unitary evolutionary trajectory as in many historicalrepresentations of the transformation of ethnicity merely obscures theanalysis of particular social and historical manifestations Moreover recentresearch has shown that ethnicity is not a unitary phenomenon either in


contemporary societies or in the past and that it is just as likely to have beena product of transient configurations of cultural difference reproduced andtransformed in a variety of different social domains in the past as it is in thepresent (Pardon 1987182 Ranger 1983248 Sharp and McAllister199320)

106

Chapter 6

Ethnicity and material cultureTowards a theoretical basis for theinterpretation of ethnicity in archaeology

PROBLEMS WITH THE IDEA OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURESAS ETHNIC ENTITIES

As we saw in Chapter 1 the identification of past cultures and peoples inarchaeology has for the most part been dependent on the assumption thatbounded monolithic cultural entities (lsquoarchaeological culturesrsquo) correlatewith past peoples ethnic groups tribes andor races This assumption hasbeen subjected to a number of important critiques both within theframework of culture-historical archaeology and subsequently withinvarious processual and post-processual archaeologies Taken collectivelythese critiques can be divided into three main categories The first isconcerned with the straightforward correlation of archaeological cultureswith ethnic groups the second with the nature of archaeologicaldistributions and the status of archaeological cultures as classificatoryentities and the third with the nature of ethnicity and the very existence ofbounded homogeneous ethnic and cultural entities

(1) The question of the equivalence of archaeological cultures and pastpeoples was raised within the framework of culture-history Doubtsconcerning the possibility of identifying prehistoric peoples on the basis ofarchaeological evidence alone were periodically expressed for instance byTallgren (1937) and by Jacob-Friesen and Wahle in the 1920s and the 1940s(Veit 198941) Moreover a desire to distinguish between archaeologicalcultures and culture in the ethnological sense was frequently expressed forinstance by Braidwood and MacKern in the 1930s and 1940s alongside ademand for the development of alternative archaeological terminology(Daniel 1978 [1950]319) However critiques generally consisted ofcautionary tales focusing on the apparent poverty of the archaeologicalrecord rather than a questioning of the principal assumptions underlyingculture-history (Tallgren 1937 was an exception) That is it was argued thatarchaeological evidence might not provide access to the ideational norms ofpast cultures or to ethnic groups due to technical problems with the datarather than the interpretive principles themselves The general response in

Ethnicity and material culture 107

the face of such problems as in reaction against racist and nationalistic usesof ethnic reconstructions of the past was a retreat into the study ofchronology and typology as ends in themselves Within this empiricisttypological framework debates largely focused on the meaning ofarchaeological types and in particular whether such types represent artificial(etic) categories imposed by the archaeologist or whether they represent themental (emic) categories of their makers (eg Ford 1954a 1954b Spaulding1953 1954)

A more fundamental critique of culture-historical epistemology rested onthe recognition that archaeological distributions may reflect a diverse rangeof past activities and processes in addition to the ideational norms of pastethnic groups Although this claim had been made by a number ofarchaeologists prior to the 1960s (eg Childe 1956 Daniel 1978 [1950]Tallgren 1937 Taylor 1948) it was only with the emergence of the lsquonewarchaeologyrsquo that it became widely accepted as a critique of culture-historyand provided the basis of a new framework for archaeological analysis Forinstance Binford claimed that in contrast with the undifferentiated view ofculture perpetuated by normative archaeology

culture is not necessarily shared it is participated in And it isparticipated in differentially A basic characteristic of cultural systemsis the integration of individuals and social units performing differenttasks frequently at different locations these individuals and socialunits are articulated by means of various institutions into broader unitsthat have different levels of corporate inclusiveness

(Binford 1965205) On the basis of this argument it was suggested that the single explanatoryframe of reference provided by culture-history is inadequate and that it isnecessary to undertake an analysis of the structure of archaeologicalassemblages in terms of their function within a differentiated social system(eg Binford 1962219 Clarke 1978 [1968] Renfrew 1972) Archaeologicaldistributions it was argued could not be equated in a simplistic manner withethnic groups because within such a framework functional variations inarchaeological assemblages could be mistakenly interpreted as ethnicdifferences For instance the question of whether variation in Mousterianassemblages was derived from the organization of different activities inspace and time or was a product of past ethnic differentiation was centralto the debate between the Binfords (1966 see also Binford 1973) and Bordesand de Sonneville-Bordes (1970 see also Bordes 1973)

Despite their critique of the idea that all variation in distributions ofmaterial culture can be understood in terms of the ideational norms of pastethnic groups lsquonew archaeologistsrsquo continued to accept the idea that somebounded archaeological distributions if only in the domain of stylistic

108 Ethnicity and material culture

variation correlate with such groups (Conkey 199110 Shennan 1989b 18and see below) However more recently the assumption that a one-to-onerelationship exists between variation in any aspect of material culturestylistic or otherwise and the boundaries of ethnic groups has beenquestioned Drawing on numerous anthropological and historical examplesit has been shown that the relationship between variation in material cultureand the expression of ethnic difference is complex (Hodder 1982a Trigger1978 Ucko 1969) Moreover a number of archaeologists (eg Olsen andKobylinski 1991 Renfrew 1987 Shennan 1989b 1991) have followedrecent anthropological and sociological theories of ethnicity in emphasizingthat ethnic groups are rarely a reflection of the sum total of similarities anddifferences in lsquoobjectiversquo cultural traits Rather they are self-consciousself-defining groups which are based on the perception of real or assumedcultural difference1

(2) Aside from problems concerning the relationship between archaeologicalcultures and ethnic entities the actual existence of archaeological cultureshas been questioned Traditionally higher level archaeological groupingssuch as cultures or phases were defined in monothetic terms on the basis ofthe presence or absence of a list of traits or types which were often derivedfrom the assemblages of a lsquotype sitersquo or intuitively considered to be the mostappropriate attributes in the definition of a particular culture As Clarkeobserved

The intended nature of these groups washelliptransparently clear theywere solid and tangible defined entities like an artefact type or culturalassemblage each possessed a necessary list of qualifying attributes andthey could be handled like discrete and solid bricks

(Clarke 1978 [1968]35) However as he goes on to point out in practice lsquono group of culturalassemblages from a single culture ever contains nor ever did contain all ofthe cultural artefactsrsquo as the ideal monothetic concept implies (ibid 36)This problem was recognized by Childe (195633 124) who emphasizedthat all the types assigned to a particular culture are unlikely to be present inevery assemblage Instead he argued it is the repeated association of anumber of types which defines the group and some of these types may beabsent in some assemblages within the group as well as present inassemblages belonging to other groups However Childersquos (1956124)response was to discard the untidy information by demoting it from the rankof lsquodiagnosticrsquo types thus preserving the ideal of a univariate cultural blockThe result in Childersquos work as in others was the operation of a two-tiersystem lsquoA theoretical level of interpretation in terms of rigid monothetic


groupings and a practical level of groupings by broad affinity or similarityassessed on an intuitive basisrsquo (Clarke 1978 [1968]37)

Other archaeologists in addition to Clarke have criticized the intuitivearbitrary and constructed nature of archaeological classification in generaland cultural entities in particular (eg Binford 1965 Hodder 1978bRenfrew 1977 Shennan 1978) It has been argued that culture-historicalclassification was based on the degree to which cultural traits are shared andthis had the effect of lsquomasking differences andhelliplumping togetherphenomena which would be discrete under another taxonomic methodrsquo(Binford 1965205) In a similar vein Hodder (1978b) and Shennan (1978)have shown that the traditional approach to the classification of culturalentities was too crude and that a more sophisticated approach to theanalysis of archaeological data reveals a much more complex structureMoreover it has been argued that archaeological cultures can be generatedout of a continuum of change and that in many instances such entities arepurely constructs devised by archaeologists (Hodder 1982a6 McGuire1992169 Renfrew 197794)

The conceptualization of culture as a differentiated system stimulated thedevelopment of new approaches to the analysis of archaeologicaldistributions More sophisticated conceptual devices have been developed inan attempt to accommodate the nature of archaeological distributions suchas Clarkersquos polythetic approach to the definition of culture However thefact that Clarke (1978 [1968]368ndash9) still defined culture as an entity whichcould be equated with past ethnic groups served to obscure some of theproblems involved As Shennan points out Clarke adopted a classificatoryexpedient

to remove the untidiness in the cross-cutting distributions rather thantaking the more radical step of recognizing that this untidiness is infact the essence of the situation arising from the fact that there are nosuch entities as lsquoculturesrsquo simply the contingent interrelations ofdifferent distributions produced by different factors

(Shennan 1989b13 my emphasis)

Such an understanding of archaeological distributions represents asignificant shift in archaeological classification which has been stimulatedby attempts to analyse different aspects of past cultural systems The ideathat culture is a multivariate rather than a univariate phenomenon resultingfrom many different factors has been accepted by many archaeologists andsophisticated methods of data analysis appropriate to such a theoreticalstance have been developed (eg Doran and Hodson 1975 Hodder andOrton 1976 Shennan 1988)

(3) Finally a small minority of archaeologists have questioned the veryexistence of ethnic groups as fixed bounded entities As discussed in


Chapters 4 and 5 the recognition that ethnic groups are a dynamic andsituational phenomenon has dominated research into ethnicity inanthropology and sociology since the late 1960s Studies have revealed thatthe boundaries of ethnic groups and the identification of individuals maychange through time and from place to place often as a result of the strategicmanipulation of identity with relation to economic and political relations Inthe archaeological literature it has also been suggested that ethnicity is adynamic and instrumental phenomenon and that material culture is activelyused in the justification and manipulation of inter-group relations (egHodder 1982a Shennan 1989b) Furthermore it has been argued that theintensity of ethnic consciousness and consequently material culturedifferentiation may increase in times of economic and political stress (egHodder 1979a 1982a Kimes et al 1982)

However whilst the dynamic and situational nature of ethnicity has beenaccommodated by such research the existence of ethnic groups as boundedsocio-cultural entities is still accepted (eg Hodder 1979a 1982a Kimes etal 1982) Very few archaeologists have recognized the more radicalconclusions of some recent anthropological research which questions thevery existence of ethnic groups in the form of bounded monolithic territorialentities (although see Shennan 1989b11ndash12) and suggests that such aconceptualization may itself be a legacy of nineteenth-century taxonomicsystems (Renfrew 1987288 Shennan 1989b7ndash9)2

All of these critiques have fundamental implications for the analysis ofethnicity in archaeology However they have only been accommodated in apiecemeal fashion and often as an unintended consequence of otherdevelopments in archaeological theory and practice In what follows theways in which processual and post-processual archaeologies haveapproached ethnicity whether explicitly or implicitly will be explored and ageneral theoretical approach for the analysis of ethnicity in archaeology willbe developed

THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN STYLE AND FUNCTION NEWARCHAEOLOGY AND THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OFETHNICITY

The conceptualization of culture as a system and the emphasis onfunctionalism in new archaeology led to the definition of different kinds ofartefact and assemblage variation For instance Binford (1962219)specified three different classes lsquotechnomicrsquo lsquosocio-technicrsquo and lsquoideo-technicrsquo relating to the kind of social domain in which artefacts have theirprimary function Cross-cutting these functional categories he distinguishedformal stylistic attributes which are not directly explicable in functionalterms rather he argued that such attributes are determined by the


enculturative milieu and may play a secondary functional role in promotinggroup solidarity (ibid 220) In a later paper Binford (1965206ndash9) went onto outline three sources of assemblage variability lsquotraditionrsquo that is spatio-temporal continuity in stylistic variability derived from received knowledgeabout ways of doing things lsquointeraction spherersquo that is the distribution of aparticular artefact or group of artefacts derived from regular andinstitutionally maintained inter-societal articulation and lsquoadaptive arearsquothat is a distribution of common artefacts arising from their use in copingdirectly with the physical environment

Basically these different classes of artefact and sources of variation arefounded on a distinction between the lsquofunctionalrsquo characteristics of artefactswhether these are utilitarian or non-utilitarian and lsquostylisticrsquo characteristicswhich cross-cut functional categories and are regarded as residual formalvariation a frequently quoted example being decoration on pottery vesselsIt is clear from Binfordrsquos (1962 1965 1972) discussion of these differentclasses of variation that he regarded stylistic variation in terms of normativevariation and ultimately ethnic differences For instance he stated thatlsquostylistic variables are most fruitfully studied when questions of ethnic originmigration and interaction between groups are the subject of explicationrsquo(Binford 1962220) Although he attributed a functional role to suchvariation in terms of promoting group solidarity stylistic variation isessentially regarded as a passive product of the enculturative milieuMoreover Binford (1965208) defined spatially and temporally discretetraditions on the basis of similarities and differences in stylistic attributes inmuch the same way as archaeologists working within a culture-historicalframework

Thus with respect to stylistic variation ethnic entities although rarely anexplicit focus of analysis in processual archaeology are still equated withreceived normative tradition (Conkey 199110 Shennan 1989b18) Themain distinction being that in contrast with most culture-historicalarchaeology such normative tradition is assumed to be located in onlycertain dimensions of artefact variability3 On the basis of these assumptionsresearch concerning the organization of past groups has focused onparticular aspects of material culture such as stylistic variation in potterydecoration (eg Whallon 1968) In short such studies assume that ceramicform is determined by utilitarian function whereas decoration constitutesadditional non-functional variation and that it is in the domain of suchvariation that social information such as lsquoethnic iconographyrsquo will beexpressed (Sackett 1977377)

In a series of articles Sackett (1977 1982 1985 1986 1991) hassubjected the dichotomy between function and style to a cogent critique Headopted a similar basic premise concerning normative processes and style toother processual archaeologists and indeed proponents of traditionalculture-history That is that stylistic variation referred to by Sackett as


lsquoisochrestic variationrsquo is derived from variation in culturally prescribed waysof doing things Similarity in the isochrestic dimensions of material culture isassumed to be a product of acculturation within a given social group andtherefore also an index of ethnic similarity and difference (Sackett1977371)

However in contrast to Binford Sackett argued that style does notoccupy a discrete realm of formal artefact variation distinct from functionOn the contrary he suggested that these two dimensions of artefactvariability are embedded in one another (Sackett 1977371 1986630)Whereas it has been assumed by some archaeologists that style is somethingthat is additional to the basic functional form of the object it occupies (egBinford 1962 1965 Whallon 1968) Sackett (198275 1986630) sees styleas inherent in the choices made by people from a broad spectrum of equallyviable alternative means of achieving the same functional ends Style orisochrestic variation therefore resides in all aspects of artefact variabilityeven those dimensions which appear to be explicitly functional and itfollows on the basis of Sackettrsquos argument that lsquoin isochrestic perspective abutchering technique may potentially convey as much ethnically stylisticvariation as a pottery decorationrsquo (Sackett 1986630)

The dichotomy between style and function in the new archaeology wascreated by a desire to identify the different processes involved in the creationof variation in the archaeological record However this led to an artificialdistinction between style and function as if such dimensions of materialculture constitute discrete components which can be measured in some wayand contributed to ambiguity concerning the relationship betweennormative processes and variation in material culture It has been stressedthat there may be considerable variation in ideational norms within a givensocio-cultural system (eg Binford 1965205) whilst at the same time spatialand temporal continuity in stylistic attributes has continued to be explainedin terms of cultural tradition and regarded as a passive product of ethnicitySome research has usefully indicated that normative traditions andassociated stylistic patterns are more complex than assumed in traditionalculture-historical archaeology as learning patterns may vary at individual orhousehold levels and at community and regional levels as a result of a rangeof variables (eg see contributions to Flannery 1976 Plog 1978 1983)However style was still predominantly regarded as an essentially passivereflection of normative rules until the emergence of a differentconceptualization of style in terms of active communication and informationexchange

STYLISTIC COMMUNICATION AND ETHNICITY

Despite the important realization that the manifestation of material culturein any particular context is a product of a variety of processes and not solely


a reflection of ideational norms new archaeology failed to address therelationship between normative variation in material culture and ethnicityIn effect the problems engendered by equating ethnicity with culture weremerely transposed to the peripheral domain of stylistic variation wherespatially and temporally discrete distributions were interpreted as a passivereflection of past ethnic groups However as we have seen it has been widelyrecognized in anthropology and sociology that a one-to-one relationshipbetween ethnic identity and cultural similarities and differences cannot beassumed and ethnic groups have been conceptualized as self-definingentities Moreover a large body of recent research has suggested that thecommunication of ethnicity is an active process involved in the manipulationof economic and political resources

Although only a few archaeologists have been directly influenced byrecent anthropological and sociological theories of ethnicity similar trendsare evident in a particular archaeological approach to style as activecommunication which emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s4 Style wasredefined as more than a passive product of the enculturative milieu it cameto be viewed as a form of communication and social marking in certainusually highly visible artefacts and in certain social contexts (Conkey199110) In this respect style was regarded as both functional and adaptivein that it facilitates the exchange of information concerning social andreligious identification group affiliation status and so on in periods ofenvironmental and social stress (eg Gamble 1982 Jochim 1983)

Wiessner (1983 1984 1985 1989) has developed these ideas concerningstyle as active communication in her ethno-archaeological analysis ofstylistic variation and the expression of social identity amongst the KalahariSan Drawing on psychological theory concerning social identity (eg Tajfel1982) she has suggested that both individual and group identity isultimately based on a universal human cognitive process of comparisonlsquothrough which the self is differentiated from others and the ingroup fromthe outgrouprsquo (Wiessner 1983191ndash2 257) Style she argued is one of themany channels through which identity can be projected to others andconsequently it will be affected by the processes of social comparison anddetermined by the outcome of that comparison in terms of the expression ofsimilarity and difference Moreover with relation to social identity stylemay be actively used in the disruption alteration and creation of socialrelationships (Wiessner 1984194 1985161)

Style then in Wiessnerrsquos terms refers to the active symbolic role ofparticular characteristics of material culture in mediating social relationsand social strategies She has argued that there are at least two distinctaspects of style which have different referents contain different kinds ofinformation are generated by different conditions and produce differentkinds of variation


emblemic style that is formal variation in material culture that has adistinct referent and transmits a clear message to a defined targetpopulation about conscious affiliation and identityhellip[and]hellipassertivestyle [that] is formal variation in material culture which is personallybased and which carries information supporting individual identity

(Wiessner 1983257ndash8)

Wiessner (ibid) went on to argue that emblemic style usually refers to asocial group and the norms and values associated with that group whereasassertive style does not have a distinctive referent as it supports but does notdirectly symbolize individual identity Moreover unlike assertive styleemblemic style does not reflect degrees of interaction across groupboundaries because it carries information about such boundaries and as aresult it is likely to have a distinct and discrete distribution in contrast to therandom or clinal distribution of assertive style (ibid 259)

Hodder (1979a 1982a) has elaborated on this point drawing on anumber of ethno-archaeological studies conducted in Kenya Zambia andSudan In his study of ethnic boundaries in the Baringo District of Kenya heshowed that despite interaction across tribal boundaries clear materialculture distinctions were being maintained in a wide range of artefactcategories whilst other material culture types crossed tribal boundaries(Hodder 1982a58) He argued that material culture distinctions are in partmaintained in order to justify between-group competition and negativereciprocity and that such patterning may increase in times of economic stress(see especially Hodder 1979a but also 1982a55) However he also stressedthat different groups may adopt different adaptive strategies in the face ofeconomic and political stress and that lsquothe explanation of these strategiesand the way in which material culture is involved in them depend oninternally generated symbolic schemesrsquo (Hodder 1982a186)

Such research has major implications for assumptions concerning therelationship between degrees of similarity in material culture and socialdifference Archaeologists have tended to assume that the transmission ofmaterial culture is a function of social interaction and proximity Howeveras Hodder has pointed out there is no straightforward relationship betweendegrees of interaction or scales of production and material culturepatterning

the extent to which cultural similarity relates for example tointeraction depends on the strategies and intentions of the interactinggroups and on how they use manipulate and negotiate materialsymbols as part of these strategies

(Ibid 185)

Like Wiessner Hodder (ibid 186ndash7) suggested that the use of materialculture in distinguishing between self-conscious ethnic groups will lead to


discontinuities in certain material culture distributions which may enable thearchaeologist to identify such groups (see also Haaland 1977) However healso emphasized that some groups may choose strategies of assimilation inthe context of regular interaction and others may retain distinct identitieswithout reference to material culture with the result that their boundarieswill be invisible to archaeologists as in the case of the Lozi in Zambia

In contrast to some functionalist approaches to style (eg Wobst 1977Binford 1973) Hodder (1982a55) argued that ethnic identity may beexpressed in mundane utilitarian items as well as in decorative items andthat such objects are not necessarily highly visible Moreover unlikeWiessner he illustrated that the form that between-group relations take isusually related to the internal organization of social relations and that theexpression of ethnicity must be understood in terms of symbolic schemes ofmeaning generated within the group (ibid 187ndash8) For instance he arguedthat in the Baringo District of Kenya between-group differentiation andhostility is linked to the internal differentiation of age sets and thedomination of women and younger men by older men Larickrsquos (1986 1991)ethno-archaeological research amongst the Loikop in Kenya also supportsthis argument illustrating that items of material culture that are significantin terms of ethnicity such as spears are constantly appropriated in thesignification of age differentiation amongst the male population At the mostexclusive level owning a spear constitutes being Loikop but in this case theintensity of competition between age cohorts and the expression ofdifferentiation between age grades in terms of stylistic variation in spears isgreater than between ethnic groupings (Larick 1991317ndash18)

Such research is part of a significant trend in the analysis of style inarchaeology which emphasizes its active role in symbolizing identity andnegotiating social relations In contrast to normative or isochrestic theoriesstylistic variation is not regarded as merely a passive reflection ofenculturation within ethnically bounded contexts rather it is activelyproduced maintained and manipulated in the process of communicationand the mediation of social relationships Such strategic manipulation ofmaterial culture is likely to result in discontinuous non-random distributionsof material culture (see Hodder and Orton 1976) which are often the foci ofinteraction rather than relative social isolation and distance Thusarchaeologists cannot then assume that degrees of similarity and differencein material culture provide a straightforward index of interaction

The research discussed here also represents a number of importantdevelopments in the analysis of ethnic identity in archaeology (eg Hodder1979a 1982a Larick 1986 1991 Kimes et al 1982 Wiessner 1983 19841985) Although the nature of ethnicity is not explicitly discussed in detail inany of these studies ethnic groups are conceptualized as self-consciousidentity groups constructed through the process of social and culturalcomparison vis-agrave-vis others rather than as a passive reflection of cultural


tradition as in normative archaeology It is also recognized that theexpression of ethnicity may be confined to a limited range of stylisticattributes which have become associated with an ethnic referent and theseattributes may be actively maintained and manipulated in the negotiation ofsocial relations an observation that is backed up by a large body ofanthropological literature

However none of these approaches provides an account of how ethnicidentity is produced reproduced and transformed Why is there apparently arelationship between symbolic structures concerning intra-group relationsand the form and expression of ethnic relations How do particular stylisticattributes become attached to the active conscious expression of identityethnic or otherwise that is what are the processes involved in theobjectification of ethnicity What is missing from these studies is anlsquoadequate account of the social production of stylersquo (Shanks and Tilley 1992[1987] 146) Hodder (1982a204ndash5) is to some extent an exception in thathe emphasizes the importance of the symbolic structures permeating allaspects of cultural practice and social relations in the differentiation ofethnic groups (and see pp 120ndash2 below) However functionalistexplanations of style as communication such as that of Wobst (1977) fallinto the teleological trap of suggesting that distinctive styles come intoexistence in order to serve certain ends such as the communication of ethnicdifference in times of economic stress Moreover the relationship betweensuch functional styles and other supposedly passive forms of stylisticvariation remains unclear

MATERIAL CULTURE HUMAN AGENCY AND SOCIALSTRUCTURE

Proponents of the new archaeology reacted against traditional culture-history and the idea that material culture merely reflected social norms butin doing so they imposed a functionalist conceptualization of cultureincluding material culture as an epiphenomenal adaptive mechanism(Hodder 1982b4ndash5 Shanks and Tilley 198794) Moreover although thenormative dimension of culture was not altogether dismissed it wasconsidered irrelevant in terms of the function of culture in most contexts ofanalysis except in the case of style The result is a pervasive dichotomybetween functional utility and normative culture However there areproblems with both a functionalist conceptualization of culture as anadaptive mechanism and a normative or structuralist conceptualization ofculture as a set of ideational rules determining behaviour5

On the one hand functionalist approaches fail to take into account theway in which cultural schemes structure social reality As Hodder (1982b4)argues lsquoall actions take place within cultural frameworks and theirfunctional value is assessed in terms of the concepts and orientations which


surround themrsquo Law-like models based on abstract notions of efficiency andadaptation (eg Torrence 1989) cannot account for the cultural diversity soclearly manifest in the varied responses of particular societies to similarenvironmental and social conditions (see McBryde 1984) Moreover afunctionalist approach is reductive in that human action is assumed to beprimarily determined by specific environmental factors with the exceptionof supposedly expedient stylistic peculiarities which are regarded as theproduct of normative processes

On the other hand normative and structuralist approaches fail to providean adequate account of the generation of social structure in the course ofsocial action and as a result people are represented as culturally determineddupes mechanistically obeying normative rules or structures As infunctionalist approaches where human agency is often subordinated toenvironmental determinism the role of human agency is also curtailed instructuralist approaches where it is determined by abstract structures thatlie outside the domain of individual and group history (Bourdieu 197772Hodder 1982b8ndash9) Moreover as normative and structuralist approachestend to disregard adaptive processes and fail to develop an account of thegeneration of norms or social structures with relation to human agency theydo not provide an adequate framework for the analysis of processes of socialchange (Hodder 1982b8)

