The cambridge history of nationhood and nationalism 2 volume hardback set carmichael All Chapters In by Education Libraries

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-cambridge-history-ofnationhood-and-nationalism-2-volume-hardback-set-carmichael/

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you

Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

The Handbook of Applied Communication Research, 2 Volume Set O'Hair

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-handbook-of-applied-communicationresearch-2-volume-set-ohair/

ebookmass.com

CT and MRI of the Whole Body, 2-Volume Set 6th Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/ct-and-mri-of-the-whole-body-2-volumeset-6th-edition/

ebookmass.com

Auerbachu2019s Wilderness Medicine, 2-Volume Set 7th Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/auerbachs-wilderness-medicine-2-volumeset-7th-edition/

ebookmass.com

CISSP Cert Guide, Fourth Edition Robin Abernathy && Darren R. Hayes

https://ebookmass.com/product/cissp-cert-guide-fourth-edition-robinabernathy-darren-r-hayes/

ebookmass.com

The Queer Outside in Law: Recognising LGBTIQ People in the United Kingdom Senthorun Raj

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-queer-outside-in-law-recognisinglgbtiq-people-in-the-united-kingdom-senthorun-raj/

ebookmass.com

Morality from Compassion Ingmar Persson

https://ebookmass.com/product/morality-from-compassion-ingmar-persson/

ebookmass.com

The Truth in My Lies (MM) L.A. Witt

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-truth-in-my-lies-mm-l-a-witt/

ebookmass.com

Hated by the Grump (Burly Mountain Men Book 3) Erin Havoc

https://ebookmass.com/product/hated-by-the-grump-burly-mountain-menbook-3-erin-havoc/

ebookmass.com

Nanomaterials and Nanotechnology in Medicine Visakh P. M.

https://ebookmass.com/product/nanomaterials-and-nanotechnology-inmedicine-visakh-p-m/

ebookmass.com

Andrew Lynn

https://ebookmass.com/product/saving-the-protestant-ethic-creativeclass-evangelicalism-and-the-crisis-of-work-andrew-lynn/

ebookmass.com

thecambridgehistoryof

NATIONHOODANDNATIONALISM

Thismajornewreferenceworkwithcontributionsfroman internationalteamofscholarsprovidesacomprehensive accountofideasandpracticesofnationhoodandnationalism fromantiquitytothepresent.Itconsidersbothcontinuitiesand discontinuities,engagingcriticallyandanalyticallywiththe scholarlyliteratureinthe ﬁeld.Volume I startswithaseriesof casestudiesofclassicalcivilizations.Itthenexploresawiderange ofpivotalmomentsandturningpointsinthehistoryofidentity politicsduringtheageofglobalization,from 1500 throughtothe twentiethcentury.Thisoverviewistrulyglobal,covering countriesinEastandSouthAsiaaswellasEuropeandthe Americas.

C ATHIE C ARMICHAEL isProfessorofEuropeanHistoryatthe UniversityofEastAnglia.Shehasauthoredandeditedseveral previousbooksincluding LanguageandNationalisminEurope,coeditedwiththelateStephenBarbour(2000)and Genocidebeforethe Holocaust (2009).

M ATTHEW D’A URIA isAssociateProfessorofModernEuropean HistoryattheUniversityofEastAnglia.Heistheauthorof The ShapingofFrenchNationalIdentity:NarratingtheNation’sPast, 1715–1830 (2020).

A VIEL R OSHWALD isProfessorofHistoryatGeorgetown University,Washington,DC.Hispublicationsinclude Ethnic NationalismandtheFallofEmpires:CentralEurope,Russiaandthe MiddleEast, 1914–1923 (2001)and TheEnduranceofNationalism:Ancient RootsandModernDilemmas (2006).

