Mediterranean Archaeology and Ethnicity 37biology and physical differences are the least effective. Moreover, no single factor can
be equated directly with ethnicity—neither language nor culture, nor technology, nor
material culture. Some archaeologists seem to assume that documentary or inscriptional
evidence constitutes an infallible pointer to ethnicity. Yet, such evidence typically reflects
élite, centrist concerns, as is exemplified in the case study that follows.
Some other obstacles that archaeologists face in defining a specific ethnic group include:
(1) distinguishing material culture complexes and delimiting their boundaries; (2) trac-
ing variability in material or behavioral traits through time and space; and (3) isolating
material factors that relate specifically to a group’s ethnicity rather than its social, eco-
nomic, or political circumstances (Bloch-Smith 2003: 406). This is not to say, however,
that material culture plays no role in establishing ethnicity.
If the material indicators of ethnicity are difficult to isolate in the archaeological record,
other material correlates of ethnically specific behavior may be more readily represented.
Diaz-Andreu (1998: 212), for example, suggests that people use materiality to display
theirperceptionof ethnicity and/or to negotiate their identity. However, if ethnicity
revolves so closely around perception, then identifying the material patterns that people
use to negotiate their various identities poses another challenge to archaeologists.
There is no one-to-one correlation, for example, between a stylistic group and an
ethnic group (Hodder 1982: 13–36); moreover, the distribution of certain pottery
types, weapons, or other material things may represent the boundaries of an exchange
system or a political entity rather than an ethnic identity (Emberling 1997: 311).
Some markers of ethnicity, however, seem to be more telling than others: cooking
utensils and foodstuffs as well as household features and forms (Meskell 2001: 189–90;
Twiss 2007).
Bentley (1987: 27–9) argued that ethnicity could be linked to Bourdieu’s (1977, 1990)
theory of practice, particularly to the concept ofhabitus. Put simply,habitusrefers to the
durable but unconscious dispositions that people hold toward certain common percep-
tions and practices (e.g., daily tasks, labor skills), which may generate patterned behavior.
Of course, people’shabitusis subject to change, from generation to generation, or when
the material and economic conditions of life change. Nonetheless Bentley’s views have
impacted on various archaeological studies of ethnicity (e.g., Shennan 1989: 14–17;
Jones 1997: 90–6). Mills (2004: 5), moreover, argues that unconscious habitual choices
are more useful than intentional choices in distinguishing practices associated with social
identities.
Constructing an ethnic identity might involve the intentional use of specific material
features as identifying markers, which might be reflected in household organization, rit-
ual or mortuary practices, cuisine (cooking pots, faunal data, organic residues analysis),
weapons or jewelry, representations of clothing or bodily ornaments, and even utensils or
tools (Comaroff and Comaroff 1992: 74–7; Emberling 1997: 325). Such shared material
and social practices may be actively involved in signifying ethnic boundaries or creating
social identities.
Discussions of materiality and identity have attracted further archaeological attention
(e.g., Diaz-Andreu et al. 2005). Because archaeology involves the study of the long term,
it is well suited to considering how people establish identity as something enduring, if not
necessarily consistent (Rowlands 1994: 132). Many people’s social lives and identities are