All social practices and social relations are structured by cultural schemesof meaning which mediate social relations and social action However asdiscussed in Chapter 5 such structuring principles are not abstract mentalrules but rather durable dispositions towards certain perceptions andpractices Such dispositions become part of an individualrsquos sense of self at anearly age and operate largely in the domain of practical consciousnessmdashthatis these cultural dispositions structure peoplersquos decisions and actions butoften lie beyond their ability to describe and thus formalize their behaviourin the realm of discursive consciousness The structural orientations makingup the habitus are essentially dialectical in that they both structure and arestructured by social practicemdashthey are both the medium and the outcome ofpractice Moreover such structural orientations do not have an existence oftheir own outside of human action but rather are only manifested in thecontext of social practice where they are reproduced and transformed Suchan approach provides a theoretical framework which resolves the dichotomybetween functionalism and structuralism Human behaviour can still beconsidered to achieve certain functional ends to provide for basic needsdesires and goals however such needs and interests are defined andnegotiated by people within a culturally structured situation as are thefunctions that particular practices perform (Bourdieu 197776)

Material culture is an active constitutive dimension of social practice inthat it both structures human agency and is a product of that agency(Hodder 198674)6 The social practices and social structures involved in the


production use and consumption of material culture become embodied byit because such processes occur within meaningful cultural contexts (seeMacKenzie 1991191ndash201 Miller 198511ndash12) Yet material culture mayoperate simultaneously in a number of social fields and its meaning is notfixed but subject to reproduction and transformation in terms of bothmaterial curation and interpretation throughout its social life (see Kopytoff1986 MacKenzie 199126ndash7 Thomas 199128ndash9) Thus material culture ispolysemous and its meanings may vary through time depending upon itsparticular social history the position of particular social agents and theimmediate context of its use Moreover material culture is not merely arepository of accumulated meaning inscribed in it by its production and usein different social contexts and by differentially situated social agents Itplays an active role in the structuring of cultural practices because theculturally specific meanings with which material culture is endowed as aresult of former practices influence successive practices and interpretations

For instance MacKenziersquos (1991) detailed analysis of the culturalconstruction of Telefol string bags illustrates the dialectical relationshipbetween the meaning of a particular item of material culture and thereproduction and transformation of social relations in the spheres of genderage differentiation ethnic identities exchange kinship relations ritual andmyth Mackenzie has convincingly demonstrated that through their use ineveryday practice and in ritual symbolism the meanings attributed to stringbags play an active role in the construction of an individualrsquos social andcultural identity Moreover through their role in the mediation andjustification of social relations such as between men and women they areinvolved in the structuring of social practices and social interaction Forinstance the bird-feather bilum (string bag) worn by men is an expression ofsexual differentiation which signifies both oppositionseparation anddependencyintegration between genders (MacKenzie 1991201) Thisparticular bilum is introduced to boys at the beginning of male initiation andthe ideas associated with it play a role in the internalization of notions ofsexual differentiation and masculinity (ibid 204ndash5) The bird-feather bilumis polysemous meaning different things to different people in different socialcontexts and it is involved in the mediation and legitimation of socialrelations and the structuring of activities between genders in differentcontexts and at different stages in the life cycle of the Telefol (ibid 192ndash4204ndash5)

Millerrsquos (1985) analysis of pottery from Dangwara village in the Malwaregion of India and Taylorrsquos (1987) analysis of Kunwinjku bark paintings inwestern Arnhem Land Australia also provide compelling examples of theactive constitutive role of material culture in the mediation of socialrelations and the construction of identities Such studies suggest thatmaterial culture cannot be regarded as a passive reflection of rule-governedactivities as it has been within the so-called normative archaeology


Moreover any distinction between passive and active dimensions of materialculture such as between Sackettrsquos isochrestic variation and Wiessnerrsquoscommunicative style is undermined because all material culture is active inthe processes of social production reproduction and transformation(Conkey 199113 Shanks and Tilley 1992 [1987]146) As Hodder(1982a213 see also Miller 1985205) has argued

Structures of meaning are present in all the daily trivia of life and in themajor adaptive decisions of human groups Material culture patterningis formed as part of these meaningful actions and it helps to constitutechanging frameworks of action and belief

Cultural change is generated by the intersection of the meanings embodied inthe material and non-material worlds and new contexts of interpretationand action in which agents act strategically on the basis of the structureddispositions of the habitus

One of the main implications of this argument for archaeologists is thatstructure and function cannot be regarded as distinct domainsmdashstructureprovides the framework through which function is defined Moreover thestructured orientations of the habitus manifest themselves in different waysin different contexts with relation to various sets of social relations andcultural practices It follows that it is necessary to adopt a contextual andhistorical approach to the analysis of archaeological remains in order to tryto understand the social practices and social relations which extendedbeyond the structure and content of material culture distributions (Hodder1982b 1986)

ETHNICITY AND MATERIAL CULTURE

Having established a broad framework for the interpretation of materialculture that avoids the problems associated with both functionalist andnormative approaches it is possible to reconsider the interpretation ofethnicity in archaeology An overriding concern with the instrumentaldynamics of ethnicity in anthropology and sociology since the late 1960s hasresulted in a distinction between culture and ethnicity the latter beingframed in primarily socio-economic and political terms The culturaldimensions of ethnicity and to some extent the very existence of ethnicgroups have been taken for granted and research has tended to focus on themanipulation of cultural difference in the pursuit of individual and groupinterests Culture within this framework is reduced to an epiphenomenaland arbitrary set of symbols randomly selected from existing practices andbeliefs or even brought into being in order to signify ethnicity and justifyinstrumental ends A similar tendency can be identified in certainarchaeological studies of the use of style in the communication of ethnicity


and other forms of social identity (eg Hodder 1979a Wiessner 1983 Wobst1977) Such approaches are both functionalist and reductionist stylisticpatterns in material culture are assumed to exist in order to achieve certainends such as the communication of identity

Theories that focus exclusively on instrumental aspects of ethnicity fail toaddress a number of key issues How are the commonalities of identity andinterest associated with ethnicity generated What is the nature of therelationship between ethnic identities and the cultural practices or symbolsassociated with them In short what is the relationship between culture andethnicity7 It was argued in Chapter 5 that sensations of ethnic affinity arebased on the recognition at both a conscious and subconscious level ofsimilar habitual dispositions which are embodied in the cultural practicesand social relations in which people are engaged Such structuraldispositions provide the basis for the perception of ethnic similarity anddifference when people from diverse cultural traditions come into interactionwith one another leading to forms of self-reflexive cultural comparison It isin such contexts that particular cultural practices and beliefs which to someextent embody the underlying structures of the habitus become objectifiedand rationalized in the representation of ethnic difference Ethnicity is not adirect reflection of the habitus or of culture The construction of ethnicityand the objectification of cultural difference that this entails is a product ofthe intersection of peoplersquos habitual dispositions with the concrete socialconditions characterizing any given historical situation These conditionsinclude the nature of social interaction and the relative distribution of thematerial and symbolic means necessary for the imposition of dominantregimes of ethnic categorization

Material culture is frequently implicated in both the recognition andexpression of ethnicity it both contributes to the formulation of ethnicityand is structured by it Certain aspects of material culture may becomeinvolved in the self-conscious signification of identity and the justificationand negotiation of ethnic relations As a result distinctive forms and styles ofmaterial culture may be actively maintained and withheld in the process ofsignalling ethnicity whilst other forms and styles may cross-cut ethnicboundaries (see Earth 1969a Hodder 1982a) However in contrast toinstrumentalist theories the approach developed here suggests that thelsquochoicersquo of distinctive cultural forms and styles used in signalling ethnicboundaries is not arbitrary Rather the self-conscious expression of ethnicitythrough material culture is linked to the structural dispositions of thehabitus which infuse all aspects of the cultural practices and social relationscharacterizing a particular way of life (see Burley et al 19926ndash7) Thisargument is supported by ethno-archaeological studies such as those ofHodder (1982a) and Larick (1986 1991) which have revealed that themanifestation of inter-ethnic relations and the expression of ethnicdifference are linked to cultural practices and social differentiation within


the group Furthermore Hodderrsquos (1982a54ndash5) research indicated acorrelation between dimensions of material culture that are not part of theovert signification of ethnicity as in the case of the position of hearths withinhuts and self-conscious ethnic signification in other dimensions of materialculture such as in items of dress As Hodder (1982a56) has observed lsquotribaldistinctions become acceptable and ldquonaturalizedrdquo by their continuedrepetition in both public and privatersquo and there is lsquoa continual interplaybetween different spheres and types of material culturersquo

The practice theory of ethnicity advocated here provides the basis for a re-evaluation of the debate between Sackett (1985) and Wiessner (1983 19841985) about the nature of stylistic variation and the way in which ethnicmarkers are manifested in material culture On the basis of her analysis ofstylistic variation in San projectile points and the ways in which suchvariation is articulated in terms of group differentiation by the San Wiessnerargued that emblemic style clearly marks differences between languagegroups and may function at the level of the dialect andor band cluster

for the San the emblemic style carries a clear message to members of alinguistic group as to whether arrows come from their own group or aforeign one In the former case it signals that the maker also holdssimilar values In the latter case the stylistic difference may eithersignal another set of values or practices if the two groups are known toone another or if not that its maker is foreign and his behaviour isunpredictable

(Wiessner 1983269) In his critique Sackett (1985156) disputed both Wiessnerrsquos theoreticalapproach and her interpretation of stylistic variation in San projectile pointsHe argued for a narrower view of active style called iconological stylewhich he defined as conscious purposive signalling According to Sacketticonocism constitutes only a small dimension of ethnic style most of which isinherent in isochrestic variation that is passive variation which arises fromenculturation within a bounded ethnic context Moreover he has arguedthat the formal variation that Wiessner has observed in San projectile pointscan be explained in terms of passive isochresticism rather than the active useof style to signal identity (Sackett 1985157ndash8)

Within the terms of their debate it appears that there is little evidence tosuggest that the San projectile points are produced in a certain form in orderto actively signal self-conscious identity to a specific target group such as adifferent language group San who do not live in the vicinity of linguisticboundaries are only vaguely conscious of linguistic differentiation so it isdifficult to attribute the production and maintenance of stylistic difference inprojectile points to an intentional desire to signal linguistic boundariesHowever the question of intentionality in the production of particular styles


of projectile point is not a relevant issue it is clear that in certain contextssuch as the ethnographic situation created by Wiessnerrsquos study variation inprojectile points underlies a consciousness of difference in a variety ofspheres and becomes implicated in the signification and structuring of socialrelations

Thus in many situations style in projectile points constitutes Sackettrsquos so-called isochrestic variation but in some contexts it becomes involved in therecognition of ethnic difference and may become active in signifying identitya point that is recognized by Wiessner (1985162 198958) in her laterwork The problem with Sackettrsquos argument is that he assumes that hisisochrestic variation can be correlated with ethnicity On the contraryisochrestic variation in material culture can be usefully compared withBourdieursquos concept of the habitus although it constitutes a transformed andcongealed representation of the generative structures of the habitus As suchisochrestic variation lsquoprovides the resources for ethnic identity and indeedfor emblemic and assertive uses of style in generalrsquo (Shennan 1989b20) butneither isochresticism nor the habitus is equivalent to ethnicity In the case ofthe San projectile points habitual modes of arrow-head production providethe basis for the generation of ethnicity or at least a lsquowersquolsquotheyrsquoconsciousness in contexts where the arbitrary nature of particular modes ofarrow-head production has been exposed through processes of culturalcomparison

If such contexts of interaction and comparison occur repeatedly andsocial action and interaction are expressed and mediated in terms ofcategories of cultural difference then these categories are likely to becomeincreasingly institutionalized In some situations such as inter-group conflictor competition over scarce resources such categories may be more fixedwhereas in others they may be very fluid yet in all instances they will vary indifferent spatial and temporal contexts Moreover ethnic categories maypersist whilst the material culture involved in the conscious signification ofthese categories changes and likewise the ethnic referent of particular stylesof material culture may change whilst the styles themselves remain thesame Thus the relationship between material culture styles and theexpression of ethnicity may be constantly shifting according to time andplace Material styles which in some social and historical contexts areactively taken up in the signification and negotiation of ethnicity may inother contexts only form part of the meaningful environment in whichethnicity is generated (eg see MacKenzie 199114 Praetzellis et al 1987Wiessner 1985162)

This approach has a number of important implications for the analysis ofethnicity in archaeology In contrast to the traditional culture concept it hasbeen suggested that whether or not spatially and temporally boundeddistributions of material culture are the product of a similar enculturativemilieu or a common habitus they do not necessarily lsquomaprsquo the extent and


boundaries of self-conscious ethnic groups in the past Ethnicity must bedistinguished from mere spatial continuity and discontinuity in that it refersto self-conscious identification with a particular group of people (Shennan1989b19) Although it has been argued that ethnic consciousness is in partbased on the recognition of commonalities of practice and historicalexperience it is also a product of the conditions prevailing in particularsocial and historical contexts Thus the extent to which ethnicity isembedded in pre-existing cultural realities or a shared habitus is highlyvariable and contingent upon the cultural transformations engendered byprocesses of interaction and the nature of the power relations between theinteracting lsquogroupsrsquo8 From an archaeological point of view these processesmay lead to a variety of different scenarios In some instances there may bea high degree of homology between the structuring principles of the habitusand the signification of ethnicity in both material and non-material culture(as in Hodderrsquos (1982a) study of the Baringo District) In other instancesthere may be a dislocation of such homologous relationships between thestructuring principles of the habitus and the generation and expression of acommon ethnic identity resulting in the incorporation of a bricolage ofdifferent cultural traditions (cf Rowlands 1982164) The former situationwill lead to a high degree of homology between so-called isochrestic styleand the signification of ethnicity and the latter to a much smaller degree ofcommensurability between the two

Nevertheless it is important to recognize that even in situationscharacterized by a high degree of homology between the habitus andethnicity archaeologists may not be able to find lsquoethnic entitiesrsquo reflected inmaterial culture distributions (cf Miller 1985202 in relation to caste) It ispossible to question the very existence of bounded homogeneous ethnicentities except at a conceptual level in the abstract cultural categoriesemployed in peoplersquos discursive articulation of ethnicity Such conceptualcategories are based on the reification or objectification of transient culturalpractices taking place at different times and in different contexts and thelsquogrouprsquo only exists in the context of interpretation where it justifies andexplains past practices and modes of interaction and structures future ones(cf Bourdieu 197720ndash2 Thomas 199675) In contrast the praxis ofethnicity and this is what is most likely to be represented in thearchaeological record results in a set of transient but often repeatedrealizations of ethnic difference in particular contexts These realizations ofethnicity are both structured and structuring involving in many instancesthe production and consumption of distinctive styles of material cultureHowever they are a product of the intersection of the perceptual andpractical dispositions of social agents and the interests and oppositionsengendered in particular social contexts rather than abstract categories ofdifference

Thus configurations of ethnicity and consequently the styles of material


culture involved in the signification and structuring of ethnic relations mayvary in different social contexts and with relation to different forms andscales of social interaction The multidimensional nature of ethnicity mayresult in a complex pattern of overlapping material-culture distributionsrelating to the repeated realization and transformation of ethnicity indifferent social contexts rather than a discrete monolithic cultural entityPatterns in the production and consumption of material culture involved inthe communication of the lsquosamersquo ethnic identity may vary qualitatively aswell as quantitatively in different contexts Furthermore items of materialculture that are widely distributed and used in a variety of social andhistorical contexts may be curated and consumed in different ways andbecome implicated in the generation and signification of a variety ofexpressions of ethnicity (see Thomas 199678ndash82 for a similar argument)

The relationship between ethnicity and material culture thus appears tobe intangible and fleeting and particularly problematic for archaeologistsNot surprisingly familiarity with recent anthropological theories of ethnicityhas led some archaeologists to adopt an extremely sceptical stance and tosuggest that ethnicity is not an appropriate or accessible phenomenon forarchaeological enquiry (Trigger 197722ndash3 1996277 see also Buchignani1987) This argument generally hinges on the time-worn issue of whetherlsquoarchaeologists can verifiably recover any ideas as opposed to behaviour ofthe groups they studyrsquo (Trigger 197723) archaeologists do not have directaccess to peoplersquos ideas and perceptions

The inaccessibility of individual motivations and understandings isusually dealt with in social archaeology through the analysis of the lsquodeeprsquoprocesses and structures that underpinned individual actions (cf Barrett19942ndash3) Variations on such an approach tend to be adopted by the fewarchaeologists who have defined ethnicity as an aspect of social processinvolved in the organization of human behaviour and acknowledged thatthe relationship between material culture and a consciousness of ethnicity isnot a fixed or intrinsic one (eg Haaland 1977 Hodder 1979a Kimes et al1982) Research from this position is based on the argument that thesystematization and rationalization of distinctive cultural styles in theprocess of the recognition expression and negotiation of ethnic identity inthe past may have produced discontinuous non-random distributions ofmaterial culture accessible to the archaeologist In addition it is oftenproposed that as ethnicity is involved in the organization of behaviour it ispossible to predict that under certain past conditions such as economicstress ethnic boundaries are likely to have been invoked and to have beenmore marked than in other situations (eg Hodder 1979a Blackmore et al1979) Yet such research has tended to be undermined by the fact that ethnicsymbolism is culture-specific and there is little evidence for any cross-cultural universals (although see Washburn 1989) In response the use ofindependent evidence has been advocated in an attempt to establish the


kinds of identity and modes of behaviour that underlie particulardistributions of material culture (eg Haaland 1977 Hodder 1979aWiessner 198958) For instance Hodder (1979a151ndash2) has argued that thelocalization of pottery styles evident in the French neolithic was related tothe symbolism of within-group solidarity and dependence on the basis ofpositive evidence for environmental stress He further strengthened hisargument by arguing that localization of pottery styles cannot be otherwiseexplained in terms of a decrease in the scale of social interaction becausethere is also independent evidence for increased interaction and exchangebetween lsquogroupsrsquo at this time

Despite the potential of such approaches they have a tendency to fallinto the functionalist mode of reasoning which has been criticizedthroughout this book For instance in her critique of the interpretation ofEarly Nubian tool types as ethnic idioms Haaland (1977) argues thatvariation in these artefacts can be explained in terms of adaptive socio-economic factors thus ruling out an ethnic interpretation9 The problemwith such an approach is that as indicated in Wiessnerrsquos study of Sanprojectile points lsquofunctionalrsquo or lsquoadaptiversquo variation may become involvedin the recognition and articulation of ethnic difference Furthermoreethnicity may be actively involved in the mediation of social relationsincluding economic and political relationships Thus a functional oreconomic interpretation of a particular non-random distribution does notpreclude an ethnic interpretation because ethnicity may have beenembedded in variation in subsistence and economy In such circumstancesit becomes very difficult to clearly lsquorule outrsquo ethnicity on the basis of otherexplanations for variation in material culture

The theoretical approach developed here suggests an alternative to bothan outright rejection of ethnicity as a valid subject of archaeological enquiryand a functionalist approach to ethnicity in which culture is reduced to aseemingly arbitrary and secondary role The analysis of contextualrealizations of ethnicity is by no means entirely beyond the possibilities ofarchaeological interpretation if as argued here there is a relationshipbetween the historically constituted dispositions and orientations thatinform peoplersquos understandings and practices and the recognition andexpression of ethnicity As such the way in which particular styles ofmaterial culture are meaningfully involved in the articulation of ethnicitymay be arbitrary across cultures but it is not random within particularsocio-historical contexts Ethnic symbolism is generated to varying degreesfrom the existing cultural practices and modes of differentiationcharacterizing various social domains such as gender and statusdifferentiation or the organization of space within households (see Eriksen1991)10

Thus a broad understanding of past cultural contexts derived from avariety of sources and classes of data is an essential part of any analysis of


ethnicity in archaeology In particular it is necessary to examine modes ofsocial interaction and the distribution of material and symbolic powerbetween groups of people because as argued above ethnicity is a product ofthe intersection of similarities and differences in peoplersquos habitus and theconditions characterizing any given historical situation An adequateknowledge of past social organization is also important as ethnicity is botha transient construct of repeated acts of interaction and communication andan aspect of social organization which becomes institutionalized to differentdegrees and in different forms in different societies Moreover an historicalapproach is crucial given the role of historical process in the generation andexpression of ethnicity (cf Olsen and Kobylinski 1991) Within a diachroniccontextual framework it may be possible to pick up the transformation ofhabitual material variation into active self-conscious ethnic symbolism andvice versa on the basis of changes in the nature and distribution of the stylesinvolved (Wiessner 198958) to reveal something about the contexts inwhich ethnicity is generated reproduced and transformed and to examinelsquothe mobilization of group as processrsquo (Conkey 199113)

The approach developed here requires a reconsideration not only of theinterpretation of ethnicity but also of the assumptions that underlie theexplanation of variation in material culture more generally in archaeologyThe recognition that material culture plays an active role in the generationand signification of ethnicity undermines the common assumption thatdegrees of similarity and difference in material culture provide astraightforward indicator of the intensity of interaction between past groups(see Hodder 1982a) Furthermore research into the role of material culturein the generation and expression of ethnicity has revealed that it is not apassive reflection of socialization within bounded ethnic units Rathermaterial culture is actively structured and structuring throughout its sociallife and consequently its meaning is not fixed but constantly subject toreproduction and transformation As Shanks and Tilley (198797) haveindicated a particular material form may remain the same but its meaningwill alter in different contexts it will be lsquoconsumed in different waysappropriated and incorporated into various symbolic structures according tohistorical tradition and social contextrsquo On this basis it cannot be assumed apriori that similarity in material culture reflects the presence of a particulargroup of people in the past an index of social interaction or a sharednormative framework

More fundamentally the theoretical approach adopted here questions thevery existence of ethnic groups as coherent monolithic entities within whichenculturation can be relied upon to have produced a uniform spread ofculture which undergoes gradual change through time As indicated inChapter 2 such assumptions although frequently challenged at aninterpretive level still underlie a great deal of archaeological classificationThus at a very fundamental level questioning these taken-for-granted


notions about the inherent boundedness of groups or the inevitabletransformations of social units through time should lead to a radical changenot just in the way we conceptualize culture but in how we conceptualizedescription or representation

(Conkey 199112)

128

Chapter 7

ConclusionsConstructing identities in the past and thepresent

A COMPARATIVE THEORY OF ETHNICITY

The theory of ethnicity put forward in this book addresses the relationshipbetween ethnicity and culture It has been shown that the construction ofethnicity is grounded in the shared subliminal dispositions of social agentswhich shape and are shaped by objective commonalities of practice ie thehabitus Such subliminal dispositions provide the basis for the recognition ofcommonalities of sentiment and interest and the perception andcommunication of cultural affinities and differences Consequently thedichotomy between primordial and instrumental approaches to ethnicity canbe transcended The cultural practices and representations that becomeobjectified as symbols of ethnicity are derived from and resonate with thehabitual practices and experiences of the people concerned as well asreflecting the instrumental contingencies of a particular situation

We have also seen that ethnicity is not directly congruent with either thehabitus or the cultural practices and representations that both structure andare structured by the habitus Crucially ethnic identification involves anobjectification of cultural practices (which otherwise constitute subliminalmodes of behaviour) in the recognition and signification of difference inopposition to others The particular form that such objectifications ofcultural difference take is constituted by the intersection of the habitus withthe prevailing social conditions in any given moment Hence the extent towhich ethnicity is embedded in pre-existing cultural realities represented by ashared habitus is highly variable and contingent upon the culturaltransformations engendered by the nature of interaction and the powerrelations between groups of people

As a result of such contingency the cultural practices and representationsinvolved in the signification of the lsquosamersquo identity may vary qualitatively aswell as quantitatively in different social contexts characterized by differentsocial conditions Thus there is rarely a one-to-one relationship betweenrepresentations of ethnicity and the entire range of cultural practices andsocial conditions associated with a particular ethnic group On the contrary

Conclusions 129

the resulting pattern will be one of overlapping ethnic boundaries producedby context-specific representations of cultural difference which are at oncetransient but also subject to reproduction and transformation in the ongoingprocesses of social life

This theoretical framework is comparative and generalizing to the extentthat it succeeds in identifying the basic processes involved in thereproduction and transformation of ethnicity across diverse social andhistorical contexts Hence used as an analytical framework such a theoryprovides arguments about similarities but importantly through theconsideration of specific social and historical contexts it also allows anunderstanding of differences in the manifestation of ethnicity (Eriksen199217)1 As a result it preserves the possibility of exploring difference inthe past rather than merely reproducing it in the image of the present

ROMANIZATION RECONSIDERED

The implications and potential of this approach to ethnicity forarchaeological interpretation in general can be exemplified with relation tothe case of Romanization Chapter 2 showed that despite a recent concernwith the particular socio-historical contexts in which lsquoRoman-stylersquo materialculture and ways of life were adopted in the negotiation of political powersuch research is still largely framed in terms of bounded socio-culturalentities Furthermore the assumption that peoples and their culturesconstitute bounded monolithic entities was also shown to be part of animplicit methodological framework which underlies much archaeologicalclassification and methods of dating

The theoretical approach developed in this book suggests that there arefundamental problems with such methodological and theoreticalframeworks In the last chapter we saw that material culture both structuresand is structured by the expression and negotiation of ethnicity underminingthe common archaeological assumption that style is a passive reflection ofisolation and interaction Moreover the recognition and articulation ofethnicity varies in different social domains and with relation to differentforms and scales of social interaction The production and consumption ofparticular styles of material culture involved in the expression of the lsquosamersquoethnic identity vary qualitatively as well as quantitatively in different socialcontexts Hence in many instances ethnicity amongst other factors maydisrupt regular spatio-temporal stylistic patterning resulting in an untidyand overlapping web of stylistic boundaries (in different classes of materialculture and in different contexts) which may be discontinuous in space andtime

