06-04-2009, 06:57 AM
The real issue is "who is giving a name to whom". Authors living in the centuries AD, often used ancient names to describe comparatively new nations. So, Herodotus' name "Getae" could get a second life to describe any nation living in Bulgaria/Rumania.
There is a related problem, which, although it is now irrelevant, may be useful to mention: that people Antiquity use various labels for themselves. A Roman could call himself a Roman, but on festive occasions, he called himself a Quirite. A Hellene was a Hellene, but if he wanted to stress his martial prowess, he could call himself a Dorian; if he wanted to stress his cosmopolitan lookout, a Ionian. A Jew would be called, and called himself, a Judaean when he was talking to a foreigner, but would call himself, and was called, an Israelite in a discussion with a compatriot.
Just like today, ethnic labels were never fixed. You may find by Ton Derks and Nico Roymans, Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The Role of Power and Tradition useful.
There is a related problem, which, although it is now irrelevant, may be useful to mention: that people Antiquity use various labels for themselves. A Roman could call himself a Roman, but on festive occasions, he called himself a Quirite. A Hellene was a Hellene, but if he wanted to stress his martial prowess, he could call himself a Dorian; if he wanted to stress his cosmopolitan lookout, a Ionian. A Jew would be called, and called himself, a Judaean when he was talking to a foreigner, but would call himself, and was called, an Israelite in a discussion with a compatriot.
Just like today, ethnic labels were never fixed. You may find by Ton Derks and Nico Roymans, Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The Role of Power and Tradition useful.