thecambridgehistoryof

NATIONHOODANDNATIONALISM

Editedby cathiecarmichael,matthewd’auria,andavielroshwald

Theoriginsandnatureofnationhoodandnationalismcontinue tobetopicsofheatedscholarlydebate.Thismajornewreference workwithcontributionsfromaninternationalteamofscholars providesacomprehensiveaccountofideasandpracticesof nationhoodandnationalismfromantiquitytothepresent.It considersbothcontinuitiesanddiscontinuities,engaging criticallyandanalyticallywiththescholarlyliteratureinthe ﬁeld.The History alsoexploresnationhoodandnationalism’ s relationshipswithawidevarietyofculturalpracticesandsocial institutions,inadditiontothephenomenon’scrucialpolitical dimensions.Itswiderangeofregionalcasestudiesbringsatruly global,comparativeperspectivetoa ﬁeldlongconstrainedby Eurocentricassumptions.Volume I tracksturningpointsinthe historyofnationhoodandnationalismfromancienttimestothe twentiethcentury.Volume II theorizestheconnectionsbetween nationhood/nationalismandideology,religion,andculture. Together,theyenablereaderstounderstandtherootsofand hownationhoodandnationalismfunctioninthepresentday.

TheCambridgeHistoryofNationhoodandNationalism,Volume I

EDITEDBYCATHIECARMICHAEL, MATTHEWD ’ AURIA, ANDAVIELROSHWALD

TheCambridgeHistoryofNationhoodandNationalism,Volume II

EDITEDBYCATHIECARMICHAEL, MATTHEWD ’ AURIA, ANDAVIELROSHWALD

THECAMBRIDGE HISTORYOF

NATIONHOODANDNATIONALISM

LongueDurée

Editedby CATHIECARMICHAEL

UniversityofEastAnglia

MATTHEWD ’ AURIA

UniversityofEastAnglia and AVIELROSHWALD

GeorgetownUniversity,WashingtonDC

UniversityPrintingHouse,Cambridge CB 28 BS,UnitedKingdom

OneLibertyPlaza, 20 thFloor,NewYork, NY 10006 ,USA

477 WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne, VIC 3207 ,Australia

314 – 321 , 3rdFloor,Plot 3 ,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre, NewDelhi – 110025 ,India

79 AnsonRoad,# 06 – 04 / 06 ,Singapore 079906

CambridgeUniversityPressispart oftheUniversityofCambridge. ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.

www.cambridge.org

Informationonthistitle: www.cambridge.org/ 9781108427050

DOI: 10 1017 / 9781108655385

©CambridgeUniversityPress 2023

Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements, noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.

Firstpublished 2023

PrintedintheUnitedKingdombyCPIGroupLtd,CroydonCR04 YY AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData

N AMES:Carmichael,Cathie,editor.|D’Auria,Matthew,editor.|Roshwald, Aviel,editor.

T ITLE:TheCambridgehistoryofnationhoodandnationalism/editedbyCathieCarmichael, MatthewD’Auria,andAvielRoshwald.

D ESCRIPTION:Cambridge,UnitedKingdom;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2022.| Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.|

C ONTENTS:v. 1.Patternsandtrajectoriesoverthelonguedurée – v. 2.Nationalism’ s ﬁeldsof interaction.

S UBJECTS: LCSH:Nation-state – History.|Nationalism – History.

C LASSIFICATION: LCCJC311 .C 292022 (print)| LCCJC 311 (ebook)| DDC 321/.05–dc23/eng/ 20211122

LCrecordavailableat https://lccn.loc.gov/2021050117

LCebookrecordavailableat https://lccn.loc.gov/2021050118

ISBN – 2 VolumeSet 978 – 1 – 108 – 78123 – 7 Hardback

ISBN – VolumeI 978 – 1 – 108 – 42705 – 0 Hardback

ISBN – VolumeII 978 – 1 – 108 – 42706 – 7 Hardback

CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain, accurateorappropriate.