Thus it can be argued that the adoption of an analytical framework basedon bounded socio-cultural units whether these be lsquoRomanrsquo and lsquonativersquo (orthe lsquoRoman Empirersquo and lsquoBelgic Gaulrsquo in contrast to lsquocentral Gaulrsquo) leads to

130 Conclusions

the reification of such groups and obscures the various heterogeneousprocesses involved in the negotiation of power and identity (cf Barrett1989235ndash6) For instance the ethnic significations of various aspects ofmaterial culture whether of Roman-style or otherwise are unlikely to havebeen fixed rather they will have actively constituted and been constitutedby the negotiation of group identity by different people in different socialcontexts (for similar arguments see Hingley 199643ndash4 Meadows1994137 Willis 1994145) Thus in order to explore the adoption andconsumption of Roman-style material culture in the expression andnegotiation of ethnicity it is necessary to adopt a contextual approachleading to the dissolution of the social and cultural group as the primary unitof analysis The definition of past contexts of interaction in archaeology isproblematic in itself as it is rarely possible to obtain fine details of particularmoments of social interaction and identification such as those which can beexamined in anthropological fieldwork Furthermore the relationshipsbetween archaeological contexts and past activities and social interaction arenot in themselves static Nevertheless in the case of late Iron Age andRoman Britain particular lsquolocalesrsquo can be defined such as rural settlementsnucleated settlements military forts extra-mural settlements burial sites orcemeteries and at a finer level lsquoprivatersquo versus lsquopublicrsquo and lsquoritualrsquo versuslsquosecularrsquo domains It is only through such an approach that variation in theuse and distribution of material culture lsquoRomanrsquo or otherwise can beidentified and the ways in which this material was involved in theconstruction of diverse identities explored

Alongside this reformulation of the broader analytical framework acritical evaluation of the assumptions underlying the classification anddating of the material evidence is also necessary In the existing literaturetypological sequences of artefacts tend to be based on the assumption thatstylistic groupings represent past historical entities such as cultures orpeoples and that such entities tend towards homogeneity within a givenspatial and temporal domain On the basis of this assumption similar stylesof the same class of artefact have been attributed to the same date whereasdissimilar styles have been attributed to different dates Artefacts dated onthese principles have then been used in the interpretation of site histories2

This use of relative typology for dating and interpreting site historiesserves to obscure the very kind of variation that is of interest for the analysisof ethnic identities and indeed of past cultural processes in general AsSpratling (1972280) has pointed out lsquoone of the things whicharchaeologists should be trying to find out namely what is the significanceof variation in artefact design is assumed at the outset in adopting thetypological methodrsquo Relative typologies and methods of seriation areultimately dependent upon the truism that the way in which people do thingsvaries in space and time and the assumption that people closer together inspace and time are more likely to do things in a similar manner than those

Conclusions 131

who are more distant from one another The typological method has beenshown to achieve a rough approximation in the dating of sites and sitecontexts when used in conjunction either with radiocarbon dating or datingthrough a chain of association on the basis of historically recorded events(see Millett 1983)3 However the use of such typological sequences in theanalysis of fine variation in assemblages raises fundamental problems for theanalysis of past socio-cultural processes as it pre-supposes a normative viewof culture (see Chapter 2) The use of such a concept of culture at a basiclevel of data analysis produces what is essentially an illusion of boundeduniform cultural entities and obscures the heterogeneous and open nature ofcultural and ethnic systems Indeed it can even be argued that the uncriticalapplication of the typological method in the dating and interpretation ofmaterial assemblages leads to an artificial manipulation of the spatio-temporal distribution of particular styles of artefact

The analysis of stylistic variation in material remains needs to be based ona chronological framework established through a critical examination ofstratigraphic and contextual associations in conjunction with historicaldating Such an approach to dating serves to undermine the circularity ofrelative typological dating on the basis of a single class of artefacts (seeMillett 1983 Spratling 1972) Moreover it is only by such an approach tothe dating of sites and archaeological contexts that the kind of lsquountidyrsquodistributions of particular styles of material culture potentially associatedwith the construction of ethnicity may be identified This is not to deny thatregular temporal or spatial stylistic patterns may exist in the archaeologicalrecord or that in some instances such stylistic structures may relate toalthough not necessarily lsquomaprsquo ethnic groups However such variation mustbe the subject of analysis rather than an a priori assumption in theconstruction of temporal sequences which are taken to constitute a neutraldescriptive basis for the study of socio-cultural processes The theory ofethnicity put forward in this book suggests the need for a fundamental re-evaluation of the assumptions that underlie the interpretation of typologicalsequences and further consideration of the cultural processes underlyingstylistic variation over time (see also Hodder 1993)

The contextual approach to dating and analysis being proposed here issomewhat compromised by the nature of many existing excavations and thesubsequent processing and publication of the data illustrating theinadequacy of existing methods of classification publication andinterpretation Assemblages of material culture are rarely analysed andpublished in a holistic manner with relation to the stratified contexts inwhich they were found within a site (although see Partridge 1981) Insteadpottery and small finds are published as isolated artefact classes andanalysed and interpreted using the typological approach Furthermorecertain classes and types of artefact are often implicitly prioritized at variousstages in the processing and publication of data4 Nevertheless although a

132 Conclusions

certain amount of the information that is required for a quantitative analysisof assemblage variation across different contexts is irrevocably lost it ispossible to retrieve some of this information through a reconstruction of sitecontexts

For the purposes of a preliminary exploration a number of sites in Essexand Hertfordshire have been considered and grouped into the kinds ofbroad context outlined above Four specific sites Kelvedon (Rodwell1988) Skeleton Green (Partridge 1981) Gorhambury (Neal et al 1990)and King Harry Lane (Stead and Rigby 1989) which have been the subjectof recent large-scale excavations have been examined in greater detailThese sites were all occupied during the late Iron Age and the Romanperiod and represent a number of different kinds of past activity AtKelvedon there is evidence for a late Iron Age farmstead and subsequentlya Roman nucleated settlement at Gorhambury a late Iron Age farmsteadfollowed by a Roman villa at Skeleton Green a late Iron Age and Romannucleated settlement and finally at King Harry Lane a late Iron Age andearly Roman cemetery followed by extra-mural settlement on the outskirtsof Verulamium

The material remains from these sites reveal considerable variationbetween different contexts which is currently ignored due to the constraintsof the Romanization model with its emphasis on homogeneity and gradualuniform change (see Chapter 2 Hingley 1989 199643) A contextualexamination of the structural remains brooches and pottery reveals acomplex and heterogeneous set of stylistic patterns which have been maskedby the conventional concern with a broad uniform cultural shift during thefirst century AD (see Jones 1994) For instance changes in architectural styleoccur at different times and take different forms At Skeleton Green there isa break in the occupation of the site around AD 40ndash50 and an associatedshift in the layout and style of the buildings all of the buildings in the laterphase being of sill-beam construction and more uniform in plan and layoutthan the earlier buildings In contrast the structural remains at Gorhamburyreveal different changes in architectural style taking place at different timeswith the construction of masonry villastyle buildings and a bath house atabout AD 100 Moreover in comparison with Skeleton Green Gorhamburyshows considerable continuity in the layout of the buildings and in theoverall occupation of the site over the conquest period Although there issome evidence for increasing symmetry in the layout of the buildings withinthe enclosure during the second century AD it is significant that many laterbuildings are constructed on the site of earlier buildings indicating a degreeof continuity in the use of the site Some of the other sites in Essex andHertfordshire such as Boxmoor Park Street and Lockleys show similarchanges to those evident at Gorhambury but in marked contrast other lateIron Age rural agricultural settlements do not show an equivalent transitionto masonry construction and villa-style architecture Other recent research

Conclusions 133

has also demonstrated that the architectural changes that have beenassociated with the Roman conquest of Britain are highly variable (eg seeBranigan 1981 Hingley 1989 forthcoming) Indeed changes in theconstruction and layout of buildings take place in different ways at differenttimes in late Iron Age and Roman Britain

There are also significant variations in the pottery assemblages from theEssex and Hertfordshire sites at any particular point in time and throughtime In particular changes in the form and fabric of first- and second-century AD locally produced pottery occur at different rates and in differentways in different contexts Furthermore there is considerable variation inthe degree of imported pottery on the sites considered and in the productionand consumption of locally produced lsquocopiesrsquo of such imported pottery (seeJones 1994148ndash9 Willis 1994146) As in the case of architectural stylerecent detailed studies of variation in the pottery assemblages dating to thelate Iron Age and early Roman periods are beginning to reveal considerableheterogeneity (Hill 199575 Willis 1993)

Such variation exposes the limitations of the idea of Romanization as aninevitable and uniform process of acculturation and associated categories ofculture and identity such as lsquoRomanrsquo and lsquonativersquo The only way to sustainsuch categories when faced with this variation is to suggest that it is aproduct of other factors such as trade and exchange rather than theRomanization of the past population However this argument artificiallydivorces ethnicity from activities such as production and trade when as wehave seen in Chapters 4 and 5 ethnic identity is often enmeshed in such areasof social life Moreover much of the variation that has been revealed directlyundermines the traditional Romanization model as it is found in preciselythose styles of architecture pottery and so on which have been associatedwith supposed Romanized tastes and identity

The heterogeneity which is manifested in the material culture from thesites considered here and others in different regions of Britain can be moreconvincingly explained in the context of the theory of ethnicity developed inthis book than through the traditional concept of Romanization Anysimplistic correlation of Roman-style material culture with Roman identitymust be rejected and the existence of cultural and ethnic entities such aslsquoRomanrsquo and lsquonativersquo questioned However changes in the material cultureof south-east England must in part at least reflect the articulation ofcultural identities in the past the expansion of the Roman Empire no doubtresulted in the creation of new forms of social interaction and socialrelationships through which the basis of power status and identity wasreproduced and transformed (see also Willis 1994143ndash4) Newmanifestations of ethnicity almost inevitably must have been createdsubsuming pre-existing configurations of culture and identity in somealthough possibly not all social domains And variation in material culturemay well be connected with such processes

134 Conclusions

To give a concrete example changes in settlement structure andarchitectural style at Skeleton Green and Gorhambury and the absence ofequivalent changes on other settlements are likely to have constituted newcontexts in which ethnicity was reproduced and transformed whether or notthey represented conscious expressions of ethnicity As an important part ofthe habitus domestic architecture such as bath houses and villas may havebeen involved in the recognition and signification of a broad Roman identitywith relation to particular people in some social domains (cf Meadows1994) However variation in other aspects of material culture such asparticular pottery styles or in burial rites may cross-cut such a broad scale ofidentification and be part of the reproduction and transformation of regionalethnicities Thus different configurations of ethnicity and other forms ofidentity may have been expressed in different aspects of material culture indifferent social contexts as in the case of the ubiquitous string bags (bilums)used in Telefol society today (see Chapter 6)5

Similarly a particular style of artefact or structure may have beenenmeshed in multiple expressions of identity For instance what have untilnow been regarded as essentially Roman styles of material culture such asGallo-Belgic pottery and locally produced lsquocopiesrsquo may have been used bycertain sections of the population in the articulation of a broadpangeographical identity but they may also have been subverted andappropriated in more localized expressions of ethnicity The relationshipbetween a particular style of object and the articulation of different kinds orscales of identity may well have led to different configurations of such styleswithin the overall assemblages of the contexts concerned Thus it isimportant to consider the distribution of particular styles with relation to theentire assemblage of material culture derived from any particular contextrather than in isolation

Whilst so-called lsquoRomanrsquo and lsquonativersquo-style material culture may havebeen involved in the generation and expression of identity it cannot beassumed that the meaning of such material styles was necessarily fixedmdashiethat it always conferred lsquoRomanrsquo or lsquonativersquo identity The heterogeneous wayin which lsquoRomanrsquo styles appear to have been appropriated on sites such asthose discussed here is likely to be a product of the fact that the relationshipbetween culture and ethnicity was often in flux being reproduced andtransformed in processes of social action What archaeologists haveregarded as lsquonativersquo and lsquoRomanrsquo culture may have been appropriatedsubverted and transformed in varying configurations of ethnicity

In current research the adoption of lsquoRomanrsquo-style material culture islargely considered in terms of its use in the negotiation and legitimation ofstatus within indigenous systems of competitive emulation rather than aspast processes of ethnic identification (see Chapter 2) It is obviously difficultto establish the relationship between particular styles of material culture andparticular kinds of past identity whether a particular stylistic pattern

Conclusions 135

represented the articulation of ethnicity status or gender Indeed the actualrole of particular types of material culture in terms of identity cannot besubordinated to universal laws Thus it is necessary to try to establish therelationship between particular stylistic patterns and past processes ofidentification on the basis of independent contextual evidence However wehave also seen that ethnicity is often related to other dimensions of identitysuch as gender and status because the generation of ethnic identity is partlybased upon the recognition of some level of commonality in the underlyingcultural dispositions that structure social life Consequently there is noreason why the cultural expression of status and ethnicity may not have beenembedded in one another during any period and the kind of stylisticvariation discussed above may well have been involved in the articulation ofboth ethnic identity and social status

The heterogeneous nature of the material remains from the sitesconsidered here suggests that the adoption of so-called lsquoRomanrsquo-stylematerial culture by the local population of south-east England arguably inthe expression and negotiation of identity varied within socio-culturalgroups as well as between them Analysis of such variation constitutes thelogical extension of recent studies of Romanization where it is argued thatlsquoRomanrsquo-style material culture was appropriated differentially by the peopleof western Europe in the reproduction and transformation of pre-existinghierarchical social relations However in contrast to such recent approachesto Romanization the theoretical approach developed in this book suggeststhat in order to examine such complex processes of ethnic identification it isnecessary to abandon a spatial and temporal framework based uponbounded coherent groups in order to examine the contextual generation andexpression of what can be recognized as ethnicity Moreover archaeologistsshould not merely be concerned with the identification of styles that wereinvolved in the conscious expression of ethnicity but with the makeup ofentire assemblages of material culture in different spatial and temporalcontexts which may provide information about the social relations andcultural practices underlying the generation of transient but repeatedexpressions of ethnicity

ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE POLITICS OF IDENTITY

There is always a tension in archaeology between past and present betweenthe desire to know what happened in the past and to understand pastsocieties and the historically contingent concepts and meanings throughwhich knowledge of the past is produced in the present (see McGuire1992215ndash18 247) This tension is nowhere greater than in theinterpretation of ethnicity Popular historical representations provide atouchstone for ethnicity and nationalism and vice versa the end productbeing lsquoan historically validated continuity of identityrsquo (Hall 1994167) The

136 Conclusions

representation of national or ethnic traditions frequently involves theprojection of an unchanging essentialist culture and identity deep into thepast in an attempt to establish the national community as lsquoso ldquonaturalrdquo as torequire no other definition than self-assertionrsquo (Hobsbawm 198314) Thecritical role that the past plays in the assertion and legitimation of modernethnic and national identities ensures that archaeological knowledge isfrequently used in the construction of such essentialist ethnic historiesMoreover archaeologyrsquos relationship to ethnicity and nationalism is likely tocontinue and even expand due to the increasing political salience of diverseethnicities with the concomitant representation of alternative cultures andpasts In this context archaeological knowledge is not only appropriated atan abstract level within nationalist and ethnic ideologies but at a morepragmatic level it is being used in the determination of land claims and theownership of cultural heritage

As a result of the ways in which archaeological knowledge is implicated inthe construction of ethnic and national traditions there is often aproblematic slippage between contemporary concepts of group identity andthe identification of past ethnic groups in archaeology Culture-history hasbeen the bastion of nationalist (and colonialist) representations of the past(Ucko 1995b11) and it continues to be successfully used for such purposesin many countries today Ethnic and national groups in direct competitionover land frequently utilize the same basic culture-historical framework asin the use of archaeology in support of competing German and Polishterritorial claims (see Chapter 1) Furthermore a culture-historical approachis often maintained even when those in power change for instance fromcolonial regime to independent nation-state

One of the main reasons for this close association between culture-history and nationalist claims lies in the similitude of the concepts ofculture which are central to both It has been argued in this book that theidentification of past cultures in archaeology has been based on historicallycontingent assumptions about the nature of cultural diversity (see alsoJones 199664ndash6) Expectations of boundedness homogeneity andcontinuity which have been built into ideas concerning culture since thenineteenth century are related to nationalism and the emergence of thenation-state (Handler 19887ndash8 Spencer 1990283 Wolf 1982387)Nations are considered in the words of Handler to be lsquoindividuatedbeingsrsquo endowed with the reality of natural things they are assumed to bebounded continuous and precisely distinguishable from other analogousentities (Handler 19886 15) The idea of culture is intricately enmeshedwith nationalist discourse it is culture that distinguishes between nationsand that constitutes the content of national identity (Diacuteaz-Andreu199653ndash4) Moreover lsquoculture symbolises individuated existence theassertion of cultural particularity is another way of proclaiming theexistence of a unique collectivityrsquo (Handler 198839)

Conclusions 137

There are striking similarities between the representation of culture innationalist discourses and the conceptualization of lsquoculturersquo and lsquosocietyrsquo inacademic theory and practice where they have been regarded as well-integrated bounded continuous entities occupying exclusive spatio-temporal positions (see Chapter 3) The concept of an archaeological culturerepresents a particular variant of the culture concept Bounded material-culture complexes are assumed to be the manifestation of particular pastpeoples who shared a set of prescriptive learned norms of behaviourArchaeological cultures came to be regarded as organic individuatedentities the prehistorianrsquos substitute for the individual agents that havetraditionally made up the historianrsquos repertoire As in the case ofcontemporary claims concerning the relationship between nations andcultures the relationship between archaeological cultures and past peoples isbased on teleological reasoning in that culture is both representative of andconstitutive of the nation or lsquopeoplersquo concerned Thus

the almost a priori belief in the existence of the culture followsinevitably from the belief that a particular human grouphellipexists Theexistence of the group is in turn predicated on the existence of aparticular culture

(Handler 198839) Furthermore whilst the concept of an lsquoarchaeological culturersquo was theproduct of cultural-historical archaeology many of the assumptionsconcerning culture and identity which it embodies continue to underpinprocessual and to some extent post-processual archaeologies (see Chapters2 and 6) Indeed most archaeological research still takes place within analready established framework of bounded socio-cultural entities which areassumed to correlate with past social or ethnic entities whether or not thiscorrelation is explicitly acknowledged

In both archaeology and anthropology the definition of ethnic or lsquotribalrsquogroups on the basis of the culture concept has traditionally invoked aninventory of cultural linguistic and material traits As Devalle (1992234)indicates lsquothe resulting picture has been one of people with a ldquomuseumculturerdquo uprooted from the deep historical field devoid of dynamism andmeaningrsquo (see also Morris 1988) The consequences of such an approach arenot restricted to academic studies and reports but are also manifest in areassuch as political policy administrative practice legislation and heritagemanagement For instance the preservation of Quebecrsquos Patrimoineprovides a typical example of such an objectification of culture whereby abody of static cultural characteristics becomes reified as an object possessedby the nation (see Handler 1988140ndash58) Handler demonstrates that thedefinition inventory acquisition and enclosure of what is regarded aslsquoauthenticrsquo Quebecois culture is embedded in a nationalist worldview

138 Conclusions

Having classified Quebecois culture through the production of inventoriesthe nation (or an official collective body representative of the nation) seeksto acquire cultural objects and historic buildings and then to enclose themby protection through law andor containment in museums As in the case ofthe Place Royale an area of Quebec City where seventeenth- and eighteenth-century architecture has been preserved and reconstructed such processeshave the effect of appropriating places and objects arresting ongoing socialand cultural processes and alienating the people who have engaged withthem for generations Place Royale Handler (ibid 151) laments has beenturned lsquointo a museum frozen in timersquo providing a static set of referencepoints in the form of stylistic traits for Quebecrsquos architectural tradition

Similar processes can be seen in the treatment of archaeological remainsand their objectification as the static property of national and ethnic groupsFor instance in Zimbabwe a static reconstructionist approach to the pasthas been adopted in some areas such as at the site of Great Zimbabwe (seeUcko 1994) At this site a particular architectural phase in the highlycomplex past of the monument is being preserved and reconstructed Such anapproach leads to the reification of the monument as part of the heritage ofthe nation and the alienation and the denial of contemporaryheterogeneous beliefs and practices associated with the monument (Ucko1994271)6 Many other examples abound ranging from Stonehenge (seeBender 1993269ndash70) to Australian Aboriginal rock art (see Ucko 1983a33ndash6) where a static reconstructionist approach has resulted in thereification of particular supposedly lsquoauthenticrsquo moments in the history ofparticular sites or material remains and their extrapolation from ongoingsocial life

It seems that archaeology is often used to provide a fixed set of referencepoints where previously there was negotiation and dynamism (Ucko 1995b20) Culture-historical frameworks contribute to such an objectification ofculture enabling a reconstruction of the past in terms of the distribution ofhomogeneous cultures whose history unfolds in a coherent linear narrative anarrative that is measured in terms of objectified events such as contactsmigrations and conquests with intervals of homogeneous empty time inbetween them Thus attempts to identify past cultural entities inarchaeology have been particularly suited to the construction of nationaltraditions which as Devalle (199221) points out lsquoare concerned withestablishing a legitimating continuity with the past not with understandinghistorical discontinuities and the evolution of social contradictionsrsquo

What this analysis of the relationship between nationalist ideologies andarchaeology suggests is that the identification of past ethnic groups has takenplace within a closed system of thought constraining the dialecticalinteraction between past and present That is there has been a high degree ofcorrespondence between the concepts about culture and identity that formpart of a powerful internationally recognized discourse of collective identity

Conclusions 139

in the present and those that inform our understanding of the pastmoulding the description and classification of archaeological evidence aswell as its interpretation The unfortunate implication of such a situation isthat archaeologists and other social scientists may have developedparadigms lsquoto explain that which they have themselves createdrsquo (Bond andGilliam 1994b13)

Of course this argument entails acceptance of the idea that theproduction of archaeological knowledge is contingent not only on thepolitical interests and background of individual practitioners but also on thesocio-historical origins of the very paradigms that are used in the descriptionand interpretation of the past The theories concepts and questions that weadopt influence the selection description and interpretation of particularlsquofactsrsquo (ie data are theory-laden) and these theories concepts andquestions are to some extent a product our own socio-historical context(Gathercole 19901ndash4 Shanks and Tilley 1992 [1987]247ndash8 Shennan1989b1ndash5) However regardless of what some might suggest (eg Anthony199583) this observation does not require descent into a nihilisticrelativism which states that evidence is entirely determined by theory andtherefore there can be no basis for arbitrating between competing theoriesOn the contrary whilst evidence is not free from theoretical and interpretiveinfluences it also imposes constraints on the kinds of interpretations andtheories that can be built up and at times forces us to reconsider interpretivepossibilities and even deep-seated assumptions about the nature of socialphenomena (Fricker 1994 McGuire 1992248 Wylie 1989105ndash7199325) In the case of theories of ethnicity traditional assumptions aboutethnic groups as culture-bearing entities have in part been challenged on thebasis of ethnographic evidence that there is no one-to-one correlationbetween culture and ethnicity and as a result there has been a significantshift in the understanding of group identity in anthropology Yet there is nota straightforward relationship between the continual accumulation ofevidence and the development of more adequate theoretical and interpretiveframeworks as some have implied (eg Diacuteaz-Andreu and Champion1996a19 Trigger 1995275) Instead as we saw in Chapters 3 and 5 theshift in our understanding of ethnicity during the 1960s and 1970s involveda complex interplay between new evidence concerning ethnicity and broadersocial and political changes including processes of decolonization and thepolitical mobilization of ethnic groups Theories concerning particular socialphenomena and evidence about such phenomena exist in dialecticalrelationship to one another the two are always in flux and are nevercompletely determined by one another

In the case of archaeology a high degree of closure between thereconstruction of past ethnic groups and specifically nationalist discourses ofidentity in the present has been perpetuated partly as a result of theempiricist framework that has dominated the discipline until recently The

140 Conclusions

description and classification of data has been assumed to be in some waypre-theoretical and therefore concepts and assumptions concerning cultureand identity have remained largely unquestioned by many in thearchaeological community Ironically it is just such a denial of the theory-laden nature of archaeological evidence which allows a particular set ofideas to be imposed upon the past and precludes debate about the conceptsand interpretive frameworks which are used in the description andinterpretation of archaeological evidence Thus the acknowledgement thatthere are no neutral factual lsquogivensrsquo does not weaken the validity ofarchaeological enquiry Rather such a realization constitutes a primarycondition for strengthening our interpretations through debate concerningthe socio-historical contexts in which particular concepts and theories wereproduced and the extent to which they are supported by ethnographic andarchaeological evidence

One of the most important arguments in this book has been thattraditional definitions of ethnic groups involve the extraction of culturallsquotypesrsquo from ongoing social practice in different contexts and at differenttimes and their location on a single plane for the purposes of analysis Thisprocess of lsquomethodological objectificationrsquo substitutes a coherent seamlesswhole in place of the often patchy discontinuous overlapping andcontextualized praxis of ethnicity (cf Bourdieu 199084 on mapping andgenealogy) Such an approach denies the existence of any active engagementwith ethnic consciousness in social practice and serves to obscure theprocesses involved in the reproduction and transformation of ethnicidentities In effect ethnicity becomes conceptualized as the historical legacyof a primordial essentialist identity

