Ancient Ethnicity and Modern Identity 71constructed. In essentializing discourses, identities are viewed as fixed and given. This
is inverted in instrumentalism, at least in theory. Thus, identities are conceptualized as
mutable, and are considered to be shaped through the relations with others. Identities are
constructed through a process that involves a conceptual distinction between “Us” and
“Them.” This process also involves the creation of symbolic boundaries that are perme-
able. Ethnicity is, furthermore, articulated more acutely in boundary areas, since the need
to express it is weaker in the core area of an ethnic group. In other words, ethnic identi-
ties are not universally salient, but mobilized when we interact with “Others” who differ
from “Us” (Eriksen 1993). Anthropological studies, including instrumentalism, are often
criticized for being ahistorical. These discourses are not sensitive to diachronic develop-
ments. The instrumentalist perspective embraces a contradiction since ethnic identities
are often based on a putative notion of primordiality. People fail to recognize that their
own ethnic identity is mutable. Another problem for archaeologists and historians is the
emic perspective, since the fragmented evidence available to us often lacks information
about subjective notions of identities (see the section entitled The Dynamics of Ancient
Ethnicities).
Historical Constructions of Ethnicities
Ethnicity was also redefined as a mutable phenomenon by historians during the 1960s.
The historian Reinhard Wenskus coined the term ethnogenesis (Wenskus 1961). He
argued that ethnic groups and ethnic identities are constructed by the elite, and that they
trickle down the social hierarchy. In the European Middle Ages, ethnicity was articulated
primarily through fictive genealogies. Ethnic identities and group affiliations were
created through the very process of constructing the genealogies. A Trojan hero was
often portrayed as the original forefather. This discourse emulates a practice established
by the Romans, as in Vergil’s Aeneid (see Leyser 1992; Wood 1995; Benes 2011).
Wenskus’ publication, and the so-called Vienna School, continues to be influential for
ethnic studies of premodern Europe and Late Antiquity (Pohl and Reimitz 1998). The
fundamental issue for ethnic studies of Late Antiquity concerns the encounters between
the Romans and “barbarian” ethnic groups (see Curta 2007; Derks and Roymans
2009). It should also be noted that the Vienna School has received considerable
criticism, not least from their antagonists, the so-called Toronto School (see Gillett
2002). The heated debate between these schools has mainly concerned how textual
evidence should be evaluated; both schools regard ethnicity as a mutable phenomenon
(see Curta 2007).
The historical models have had a limited impact on Classical Studies. Classi-
cists have paid more attention to archaeological and anthropological models. The
early-twentieth-century archaeological culture–historical paradigm shared the concep-
tual foundations with contemporary race theories (see the section entitled Essentialized
Antiquity). In the subsequent processual perspective, ethnic, racial, or cultural identities
were issues of secondary importance. As a consequence of this, archaeologists contin-
ued to conceptualize ethnicity in accordance with the culture–historical foundations
(Fotiadis 1997). A dynamic view on ethnicity was introduced in archaeology with
post-processualism in the 1980s. A heated debate concerning whether stylistic variations