1 . NationalityandEthnicityintheAncientNearEast 11

2 . Nationhood:WasThereSuchaThinginAntiquity? 31

. TheHolyRomanEmpire 54

5 . PoliticizedEthnicityinPrecolonialSoutheastAsia 96

. “India” beforetheRaj:SpaceandIdentityinSouthAsianHistory 115

. ColonialExpansionandtheMakingofNations:TheSpanishCase 145

. TheReformationandNationalIdentity 163

. Europe’sEighteenthCenturyandtheQuestfortheNation’sOrigins 186

. TheRiseoftheCharismaticNation: RomanticandRisorgimentoNationalism,Europe, 1800–1914 231

. RevolutionandIndependenceinSpanishAmerica 256

. ATaleofTwoCities:TheAmericanCivilWar 281

. ColonialSubjectsandtheStruggleforSelf-Determination, 1880–1918

19 . DecolonizationandtheColdWar 421 LESLIEJAMES

20 . 1968:TheDeathofNationalism? 442 ANNAVONDERGOLTZ

ConclusiontoPart II 463 Index 469

3.1 TheHolyRomanEmpireinthetimeofCharlesIV(FromLenScales, TheShapingofGermanIdentity (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 2012).) page 57

C 1 Page 1 ofthethirdFreisingFragment.©Digitalfacsimiles:Bayerische StaatsBibliothek,Munich(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nd/2 5/si/deed.en).

11 1 HermanWiscilenus, ApotheosisofWilhelmIasRestorerofImperialGermany (SPINimagebank,Amsterdam(ernie.uva.nl/viewer.p/21/52).)

134

238

13.1 RuinsinCharleston,SouthCarolinaseenfromtheCircularChurch (LibraryofCongressPrintsandPhotographsDivision,Washington,DC.) 286

15 1 RabindranathTagore(PhotobyHuttonArchive/StringerviaGettyImages). 337

17 1 Celebratingtheoutcomeofthe 1962 referendumonAlgerianindependence inAlgiers.(DominiqueBERRETTY/Gamma-RaphoviaGettyImages.)

17 2 StreetscenewithAlgerian ﬂags,Algiers,July 1962 (PhotobyReporters Associés/Gamma-RaphoviaGettyImages).

390

392

Contributors

A NANYA C HAKRAVARTI isAssociateProfessorofHistoryatGeorgetownUniversity.Her ﬁrstbook, TheEmpireofApostles:Religion, Accommodatio andtheImaginationofEmpirein EarlyModernBrazilandIndia (2018),wasawardedanhonorablementionforthe AssociationforAsianStudies’ 2020 BernardS.CohnBookPrize.

M ICHAEL W.C HARNEY isProfessorattheCentreforInternationalStudiesand Diplomacy,SchoolofPoliticsandInternationalStudies,atSOAS,Universityof London,aswellastheDepartmentofHistory.Hispublicationsincludefour monographsonthehistoryofMyanmar.

P AMELA K YLE C ROSSLEY isCollisProfessorofHistoryatDartmouthCollege.Hermost recentbookis HammerandAnvil:NomadRulersattheForgeoftheModernWorld (2019).

M ATTHEW D’A URIA isAssociateProfessorofModernEuropeanHistoryatthe UniversityofEastAnglia.Heistheauthorof TheShapingofFrenchNationalIdentity: NarratingtheNation’sPast, 1715–1830 (2020).

M ALICK W.G HACHEM isAssociateProfessorofHistoryatMIT.Hispublications include TheOldRegimeandtheHaitianRevolution (2012),whichwontwoawards, includingtheAmericanHistoricalAssociation’ sJ.RussellMajorPrizeforthebest workinEnglishonFrenchhistory.

M ICHAEL G OEBEL isEinsteinProfessorofGlobalHistoryatFreieUniversitätBerlin.His 2015 book Anti-ImperialMetropolis wontheAmericanHistoricalAssociation’ s 2016 Jerry BentleyPrizeinWorldHistory.

S USAN -M ARY G RANT isProfessorofAmericanHistoryatNewcastleUniversity.Her mostrecentbooksincludethe AConciseHistoryoftheUnitedStatesof America (CambridgeUniversityPress, 2012)and OliverWendellHolmes:CivilWar Soldier,SupremeCourtJustice (2016).