In contrast the approach developed here focuses on peoplersquosconsciousness of ethnicity and the reproduction and transformation oftransient expressions of cultural difference in the context of particularhistorical structures which impinge on human experience and conditionsocial action (see Devalle 199218ndash19) Within such a framework a staticone-to-one correlation between particular monuments or items of materialculture and a particular ethnic group is untenable because the significance ofsuch material culture is continuously reproduced and transformed inchanging social and historical contexts by different people occupyingvarying positions within society Instead monuments and assemblages ofmaterial culture have to be understood in the context of heterogeneous andoften conflicting constructions of cultural identity There is no singleunambiguous ethnic association because no such single social reality hasever existed (cf Barrett 199473 171 and Thomas 199662ndash3 oninterpretation generally) Even within a self-identifying ethnic group suchan identity and the material forms that come to symbolize it are differentlylived and articulated by different people As Ohnuki-Tierney (1995245)

Conclusions 141

concludes from an exploration of the role of rice as a metaphor in therepresentation of Japanese identities

The [Japanese] self has changed time and again at every historicalencounter with the other The Japanese identity in relation to theChinese is certainly different from the Japanese identity whencontrasted with Westerners Rice thus has represented the differentselves of the Japanese Moreover the meaning of rice in other respectshas dramatically altered through time

If archaeologists persist in assuming that there is only one ethnic meaning orassociation to be lsquoextractedrsquo from a particular monument or a particular styleof material culture then they will never be able to understand the multiplestrands of practice involved in the reproduction and maintenance of ethnicityin the past Furthermore within archaeology the past will continue to berepresented as a fixed and distant monolithic reality either encouragingsimplistic and exclusive associations with particular ethnic and nationalgroups or alienating present-day communities altogether (see Ucko 1994)The acceptance that the past is never dead and that archaeological remainsare likely to be involved in the ongoing construction of potentially diverse andfluid identities will facilitate the development of dynamic and engagedrelationships between archaeology and living communities In practice in thecontext of heritage management and museum presentations this kind ofapproach may highlight contestation and negotiation between differentidentity groups in the present (see Ucko 1994249 255) However it is as wellthat archaeology as a discipline is actively engaged with these processes ratherthan unwittingly providing an inevitable source of information for theconstruction and legitimation of contemporary identities (Mackie 1994186)

As with any research into the relationship between culture identity andthe past the political implications of the theoretical approach laid out in thisbook are manifold The approach serves to undermine the monolithic andessentialist accounts of the past that have so often been used to support thepolitical goals of certain nationalists Nationalist groups such as those in theCaucasus who attempt to use archaeological reconstructions to makeexclusive and often expansionist claims to territory do so on the assumptionthat archaeological remains provide evidence for a single homogeneousethnos at some point in the past to which they can trace their origins Thuscontrary to what some archaeologists have argued (eg Kohl andTsetskhladze 1995169) the suggestion that multiple and diverse identitiesand associated histories can co-exist does not mean that lsquoanything goesrsquobecause it has the potential to invalidate exclusive nationalist claims withintheir own terms of reference If particular archaeological sites and othermaterial remains have been involved in the construction of multiple fluidand diverse identities in different contexts then the historical justification for

142 Conclusions

any nationalist claim to exclusive rights over a given territory is negated (seeBarth 199430 Bernbeck and Pollock 1996141 for similar arguments)Although nationalists may disregard the caveats voiced by archaeologists intheir representations of the past (Dietler 1994597ndash8) we can still strive tochange primordial and essentialist understandings of ethnicity through whatwe write and in our presentation of the past in museums and atarchaeological sites

At the same time however it has to be acknowledged that recent workemphasizing the discontinuity transformation and fluidity of identities hasthe potential to undermine the basis of minority ethnic claims for land andcultural self-determination (see Mascia-Lees et al 198924ndash5)7 lsquoWesternrsquoacademic theory has often provided a conceptual framework for modes ofdomination as in the case of the tribal and ethnic classifications used bycolonial regimes Yet more recently such concepts of culture and identityhave also become embedded in national and international law concerningrights to land and cultural heritage (see Mackie 1994189ndash90) For instancein Australia the success of Aboriginal land claims in the Northern Territorywas and to some extent still is dependent upon establishing continuity inthe use of a particular area of land and the ownership of cultural heritagecan also centre around issues of continuity and identity (Murray 1993109mdash12 Ucko 1983a 1983b) Thus it can be argued that recent theories lead tothe deconstruction of monolithic and essentialist concepts of culture andidentity just as these concepts are becoming a means of political mobilizationand the basis for minority claims to land (and in some instances culturalproperty) However this situation is more complex because in land-rightscases indigenous populations often have to choose between an outrightrejection of a culture-historical representation of their past or arenegotiation of the ways in which their particular culture-historicaltrajectory has been interpreted by others (Ucko 1995b10) The formeroption would in most instances require a change in the legal definition ofindigenous land ownership whereas in many cases the latter option will notsatisfy a court of law which gives precedence to historical documents andarchaeological facts as in the case of the Mashpee land claim (see Campisi1991 Clifford 1988277ndash346) Moreover such cases almost always involvethe critical scrutiny of a minority grouprsquos identity and history by thedominant society rather than vice versa ultimately perpetuating therelations of power between groups (see Chapman et al 198917ndash18)Minority groups are subjected to a relentless discourse which requires themin one form or another to possess a traditional homogeneous culture andidentity stretching in a continuous and unilinear fashion into the past Manywill inevitably fail such a requirement given that this discourse incorporatesrigid expectations about the continuous and bounded nature of culture andidentity and fails to accommodate the social and historical processesinvolved in the construction of ethnicity (see Campisi 1991 Jacobs 1988)

Conclusions 143

One of the most common responses in the human sciences to such morallyand politically laden situations is to argue that a distinction must bemaintained between lsquoscientificrsquo and lsquomoralrsquo models (eg DrsquoAndrade 1995)For instance it has been suggested that archaeologists should keep ethicallybased and factually based critiques of a particular nationalistic or racistinterpretation distinct from one another (eg Anthony 199588) andconsequently in

good conscience one can admit a potentially damaging archaeologicalreconstruction as the most plausible and objective interpretation of theevidence and then condemn the state policy that bends and distortsthat reconstruction for its own questionable political purposes

(Kohl and Fawcett 1995a9) However such a neat distinction between archaeological knowledge andpolitical or moral judgement is impossible to maintain On the one hand thevery methodological and interpretive frameworks used by archaeologists arebased on assumptions about culture and identity that are already inscribedwith particular political positions within a given historical context On theother hand lsquopolitical beliefs are unintelligible in isolation from relevantempirical claims about real states of affairs in the worldrsquo (Fricker 199499)and theories that have been derived from such evidence Political and moralengagement must be grounded in an understanding of the way the worldworks (Barth 199431 Friedman 1995422) just as critical perspectives onthe political and moral assumptions underlying the production of knowledgemust be maintained

One of the motives for writing this book has been to provide areassessment of the relationship between material-culture objects andethnicity which should provide a stronger basis for political and moralengagement in particular concrete situations It has been suggested thatethnicity involves the subjective and situational construction of identity inopposition to particular lsquoothersrsquo in the context of social interaction (see alsoMegaw and Megaw 1996) However ethnic identities are not free-floatingconstructions whereby individuals and groups choose to identify themselvesand others in any way that suits them Instead particular ethnic identitiesand the representations of the past associated with them are produced inspecific socio-historical contexts characterized by relations of power Forinstance in Australia the power of the state has been used to bringAustralian Aboriginal identity into varying degrees of conformity with itsown constructions of their identity (see Jacobs 1988 Morris 1988 Beckett1988a) with the result that lsquoCompared with and at times comparingthemselves with the ldquoreal Aboriginesrdquo Aboriginal people are caughtbetween the attribution of unchanging essences (with the implication of aninability to change) and the reproach of inauthenticityrsquo (Beckett 1988a 194)

144 Conclusions

Furthermore anthropological and archaeological research has been activelyinvolved in the construction of an image of traditional Aboriginal culturewhich informs perceptions of the lsquoreal Aboriginesrsquo

Archaeologists need to address the ways in which specific representationsof the past have contributed to the construction of particular identities andhow the domination of certain representations over others is embedded inpower relations both within and between groups (eg see Dietler 1994) Atthe same time it cannot be assumed that archaeologists (or other socialscientists) hold some privileged perspective outside of society and itsideological constructs Consequently we also need to examine and takeresponsibility for the way in which the modes of classification andinterpretation used in archaeology have been involved in the constitution ofpower relations between groups providing the basis for practicalrelationships and strategies as well as the attribution of political legitimacyin the contemporary world As Bernbeck and Pollock (1996141) arguearchaeologists can work to lsquoexpose the interests of all parties concerned(including archaeologists) in defining and shaping identities in the way thatthey dorsquo However such a project should not be a purely critical one itshould also involve dialogue and negotiation between archaeologists andother groups in order to build common areas of understanding and tostrengthen our interpretations of the past Ultimately it is such modes ofinteraction and analysis that will provide the way towards a fullerunderstanding of the construction of identities in the past and the present

145

Notes

1 INTRODUCTION

1 lsquoNew archaeologyrsquo refers to the initial period of processual archaeologyconnected in particular with Lewis Binford (1962 1965 1972) althoughothers include Clarke (1978 [1968]) Renfrew (1972) and contributors toBinford and Binford (1968) For critical perspectives of the new archaeologysee amongst others Hodder (1982b 1986) and Shanks and Tilley (1992[1987])

2 A considerable body of literature focusing on archaeology as a contemporarypractice and its social and political contexts has been produced in the 1980sand 1990s see amongst others Kristiansen (1992) Shanks and Tilley (1992[1987]) Trigger (1984 1989) Ucko (1983b 1987) and contributions toGathercole and Lowenthal (1990) Pinsky and Wylie (1989) Stone andMacKenzie (1990) Ucko (1995a)

3 For general discussions of the role of archaeology in the construction ofcommunities of shared memory see amongst others Jones and Graves-Brown(1996) Kristiansen (1992) Layton (1989b) Rowlands (1994) Trigger(1984) Ucko (1995b) For detailed case studies see Arnold (1990) Dietler(1994) Fleury-Ilett (1996) Kohl (1993b) Murray (1993) Olsen (1986) andcontributions to Bond and Gilliam (1994a) Diacuteaz-Andreu and Champion(1996b) Graves-Brown et al (1996) Kohl and Fawcett (1995b) Layton(1989a) Ucko (1995a)

4 Even in recent books the complexity of the relationship betweenarchaeological enquiry and the construction of diverse forms of identity hasbeen ignored or acknowledged only in passing This tendency can facilitate thedetailed analysis of particular areas such as the influence of the structures ofthe nation-state on the institutionalization of archaeology (eg seecontributions to Diacuteaz-Andreu and Champion 1996b) But it can also lead toan oversimplification of the issues and a preoccupation with the ills of extremenationalism at the expense of a consideration of other forms of group identitysuch as minority and indigenous identities (eg see contributions to Kohl andFawcett 1995b)

5 It should be noted that the works of many so-called lsquopost-processualrsquoarchaeologists do not fit Kohlrsquos (1993a) caricature Post-processualists areoften explicitly concerned with the political realities which Kohl refers towhile at the same time engaging in abstract theoretical debates Indeed in laterwork Kohl himself refers to some of the work of these post-processualarchaeologists in a discussion of studies concerning the relationship between

146 Notes

archaeological enquiry and its socio-political contexts (Kohl and Fawcett1995a15)

2 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION OF PEOPLES ANDCULTURES

1 This approach to ethnicity is drawn from social anthropology and in particularthe work of the Norwegian anthropologist Fredrik Barth which will bediscussed in detail in Chapter 4 Not surprisingly Scandinavian archaeologists(eg Haaland 1977 Odner 1985 Olsen 1985 Olsen and Kobylinski 1991)have been particularly influential in applying such an approach to the analysisof ethnicity in archaeology (although see also Hodder 1979a 1982a Larick1986 Renfrew 1987 1996 Shennan 1989b)

2 Late Iron Agelate pre-Roman Iron Age is used here to refer to the periodbetween the early first century BC and the Roman occupation of much ofBritain during the midlater first century AD It has traditionally beenassociated with the presence of wheel-made pottery in south-eastern Englandand metalwork with continental late La Tegravene affinities (Haselgrove 198287)

3 Prehistoric and Roman archaeology have been characterized by differences intheory methodology and research strategy which have restrictedcommunication and comparison (as indicated by Burnham and Johnson 1979Cunliffe 1988 Hingley 1989) and undermined the holistic study of past socialand cultural processes transcending the actual Roman conquest (Barrett andFitzpatrick 19899 Haselgrove 19892)

4 Although this framework was based on the classification of cultural entitiesthey have often been taken to represent chronological divisions (Champion1984 [1979]348) despite Hawkesrsquos (1959) insistence to the contrary

5 See also amongst others Blackmore et al (1979) Millet (1990a ch 2) andRodwell (1976)

6 For later discussions of the problem of the Belgae see Hachmann (1976)Hawkes (1968) and Rodwell (1976)

7 In particular see the Social Science Research Council Memorandum for theStudy of Acculturation (Redfield et al 1936) for a programmatic statement onthe methodology of acculturation studies which illustrates the essentiallydescriptive and trait-oriented nature of this field of research However therehave been exceptions such as Beals (1953) Dohrenwend and Smith (1962) andThurnwald (1932)

3 TAXONOMIES OF DIFFERENCE THE CLASSIFICATION OFPEOPLES IN THE HUMAN SCIENCES

1 The term lsquoracersquo was used prior to the nineteenth century as were lsquonationrsquo lsquotribersquoand lsquoethnicrsquo although the latter was probably used specifically in relation tolsquoheathenrsquo or lsquogentilersquo peoples (see Hodgen 1964214 Stocking 19884)Nevertheless prior to the early nineteenth century all these terms were largelyused to refer to groups whose perceived distinctiveness was explained in termsof shared lineal descent

2 Within this Christian chronological tradition understandings of humandiversity were determined by the problem of how to explain present diversity inthe light of the unity of blood and culture which resulted from the Creation(Hodgen 1964222ndash3) Explanations of human diversity generally conformed to

Notes 147

the Mosaic account of human history focusing on the sequence of majordemographic events outlined in Genesis coupled with theories of isolation andenvironmental determinism For more detailed analyses of such nationalgenealogies see Hodgen (1964) and Poliakov (1974 [1971])

3 The anatomical and physiological criteria used in the classification of racialtypes became increasingly elaborate during the nineteenth century leading toskeletal and cranial classificatory systems such as the lsquocephalic indexrsquo andsystems of classification based on physiological characteristics such as thelsquoindex of nigrescencersquo (see Biddiss 197915ndash16 Gossett 1975 [1963]69ndash83Stocking 198765ndash6)

4 For further discussion see Banton (1977) Biddiss (1979) Odum (1967) andStocking (1987)

5 Evolutionary ideas were formulated in the mid-nineteenth century for instancein the work of Henry Maine and Herbert Spencer who were both concerned todevelop general rules about the evolution of human societies and employed aform of the comparative method (see Bowler 198937)

6 In this respect socio-cultural evolutionism represented a re-emergence of theuniversalizing framework which had been central to Enlightenment philosophyin the late eighteenth century Indeed the socio-cultural evolutionist view ofculture as a universal process of development was closely related to the conceptof lsquocivilizationrsquo which can be traced back to the eighteenth century (Stocking198711 Williams 1983 [1976]88ndash9)

7 The development of a unilinear evolutionary framework did not result in acomplete disjunction with the particularist historical approach of the earlierethnological tradition A complex interplay between these two approaches isevident in the work of both John Lubbock and EBTylor two prominentsocio-cultural evolutionists (for further discussion see Stocking 1987152ndash62)

8 See Stockingrsquos (196858ndash9) discussion of the work of Paul Topinard whobecame increasingly sceptical about the idea of lsquopurersquo homogeneous races butstill could not reject the notion of an ideal racial lsquotypersquo which he argued hadbeen submerged by the present level of racial mixing

9 The concept of lsquotribal societyrsquo has a long history in the development ofanthropological ideas about lsquoprimitive culturersquo as opposed to lsquomodern culturersquoThis is discussed in detail by Kuper (1988)

10 There was however considerable disagreement about the definition of tribalsociety and numerous more technical definitions were devised For instance inthe work of some British anthropologists the tribe was often taken to be lsquothewidest territorially defined politically independent unitrsquo (Lewis 1968149) oras in Evans-Pritchardrsquos (19405) analysis of the Nuer a group who cometogether in warfare against outsiders For further discussion of the variety ofdifferent ways in which the concept of tribe has been used in anthropology seeFried (1975) and Gulliver (1969)

11 For further discussion see Barkan (1988) Kuper (1975a) Leiris (1975 [1956])Legravevi-Strauss (1975 [1955]) Stepan (1982) Wade (1992) The way in which theissue of racial determinism dominated debate is epitomized in a series ofUNESCO statements on race issued in the 1950s and 1960s which are reprintedin Kuper (1975b)

12 For a bibliographic guide to some of the vast literature on ethnicity see Bentley(1981)

13 It is worth noting that the ethnic concept has the potential to encompass thesame problems and ideological connotations of marginal and backward status

148 Notes

as the term tribe (Gulliver 19698 Williams 1989439) For instance in anumber of post-colonial African nation-states both tribalism and ethnicity havebeen perceived as destructive influences running counter to modernizationdevelopment and the emergence of a cohesive national identity (see Vail 19882)

14 For further discussion of these assumptions concerning assimilation see Bash(197978ndash9) Glazer and Moynihan (19756ndash7) Roosens (19899) Scott(1990147ndash8) and Vail (19891ndash2)

4 ETHNICITY THE CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICALTERRAIN

1 The term lsquoemicrsquo refers to the perspective of a society produced by the explicationof indigenous models of reality whereas lsquoeticrsquo refers to a view generated by thedescription and analysis of social systems on the basis of the observerrsquosperception and models

2 For further discussion of the notion of lsquoobjectivityrsquo in the social sciences seeHarding (1986) Maquet (1964) Rosaldo (1993 [1989])

3 As Mitchell (197425) points out Moermanrsquos (1965) initial analysis conflatesthe anthropological category of Lue ethnicity and Lue perceptions of theiridentity The local construct of the category lsquoLuersquo is reified as an analyticalcategory rather than taking perceptions of Lueness as a starting point for theanalysis of the role of ethnic categorizations in the mediation of social relationsand social practices However in a subsequent paper Moerman (1968) does payexplicit attention to the relationship between anthropological categories andthose of the people who are the focus of the enquiry

4 Moreover Narrowrsquos (1968) emphasis on characteristics such as statehoodleadership and ability to participate in warfare is reminiscent of western ideasabout the cultural and political body embedded in discourses of nationalism

5 Others who adopted a subjectivist approach to the definition of ethnic groupsprior to Barth (1969a) include Moerman (1965 1968) Shibutani and Kwan(196540) and Wallerstein (1960131) However Dormanrsquos (198026) claimthat such a definition represented the consensus of opinion prior to Earthrsquoswork can hardly be substantiated

6 For other definitions that take political mobilization to be a fundamental aspectof ethnicity see Bell (1975) and Ross (1980)

7 For a critique of the idea that kinship groups are based on selection in favour ofindividuals who are genetically related to one another see Sahlins (1977)

8 This point is made by Hechter (1986) with reference to Jewish assimilation andseparatist behaviour and there are many other glaring examples of the fluidnature of individual and group identity (eg see Barth 1969a Haaland 1969)

9 Kellas (1991) does pay considerable attention to the historical development ofthe idea of the nation However his acceptance of socio-biological theoriesinevitably results in a reification and naturalization of the ethnic unit which hesuggests underlies modern national formations

10 There are numerous studies that focus on the historical emergence of theconcepts of ethnic group and nation In particular they illustrate that the nationand nationalism are relatively recent phenomena emerging in the late eighteenthcentury in Europe For further discussion see Chapter 5 and Gellner (1983)Handler (1988) Hobsbawm (1990) Sharp and McAllister (1993) Spencer(1990)

11 This perspective has also been called the lsquocircumstantialistrsquo perspective (Glazerand Moynihan 197519 Scott 1990147) in that ethnicity is seen as very much

Notes 149

context-dependent and the lsquorationalrsquo perspective (Burgess 1978266) in thatmany such explanations are based to a greater or lesser extent on the idea ofrational self-interested human action inherent in the notion lsquoeconomic manrsquo

12 For further discussion of the polarization of the primordialmdashinstrumentaldebate and the problems it raises see Bentley (1987) Burgess (1978) de Vosand Romanucci-Ross (1982a [1975]) Douglass (1988) Keyes (1981) McKay(1982) Meadwell (1989) Scott (1990) Smith (1984) and van den Berghe(1978)

5 MULTIDIMENSIONAL ETHNICITY TOWARDS A CONTEXTUALANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

1 The concept of the habitus was explicitly formulated by Bourdieu with the aimof breaking with lsquoobjectivistrsquo intellectual traditions such as structuralism andlsquosubjectivistrsquo intellectual traditions such as phenomenology (Bourdieu andWacquant 1992120ndash1 see also Bourdieu 1990)

2 Bourdieu uses the notion of lsquoobjective social conditionsrsquo to refer to theconditions of existence encountered by any particular actor or group of actorssuch as the distribution of economic and cultural resources which characterize aparticular social domain However he has been criticized in this respect forfailing to operationalize his own argument that lsquoobjective conditionsrsquo are onlyobjective in as much as they are perceived as such and confirmed through thepractices of social actors (eg Jenkins 1982272 but see Bourdieu 1990)

3 An emphasis on changing and sometimes novel contexts of social practice ismore prominent in the work of Sahlins (1981) than Bourdieu (1977) Bourdieutends to place greater importance on the emergence of a consciousness ofalternative ways of viewing the world and the possibility of critique and directpolitical action which such a consciousness enables (see Ortner 1984155ndash6)

4 If this argument is extended to national identity it directly contradicts Fosterrsquos(1991240) claim that national culture and identity are doxic in natureHowever Fosterrsquos own discussion of the contested and negotiated nature ofmany national identities and culture suggests that his use of Bourdieursquos conceptof doxa is inappropriate

5 Although ethnic categories become part of the habitus the dispositions andsymbols which are objectified in the reproduction and transformation of ethnicconsciousness at any particular time will belong to the sphere of opinion not tothat of doxa

6 In order to distinguish qualitative variation in the kind of cultural differenceinvolved in the signification of identity Eriksen employs Wittgensteinrsquos conceptof language games which has some similarities with the concept of the habitusin that both involve the production and reproduction of shared meaningstructures He uses the concept of language games as an analytical tool todifferentiate between the kinds of cultural difference involved in thecommunication of ethnicity in different contexts and produces a classificationof three basic kinds of context characterized by (1) one language game (orshared meaning system) (2) overlapping language games and (3)incommensurable language games

7 The phrase lsquothe pure products go crazyrsquo is derived from Clifford (19881) whouses it to characterize the fragmentation and hybridization of culture andidentity which he claims to be characteristic of modern life

8 This point has been made by a number of people in analyses of ethnicity in thecontemporary world for example Benthall and Knight (19932) Danforth

150 Notes

(19937) Pardon (1987177) Foster (1991239) Handler and Linnekin(1984288) Ranger (1983252ndash9) Spencer (1990288) and Williams(1989423ndash6)

9 The ways in which lsquoanthropologicalrsquo and lsquonativersquo concepts of ethnicity intersectwith one another have been discussed by Clifford (1988232ndash3) Pardon(1987182) Foster (1991236) Handler (19862 19886ndash9) Spencer(1990288) and Turner (1991300ndash3)

6 ETHNICITY AND MATERIAL CULTURE TOWARDS ATHEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE INTERPRETATION OFETHNICITY IN ARCHAEOLOGY

1 Although Hodder (1982a) and Wiessner (1983 1984) do not explicitly defineethnic groups as self-defining systems their ethno-archaeological studies suggestthat they are also concerned with the role of material culture in expressing theboundaries of self-conscious groups

2 Shanks and Tilley (1992 [1987]120) question the notion of lsquosocietyrsquo as abounded monolithic unit and Rowlands (1982163ndash4) argues that such a viewof society is the product of nineteenth-century nationalism Others such asBinford (1972) and Renfrew (197795ndash6 1995157) have questioned theexistence of widespread homogeneous ethnic groups or lsquopeoplesrsquo in earlyprehistory from an evolutionary perspective However they are concerned todefine such groups as characteristic of particular stages of evolutionarydevelopment and they do not question the existence of such groups in certainhistorical periods or in the present

3 The distinction between function and style which is characteristic of newarchaeology can also be identified in culture-historical archaeology Forinstance such a distinction underlies Childersquos (195637ndash8) assertion thatarbitrary stylistic and behavioural details were the most useful attributes for thepurpose of defining cultures and were of limited importance with relation to theanalysis of culture as a functioning system Nevertheless these ideas were notcentral to culture-historical epistemology

4 Some of the main proponents of such an approach which was particularlyprevalent in the analysis of palaeolithic art as well as the signalling of ethnic andsocial identities generally include Conkey (1978) Gamble (1982) Jochim(1983) Wiessner (1983) and Wobst (1977)

5 For a more general discussion of the problems associated with this dichotomysee Hodder (1982b 1986) Shanks and Tilley (1987 1992 [1987]) and Tilley(1982)

6 A number of archaeologists and anthropologists have argued that therelationship between material culture and human agency is a recursive one forexample see Barrett (199436ndash7) Conkey (199113) Hodder (1982a1982b10) MacKenzie (1991) Miller (1985) and Shanks and Tilley (19871992 [1987])

