216 Nino Luraghi
scholars insisted on the irrelevance of the distinction between Dorians and Ionians (most
influentially, Will 1956). In order to forge the intellectual tools he needed for his pursuit,
Hall explored in depth the study of ethnicity in post–Word War II anthropology and its
impact on modern history, bringing for the first time concepts such as instrumentalism
and primordialism onto classicists’ radars. One of many things that Hall learned from
his comparative pursuit, which was destined to have a very important impact on his own
investigation, was the notion of the arbitrariness of ethnic markers: while all sorts of cul-
tural practices, including language, religion, kinship systems, dress, food preparation, and
even consumption, can, in certain contexts, become associated with ethnic boundaries,
there is no cross-cultural and trans-historical law that allows the scholar to predict which
of them will. Interestingly, considering that he came from archaeology, Hall ended up
concluding that, in the absence of ancient texts that tell us how to interpret it, mate-
rial culture alone cannot provide evidence on ethnicity. A further, very important point
that Hall imposed to the attention of classicists was the fact that, in social practice, eth-
nic difference is usually recognized by the actors based on elements that are different
from those of which the actors themselves think it consists—a principle that could be
formulated in Weberian terms: at the bottom, ethnicity always relies on the notion of
blood relatedness.
The most important influence on Hall’s methodology was the work of Anthony D.
Smith (especially Smith 1986; see also Smith 2004, which of course Hall could not
have read). In his influentialThe Ethnic Origins of Nations, Smith argued for ethnic-
ity as the pre-modern ancestor of modern nationalism, thereby rejecting the views of
his teacher Ernest Gellner, who had argued that nationalism is a purely modern phe-
nomenon, with no real historical predecessor (Gellner 1983; also Anderson 1991). In
spite of its modern agenda, Smith’s work has become a mainstay of research on eth-
nicity in the pre-modern period, too, especially due to his persuasive analysis of the
constitutive elements of the pre-national ethnic groups, which Smith callsethnie.Such
elements include a common language, a myth of common descent, a shared history, a
distinct cultural pattern, and finally, a specific territory. Hall argued for the application
of these categories to the study of ethnic identities in the Greek world, narrowing the
list down to two indispensible elements, a myth of common descent and a specific ter-
ritory. Thereby, the relevant evidence for identifying ethnic groups in Greek antiquity
came to be represented mainly by myths of migration, foundation, and eponymy. For
instance, Hall attributed particular importance to the genealogy of Hellen found in Hes-
iodic poetry as the foundation charter of Greek ethnicity and to the alternating Heraclid
and Dorian myths of origins in the Argolid as representing the self-perception of distinct
ethnic groups.
The aspect of Hall’s work that received most criticism has been his assessment of the
use of archaeological evidence for understanding ancient ethnicity—its use, not its value
per se, on which Hall clearly has no doubt. The most sustained challenge has come
from Sˆıan Lewis’Archaeology of Ethnicity, which came out at the same time as Hall’s
book. In hindsight, it seems obvious that Hall is right. While it is clear that ethnicity,
grounded as it is in social practice, can profitably be conceptualized as a component