S TEVEN G ROSBY isProfessorEmeritusofReligion,ClemsonUniversity.Hispublications include NationsandNationalisminWorldHistory (2022), HebraisminReligion,History,and Politics:TheThirdCulture (2021), Nationalism:AVeryShortIntroduction (2005)and Biblical IdeasofNationality:AncientandModern (2002).

E RICH S.G RUEN isGladysRehardWoodProfessorofHistoryandClassicsEmeritusatthe UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.Heistheauthororeditorofseventeenbooks,including EthnicityintheAncientWorld:DiditMatter? (2020)and RethinkingtheOtherinAntiquity (2011).

G ABRIELE H AUG -M ORITZ isProfessorofEarlyModernHistoryintheHistory DepartmentoftheKarl-Franzens-UniversityGraz.Sheiseditor-in-chiefofthe “ImperialDietRecords:ImperialAssemblies, 1556–1662. ”

T AMAR H ERZOG istheMonroeGutmanProfessorofLatinAmericanAffairsatHarvard.Her mostrecentbooksare AShortHistoryofEuropeanLaw:TheLastTwoandaHalfMillennia (2019)and FrontiersofPossession:SpainandPortugalinEuropeandtheAmericas (2015).

L ESLIE J AMES isSeniorLecturerinGlobalHistoryatQueenMaryUniversityofLondon. Sheistheauthorof GeorgePadmoreandDecolonizationfromBelow (2015)andco-editor of DecolonizationandtheColdWar (2015).

D ANE K ENNEDY istheElmerLouisKayserProfessorofHistoryandInternationalAffairs EmeritusatGeorgeWashingtonUniversityinWashington,DC.Heistheauthorof sevenbooks,including TheImperialHistoryWars:DebatingtheBritishEmpire (2018)and Decolonization:AVeryShortIntroduction (2016).

J OEP L EERSSEN isProfessorofModernEuropeanLiteratureattheUniversityof Amsterdam;healsoholdsaresearchprofessorshipatMaastrichtUniversity.Heisthe authorof NationalThoughtinEurope:ACulturalHistory (2007)andtheeditorof the EncyclopediaofRomanticNationalisminEurope (2018).

Y URI P INES isMichaelW.LipsonProfessorofAsianStudiesattheHebrewUniversityof Jerusalem.Hismonographsinclude,mostrecently, ZhouHistoryUnearthed:TheBamboo Manuscript Xinian andEarlyChineseHistoriography (2020)and TheBookofLordShang: ApologeticsofStatePowerinEarlyChina (2017).

J AIME E.R ODRI ´ GUEZ O. taughtasProfessorofLatinAmericanHistoryattheUniversity ofCalifornia,Irvine,from 1973 to 2008.Hismanybooksinclude “WeAreNowtheTrue Spaniards”:Sovereignty,Revolution,Independence,andtheEmergenceoftheFederalRepublicof Mexico, 1808–1824 (2012).

A VIEL R OSHWALD isProfessorofHistoryatGeorgetownUniversityinWashington,DC. Hislatestbook, Occupied:EuropeanandAsianResponsestoAxisConquest, 1937–1945,is forthcomingwithCambridgeUniversityPressin 2023

L EN S CALES isProfessorofHistoryatDurhamUniversity,wherehisteachingfocuseson medievalEurope.Heistheauthorof TheShapingofGermanIdentity:AuthorityandCrisis, 1245–1414 (2012).

J AN V ERMEIREN isAssociateProfessorinModernGermanHistoryattheUniversityof EastAnglia.Amonghisrecentpublicationsis TheFirstWorldWarandGermanNational Identity:TheDualAllianceatWar (2016).

A NNAVONDER G OLTZ isAssociateProfessorofHistoryatGeorgetownUniversity.Her publicationsinclude Hindenburg:Power,Myth,andtheRiseoftheNazis (2009)and The Other ‘68ers:StudentProtestandChristianDemocracyinWestGermany (2021).