7 In a review of anthropological and archaeological approaches to ethnicity Olsenand Kobylinski (199123 my emphasis) have also argued that the question ofthe relationship between culture and ethnicity represents one of the key issuesfor archaeologists lsquoBefore we start sticking ethnic labels to archaeologicallydistinguishable complexes of finds we have to understand the phenomenon ofethnicity itself and particularly we have to develop a theory of relationshipsbetween ethnic consciousness and material culturersquo

Notes 151

8 It is this critical break between ethnicity and the habitus (see also Chapter 5)which distinguishes the theory adopted here from that of Burley et al (1992)who argue for a much more direct relationship between ethnicity and thehabitus following on from Bentleyrsquos (1987) work

9 A similar argument is adopted by the Binfords (1966 see also Binford 1973) intheir criticism of ethnic interpretations of Mousterian lithic assemblages and byPeacock (1969 1979) in his critique of ethnic interpretations of regional potterystyles in Iron Age Britain

10 Olsen and Kobylinski (199116) have adopted a similar position arguing thatarchaeologists should attempt to investigate the ways in which basic valueorientations and their behavioural effects underlie the maintenance of ethnicboundaries However they do not provide a theoretical framework forexploring the relationship between such lsquobasic value orientationsrsquo and overtethnic symbolism

7 CONCLUSIONS CONSTRUCTING IDENTITIES IN THE PASTAND THE PRESENT

1 See Webster (19968) for a similar argument in defence of comparative researchbased on the concept of colonialism in opposition to the recent trend towardshistorical particularism

2 To give an example even the absence of Rosette brooches from phase IIIassemblages at Skeleton Green has been interpreted as indicating a change in thecharacter of the settlement (possibly a decline in occupation) between AD 25ndash40 because such brooches are present at the nearby sites of King Harry Laneand Camulodunum (Mackreth 1981139) Such an interpretation makes directuse of the lsquohomogeneity principlersquo assuming that Skeleten Green should followthe same patterns of development as represented by artefact types as adjacentsites No allowance is made for the possibility that such brooches maythemselves have been actively used in the articulation of identities thereforeindicating heterogeneity within a given region

3 Without historical or radiocarbon lsquocontrolsrsquo at various points the typologicalmethod can lead to serious distortions largely produced by a priori assumptionsabout the nature and direction of change (see Renfrew 1972)

4 It is accepted that a certain selectivity is an inevitable product of the pragmaticlimitations placed upon excavation limitations of finance storage time and soon However problems are raised by the reasoning employed in theprioritization of certain classes of artefact the methods used and the implicitnature of the assumptions involved

5 Similar arguments have been made in the recent literature emphasizing whatWoolf (1992) has referred to as the lsquounity and diversity of Romanizationrsquo (egHaselgrove 1990 Hingley 1996 Meadows 1994 Willis 1994) and in recentpublications on the late pre-Roman Iron Age (eg Hill 1995)

6 Furthermore problems have arisen concerning attempts to set up lsquoculturehousesrsquo which are intended to form the locus of a local dynamic ongoinginvolvement with the past and active centres for community cultural activitiesin the present Despite these initial aims such cultural centres have been subjectto control and intervention by national authorities which effectively alienatesthe local populations For instance at Murewa Culture House the traditionalspirit mediums nrsquoangas have been banned because they are seen as a source oftension by the national authorities Ironically such tensions and their

152 Notes

resolution could have been seen as an indication of the success of the culturehouse as a focus of ongoing social life in the community (Ucko 1994255)

7 Somewhat surprisingly minority and lsquoFourthrsquo World indigenous groups areoften ignored in books concerning nationalism and archaeology (eg seecontributions to Kohl and Fawcett 1995) despite the fact that their claims toland and heritage are increasingly expressed within a nationalist framework (seeMackie 1994)

153

References

Anthony DW (1995) lsquoNazi and eco-feminist prehistories ideology and empiricism in

Indo-European archaeologyrsquo In PLKohl and CFawcett (eds) Nationalism Politicsand the Practice of Archaeology pp 82ndash96 London Routledge

Appadurai A (1986) lsquoIntroduction commodities and the politics of valuersquo In AAppadurai (ed) The Social Life of Things pp 3ndash63 Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Arens W (1976) lsquoChanging patterns of ethnic identity and prestige in East Africarsquo InWArens (ed) A Century of Change in Eastern Africa pp 65ndash75 Paris Mouton

Arnold B (1990) lsquoThe past as propaganda totalitarian archaeology in Nazi GermanyrsquoAntiquity 64464ndash78

Asad T (1980) lsquoComment indigenous anthropology in non-Western countriesrsquoCurrent Anthropology 21 (5) 661ndash2

Babington WD (1895) Fallacies of Race Theories as Applied to NationalCharacteristics London Longmans Green amp Co

Banton M (1977) The Idea of Race London TavistockBarkan E (1988) lsquoMobilizing scientists against Nazi racismrsquo In GWStocking (ed)

Bones Bodies Behaviour essays in biological anthropology pp 180ndash205Madison University of Wisconsin Press

Barrett JC (1989) lsquoAfterword render unto Caesarhelliprsquo In JCBarrett and APFitzpatrick (eds) Barbarians and Romans in North-West Europe pp 235ndash41Oxford British Archaeological Research

Barrett JC (1994) Fragments from Antiquity an archaeology of social life in Britain2900ndash1200 BC Oxford Blackwell

Barrett JC and APFitzpatrick (1989) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In JCBarrett and APFitzpatrick (eds) Barbarians and Romans in North-West Europe pp 9ndash13 OxfordBritish Archaeological Research

Barth F (1969a) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In FBarth (ed) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries pp9ndash38 Boston Little Brown

Barth F (1969b) lsquoPathan identity and its maintenancersquo In FBarth (ed) Ethnic Groupsand Boundaries pp 117ndash34 Boston Little Brown

Barth F (ed) (1969c) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries Boston Little BrownBarth F (1989) lsquoThe analysis of complex societiesrsquo Ethnos 54(3ndash4) 120ndash42Barth F (1994) lsquoEnduring and emerging issues in the analysis of ethnicityrsquo In H

Vermeulen and CCovers (eds) The Anthropology of Ethnicity beyond lsquoEthnicGroups and Boundariesrsquo pp 11ndash32 Amsterdam Het Spinhuis

Bash HH (1979) Sociology Race and Ethnicity a critique of American ideologicalintrusions upon sociological theory London Gordon amp Breach

154 References

Beals RA (1932) lsquoAboriginal survivals in Mayo culturersquo American Anthropologist34 28ndash39

Beals RA (1953) lsquoAcculturationrsquo In STax (ed) Anthropology Today selections pp375ndash95 Chicago University of Chicago Press

Beckett JR (1988a) lsquoThe past in the present the present in the past constructing anational Aboriginalityrsquo In JRBeckett (ed) Past and Present the construction ofAboriginality pp 191ndash217 Canberra Aboriginal Studies Press

Beckett JR (ed) (1988b) Past and Present the construction of AboriginalityCanberra Aboriginal Studies Press

Beddoe JW (1885) The Races of Britain Bristol JWArrowsmithBell D (1975) lsquoEthnicity and social changersquo In NGlazer and DPMoynihan (eds)

Ethnicity theory and experience pp 141ndash74 Cambridge Mass HarvardUniversity Press

Bender B (1993) lsquoStonehengemdashcontested landscapes (medieval to present-day)rsquo InBBender (ed) Landscape Politics and Perspectives pp 245ndash79 Oxford Berg

Benthall J and JKnight (1993) lsquoEthnic alleys and avenuesrsquo Anthropology Today 9(5)1ndash2

Bentley GC (1981) Ethnicity and Nationality a bibliographic guide SeattleUniversity of Washington Press

Bentley GC (1983) lsquoTheoretical perspectives on ethnicity and nationalityrsquo Sage RaceRelations Abstracts 8(2)1ndash53 and 8(3)1ndash26

Bentley GC (1987) lsquoEthnicity and practicersquo Comparative Studies in Society andHistory 2924ndash55

Bentley GC (1991) lsquoResponse to Yelvingtonrsquo Comparative Studies in Society andHistory 33169ndash75

Bernbeck R and SPollock (1996) lsquoAyodha archaeology and identityrsquo CurrentAnthropology 37138ndash42

Biddiss MD (1979) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In MDBiddiss (ed) Images of Race pp 11ndash35New York Holmes amp Meier

Binford LR (1962) lsquoArchaeology as anthropologyrsquo American Antiquity 28217ndash25Binford LR (1965) lsquoArchaeological systematics and the study of culture processrsquo

American Antiquity 31203ndash10Binford LR (1972) An Archaeological Perspective New York Seminar PressBinford LR (1973) lsquoInterassemblage variabilitymdashthe mousterian and the

ldquofunctionalrdquo argumentrsquo In CRenfrew (ed) The Explanation of Culture Changemodels in prehistory pp 227ndash54 London Duckworth

Binford LR (1983) In Pursuit of the Past London Thames amp HudsonBinford LR and SRBinford (1966) lsquoA preliminary analysis of functional variability

in the mousterian levallois faciesrsquo American Anthropologist 68(2)238ndash95Binford SR and LRBinford (1968) New Perspectives in Archaeology New York

AldineBirchall A (1965) lsquoThe Aylesford-Swarling culture the problem of the Belgae

reconsideredrsquo Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 31241ndash367Blackmore C MBraithwaite and IHodder (1979) lsquoSocial and cultural patterning in

the late Iron Age in southern Britainrsquo In BCBurnham and JKingsbury (eds) SpaceHierarchy and Society interdisciplinary studies in social area analysis pp 93ndash112Oxford British Archaeological Research

Blagg T and MMillett (1990) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In TBlagg and MMillett (eds) TheEarly Roman Empire in the West pp 1ndash4 Oxford Oxbow Books

Blu KI (1980) The Lumbee Problem the making of an American Indian peopleCambridge Cambridge University Press

Boas F (1974 [1887]) lsquoThe occurrence of similar inventions in areas widely apartrsquo and

References 155

lsquoMuseums of ethnology and their classificationrsquo Science 9485ndash6 587ndash9(Reprinted as lsquoThe principles of ethnological sciencersquo In GWStocking (ed) (1974)The Shaping of American Anthropology 1883ndash1911 A Franz Boas reader pp 61ndash7 New York Basic Books)

Boas F (1974 [1905]) lsquoThe mythologies of the Indiansrsquo International Quarterly 12157ndash73 (Reprinted in GWStocking (ed) (1974) The Shaping of AmericanAnthropology 1883ndash1911 A Franz Boas reader pp 135ndash48 New York BasicBooks) Bond GC and AGilliam (eds) (1994a) Social Construction of the Pastrepresentation as power London Routledge

Bond GC and AGilliam (1994b) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In GCBond and AGilliam (eds)Social Construction of the Past representation as power pp 1ndash22 LondonRoutledge

Bordes F (1968) The Old Stone Age London Weidenfeld amp NicolsonBordes F (1973) lsquoOn the chronology and contemporeneity of different palaeolithic

cultures in Francersquo In CRenfrew (ed) The Explanation of Culture Change modelsin prehistory pp 217ndash26 London Duckworth

Bordes F and Dde Sonneville-Bordes (1970) lsquoThe significance of variability inpalaeolithic assemblagesrsquo World Archaeology 261ndash73

Bosanquet RC (1921) lsquoDiscussion of ldquoThe Dorian invasion reviewed in the light ofnew evidencerdquorsquo Antiquaries Journal 1219

Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress

Bourdieu P (1990) The Logic of Practice Cambridge Polity PressBourdieu P and LJDWacquant (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology

Cambridge Polity PressBowler PJ (1989) The Invention of Progress the Victorians and the past Oxford

Basil BlackwellBowman G (1993) lsquoNationalizing the sacred shrines and shifting identities in the

Isreali-Occupied Territoriesrsquo Man 28(3)431ndash60Bradley R (1984) The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain themes and

variations in the archaeology of power London LongmanBranigan K (1981) lsquoCeltic farm to Roman villarsquo In DMiles (ed) The Romano-British

countryside pp 81ndash96 Oxford British Archaeological ResearchBromley Y (1980) lsquoThe object and subject matter of ethnographyrsquo In EGellner (ed)

Soviet and Western Anthropology pp 151ndash60 London DuckworthBrook S (1983) lsquoPrinciples of identification and classification of peoplesrsquo In A

Kochin (ed) Ethnic Geography and Cartography pp 39ndash64 Moscow SocialSciences Today

Brumfiel E (1994) lsquoEthnic groups and political development in ancient Mexicorsquo InEMBrumfiel and JWFox (eds) Factional Competition and Political Developmentin the New World pp 89ndash102 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Buchignani N (1982) Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Ethnicityoccasional papers in ethnic and immigration studies Toronto The MulticulturalSociety of Ontario

Buchignani N (1987) lsquoEthnic phenomena and contemporary social theory theirimplications for archaeologyrsquo In RAuger MFGlass SMacEachern and PHMcCartney (eds) Ethnicity and Culture proceedings of the eighteenth annualconference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary pp 15ndash24 Calgary University of Calgary

Burgess ME (1978) lsquoThe resurgence of ethnicity myth or realityrsquo Ethnic and RacialStudies 1(3)265ndash85

156 References

Burkitt MC (1933) The Old Stone Age a study of palaeolithic times CambridgeCambridge University Press

Burley DV GAHorsfall and JDBrandon (1992) Structural Considerations of MeacutetisEthnicity An archaeological architectural and historical study Vermillion TheUniversity of South Dakota Press

Burnham BC and HBJohnson (1979) Introductionrsquo In BCBurnham and HBJohnson (eds) Invasion and Response the case of Roman Britain pp 1ndash8 OxfordBritish Archaeological Research

Butcher S (1990) lsquoThe broochesrsquo In DSNeal AWardle and JHunn Excavation ofthe Iron Age Roman and Medieval Settlement at Gorhambury St Albans pp 115ndash20 London Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

Cairnes JE (1865) lsquoThe negro suffragersquo Macmillanrsquos Magazine 12334ndash43(Reprinted in MDBiddiss (ed) (1979) Images of Race pp 73ndash88 New YorkHolmes amp Meier)

Calhoun C (1993) lsquoHabitus field and capital the question of historical specificityrsquo InCCalhoun ELiPuma and MPostone (eds) Bourdieu critical perspectives pp 61ndash88 Cambridge Polity Press

Calhoun C (1994) lsquoSocial theory and the politics of identityrsquo In CCalhoun (ed)Social Theory and the Politics of Identity pp 9ndash36 Oxford Blackwell

Campisi J (1991) The Mashpee Indians tribe on trial New York Syracuse UniversityPress

Casson S (1921) lsquoThe Dorian invasion reviewed in the light of some new evidencersquoThe Antiquaries Journal 1198ndash221

Champion TC (1975) lsquoBritain in the European Iron Agersquo Archaeologia Atlantica 1127ndash45

Champion TC (1984 [1979]) lsquoThe Iron Age (c 600 BC-AD 200)rsquo In JVS Megawand DASimpson (eds) Introduction to British Prehistory pp 344ndash432 LeicesterLeicester University Press

Chapman M MMcDonald and ETonkin (1989) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In ETonkinMMcDonald and MChapman (eds) History and Ethnicity pp 1ndash33 LondonRoutledge

Childe VG (1927 [1925]) The Dawn of European Civilization London Kegan PaulTrubner amp Co

Childe VG (1929) The Danube in Prehistory Oxford ClarendonChilde VG (1933a) lsquoIs prehistory practicalrsquo Antiquity 7410ndash18Childe VG (1933b) lsquoRaces peoples and cultures in prehistoric Europersquo History

18193ndash203Childe VG (1935) lsquoChanging methods and aims in prehistory Presidential Address

for 1935rsquo Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 11ndash15Childe VG (1940) Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles London W amp R

ChambersChilde VG (1956) Piecing Together the Past the interpretation of archaeological

data London Routledge amp Kegan PaulChilde VG (1969 [1950]) Prehistoric Migrations in Europe Oosterhout

Anthropological PublicationsClarke D (1978 [1968]) Analytical Archaeology London MethuenClifford J (1988) The Predicament of Culture Cambridge Mass Harvard University

PressClifford J (1992) lsquoTravelling culturesrsquo In LGrossberg CNelson and PA Treichler

(eds) Cultural Studies pp 96ndash116 London RoutledgeCohen A (1969) Custom and Politics in Urban Africa London Routledge amp Kegan

Paul

References 157

Cohen A (1974) lsquoIntroduction the lesson of ethnicityrsquo In ACohen (ed) UrbanEthnicitypp ix-xxiv London Tavistock Publications

Cohen R (1978) lsquoEthnicity problem and focus in anthropologyrsquo Annual Review ofAnthropology 7379ndash403

Colson E (1968) lsquoContemporary tribes and the development of nationalismrsquo In JHelm (ed) Essays on the Problem of Tribe pp 201ndash6 Seattle University ofWashington Press

Comaroff J and JComaroff (1992) Ethnography and the Historical ImaginationBoulder Westview Press

Conkey MW (1978) lsquoStyle and information in cultural evolution toward a predictivemodel for the Palaeolithicrsquo In CLRedman JBerman ECurtin W LanghorneNVersaggi and JWanser (eds) Social Archaeology beyond dating and subsistencepp 61ndash85 New York Academic Press

Conkey MW (1991) lsquoExperimenting with style in archaeology some historical andtheoretical issuesrsquo In MWConkey and CAHastorf (eds) The Uses of Style inArchaeology pp 5ndash17 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Connor W (1978) lsquoA nation is a nation is a state is an ethnic group is ahelliprsquo Ethnicand Racial Studies 1377ndash400

Crawford OGS (1921) Man and his Past London Oxford University PressCrawford OGS and REMWheeler (1921) lsquoThe Llynfawr and other hoards of the

Bronze Agersquo Archaeologia 71133ndash40Cunliffe BW (1978 [1974]) The Iron Age Communities of the British Isles London

Routledge amp Kegan PaulCunliffe BW (1988) Greeks Romans and Barbarians spheres of interaction

London BTBatsfordCunliffe BW (1990) Iron Age Communities in Britain London RoutledgeDrsquoAndrade R (1995) lsquoMoral models in anthropologyrsquo Current Anthropology 36(3)

399ndash408Danforth L (1993) lsquoCompeting claims to Macedonian identity the Macedonian

question and the breakup of Yugoslaviarsquo Anthropology Today 9(4)3ndash10Daniel G (1978 [1950]) One Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology London

DuckworthDavis W (1990) lsquoStyle and history in art historyrsquo In MWConkey and CA Hastorf

(eds) The Uses of Style in Archaeology pp 18ndash31 Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Deshen S (1974) lsquoPolitical ethnicity and cultural ethnicity in Israel during the 1960srsquoIn ACohen (ed) Urban Ethnicity pp 281ndash309 London Tavistock Publications

Despres LA (1975) lsquoEthnicity and resource competition in Gutanese societyrsquo InLADespres (ed) Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies pp 87ndash117 Paris Mouton Publishers

Devalle SBC (1992) Discourses of Ethnicity culture and protest in JharkhandLondon Sage Publications

de Vos G (1982 [1975]) lsquoEthnic pluralism conflict and accommodationrsquo In Gde Vosand LRomanucci-Ross (eds) Ethnic Identity cultural continuities and change pp5ndash41 Chicago University of Chicago Press

de Vos G and LRomanucci-Ross (1982a [1975]) lsquoIntroduction 1982rsquo In Gde Vosand LRomanucci-Ross (eds) Ethnic Identity cultural continuities and change ppix-xvii Chicago University of Chicago Press

de Vos G and LRomanucci-Ross (1982b [1975]) lsquoEthnicity vessel of meaning andemblem of contrastrsquo In Gde Vos and LRomanucci-Ross (eds) Ethnic Identitycultural continuities and change pp 363ndash91 Chicago University of Chicago Press

Diacuteaz-Andreu M (1996) lsquoConstructing identities through culture the past in the

158 References

forging of Europersquo In PGraves-Brown SJones and CGamble (eds) CulturalIdentity and Archaeology the construction of European communities pp 48ndash61London Routledge

Diacuteaz-Andreu M and TCChampion (1996a) lsquoNationalism and archaeology inEurope an introductionrsquo In MDiacuteaz-Andreu and TCChampion (eds) Nationalismand Archaeology in Europe pp 1ndash23 London University College London Press

Diacuteaz-Andreu M and TCChampion (eds) (1996b) Nationalism and Archaeology inEurope London University College London Press

Diacuteaz-Polanco H (1987) lsquoNeoindigenismo and the ethnic question in CentralAmericarsquo Latin American Perspectives 1487ndash99

Dietler M (1994) lsquoldquoOur ancestors the Gaulsrdquo archaeology ethnic nationalism andthe manipulation of Celtic identity in modern Europersquo American Anthropologist96584ndash605

DiMaggio P (1979) lsquoReview essay on Pierre Bourdieursquo American Journal ofSociology 84(6)1460ndash74

Dohrenwend BP and RJSmith (1962) lsquoToward a theory of acculturationrsquoSouthwestern Journal of Anthropology 1830ndash9

Dolukhanov P (1994) Environment and Ethnicity in the Ancient Middle EastAldershot Avebury Press

Doornbos M (1972) lsquoSome conceptual problems concerning ethnicity in integrationanalysisrsquo Civilisations 22263ndash83

Doran J and FHodson (1975) Mathematics and Computers in ArchaeologyEdinburgh Edinburgh University Press

Dorman JH (1980) lsquoEthnic groups and ethnicity some theoretical considerationsrsquoJournal of Ethnic Studies 7(4)23ndash36

Douglass WA (1988) lsquoA critique of recent trends in the analysis of ethno-nationalismrsquo Ethnic and Racial Studies 11(2)192ndash206

Eidheim H (1969) lsquoWhen ethnic identity is a social stigmarsquo In FBarth (ed) EthnicGroups and Boundaries pp 39ndash57 Boston Little Brown

Elliot Smith G (1928) In the Beginning the origin of civilisation London GeraldHowe

Elston RG DHardesty and CZeier (1982) Archaeological Investigations on theHopkins Land Exchange Volume II an analysis of archaeological and historicaldata collected from selected sites Nevada City Tahoe National Forest

Erich RW (1954) Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press

Erich RW (1965) Chronologies in Old World Archaeology Chicago University ofChicago Press

Eriksen TH (1991) lsquoThe cultural contexts of ethnic differencesrsquo Man 26127ndash44Eriksen TH (1992) Us and Them in Modern Societies ethnicity and nationalism in

Mauritius Trinidad and beyond London Scandinavian University PressEriksen TH (1993a) Ethnicity and Nationalism Anthropological perspectives

London Pluto PressEriksen TH (1993b) lsquoFormal and informal nationalismrsquo Ethnic and Racial Studies

16(1)1ndash25Etter PA (1980) lsquoThe west coast Chinese and opium smokingrsquo In RSchuyler (ed)

Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America pp 97ndash101 FarmingdaleBaywood Press

Evans-Pritchard EE (1940) The Nuer Oxford Clarendon PressFabian J (1983) Time and the Other how anthropology makes its object New York

Colombia University PressFardon R (1987) lsquoldquoAfrican ethnogenesisrdquo limits to the comparability of ethnic

References 159

phenomenarsquo In LHoly (ed) Comparative Anthropology pp 168ndash87 OxfordBasil Blackwell

Farrar FW (1867) lsquoAptitudes of racesrsquo Transactions of the Ethnological Society 5115ndash26 (Reprinted in MDBiddiss (ed) (1979) Images of Race pp 141ndash56 NewYork Holmes amp Meier)

Flannery K (ed) (1976) The Early Mesoamerican Village London Academic PressFleure HJ (1922) The Peoples of Europe Oxford Oxford University PressFleury-Ilett B (1996) lsquoThe identity of France archetypes in Iron Age studiesrsquo In P

Graves-Brown SJones and CGamble (eds) Cultural Identity and Archaeology theconstruction of European communities pp 196ndash208 London Routledge

Ford J (1954a) lsquoThe type concept revisitedrsquo American Anthropologist 5642ndash54Ford J (1954b) lsquoComment on AC Spaulding ldquoStatistical techniques for the study of

artefact typesrdquorsquo American Antiquity 19390ndash1Fortes M (1969 [1945]) The Dynamics of Clanship Among the Tallensi being the

first part of an analysis of the social structure of a trans- Volta tribe LondonOxford University Press

Fortes M (1980) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In EGellner (ed) Soviet and Western Anthropologypp xixndashxxv London Duckworth

Foster RJ (1991) lsquoMaking national cultures in the global ecumenersquo Annual Review ofAnthropology 20235ndash60

Fox C (1923) The Archaeology of the Cambridge Region Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Francis EK (1947) lsquoThe nature of the ethnic grouprsquo American Journal of Sociology52393ndash400

Freeman TA (1877) lsquoRace and languagersquo Contemporary Review 29711ndash41(Reprinted in MDBiddiss (ed) (1979) Images of Race pp 205ndash36 New YorkHolmes amp Meier)

Fricker M (1994) lsquoKnowledge as construct theorizing the role of gender inknowledgersquo In KLennon and MWhitford (eds) Knowing the Difference feministperspectives in epistemology pp 95ndash109 London Routledge

Fried MH (1968) lsquoOn the concepts of ldquotriberdquo and ldquotribal societyrdquorsquo In JHelm (ed)Essays on the Problem of Tribe pp 3ndash20 Seattle University of Washington Press

