The possibility of exploring ethnic identities in past societies constitutes one of the most controversial fields of archaeological research. However, the reassessment of the conceptualization of ethnicity in the human sciences and the increasing transference of these theories to archaeological research is helping to develop new analytical frameworks for the study of this problematic subject. From this perspective, the aim of this paper is to attempt a theoretical and methodological approach to the complex relationships between ethnic identity and material remains from the standpoint of Iron Age studies, showing both the possibilities and difficulties of archaeological research on ethnicity. For this period, the incipient availability of written evidence allows the development of new interdisciplinary research strategies. Finally, an introduction to practical work in this field is presented, specifically focusing on two case studies: Ruiz Zapatero and Álvarez-Sanchís' approach to the identity of the Vettones of the central Iberian Peninsula, and the author's own work on the Late Iron Age sanctuaries of the Middle Rhine-Moselle region.

This article bridges the literatures on nationalist projects and everyday nationhood by elucidating a repertoire of actions shared by both. Analysis of such “nation-work” contributes to the cognitive turn in ethnicity and nationalism research by showing how ethnonational categorization operates. Examining variation in this domain shows that though nationalism may project an image of a homogeneous “we”, internal heterogeneity is crucial for refining the experience and performance of membership in the nation.

This essay deals with the findings of an ethnographic study carried out in two urban neighborhoods in Germany. Although the German residents felt bound by the norms of ethnic equality, they used negative classifications to stigmatize upwardly mobile members of the Turkish community. In doing so, they undermined these equality norms without explicitly calling them into question. This paradox can be explained by a latently active, primordial belief in kinship, which is ultimately rooted in a symbolic order of ethnic inequality.