Ancient Ethnicity and Modern Identity 69the other hand it romanticizes and obscures the dynamics of this relationship (see Eller
and Coughlan 1993 for a critique of primordialism).
Essentialized Antiquity
Race theories and the primordial perspective have informed Classical Studies in various
ways. The following text will examine them as one continuous discourse since they both
rest on essentialistic foundations. There are many examples where the term “race” was
replaced with other terms, but this was not accompanied with a conceptual redefinition
(Hall 1997: 13). This is not the place for a comprehensive treatment of the permeation
of race theories in Classical Studies. Suffice to say that there are countless examples of
classical antiquity being conceptualized through race theories. There is a growing body of
studies that have elaborated on various convergences between Classical Studies and race
theories (see Herzfeld 1982; Hall 1997: 5–9; Leoussi 1998, 2009; Vick 2002: 490–1;
Hamilakis 2007). The race theories developed in northwestern Europe have received
considerable attention by now. It is perhaps less well known that the Mediterranean
states also developed racial doctrines and eugenic practices (see Trubeta 2006 for Greece;
D’Agostino 2002 for Italy; Özkirimli and Sofos 2008 for Turkey).
The same elements appear in archaeological discourse. A foundational principle in
late-nineteenth–early-twentieth-century culture–historical archaeology was that the spa-
tial and chronological distribution of an archaeological culture reflected the distribution
of a people (e.g., Kossina 1911; Childe 1925, 1926, 1929; Kossina 1928; see Jones 1997:
15–25). The scholarly debates concerned which people should be identified with each
archaeological culture, not the assumption that this was a valid association to make. The
culture–historical principle influenced the interpretation of the rich prehistoric archeo-
logical finds from Troy, Mycenae, Knossos, and other places excavated from the 1870s
onward. In the late nineteenth century, these archaeological cultures were often per-
ceived as non-Greek, for example, Phoenician, North Syrian, or Carian, due to the large
stylistic differences between them and the finds from the Classical Period (see Myres
1933; Siapkas 2014). Greek archaeologists had a different view, and argued for the
Greekness of Aegean Prehistory (Tsountas and Manatt 1897; Voutsaki 2002: 117–21).
This position became widely accepted during the twentieth century (e.g., Wace and
Blegen 1916).
We should, however, be careful not to confine theoretical perspectives in the human-
ities to a particular period. The culture–historical assumption that the distribution of
archaeological cultures reflects the distribution of a people continues to be made (see
Siapkas 2003: 46–59). Contributions such as Jacob-Felsch (1988), Foley (1988), Eder
(1990), and Parker (1995) elaborate on the Dorians by assuming that the distribution of
cultural traits reflects the distribution of a people. In seminal publications such as Bernal
(1987), Burkert (1992), and West (1997), cultures and ethnic groups are conceptualized
as homogeneous, monolithic, and immutable entities. I would argue that Susan Lape’s
preference for race in her study of fifth-century-BCAthenian citizen identity is another
example of the tenacity of the race discourse in Classical Studies (Lape 2010). In other
words, the essentialistic foundations of race discourses, culture–historical archaeology,
and primordial ethnicity continue to shape our conceptualizations of classical antiquity.