Fried MH (1975) The Notion of Tribe Menlo Park CummingsFriedman J (1989) lsquoCulture identity and world processrsquo In DMiller MRowlands

and CTilley (eds) Domination and Resistance pp 246ndash60 London UnwinHyman Routledge pbk 1995

Friedman J (1992) lsquoThe past in the future history and the politics of identityrsquoAmerican Anthropologist 94(4)837ndash59

Friedman J (1995) lsquoComment on ldquoObjectivity and militancy a debaterdquorsquo CurrentAnthropology 56(3)421ndash3

Galton F (1865) lsquoHereditary talent and characterrsquo Macmillanrsquos Magazine 12318ndash27(Reprinted in MDBiddiss (ed) (1979) Images of Race pp 55ndash71 New YorkHolmes amp Meier)

Gamble CS (1982) lsquoInteraction and alliance in palaeolithic societyrsquo Man 17 92ndash107Garlake P (1982) lsquoPrehistory and ideology in Zimbabwersquo Africa 521ndash19Gathercole P (1990) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In PGathercole and DLowenthal (eds) The

Politics of the Past pp 1ndash4 London Unwin amp Hyman Routledge pbk 1994Gathercole P and DLowenthal (eds) (1990) The Politics of the Past London Unwin

amp Hyman Routledge pbk 1994Geertz C (1963) lsquoThe integrative revolution primordial sentiments and civil politics

in the new statesrsquo In CGeertz (ed) Old Societies and New States pp 105ndash57 NewYork The Free Press

160 References

Gellner E (1983) Nations and Nationalism Oxford Basil BlackwellGiddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society outline of the theory of structuration

Cambridge Polity PressGifford JC (1960) lsquoThe type variety method of ceramic classification as an indicator

of cultural phenomenarsquo American Antiquity 25341ndash7Gilroy P (1992) lsquoCultural studies and ethnic absolutismrsquo In LGrossberg C Nelson

and PATreichler (eds) Cultural Studies pp 187ndash98 London RoutledgeGlazer N and DPMoynihan (1975) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In NGlazer and DP Moynihan

(eds) Ethnicity theory and experience pp 1ndash26 Cambridge Mass HarvardUniversity Press

Glock A (1994) lsquoArchaeology as cultural survival the future of the Palestinian pastrsquoJournal of Palestine Studies 2370ndash84

Gluckman M (1971) lsquoTribalism ruralism and urbanism in south and central AfricarsquoIn VTurner (ed) Colonialism in Africa 1870ndash1960 pp 127ndash66 CambridgeCambridge University Press

Going CJ (1992) lsquoEconomic ldquolong wavesrdquo in the Roman period A reconnaissance ofthe Romano-British ceramic evidencersquo Oxford Archaeological Journal 11 93ndash118

Gordon MM (1964) The Assimilation of American Life Oxford Oxford UniversityPress

Gordon MM (1975) lsquoToward a general theory of racial and ethnic group relationsrsquoIn NGlazer and DPMoynihan (eds) Ethnicity theory and experience pp 84ndash110Cambridge Mass Harvard University Press

Gossett TF (1975 [1963]) Race the history of an idea in America Dallas SouthernMethodist University Press

Graves-Brown P SJones and CGamble (eds) (1996) Cultural Identity andArchaeology the construction of European communities London Routledge

Greenwell W (1905) lsquoEarly Iron Age burials in Yorkshirersquo Archaeologia 60 251ndash324Gruber J (1973) lsquoForerunnersrsquo In RNarroll and FNarroll (eds) Main Currents in

Cultural Anthropology pp 25ndash56 New York Meredith CorporationGruber J (1986) lsquoArchaeology history and culturersquo In DJMeltzer DDFowler and

JASabloff (eds) American Archaeology Past and Future a celebration of theSociety for American Archaeology pp 163ndash86 Washington Smithsonian Press

Gulliver PH (1969) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In PHGulliver (ed) Tradition and Transition inEast Africa studies of the tribal element in the modern era pp 5ndash38 LondonRoutledge amp Kegan Paul

Haaland G (1969) lsquoEconomic determinants in ethnic processesrsquo In FBarth (ed)Ethnic Groups and Boundaries pp 58ndash73 London George Allen amp Unwin

Haaland R (1977) lsquoArchaeological classification and ethnic groups a case study fromSudanese Nubiarsquo Norwegian Archaeological Review 101ndash31

Hachmann R (1976) lsquoThe problem of the Belgae seen from the continentrsquo Bulletin ofthe Institute of Archaeology 13117ndash37

Hall HR (1921) lsquoDiscussion of ldquoThe Dorian invasion reviewed in the light of newevidencerdquorsquo Antiquaries Journal 1219ndash20

Hall M (1994) lsquoLifting the veil of popular history archaeology and politics in urbanCape Townrsquo In GCBond and AGilliam (eds) Social Construction of the Pastrepresentation as power pp 167ndash82 London Routledge

Hall M (1995) lsquoGreat Zimbabwe and the lost cityrsquo In PJUcko (ed) Theory inArchaeology a world perspective pp 28ndash45 London Routledge

Haller JSJr (1971) lsquoRace and the concept of progress in nineteenth century Americanethnologyrsquo American Anthropologist 73710ndash24

Handelman D (1977) lsquoThe organization of ethnicityrsquo Ethnic Groups 1187ndash200Handler R (1986) lsquoAuthenticityrsquo Anthropology Today 2(1)2ndash4

References 161

Handler R (1988) Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin Press

Handler R and JLinnekin (1984) lsquoTradition genuine or spuriousrsquo Journal ofAmerican Folklore 97273ndash90

Hannerz U (1974) lsquoEthnicity and opportunity in urban Americarsquo In ACohen (ed)Urban Ethnicity pp 37ndash76 London Tavistock Publications

Hannerz U (1989) lsquoCulture between center and periphery toward amacroanthropologyrsquo Ethnos 54200ndash16

Harding S (1986) lsquoIntroduction is there a feminist methodologyrsquo In SHarding (ed)Feminism and Methodology issues in the social sciences pp 1ndash14 Milton KeynesOpen University Press

Haumlrke H (1991) lsquoAll quiet on the Western Front Paradigms methods andapproaches in West German archaeologyrsquo In IHodder (ed) Archaeological Theoryin Europe pp 187ndash222 London Routledge

Haumlrke H (1995) lsquoldquoThe Hun is a methodical chaprdquo Reflections on the Germantradition of pre- and proto-historyrsquo In PJUcko (ed) Theory in Archaeology aworld perspective pp 46ndash60 London Routledge

Harries P (1989) lsquoExclusion classification and internal colonialism the emergence ofethnicity among the Tsonga-speakers of South Africarsquo In LVail (ed) The Creationof Tribalism in Southern Africa pp 82ndash117 London James Curry

Harris M (1968) The Rise of Anthropological Theory London Routledge amp KeganPaul

Haselgrove C (1982) lsquoWealth prestige and power the dynamics of late Iron Agepolitical centralisation in south-east Englandrsquo In SJShennan and CRenfrew (eds)Ranking Resource and Exchange pp 79ndash88 Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress

Haselgrove C (1984) lsquoRomanization before the conquest Gaulish precedents andBritish consequencesrsquo In TFCBlagg and ACKing (eds) Military and Civilian inRoman Britain pp 1ndash64 Oxford British Archaeological Research

Haselgrove C (1987) lsquoCulture process on the periphery Belgic Gaul and Rome duringthe late Republic and early Empirersquo In MRowlands MLarsen and K Kristiansen(eds) Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World pp 104ndash24 CambridgeCambridge University Press

Haselgrove C (1989) lsquoThe late Iron Age in southern Britain and beyondrsquo In M Todd(ed) Research in Roman Britain pp 1ndash18 London Britannia Monograph Seriesno 11

Haselgrove C (1990) lsquoThe Romanization of Belgic Gaul some archaeologicalperspectivesrsquo In TBlagg and MMillett (eds) The Early Roman Empire in the Westpp 45ndash71 Oxford Oxbow Books

Haverfield F (1911) lsquoAn inaugural address delivered before the first annual generalmeeting of the Societyrsquo Journal of Roman Studies 1ximdashxx

Haverfield F (1923 [1912]) Romanization of Roman Britain Oxford ClarendonPress

Hawkes CFC (1931) lsquoHillfortsrsquo Antiquity 560ndash97Hawkes CFC (1940) The Prehistoric Foundations of Europe to the Mycean age

London MethuenHawkes CFC (1959) lsquoThe ABC of the British Iron Agersquo Antiquity 33170ndash82Hawkes CFC (1968) lsquoNew thoughts on the Belgaersquo Antiquity 426ndash16Hawkes CFC and GCDunning (1930) lsquoThe Belgae of Britain and Gaulrsquo

Archaeological Journal 87150ndash335Hawkes CFC and MRHull (1947) Camulodunum first report on the excavations

at Colchester 1930ndash1939 Oxford The Society of Antiquaries

162 References

Hechter M (1976) Internal Colonialism The Celtic fringe in British nationaldevelopment 1536ndash1966 London Routledge amp Kegan Paul

Hechter M (1986) lsquoTheories of ethnic relationsrsquo In JFStack (ed) The PrimordialChallenge ethnicity in the contemporary world pp 13ndash24 London GreenwoodPress

Heine-Geldern R (1964) lsquoOne hundred years of ethnological theory in Germanspeaking countries some milestonesrsquo Current Anthropology 5407ndash18

Hides S (1996) lsquoThe genealogy of material culture and cultural identityrsquo In P Graves-Brown SJones and CGamble (eds) Cultural Identity and Archaeology theconstruction of European communities pp 25ndash47 London Routledge

Hill JD (1995) lsquoThe pre-Roman Iron Age in Britain and Ireland (ca 800 BC to AD100) an overviewrsquo Journal of World Prehistory 9(1)47ndash98

Hingley R (1984) lsquoTowards a social analysis in archaeology Celtic society in the IronAge of the Upper Thames Valleyrsquo In BCunliffe and DMiles (eds) Aspects of theIron Age in Central Southern Britain pp 72ndash88 Oxford Oxford UniversityCommittee for Archaeology

Hingley R (1988) lsquoThe influence of Rome on indigenous social groups in the UpperThames Valleyrsquo In RFJones JHFBloemers and SLDyson (eds) First MilleniumPapers Western Europe in the first millenium AD pp 73ndash98 Oxford BritishArchaeological Research

Hingley R (1989) Rural Settlement in Roman Britain London SeabyHingley R (1991) lsquoPast present and futuremdashthe study of Roman Britainrsquo Scottish

Archaeological Review 890ndash101Hingley R (1996) lsquoThe ldquolegacyrdquo of Rome the rise decline and fall of the theory of

Romanizationrsquo In JWebster and NCooper (eds) Roman Imperialism post-colonial perspectives pp 35ndash48 Leicester School of Archaeological StudiesUniversity of Leicester

Hingley R (forthcoming) lsquoThe imperial context of Romano-British studies andproposals for a new understanding of social changersquo In PFunari MHall and SJones (eds) Back from the Edge Archaeology in History London Routledge

Hinton P (1981) lsquoWhere have all the new ethnicists gone wrongrsquo Australian and NewZealand Journal of Sociology 17(3)14ndash19

Hobsbawm EJ (1983) lsquoIntroduction inventing traditionsrsquo In EHobsbawm andTRanger (eds) The Invention of Tradition pp 1ndash14 Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Hobsbawm EJ (1990) Nations and Nationalism since 1780 programme mythreality Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hobsbawm EJ and TRanger (eds) (1983) The Invention of Tradition CambridgeCambridge University Press

Hodder I (1977a) lsquoHow are we to study distributions of Iron Age materialrsquo In JRCollis (ed) The Iron Age in Britain a review pp 8ndash16 Sheffield JRCollis

Hodder I (1977b) lsquoSome new directions in the spatial analysis of archaeological datarsquoIn DLClarke (ed) Spatial Archaeology pp 223ndash351 London Academic Press

Hodder I (1978a) lsquoSimple correlations between material culture and society a reviewrsquoIn IHodder (ed) The Spatial Organisation of Culture pp 3ndash24 LondonDuckworth

Hodder I (1978b) lsquoThe spatial structure of material ldquoculturesrdquo a review of some ofthe evidencersquo In IHodder (ed) The Spatial Organisation of Culture pp 93ndash111London Duckworth

Hodder I (1979a) lsquoEconomic and social stress and material culture patterningrsquoAmerican Antiquity 44(3)446ndash54

Hodder I (1979b) lsquoPre-Roman and Romano-British tribal economiesrsquo In BC

References 163

Burham and HBJohnson (eds) Invasion and Response the case of Roman Britainpp 189ndash96 Oxford British Archaeological Research

Hodder I (1982a) Symbols in Action Cambridge Cambridge University PressHodder I (1982b) lsquoTheoretical archaeology a reactionary viewrsquo In IHodder (ed)

Symbolic and Structural Archaeology pp 1ndash16 Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress

Hodder I (1986) Reading the Past current approaches to interpretation inarchaeology Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hodder I (1991a) lsquoPrefacersquo In IHodder (ed) Archaeological Theory in Europe ppviimdashxi London Routledge

Hodder I (1991b) lsquoArchaeological theory in contemporary European societies theemergence of competing traditionsrsquo In IHodder (ed) Archaeological Theory inEurope pp 1ndash24 London Routledge

Hodder I (ed) (1991c) Archaeological Theory in Europe the last three decadesLondon Routledge

Hodder I (1993) lsquoThe narrative and rhetoric of material culture sequencesrsquo WorldArchaeology 25(2)268ndash81

Hodder I and COrten (1976) Spatial Analysis in Archaeology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Hodgen MT (1964) Early Anthropology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth CenturiesPhiladelphia University of Pennsylvania Press

Hodson FR (1960) lsquoReflections on the ldquoABC of the British Iron Agerdquorsquo Antiquity34318ndash19

Hodson FR (1962) lsquoSome pottery from Eastbourne the ldquoMarniansrdquo and the pre-Roman Iron Age in southern Englandrsquo Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28140ndash55

Hodson FR (1964) lsquoCultural grouping within the British pre-Roman Iron AgersquoProceedings of the Prehistoric Society 3099ndash110

Hodson FR (1980) lsquoCultures as types Some elements of classificatory theoryrsquoBulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 171ndash10

Honigmann JJ (1976) The Development of Anthropological Ideas Illinois TheDorsey Press

Horowitz DL (1975) lsquoEthnic identityrsquo In NGlazer and DPMoynihan (eds)Ethnicity theory and experience pp 111ndash40 Cambridge Mass HarvardUniversity Press

Horvath SMJr (1983) lsquoEthnic groups as subjects of archaeological enquiryrsquo InAEWard (ed) Forgotten Places and Things pp 23ndash5 Albuquerque Center forAnthropological Studies

Hunt CH and LWalker (1974) Ethnic Dynamics patterns of intergroup relations invarious societies Illinois Dorsey Press

Hunt J (1863) lsquoIntroductory address in the study of anthropologyrsquo TheAnthropological Review 11ndash20

Hurst PQ (1976) Social Evolution and Social Categories London George Allen ampUnwin

Hutchinsen J and ADSmith (eds) (1994) Nationalism Oxford Oxford UniversityPress

Huxley JS and ACHaddon (1935) We Europeans a survey of lsquoracialrsquo problemsLondon Jonathan Cape

Huxley T (1870) lsquoThe forefathers and forerunners of the English peoplersquo Pall MallGazette 10 January 8ndash9 (Reprinted in MDBiddiss (ed) (1979) Images of Racepp 157ndash70 New York Holmes amp Meier)

Isaacs H (1974) lsquoBasic group identity idols of the tribersquo Ethnicity 115ndash41

164 References

Isajiw WW (1974) lsquoDefinitions of ethnicityrsquo Ethnicity 1111ndash24Jackson JW (1866) lsquoRace in legislation and political economyrsquo Anthropological

Review 4113ndash35 (Reprinted in MDBiddiss (ed) (1979) Images of Race pp 133ndash40 New York Holmes amp Meier)

Jacobs J (1988) lsquoThe construction of identityrsquo In JBeckett (ed) Past and Present theconstruction of Aboriginality pp 31ndash43 Canberra Aboriginal Studies Press

Jaspan M (1964) lsquoComment on RNarroll ldquoOn ethnic unit classificationrdquorsquo CurrentAnthropology 5(4)298

Jenkins R (1982) lsquoPierre Bourdieu and the reproduction of determinismrsquo [CriticalNote] Sociology 16(4)270ndash81

Jochim MA (1983) lsquoPalaeolithic cave art in ecological perspectiversquo In GNBailey(ed) Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistoric Europe pp 212ndash19 CambridgeCambridge University Press

Jones D and JHill-Burnett (1982) lsquoThe political context of ethnogenesis anAustralian examplersquo In MCHoward (ed) Aboriginal Power in Australian Societypp 214ndash46 St Lucia University of Queensland Press

Jones S (1994) lsquoArchaeology and ethnicity constructing identities in the past and thepresentrsquo Unpublished PhD thesis University of Southampton

Jones S (1996) lsquoDiscourses of identity in the interpretation of the pastrsquo In P Graves-Brown SJones and CGamble (eds) Cultural Identity and Archaeology theconstruction of European communities pp 62ndash80 London Routledge

Jones S and PGraves-Brown (1996) lsquoIntroduction archaeology and cultural identityin Europersquo In PGraves-Brown SJones and CGamble (eds) Cultural Identity andArchaeology the construction of European communities pp 1ndash24 LondonRoutledge

Just R (1989) lsquoTriumph of the ethnosrsquo In ETonkin MMcDonald and M Chapman(eds) History and Ethnicity pp 71ndash88 London Routledge

Kapferer B (1989) lsquoNationalist ideology and a comparative anthropologyrsquo Ethnos54161ndash99

Keen I (1988) Being Black Aboriginal cultures in settled Australia CanberraAboriginal Studies Press

Kellas JG (1991) The Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity London MacmillanKennedy KAR (1973) lsquoRace and culturersquo In RNarroll and FNarroll (eds) Main

Currents in Cultural Anthropology pp 25ndash56 New York Meredith CorporationKeyes CF (1976) lsquoTowards a new formulation of the concept of ethnic grouprsquo

Ethnicity 3202ndash13Keyes CF (1981) lsquoThe dialectics of ethnic changersquo In CFKeyes (ed) Ethnic Change

pp 3ndash31 Seattle University of Washington PressKhan A (1992) lsquoEthnicity culture and contextrsquo Man 27(4)873ndash7Kidder AV (1962 [1924]) An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology

with a Preliminary Account of the Excavations at Pecos (revised edition with anintroduction by IRouse) London Yale University Press

Kim YY (1986) lsquoIntroduction a communication approach to interethnic relationsrsquo InYYKim (ed) Interethnic Communication current research pp 9ndash18 LondonSage

Kimes T CHaselgrove and IHodder (1982) lsquoA method for the identification of thelocation of regional cultural boundariesrsquo Journal of Anthropological Archaeology1113ndash31

Kinahan J (1995) lsquoTheory practice and criticism in the history of Namibianarchaeologyrsquo In PJUcko (ed) Theory in Archaeology a world perspective pp 76ndash95 London Routledge

References 165

Kochin A (ed) (1983) Ethnic Geography and Cartography Moscow Social SciencesToday

Kohl PL (1993a) lsquoLimits to a post-processual archaeologyrsquo In NYoffee and ASherratt (eds) Archaeological Theory who sets the agenda pp 13ndash19 CambridgeCambridge University Press

Kohl PL (1993b) lsquoNationalism politics and the practice of archaeology in SovietTranscaucasiarsquo Journal of European Archaeology 1(2)181ndash8

Kohl PL and CFawcett (1995a) lsquoIntroduction Archaeology in the service of the statetheoretical considerationsrsquo In PLKohl and CFawcett (eds) Nationalism Politicsand the Practice of Archaeology pp 3ndash18 London Routledge

Kohl PL and CFawcett (eds) (1995b) Nationalism Politics and the Practice ofArchaeology London Routledge

Kohl PL and GRTsetskhladze (1995) lsquoNationalism politics and the practice ofarchaeology in the Caucasusrsquo In PLKohl and CFawcett (eds) Nationalism Politicsand the Practice of Archaeology pp 149ndash74 London Routledge

Kopytoff I (1986) lsquoThe cultural biography of things commoditization as processrsquo InAAppadurai (ed) The Social Life of Things commodities in perspective pp 64ndash91 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Kossack G (1992) lsquoPrehistoric archaeology in Germany its history and currentsituationrsquo Norwegian Archaeological Review 2573ndash109

Kossinna G (1911) Die Herkunft der Germanen Leipzig KabitzschKossinna G (1921 [1914]) Die Deutsche Vorgeschichte eine Hervorragend Nationale

Wissenschaft Mannus-Bibliothek 9Kristiansen K (1992) lsquoThe strength of the past and its great might an essay on the use

of the pastrsquo Journal of European Archaeology 13ndash33Kroeber AL and CKluckhohn (1952) Culture a critical review of concepts and

definitions New York VintageKuper A (1988) The Invention of Primitive Society transformations of an illusion

London RoutledgeKuper L (1975a) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In LKuper (ed) Race Science and Society pp 13ndash

28 Paris UNESCO PressKuper L (1975b) (ed) Race Science and Society Paris UNESCO PressLarick R (1986) lsquoAge grading and ethnicity in the style of Loikop (Sanbura) spearsrsquo

World Archaeology 18269ndash83Larick R (1991) lsquoWarriors and blacksmiths mediating ethnicity in East African

spearsrsquo Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10299ndash331Layton R (ed) (1989a) Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions London

Unwin Hyman Routledge pbk 1994Layton R (1989b) lsquoIntroduction conflict in the archaeology of living traditionsrsquo In

RLayton (ed) Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions pp 1ndash31 LondonUnwin Hyman Routledge pbk 1994

Leach E (1964 [1954]) Political Systems of Highland Burma a study in Kachin socialstructure London GBell amp Sons

Leiris M (1975 [1956]) lsquoRace and culturersquo In LKuper (ed) Race Science and Societypp 135ndash72 Paris UNESCO Press

Leacutevi-Strauss C (1975 [1955]) Tristes Tropiques New York AthenaeumLeacutevi-Strauss C (1975 [1956]) lsquoRace and historyrsquo In LKuper (ed) Race Science and

Society pp 95ndash134 Paris UNESCO PressLewis IM (1968) lsquoTribal societyrsquo In DLSills (ed) International Encyclopedia of the

Social Sciences pp 135ndash72 London Macmillan Company and Free PressLiPuma E (1993) lsquoCulture and the concept of culture in a theory of practicersquo In

166 References

CCalhoun ELiPuma and MPostone (eds) Bourdieu critical perspectives pp 14ndash34 Cambridge Polity Press

Lloyd PC (1974) lsquoEthnicity and the structure of inequality in a Nigerian town in themid-1950srsquo In ACohen (ed) Urban Ethnicity pp 223ndash50 London TavistockPublications

Lockwood D (1970) lsquoRace and conflict in plural societyrsquo In SZaida (ed) Race andRacialism pp 57ndash72 London Tavistock

Lowenthal D (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Lowie RH (1937) The History of Ethnological Theory New York Holt Rinehart ampWinston

McBryde L (1984) lsquoKulin greenstone quarries the social contexts of production anddistribution for the Mt William sitersquo World Archaeology 16(2)267ndash85

McCann WJ (1990) lsquoldquoVolk and Germanentumrdquo the presentation of the past in NaziGermanyrsquo In PGathercole and DLowenthal (eds) The Politics of the Past pp 74ndash88 London Unwin Hyman Routledge pbk 1994

McGuire RH (1982) lsquoThe study of ethnicity in historical archaeologyrsquo Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 1159ndash78

McGuire RH (1983) lsquoEthnic group status and material culture at the Rancho Puntade Aguarsquo In AEWard (ed) Forgotten Places and Things archaeologicalperspectives on American history pp 193ndash203 Albuquerque Center forAnthropological Studies

McGuire RH (1992) A Marxist Archaeology London Academic PressMackay C (1866) lsquoThe negro and the negrophilistsrsquo Blackwoodrsquos Edinburgh

Magazine 99581ndash97 (Reprinted in MDBiddis (ed) (1979) Images of Race pp89ndash112 New York Holmes amp Meier)

McKay J (1982) lsquoAn exploratory synthesis of primordial and mobilizationistapproaches to ethnic phenomenarsquo Ethnic and Racial Studies 5(4)395ndash420

MacKenzie MA (1991) Androgynous Objects string bags and gender in central NewGuinea Reading Harwood Academic Publishers

McKern WC (1939) lsquoThe midwestern taxanomic method as an aid to archaeologicalculture studyrsquo American Antiquity 4301ndash13

Mackreth D (1981) lsquoThe broochesrsquo In CPartridge Skeleton Green a Late Iron Ageand Romano-British site pp 130ndash52 London Society for the Promotion ofRoman Studies

Mackie Q (1994) lsquoPrehistory in a multicultural state a commentary on thedevelopment of Canadian archaeologyrsquo In PJUcko (ed) Theory in Archaeology aworld perspective pp 178ndash96 London Routledge

Maddock K (1988) lsquoMyth history and a sense of oneselfrsquo In JBeckett (ed) Past andPresent the construction of Aboriginality pp 11ndash30 Canberra Aboriginal StudiesPress

Malina J and ZVasiacutecek (1990) Archaeology Yesterday and Today the developmentof archaeology in the sciences and humanities Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress

Malinowski B (1944) A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays Chapel HillUniversity of North Carolina

Mangi J (1989) lsquoThe role of archaeology in nation buildingrsquo In RLayton (ed)Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions pp 217ndash27 London UnwinHyman Routledge pbk 1994

Maquet C (1964) lsquoObjectivity and anthropologyrsquo Current Anthropology 547ndash55Marcus C (1989) lsquoA prolegomena to contemporary cosmopolitan conversations on

conference occasions such as the present one entitled representations of otherness

References 167

cultural hermeneutics east and westrsquo Criticism Heresy and Interpretation 223ndash35

Mascia-Lees FE PSharpe and CBallerino Cohen (1989) lsquoThe postmodernist turn inanthropology cautions from a feminist perspectiversquo Signs 15(1)7ndash33

Mattingly DJ (1996) lsquoFrom one colonialism to another imperialism and theMagrebrsquo In JWebster and NCooper (eds) Roman Imperialism post-colonialperspectives pp 49ndash69 Leicester School of Archaeological Studies University ofLeicester

Meadows KI (1994) lsquoYou are what you eat diet identity and Romanisationrsquo In SCottam DDungworth SScott and JTaylor (eds) Proceedings of the FourthAnnual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference pp 133ndash40 Oxford OxfordBooks

Meadwell H (1989) lsquoCultural and instrumental approaches to ethnic nationalismrsquoEthnic and Racial Studies 12(3)309ndash27

Megaw JVS and MRMegaw (1996) lsquoAncient Celts and modern ethnicityrsquo Antiquity70175ndash81

Messing SD (1964) lsquoComment on RNarroll ldquoOn ethnic unit classificationrdquorsquoCurrent Anthropology 5(4)300

Michalska A (1991) lsquoRights of peoples to self-determination in international lawrsquo InNWTwining (ed) Issues of Self-Determination pp 71ndash90 Aberdeen AberdeenUniversity Press

Miller D (1985) Artefacts as Categories a study in ceramic variability in central IndiaCambridge Cambridge University Press

Millett M (1983) lsquoA comparative study of some contemporaneous potteryassemblagesrsquo Unpublished DPhil thesis University of Oxford

Millett M (1990a) The Romanization of Britain an essay in archaeologicalinterpretation Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Millett M (1990b) lsquoRomanization historical issues and archaeological interpretaionrsquoIn TFCBlagg and MMillett (eds) The Early Roman Empire in the West pp 35ndash41 Oxford Oxbow Books

Mitchell JC (1974) lsquoPerceptions of ethnicity and ethnic behaviour an empiricalexplorationrsquo In ACohen (ed) Urban Ethnicity pp 1ndash35 London TavistockPublications

Moberg C-A (1985) lsquoComments on Saamis Finns and Scandinavians in history andprehistoryrsquo Norwegian Archaeological Review 181ndash28

Moerman M (1965) lsquoWho are the Luersquo American Anthropologist 671215ndash30Moerman M (1968) lsquoUses and abuses of ethnic identityrsquo In JHelm (ed) Essays on the

Problem of Tribe pp 153ndash69 Seattle University of Washington PressMontagu Ashley MF (1945) Manrsquos Most Dangerous Myth New York Colombia

University PressMoody R (ed) (1984) The Indigenous Voice visions and realities vol 1 London

Zed BooksMoore HL (1988) Feminism and Anthropology Cambridge Polity PressMorgan LH (1974 [1877]) Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human

Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization Gloucester Mass PeterSmith

Morris B (1988) lsquoThe politics of identity from Aborigines to the first Australianrsquo InJBeckett (ed) Past and Present the construction of Aboriginality pp 63ndash85Canberra Aboriginal Studies Press

Moser S (1995) lsquoThe ldquoAboriginalizationrdquo of Australian archaeology the contributionof the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies to the indigenous transformation of

168 References

the disciplinersquo In PJUcko (ed) Theory in Archaeology a world perspective pp150ndash77 London Routledge

Muga D (1984) lsquoAcademic sub-cultural theory and the problematic of ethnicity atentative critiquersquo Journal of Ethnic Studies 121ndash51

Muumlller M (1877) Lectures on the Science of Language London Longman Green ampCo

Murray T (1993) lsquoCommunication and the importance of disciplinary communitieswho owns the pastrsquo In NYoffee and ASherratt (eds) Archaeological Theory whosets the Agenda pp 105ndash16 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Narroll R (1964) lsquoOn ethnic unit classificationrsquo Current Anthropology 5283ndash91 and306ndash12

Narroll R (1968) lsquoWho the Lue arersquo In JHelm (ed) Essays on the Problem of Tribepp 72ndash9 Seattle University of Washington Press

Neal DS AWardle and JHunn (1990) Excavation of the Iron Age Roman andMedieval Settlement at Gorhambury St Albans London Historic Buildings andMonuments Commission

Nettheim G (1992) lsquoInternational law and indigenous political rightsrsquo In H Reynoldsand RNile (eds) Indigenous Rights in the Pacific and North America race andnation in the late twentieth century pp 13ndash27 London Sir Robert Menzies Centrefor Australian Studies University of London

Norton R (1993) lsquoCulture and identity in the South Pacific a comparative analysisrsquoMan 28(4)741ndash59

Novak M (1974) lsquoThe new ethnicityrsquo Center Magazine 718ndash25OrsquoMeara JT (1995) lsquoComment on ldquoObjectivity and Militancy a Debaterdquorsquo Current

Anthropology 36(3)427ndash8Odner K (1985) lsquoSaamis (Lapps) Finns and Scandinavians in history and prehistoryrsquo

Norwegian Archaeological Review 181ndash12Odum HH (1967) lsquoGeneralizations on race in nineteenth-century physical

anthropologyrsquo ISIS 585ndash18Ohnuki-Tierney E (1995) lsquoStructure event and historical metaphor rice and identities

in Japanese historyrsquo Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 1(2) 227ndash53Olivier L and ACoudart (1995) lsquoFrench tradition and the central place of history in

the human sciences preamble to a dialogue between Robinson Crusoe and his ManFridayrsquo In PJUcko (ed) Theory in Archaeology a world perspective pp 363ndash81London Routledge

Olsen B (1985) lsquoComments on Saamis Finns and Scandinavians in history andprehistoryrsquo Norwegian Archaeological Review 1813ndash18

Olsen B (1986) lsquoNorwegian archaeology and the people without (pre-)history orhow to create a myth of a uniform pastrsquo Archaeological Review from Cambridge 525ndash42

Olsen B and ZKobylinski (1991) lsquoEthnicity in anthropological and archaeologicalresearch a NorwegianmdashPolish perspectiversquo Archaeologia Polona 295ndash27

Ortner SB (1984) lsquoTheory in anthropology since the sixtiesrsquo Comparative Studies inSociety and History 26126ndash66

Otite O (1975) lsquoResource competition and inter-ethnic relations in Nigeriarsquo InLADespres (ed) Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies pp 119ndash30 Paris Mouton Publishers

Paddayya K (1995) lsquoTheoretical perspectives in Indian archaeology an historicaloverviewrsquo In PJUcko (ed) Theory in Archaeology a world perspective pp 110ndash49 London Routledge

Parkin F (1978) lsquoSocial stratificationrsquo In TBorrowmore and RNisket (eds) A Historyof Sociological Thought pp 599ndash632 London Heinemann

References 169

Parminter Y (1990) lsquoThe potteryrsquo In DSNeal AWardle and JHunn Excavation ofthe Iron Age Roman and Medieval Settlement at Gorhambury St Albans pp 175ndash85 London Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

Partridge C (1981) Skeleton Green a late Iron Age and Romano-British site LondonSociety for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Patterson O (1975) lsquoContext and choice in ethnic allegiance a theoretical frameworkand Caribbean case studyrsquo In NGlazer and DPMoynihan (eds) Ethnicity theoryand experience pp 305ndash49 Cambridge Mass Harvard University Press

Peacock DPS (1969) lsquoA contribution to the study of Glastonbury ware fromsouthwestern Englandrsquo Antiquaries Journal 4941ndash61

Peacock DPS (1979) lsquoGlastonbury ware an alternative view (being a reply toBlackmore et al)rsquo In BCBurnham and JKingsbury (eds) Space Hierarchy andSociety interdisciplinary studies in social area analysis pp 113ndash15 Oxford BritishArchaeological Research

Perlstein Pollard H (1994) lsquoEthnicity and political control in a complex society theTarascan state of prehispanic Mexicorsquo In EMBrumfiel and JWFox (eds)Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World pp 79ndash88Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Perry WJ (1924) The Growth of Civilization London Methuen amp CoPiggott S (1965) Ancient Europe from the beginnings of agriculture to Classical

antiquity Edinburgh Edinburgh University PressPinsky V and AWylie (eds) (1989) Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology

essays in the philosophy history and socio-politics of archaeology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Plog S (1978) lsquoSocial interaction and stylistic similarity a re-analysisrsquo In MB Schiffer(ed) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory vol 1 pp 143ndash82 NewYork Academic Press

Plog S (1983) lsquoAnalysis of style in artefactsrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 12125ndash42

Poliakov L (1974 [1971]) The Aryan Myth a history of racist and nationalist ideas inEurope London Sussex University Press

Politis G (1995) lsquoThe socio-politics of the development of archaeology in HispanicLatin Americarsquo In PJUcko (ed) Theory in Archaeology a world perspective pp197ndash235 London Routledge

Postone M ELiPuma and CCalhoun (1993) lsquoIntroduction Bourdieu and socialtheoryrsquo In CCalhoun ELiPuma and MPostone (eds) Bourdieu CriticalPerspectives pp 1ndash13 Cambridge Polity Press

Praetzellis A MPraetzellis and MBrown III (1987) lsquoArtefacts as symbols of identityan example from Sacramentorsquos Gold Rush Era Chinese communityrsquo In ASaski (ed)Living in Cities current research in historical archaeology pp 38ndash47 Pleasant HillSociety for Historical Archaeology

Prichard JC (1973 [1813]) Researches into the Physical History of Man ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press

Radcliffe-Brown AR (1952) Structure and Function in Primitive Society essays andaddresses London Cohen amp West

Ranger T (1983) lsquoThe invention of tradition in colonial Africarsquo In EHobsbawm andTRanger (eds) The Invention of Tradition pp 211ndash62 Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Rao N (1994) lsquoInterpreting silences symbol and history in the case of RamJanmabhoomiBabri Masjidrsquo In GCBond and AGilliam (eds) Social Constructionof the Past representation as power pp 154ndash64 London Routledge

170 References

Redfield R LLinton and MJHerskovits (1936) lsquoMemorandum for the study ofacculturationrsquo American Anthropologist 38149ndash52

Renfrew C (1972) The Emergence of Civilization the Cyclades and the Aegean in thethird millenium BC London Methuen and Co

Renfrew C (1973) Before Civilization the radiocarbon revolution and prehistoricEurope London Jonathan Cape

Renfrew C (1977) lsquoSpace time and polityrsquo In JFriedman and MJRowlands (eds)The Evolution of Social Systems pp 89ndash112 London Duckworth

Renfrew C (1979) Problems in European Prehistory Edinburgh EdinburghUniversity Press

Renfrew C (1987) Archaeology and Language the puzzle of Indo-European originsLondon Penguin Books

Renfrew C (1995) lsquoThe identity of Europe in prehistoric archaeologyrsquo Journal ofEuropean Archaeology 2153ndash73

Renfrew C (1996) lsquoPrehistory and the identity of Europe or donrsquot lets be beastly tothe Hungariansrsquo In PGraves-Brown SJones and CGamble (eds) Cultural Identityand Archaeology the construction of European communities pp 125ndash37London Routledge

Renfrew C and PBahn (1991) Archaeology theories methods and practice LondonThames amp Hudson

Reynolds V (1980) lsquoSociobiology and the idea of primordial discriminationrsquo Ethnicand Racial Studies 3(3)303ndash15

Reynolds V VSEFalger and IVine (eds) (1987) The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrismevolutionary dimensions of xenophobia discrimination racism and nationalismLondon Croom Helm

Rodwell KA (1988) The Prehistoric and Roman Settlement at Kelvedon EssexLondon Chelmsford Archaeological Trust and the Council for British Archaeology

Rodwell R (1976) lsquoCoinage oppida and the rise of Belgic power in south-easternBritainrsquo In BWCunliffe and TRowley (eds) The Beginnings of Urbanisation inBarbarian Europe pp 181ndash367 Oxford British Archaeological Research

Roe D (1970) Prehistory an introduction London MacmillanRoosens EE (1989) Creating Ethnicity the process of ethnogenesis London SageRosaldo R (1993 [1989]) Culture and Truth the remaking of social analysis London

RoutledgeRoss JA (1980) lsquoThe mobilization of collective identity an analytical overviewrsquo In

ABCottrel and JARoss (eds) The Mobilisation of Collective Identity pp 1ndash30Lanham University Press of America

Rowlands MJ (1982) lsquoProcessual archaeology as historical social sciencersquo In CRenfrew MJRowlands and BASeagraves (eds) Theory and Explanation inArchaeology pp 155ndash74 London Academic Press

Rowlands MJ (1994) lsquoThe politics of identity in archaeologyrsquo In GCBond andAGilliam (eds) Social Construction of the Past representation as power pp 129ndash43 London Routledge

Sackett JR (1977) lsquoThe meaning of style in archaeology a general modelrsquo AmericanAntiquity 42(3)369ndash80

Sackett JR (1982) lsquoApproaches to style in lithic archaeologyrsquo Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 159ndash112

Sackett JR (1985) lsquoStyle and ethnicity in the Kalahari a reply to Weissnerrsquo AmericanAntiquity 50154ndash60

Sackett JR (1986) lsquoStyle function and assemblage variability a reply to BinfordrsquoAmerican Antiquity 51(3)628ndash34

Sackett JR (1991) lsquoStyle and ethnicity in archaeology the case for isochresticismrsquo In

References 171

MWConkey and CAHastorf (eds) The Uses of Style in Archaeology pp 32ndash43Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Sahlins M (1977) The Use and Abuse of Biology London Tavistock PublicationsSahlins M (1981) Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities structure in the early

history of the Sandwich Islands Kingdom Ann Arbor University of MichiganPress

Salamone FA and CHSwanson (1979) lsquoIdentity and ethnicity ethnic groups andinteractions in a multi-ethnic societyrsquo Ethnic Groups 2167ndash83

Sawday J (1995) lsquoSite of debatersquo The Times Higher Education Supplement 13January 16ndash17

Schildkrout E (1974) lsquoEthnicity and generational differences among immigrants inGhanarsquo In ACohen (ed) Urban Ethnicity pp 187ndash222 London TavistockPublications

Scott GM (1990) lsquoA resynthesis of the primordial and circumstantial approaches toethnic group solidarity towards an explanatory modelrsquo Ethnic and Racial Studies13147ndash71

Seymour-Smith C (1986) Macmillan Dictionary of Anthropology LondonMacmillan

Shanks M and CTilley (1987) Social Theory and Archaeology Oxford Polity PressShanks M and CTilley (1992 [1987]) Re-constructing Archaeology theory and

practice London RoutledgeSharp J and PMcAllister (1993) lsquoEthnicity identity and nationalism international

insights and the South African debatersquo Anthropology Today 918ndash20Shennan SJ (1978) lsquoArchaeological cultures an empirical investigationrsquo In I Hodder

(ed) The Spatial Organisation of Culture pp 113ndash39 London DuckworthShennan SJ (1988) Quantifying Archaeology Edinburgh Edinburgh University

PressShennan SJ (ed) (1989a) Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity London

Unwin amp Hyman Routledge pbk 1994Shennan SJ (1989b) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In SJShennan (ed) Archaeological Approaches

to Cultural Identity pp 1ndash32 London Unwin amp Hyman Routledge pbk 1994Shennan SJ (1991) lsquoSome current issues in the archaeological identification of past

peoplesrsquo Archaeologia Polona 2929ndash37Sherratt A (1982) lsquoMobile resources settlement and exchange in early agricultural

Europersquo In CRenfrew and SJShennan (eds) Ranking Resource and Exchangeaspects of the archaeology of early European society pp 13ndash26 CambridgeCambridge University Press

Shibutani T and KMKwan (1965) Ethnic Stratification a comparative approachNew York Macmillan

Shils EA (1957) Center and Periphery essays in macrosociology Selected papers ofEdward Shils vol II 111ndash26 Chicago Chicago University Press

Singer M (1968) lsquoThe concept of culturersquo In DLSills (ed) InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social Sciences pp 527ndash43 London Macmillan and FreePress

Sklenaacuter K (1983) Archaeology in Central Europe the first five hundred yearsLeicester Leicester University Press

Slofstra J (1983) lsquoAn anthropological approach to the study of Romanizationprocessesrsquo In RBrandt and JSlofstra (eds) Roman and Native in the LowCountries pp 71ndash103 Oxford British Archaeological Research

Smith AD (1981) The Ethnic Revival Cambridge Cambridge University PressSmith AD (1984) lsquoEthnic myths and ethnic revivalsrsquo Archives Europeacuteenes de

Sociologie 24(3) 283ndash303

172 References

Southall A (1976) lsquoNuer and Dinka are people ecology economy and logicalpossibilityrsquo Man 11463ndash91

Spaulding A (1953) lsquoStatistical techniques for the discovery of artefact typesrsquoAmerican Antiquity 18305ndash13

Spaulding A (1954) lsquoReply to Fordrsquo American Antiquity 19391ndash3Spencer J (1990) lsquoWriting within anthropology nationalism and culture in Sri

Lankarsquo Current Anthropology 31283ndash300Spratling MG (1972) lsquoSouthern British decorated bronzes of the late pre-Roman Iron

Agersquo Unpublished PhD thesis University of LondonStack JF (1986) lsquoEthnic mobilization in world politics the primordial perspectiversquo In

JFStack (ed) The Primordial Challenge ethnicity in the contemporary world pp1ndash11 London Greenwood Press

Staski E (1987) lsquoBorder city border culture assimilation and change in late 19thcentury El Pasorsquo In ASaski (ed) Living in Cities current research in historicalarchaeology pp 48ndash55 Pleasant Hill Society for Historical Archaeology

Stead IM and VRigby (1989) Verulamium the King Harry Lane site LondonHistoric Buildings and Monuments Commission

Stepan N (1982) The Idea of Race in Science Great Britain 1800ndash1960 LondonMacmillan

Stocking GW (1968) Race Culture and Evolution essays in the history ofanthropology London Collier-Macmillan

Stocking GW (1973) lsquoFrom chronology to ethnology James Cowles Prichard andBritish Anthropology 1800ndash1850rsquo In JCPrichard ((1973) [1813]) Researches intothe Physical History of Man ix-cx Chicago University of Chicago Press

Stocking GW (1974) lsquoIntroduction the basic assumptions of Boasian anthropologyrsquoIn GWStocking (ed) The Shaping of American Anthropology 1883ndash1911 a FranzBoas reader pp 1ndash20 New York Basic Books

Stocking GW (1987) Victorian Anthropology New York The Free PressStocking GW (1988) lsquoBones bodies behaviourrsquo In GWStocking (ed) Bones Bodies

Behaviour essays on biological anthropology pp 3ndash17 Madison University ofWisconsin Press

Stone PG and RMacKenzie (eds) (1990) The Excluded Past archaeology ineducation London Unwin Hyman Routledge pbk 1994

Tajfel H (1982) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In HTajfel (ed) Social Identity and IntergroupRelations pp 1ndash11 New York Academic Press

Tallgren AM (1937) lsquoThe method of prehistoric archaeologyrsquo Antiquity 11 152ndash64Targett S (1995) lsquoNationalismrsquos healthy statersquo Times Higher Education Supplement

27 March 9Taylor L (1987) lsquoThe same but different social reproduction and innovation in the art

of the Kunwinjku of western Arnhem Landrsquo Unpublished PhD thesis AustralianNational University

Taylor WWJr (1948) A Study of Archaeology Menasha American AnthropologicalAssociation

Thomas N (1991) Entangled Objects exchange material culture and colonialism inthe Pacific Cambridge Mass Harvard University Press

Thomas J (1996) Time Culture and Identity an interpretive archaeology LondonRoutledge

Thurnwald R (1932) lsquoThe psychology of acculturationrsquo American Anthropologist34 557ndash69

Tilley C (1982) lsquoSocial formation social structures and social changersquo In I Hodder(ed) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology pp 26ndash38 Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

References 173

Tilley C (1991) Material Culture and Text the art of ambiguity London RoutledgeTonkin E MMcDonald and MChapman (eds) (1989) History and Ethnicity

London RoutledgeTonkinson ME (1990) lsquoIs it in the blood Australian Aboriginal identityrsquo In J

Linnekin and LPoyer (eds) Cultural Identity and Ethnicity in the Pacific pp 191ndash309 Honolulu University of Hawaii Press

Torrence R (1989) lsquoTools as optimal solutionsrsquo In RTorrence (ed) Time Energy andStone Tools pp 1ndash6 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Trigger EG (1977) lsquoComments on archaeological classification and ethnic groupsrsquoNorwegian Archaeological Review 1020ndash3

Trigger BG (1978) Time and Traditions essays in archaeological interpretationEdinburgh Edinburgh University Press

Trigger BG (1980) Gordon Childe revolutions in archaeology London Thames ampHudson

Trigger BG (1984) lsquoAlternative archaeologies nationalist colonialist imperialistrsquoMan 19355ndash70

Trigger BG (1989) A History of Archaeological Thought Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Trigger BG (1995) lsquoRomanticism nationalism and archaeologyrsquo In PL Kohl andCFawcett (eds) Nationalism Politics and the Practice of Archaeology pp 263ndash79London Routledge

Turner T (1991) lsquoRepresenting resisting rethinking historical transformations ofKayapo culture and anthropological consciousnessrsquo In GWStocking (ed) ColonialSituations essays on the contextualization of ethnographic knowledge pp 285ndash313 Madison University of Wisconsin Press

Tylor EB (1873 [1871]) Primitive Culture vols 1 and 2 London John MurrayUcko PJ (1969) lsquoEthnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary

remainsrsquo World Archaeology 1(2)262ndash80Ucko PJ (1983a) lsquoThe politics of the indigenous minorityrsquo Journal of Biosocial

Science Supplement 825ndash40Ucko PJ (1983b) lsquoAustralian academic archaeology Aboriginal transformations of its

aims and practicesrsquo Australian Archaeology 1611ndash26Ucko PJ (1987) Academic Freedom and Apartheid the story of the World

Archaeological Congress London DuckworthUcko PJ (1989) lsquoForewordrsquo In SJShennan (ed) Archaeological Approaches to

Cultural Identity pp ix-xx London Unwin amp Hyman Routledge pbk 1994Ucko PJ (1994) lsquoMuseums and sites cultures of the past within educationmdash

Zimbabwe some ten years onrsquo In PGStone and BLMolyneux (eds) The PresentedPast heritage museums education pp 237ndash82 London Routledge

Ucko PJ (ed) (1995a) Theory in Archaeology a world perspective LondonRoutledge

Ucko PJ (1995b) lsquoIntroduction archaeological interpretation in a world contextrsquo InPJUcko (ed) Theory in Archaeology a world perspective pp 1ndash27 LondonRoutledge

UNESCO (1950) lsquoStatement on racersquo Reprinted in LKuper (ed) (1975) Race Scienceand Society pp 343ndash7 Paris UNESCO Press

Vail L (1988) lsquoIntroduction ethnicity in southern African prehistoryrsquo In LVail (ed)The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa pp 1ndash19 London James Curry

van den Berghe PL (1978) lsquoRace and ethnicity a sociobiological perspectiversquo Ethnicand Racial Studies 1401ndash11

Veit U (1989) lsquoEthnic concepts in German prehistory a case study on the relationshipbetween cultural identity and objectivityrsquo In SJShennan (ed) Archaeological

174 References

Approaches to Cultural Identity pp 35ndash56 London Unwin amp Hyman Routledgepbk 1994

Vermeulen H and CGovers (1994) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In HVermeulen and C Covers(eds) The Anthropology of Ethnicity beyond lsquoEthnic Groups and Boundariesrsquo pp1ndash9 Amsterdam Het Spinhuis

Vincent J (1974) lsquoThe structuring of ethnicityrsquo Human Organisation 33(4)375ndash9Wade P (1992) lsquoldquoRacerdquo nature and culturersquo Man 2817ndash34Wallerstein I (1960) lsquoEthnicity and national integration in West Africarsquo Cahiers

drsquoEtudes Africaines 1(3)129ndash39Wallman S (1977) lsquoEthnicity research in Britainrsquo Current Anthropology 18(3)531ndash2Washburn DK (1989) lsquoThe property of symmetry and the concept of ethnic stylersquo In

SJShennan (ed) Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity pp 157ndash73London Unwin amp Hyman Routledge pbk 1994

Webster J (1996) lsquoRoman imperialism and the ldquopost-imperial agerdquorsquo In JWebster andNCooper (eds) Roman Imperialism post-colonial perspectives pp 1ndash17Leicester School of Archaeological Studies University of Leicester

Whallon JJr (1968) lsquoInvestigations of late prehistoric social organization in New YorkStatersquo In SRBinford and LRBinford (eds) New Perspectives in Archeology pp223ndash44 Chicago Aldine

Whitehouse R and JBWilkins (1989) lsquoGreeks and natives in south-east Italyapproaches to the archaeological evidencersquo In TCChampion (ed) Centre andPeriphery comparative studies in archaeology pp 102ndash26 London Unwin ampHyman

Wiessner P (1983) lsquoStyle and ethnicity in the Kalahari San projectile pointrsquo AmericanAntiquity 48253ndash76

Wiessner P (1984) lsquoReconsidering the behavioural basis for style a case study amongthe Kalahari Sanrsquo Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3190ndash234

Wiessner P (1985) lsquoStyle or isochrestic variation A reply to Sackettrsquo AmericanAntiquity 50160ndash5

Wiessner P (1989) lsquoStyle and changing relations between the individual and societyrsquo InIHodder (ed) The Meanings of Things pp 56ndash63 London Unwin amp Hyman

Willey GR and PPhillips (1958) Method and Theory in American ArchaeologyChicago University of Chicago Press

Willey GR and JASabloff (1974) A History of American Archaeology LondonThames amp Hudson

Williams B (1989) lsquoA class act anthropology and the race to nation across ethnicterrainrsquo Annual Review of Anthropology 18401ndash44

Williams R (1983 [1976]) Keywords a vocabulary of culture and society LondonFontana

Willis S (1993) lsquoAspects of pottery assemblages of the late Iron Agefirst century ADin the east and north-east of Englandrsquo Unpublished PhD thesis University ofDurham

Willis S (1994) lsquoRoman imports into late Iron Age British societies towards a critiqueof existing modelsrsquo In SCottam DDungworth SScott and JTaylor (eds)Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference pp141ndash50 Oxford Oxford Books

Wilson R (ed) (1970) Rationality Oxford Basil BlackwellWiwjorra I (1996) lsquoGerman archaeology and its relation to nationalism and racismrsquo

In MDiacuteaz-Andreu and TCChampion (eds) Nationalism and Archaeology inEurope pp 164ndash88 London University College London Press

Wobst M (1977) lsquoStylistic behaviour and information exchangersquo In CECleland (ed)

References 175

For the Director research essays in honour of the late James BGriffin pp 317ndash42Ann Arbor University of Michigan

Wobst M (1989) lsquoCommentary a socio-politics of socio-politics in archaeologyrsquo InVPinsky and AWylie (eds) Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeologyessays in the philosophy history and socio-politics of archaeology pp 136ndash40Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Wolf ER (1982) Europe and the People Without History Berkeley University ofCalifornia Press

Woodman P (1995) lsquoWho possesses Tara Politics in archaeology in Irelandrsquo InPJUcko (ed) Theory in Archaeology a world perspective pp 278ndash97 LondonRoutledge

Woolf G (1992) lsquoThe unity and diversity of Romanizationrsquo Journal of RomanArchaeology 5349ndash52

Wylie A (1989) lsquoMatters of fact and matters of interestrsquo In SJShennan (ed)Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity pp 94ndash109 London Unwin ampHyman Routledge pbk 1994

Wylie A (1993) lsquoA proliferation of new archaeologies ldquobeyond objectivism andrelativismrdquorsquo In NYoffee and ASherratt (eds) Archaeological Theory who sets theagenda pp 20ndash6 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Yelvington KA (1991) lsquoEthnicity as practice A comment on Bentleyrsquo ComparativeStudies in Society and History 33158ndash68

Yinger MJ (1983) lsquoEthnicity and social change the interaction of structural culturaland personality factorsrsquo Ethnic and Racial Studies 6(4)395ndash409

Yoffee N and ASherratt (1993) lsquoIntroduction the sources of archaeological theoryrsquoIn NYoffee and ASherratt (eds) Archaeological Theory who sets the agenda pp1ndash9 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Young RJC (1995) Colonial Desire hybridity in theory culture and race LondonRoutledge

Zerubavel Y (1994) lsquoThe death of memory and the memory of death Masada and theHolocaust as historical metaphorsrsquo Representations 4572ndash100

Zwernemann J (1983) Culture History and African Anthropology a century ofresearch in Germany and Austria Uppsala Acta University Uppsala

176

acculturationconceptualization ofsociety as holistic and static 50ndash163 process of 53ndash4 theorization of50 see also Romanization

Americaculture-history discussion ofits characteristics in 18ndash21 culturalanthropology characteristics of 46ndash7

anthropologycultural diversityapproaches to 40ndash55 culture itsmonolithic conception of 48ndash9 raceconcept of 41ndash5 tribe concept of49ndash52 see also ethnology

archaeological cultureconceptualization of 16ndash18 24ndash5108 137 correlation of withpeoples discussion of 2ndash3 15ndash1924ndash5 29ndash31 106ndash10 materialculture discussion of the use of todefine archaeological cultures 16ndash18 new archaeologyrsquos retention of anormative conceptualization of 26ndash7 109 see also Childe cultureculture-history

archaeologyarchaeologicalclassification discussion of 36ndash9130ndash1 colonialist archaeologydefinition of 9 and the constructionand legitimation of cultural identitydiscussion of 1ndash2 8ndash10 135ndash44culture its monolithic conception of49 data discussion of theimplications of its theory-ladennature for the study of ethnicity138ndash 40 empiricism its retreat inresponse to nationalist use of 3 5

11ndash12 imperialist archaeologydefinition of 9 and the legitimationof national identity 2ndash3 6 8ndash10 12135ndash44 nationalist archaeologydefinition and development of 6 8Nazi Germany discussion of its useof archaeology 2ndash3 objectivitydiscussion of the undermining of10ndash11 138ndash40 143 world-orientated archaeology definition of9 see also archaeological cultureculture-history nationalistarchaeology new archaeology post-processualism

assimilationsee acculturation Barth Fethnic boundaries explanation

of the persistence of 73ethnicgroup discussion of the definition of59ndash60 ethnicity subjectivistapproach to 59ndash60instrumentalismrole in the development of 72ndash4

Bentley GCpractice theory ofethnicity critique of 93ndash5 practicetheory of ethnicity definition anddiscussion of 90ndash1 92ndash4 see alsopractice theory of ethnicity

Binford LRartefact and assemblagevariation discussion of histheorization of 110ndash11 culture-history critique of itsconceptualization of culture 26 107ethnicity use of the concept toexplain stylistic variation 111 seealso new archaeology

Boas Fculture discussion of the role

Index

Index 177

of in the development of the conceptof 46ndash7 unilinear evolutiondiscussion of his opposition to 47

Bourdieu Pagency conceptualizationof 91 doxa concept of 94 95habitus concept of 88ndash90 94theory of practice account of 88ndash9094ndash5 117 149 see also practicetheory of ethnicity theory of practice

Childe VGarchaeological culture

discussion of his conceptualizationof 17ndash18 24ndash5 108 and theestablishment of the culture-historyapproach in Britain discussion of hisrole in 16ndash17 his normativeconceptualization of archaeologicalculture 17ndash18 24ndash5

classificationarchaeologicalclassification discussion of 36ndash9130ndash1 evolutionary frameworkdiscussion of the use of to classifycultural stages 42ndash5 physical typesdiscussion of the classification ofhumanity as 41ndash2

cultural anthropologyAmericantradition characteristics of 46ndash7 seealso Boas ethnology

cultural evolutionismevolutionaryframework discussion of the use ofto classify cultural stages 42ndash5 racediscussion of the use of the conceptof in social-evolutionary theory 42ndash3 46 unilinear evolution its beliefin 45ndash6

cultureanthropologyrsquos monolithicconception of 48ndash9 archaeologicalconceptualization of discussion of16ndash18 24ndash5 108 137 arbitrarynature of the concept of 49ndash50Boasdiscussion of the role of in thedevelopment of the concept ofculture 46ndash7 boundaries ofdiscussion of the problems of thedefinition of 50 culturalauthenticity discussion of theconstruction of 48ndash50 103ndash4 137ndash8 cultural objectification discussionof the role of in the construction ofethnicity 94ndash6 97 128dissatisfaction with the concept of51ndash2 emergence of the concept of

48 functionalist approaches tocritique of 116ndash17 KulturkreisSchool discussion of itsconceptualization of 46 nationalistdiscourse culturersquos central role in136ndash8 new archaeologyrsquosconceptualization of 26 see alsoarchaeological culture

culture-historyadoption of discussionof the reasons for24characterization of 5 Childediscussion of role in theestablishment of in Britain 16ndash17 itsconservative conceptualization ofarchaeological culture 24ndash5 itscorrelation between archaeologicalcultures and peoples discussion of2ndash3 15ndash19 24ndash5 28ndash9 31 demiseof 26 dominance of in twentieth-century archaeology 5 21 ethnicgroups discussion of its approach tothe identification of 15ndash26 ethnicityin the Iron Age its approach to 29ndash31 Europe discussion of itscharacteristics in 15ndash18nationalism its close associationwith 135ndash7 new archaeologyrsquoscritique of its normative view ofculture 26 its normativeconceptualization of 17ndash 18 24ndash5North America discussion of itscharacteristics in 18ndash21Romanization discussion of theimportance of culture-historyconcepts in the theorization of 29ndash39 theoretical assumptions of 21ndash4see also Childe

doxaconcept of 94 95 see also theory

of practice ethnic groupBarthrsquos definition of 59ndash

60 definition of x 84 culture-history discussion of its approach tothe identification of 15ndash26definition of discussion of theproblems of 61ndash3 material culturediscussion of its use to define ethnicgroups 16ndash18objectivist approachto 57ndash9 63ndash4 objectivist definitionof 63ndash4 as self-defining systems 6064 style discussion of its use in the

178 Index

communication of group identity113ndash15 subjectivist approach to57ndash61 subjectivist definition ofcritique of 61ndash2 as a substitute forthe concept of tribe 52 see alsoethnic identity ethnicity

ethnic identitydefinition of x see alsoethnic group ethnicity

ethnicitycommunication of 99culturalobjectification discussion of the roleof in the construction of 94ndash6 97128 data discussion of theimplications of its theory-ladennature for the study of ethnicity138ndash40 definition of the nature ofdiscussion of the problems of 61ndash4definition of discussion of thefactors influencing the definition of56ndash9 definitions of x 57 58 5961emergence of 96ndash7 100ndash3emergence of interest in the study ofdiscussion of 51ndash5 historicaltheories of 100ndash5 instrumentalistapproach to discussion of 72ndash9integrated theoretical approach todiscussion of the attempts to define79ndash83 and material culturediscussion of the relationshipbetween 119ndash25 new archaeologyrsquoslack of interest in 5 26objectivistapproach to 57ndash9 63ndash4 objectivistdefinition of 57 practice theory of90ndash1 92ndash3 123 125ndash7 140primordial approach to discussionof 65ndash72 primordialism discussionof its explanation of thepsychological dimension of ethnicity66ndash70 72 processual approach tocritique of 85 86 processualapproach to definition anddiscussion of 84ndash7 its relationshipwith material culture discussion of12ndash13 106ndash27 socio-biologydiscussion of its theories of ethnicity67ndash8 style discussion of its use inthe communication of group identity113ndash15 World ArchaeologyCongress its role in fostering debateon ethnicity and nationalism 6 seealso ethnic group ethnic identityethnic revival

ethnic revivaldiscussion of 51 54100ndash2

ethnologyrace discussion of itsconceptualization of 41ndash2

functionalismanti-historical nature of

47 49 Durkheimrsquos influence on thedevelopment of 47 functionalistapproaches to culture critique of116ndash17 its organicconceptualization of society 47ndash8society and social structure its focuson 47 48 society itsconceptualization of 47ndash8

GermanyNazi Germany discussion of

its use of archaeology 2ndash3 habitusconcept of 88ndash90 94 see also

theory of practiceHodder Imaterial culture discussion

of its relationship with ethnicity114ndash15 120ndash1

identityarchaeology and the

construction and legitimation ofcultural identity 1ndash3 6 8ndash10 12135ndash44 see also ethnicity

indigenous groupsalternativeinterpretations of the past 10ndash11archaeology discussion of the useof 10 136 past political role of 10136 143

instrumentalismcharacteristics of 72ndash6collective perspective of 74critiqueof 76ndash9 88 culture its neglect of79 development of 72ndash5ethnicitydiscussion of its approach to 72ndash9individualistic perspective of 73ndash4reductionist nature of 78ndash9 see alsoBarth

Iron AgeBritain 29ndash33culture-historyrsquosapproach to ethnicity in 29ndash30Romanization discussion of theimportance of culture-historyconcepts in the theorization of 33ndash4

Kossinna Garchaeological culture

discussion of his conceptualizationof 16 nationalistic and racist natureof the work of 2 Nazi Germany its

Index 179

use of the work of 2ndash3 post-warvilification of 3

Kulturkreis Schoolits conceptualizationof culture discussion of 46

material culturearchaeological cultures

discussion of the use of materialculture to define 16ndash18 artefact andassemblage variation discussion ofBinfordrsquos theorization of 110ndash11 itsconstitutive role in social practice117ndash19 and ethnicity discussion ofthe relationship between 12ndash13106ndash 27 ethnicity use of materialculture to communicate 114ndash15120ndash1 meaning and 118ndash19

nationalismarchaeologyrsquos retreat to

empiricism in response to nationalistuse of 3 5 11ndash12 archaeology andthe legitimation of national identity2ndash3 6 8ndash10 12 135ndash44 andarchaeology discussion of its use of2ndash3 culture its central role innationalist discourse 136ndash8culture-history its close association with135ndash7 Nazi Germany discussion ofits use of archaeology 2ndash3 WorldArchaeology Congress its role infostering debate on ethnicity andnationalism 6

nationalist archaeologydefinition of6development of 6 8

new archaeologycorrelation betweenarchaeological cultures and peoplesits critique of 5 107ndash9 culturechange discussion of its interest in26 culture discussion of itsconceptualization of 26 culture-history new archaeologyrsquos critiqueof 26 105 definition of 5144establishment of 26 ethnicityits disinterest in 5 26ndash7 itsfunctionalist account of culture 110ndash12 116functionalist nature of 26its retention of a normativeconceptualization of archaeologicalculture 26ndash7 109

objectivismethnicity critique of the

objectivist definition of 57 ethnicity

discussion of the objectivistapproach to 57 58 59 63ndash4

objectivityin archaeology discussion ofthe undermining of 10ndash11 138ndash 40143

politics of archaeology discussion of

5ndash6 10 138ndash41 144post-processualismcritiques of 10ndash

11ethnicity its approach to 28 itsinterest in contemporary socio-political issues 5ndash6

practice theory of ethnicitydefinitionand discussion of 90ndash1 92ndash3 123125ndash7 140

primordialismconcept of 65 critique of68ndash72 87ndash8 culture and ethnicityits neglect of the relationshipbetween 88 ethnicity discussion ofits approach to 65ndash72 persistence ofethnic identity discussion ofprimordialismrsquos explanation of 65ndash6 70ndash1 psychological dimension ofethnicity discussion of itsexplanation of 66ndash70 72

processualismsee new archaeology raceethnology discussion of its

conceptualization of race 41ndash2nineteenth-century use of toconceptualize human groupsdiscussion of 41ndash5 persistence ofthe concept of into the twentiethcentury 44ndash5 social-evolutionarytheory discussion of the role of theconcept of race in 42ndash3

Romanizationcontextual approach todefinition and discussion of 130ndash5critique of the conceptualization of129ndash31 culture-history conceptsdiscussion of the importance of inthe theorization of 33ndash4 its parallelswith the concept of acculturation33ndash4 processes of 29ndash30 socialinterpretations of discussion andcritique of 34ndash6

Sackett JRstylistic variation critique

of his theorization of 122 stylisticvariation discussion of histheorization of 111ndash12 121ndash2 seealso style

180 Index

social evolutionismevolutionaryframework discussion of the use ofto classify cultural stages 42ndash5 racediscussion of the use of the conceptof in social-evolutionary theory 42ndash3 46 unilinear evolution its beliefin 45ndash6

societyboundaries of discussion of thedifficulty of the delineation of50dissatisfaction with the conceptof 51 52 monolithicconceptualization of 48ndash9structural-functionalismrsquosconceptualization of 47ndash8

socio-biologyethnicity discussion of itstheories of 67ndash8

structural-functionalismanti-historicalnature of 47 49 Durkheimrsquosinfluence on the development of47functionalist approaches toculture critique of 116ndash17 itsorganic conceptualization of society47ndash8society and social structure itsfocus on 47ndash8 society itsconceptualization of 47ndash8

styleas active communicationtheorization of 112ndash15 Binfordrsquosuse of the concept of ethnicity toexplain stylistic variation 111 groupidentity discussion of the use of stylein the communication of 113ndash15Sackettrsquos theorization of stylisticvariation 111ndash12 Wiessnerrsquostheorization of 11ndash12 121ndash2 seealso Sackett Wiessner

subjectivityEarthrsquos subjectivistapproach to ethnicity 59ndash60 ethnicgroup critique of subjectivismrsquosdefinition of 61ndash2 ethnicity critiqueof the subjectivist approach to61ethnicity discussion of thesubjectivist approach to 57ndash61 seealso Barth

taxonomyarchaeological classification

discussion of 36ndash9 130ndash1evolutionary frameworkdiscussion of the use of to classifycultural stages 42ndash5 physical typesdiscussion of the classification ofhumanity as 41ndash2

theory of practiceaccount of 88ndash9094ndash5 117 149 doxa concept of94 95 habitus concept of 88ndash9094 see also Bourdieu practicetheory of ethnicity

tribearbitrary nature of the concept of49 boundaries of discussion of thedifficulty of the delineation of50conceptualization of discussionof 48 50ndash1 critique of the conceptof 52 dissatisfaction with theconcept of 52

Wiessner Pstyle discussion of her

theorization of 11ndash12 121ndash2 seealso style

World Archaeology Congressrole of infostering debate on ethnicity andnationalism 6

Book Cover

Title

Copyright

Contents


The study of ethnicity is a highly controversial area in contemporaryarchaeology The identification of lsquoculturesrsquo from archaeological remainsand their association with past ethnic groups is now seen by many ashopelessly inadequate Yet such an approach continues to play a significantrole in archaeological enquiry and in the legitimation of modern ethnic andnational claims

Siacircn Jones responds to the need for a radical reassessment of the ways inwhich past cultural groups are reconstructed from archaeological evidencewith a comprehensive and critical synthesis of recent theories of ethnicity inthe human sciences In doing so she develops a new framework for theanalysis of ethnicity in archaeology which takes into account the dynamicand situational nature of ethnic identification

Opening up the important issues of ethnicity and identity this bookaddresses important methodological interpretive and political issues It willprovide invaluable reading for the student of archaeology and otherdisciplines in the human sciences

Siacircn Jones is Parkes Fellow at the University of Southampton where she isundertaking research on ethnicity in ancient Palestine She is co-editor ofCultural Identity and Archaeology The Construction of EuropeanCommunities (Routledge 1996)



Siacircn Jones

London and New York







For PJU


vii

Contents


1 Introduction 1





viii Contents




ix

Figures









x

Preface



Preface xi






xii Preface



xiii

Definitions







1

Chapter 1

Introduction





2 Introduction




Introduction 3





Introduction 5




6 Introduction




8 Introduction



Introduction 9



10 Introduction





Introduction 11


(Kohl 1993a15)5



12 Introduction




Introduction 13




14 Introduction


15

Chapter 2



CULTURE-HISTORY




























Figu

re 2

4 T

he a

chie

vem

ent o

f the

Eur

opea

n Br

onze

Age

180

014

00 B

C

afte

r Haw

kes

(194

0 m

ap V

I and

tabl

e VI

)














(Binford 1965204)













(Renfrew 197217)







































Figu

re 2

6 L

ocat

ion

map

sho

win

g th

e m

ain

arch

aeol

ogic

al s

ites

datin

g to

the

late

pre

-Rom

an Ir

on A

ge a

nd e

arly

Rom

an p

erio

d in

Esse

x an

d H

ertfo

rdsh

ire









40

Chapter 3



(Bourdieu 19901)



















































































56

Chapter 4


















(Moerman 19651216)3



(Ibid)








































(Isaacs 197416)








(Isaacs 197415)
























(Kellas 19919)




(Kellas 199119)









(Ibid 381)






























(Bentley 198748)





















(McKay 1982396)








(Smith 198144)










84

Chapter 5































(Bourdieu 197772)
























































(Eriksen 199233)










(Calhoun 199377)






























106

Chapter 6





















































(Ibid 185)































































(Conkey 199112)

128

Chapter 7






Conclusions 129







130 Conclusions




Conclusions 131




132 Conclusions




Conclusions 133





134 Conclusions





Conclusions 135





136 Conclusions




Conclusions 137





138 Conclusions





Conclusions 139




140 Conclusions




Conclusions 141





142 Conclusions



Conclusions 143





144 Conclusions



145

Notes

1 INTRODUCTION






146 Notes













Notes 147













148 Notes















Notes 149












150 Notes











Notes 151











152 Notes



153

References


















154 References


























References 155





















156 References






















Paul

References 157























158 References

























References 159
























160 References

























References 161





















162 References






















References 163

























164 References






















References 165
























166 References























References 167






















168 References























References 169




















170 References
























References 171

























172 References

























References 173

























174 References






















References 175














176












Index

Index 177














178 Index



















Index 179























180 Index














Book Cover

Title

Copyright

Contents



Siacircn Jones

London and New York







For PJU


vii

Contents


1 Introduction 1





viii Contents




ix

Figures









x

Preface



Preface xi






xii Preface



xiii

Definitions







1

Chapter 1

Introduction





2 Introduction




Introduction 3





Introduction 5




6 Introduction




8 Introduction



Introduction 9



10 Introduction





Introduction 11


(Kohl 1993a15)5



12 Introduction




Introduction 13




14 Introduction


15

Chapter 2



CULTURE-HISTORY




























Figu

re 2

4 T

he a

chie

vem

ent o

f the

Eur

opea

n Br

onze

Age

180

014

00 B

C

afte

r Haw

kes

(194

0 m

ap V

I and

tabl

e VI

)














(Binford 1965204)













(Renfrew 197217)







































Figu

re 2

6 L

ocat

ion

map

sho

win

g th

e m

ain

arch

aeol

ogic

al s

ites

datin

g to

the

late

pre

-Rom

an Ir

on A

ge a

nd e

arly

Rom

an p

erio

d in

Esse

x an

d H

ertfo

rdsh

ire









40

Chapter 3



(Bourdieu 19901)



















































































56

Chapter 4


















(Moerman 19651216)3



(Ibid)








































(Isaacs 197416)








(Isaacs 197415)
























(Kellas 19919)




(Kellas 199119)









(Ibid 381)






























(Bentley 198748)





















(McKay 1982396)








(Smith 198144)










84

Chapter 5































(Bourdieu 197772)
























































(Eriksen 199233)










(Calhoun 199377)






























106

Chapter 6





















































(Ibid 185)































































(Conkey 199112)

128

Chapter 7






Conclusions 129







130 Conclusions




Conclusions 131




132 Conclusions




Conclusions 133





134 Conclusions





Conclusions 135





136 Conclusions




Conclusions 137





138 Conclusions





Conclusions 139




140 Conclusions




Conclusions 141





142 Conclusions



Conclusions 143





144 Conclusions



145

Notes

1 INTRODUCTION






146 Notes













Notes 147













148 Notes















Notes 149












150 Notes











Notes 151











152 Notes



153

References


















154 References


























References 155





















156 References






















Paul

References 157























158 References

























References 159
























160 References

























References 161





















162 References






















References 163

























164 References






















References 165
























166 References























References 167






















168 References























References 169




















170 References
























References 171

























172 References

























References 173

























174 References






















References 175














176












Index

Index 177














178 Index



















Index 179























180 Index














Book Cover

Title

Copyright

Contents







For PJU


vii

Contents


1 Introduction 1





viii Contents




ix

Figures









x

Preface



Preface xi






xii Preface



xiii

Definitions







1

Chapter 1

Introduction





2 Introduction




Introduction 3





Introduction 5




6 Introduction




8 Introduction



Introduction 9



10 Introduction





Introduction 11


(Kohl 1993a15)5



12 Introduction




Introduction 13




14 Introduction


15

Chapter 2



CULTURE-HISTORY




























Figu

re 2

4 T

he a

chie

vem

ent o

f the

Eur

opea

n Br

onze

Age

180

014

00 B

C

afte

r Haw

kes

(194

0 m

ap V

I and

tabl

e VI

)














(Binford 1965204)













(Renfrew 197217)







































Figu

re 2

6 L

ocat

ion

map

sho

win

g th

e m

ain

arch

aeol

ogic

al s

ites

datin

g to

the

late

pre

-Rom

an Ir

on A

ge a

nd e

arly

Rom

an p

erio

d in

Esse

x an

d H

ertfo

rdsh

ire









40

Chapter 3



(Bourdieu 19901)



















































































56

Chapter 4


















(Moerman 19651216)3



(Ibid)








































(Isaacs 197416)








(Isaacs 197415)
























(Kellas 19919)




(Kellas 199119)









(Ibid 381)






























(Bentley 198748)





















(McKay 1982396)








(Smith 198144)










84

Chapter 5































(Bourdieu 197772)
























































(Eriksen 199233)










(Calhoun 199377)






























106

Chapter 6





















































(Ibid 185)































































(Conkey 199112)

128

Chapter 7






Conclusions 129







130 Conclusions




Conclusions 131




132 Conclusions




Conclusions 133





134 Conclusions





Conclusions 135





136 Conclusions




Conclusions 137





138 Conclusions





Conclusions 139




140 Conclusions




Conclusions 141





142 Conclusions



Conclusions 143





144 Conclusions



145

Notes

1 INTRODUCTION






146 Notes













Notes 147













148 Notes















Notes 149












150 Notes











Notes 151











152 Notes



153

References


















154 References


























References 155





















156 References






















Paul

References 157























158 References

























References 159
























160 References

























References 161





















162 References






















References 163

























164 References






















References 165
























166 References























References 167






















168 References























References 169




















170 References
























References 171

























172 References

























References 173

























174 References






















References 175














176












Index

Index 177














178 Index



















Index 179























180 Index














Book Cover

Title

Copyright

Contents

The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the - KarAnt

Documents

Transcript of The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the - KarAnt