GeneralIntroduction

theeditors

Sincetheearly 1980s,thestudyofnationalismhasbeenrevivedasadistinct subjectofenquiryinitsownright.1 TheseminalworksofErnestGellner, BenedictAnderson,EricHobsbawm,andAnthonyD.Smith,publishedinthe 1980sand 1990sandnowclassics,havecontributedtoradicallychangingour readingofnationalism,offeringparadigmsforbothitsdeeperunderstanding andradicaldeconstruction.2 Crucially,thesescholarssetthemaintermsof adebatethatisstillongoingtoday.Themajordistinctionsamongthe advocatesofperennialism3 (fewerandfewer),theso-calledmodernists(still thepredominantschool),andAnthonySmith’sethno-symbolists(evergrowinginnumber),haveremainedlargelyintacttothisday,morethanthirty yearslater.Centraltothediscussionwastheissueofthenation’soriginsand whetherornotpremodernstructuresofcommunity,tradition,andidentity wereorwerenotimportantinshapingtheseemingly “modern” phenomenonofnationalism – whetherornot,touseGellner’shumorouslydismissiveexpressionthathasbecomecommoncurrencyinthe ﬁeld,itmattersif

1 Earlierworksinclude:LordActon’ s 1862 essay, “Nationality,” inJohnEmerich EdwardDalberg-Acton, TheHistoryofFreedomandOtherEssays (London:Macmillan, 1919);ErnestRenan’ s 1882 lecture, “WhatisaNation?” trans.MartinThom,in GeoffEleyandRonaldGrigorSuny(eds.), BecomingNational:AReader (NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress, 1996);CarltonHayes, TheHistoricalEvolutionofModern Nationalism (NewYork:R.R.Smith, 1931);themanyworksbyHansKohn,suchas TheIdeaofNationalism:AStudyinitsOriginsandBackground (NewYork:Macmillan, 1948);KarlDeutsch, NationalismandSocialCommunication:AnInquiryintotheFoundations ofNationality (Cambridge,MA:TechnologyPressoftheMassachusettsInstituteof Technology, 1953).

2 SeeinparticularErnestGellner, NationsandNationalism (Oxford:Blackwell, 1983); AnthonyD.Smith, TheEthnicOriginsofNations (Oxford:Blackwell, 1986); BenedictAnderson, ImaginedCommunities (London:Verso, 1991);EricHobsbawm, NationsandNationalismsince 1780 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1990).

3 TheworkofAdrianHastingsisoftenseenasbelongingwithinthiscategory;see,for example, TheConstructionofNationhood:Ethnicity,ReligionandNationalism (Cambridge; CambridgeUniversityPress, 1997).

“nationshavenavels.”4 Largely,thediscussionhingedontheproblemof whethernationswereinvented,orwere,rather,moreorganicsocialand historicalconstructions.Althoughthegenealogicaldimensionwasclearly pivotaltoit,thedebatewasatthetimedominatedbysociologists,political theorists,anthropologists,andphilosophers.Oneofthefewhistorianswho didplayanimportantrole,Hobsbawm,famouslydeﬁnedthenationasan “inventedtradition,” thatis,asaseriesofpracticesofaritualorsymbolic charactermeanttoinculcatespeciﬁcviewsthatimpliedacontinuitywiththe past.Withinthenationalistdiscourse,heargued,historywasessentially a “legitimatorofactionandcementofgroupcohesion.”5 Nationalhistories wereartifactsofhistoricalfabricationbyhisreckoning.Itwasaviewthatwas insomerespectsilluminating,butcouldalso – andpartlydid – leadto apervasivedevaluationofthepremodernpastanditsstudyintheunderstandingofnationalism.

Overtheyears,historianshavebeeninﬂuenced(implicitlyorexplicitly)by theseparadigmsevenassocialscientistshave,inturn,drawnupontheirwork inthecourseoftheirongoingtheoreticalcontroversies.But,althoughthe theoreticaldebateamongmodernistsandtheircriticscontinues,ithasgrown somewhatstaleandrepetitious.Moreover,someofthepositionsinthat debatearethemselvespremisedonhistoricalassumptionsthatareincreasinglycontestedamonghistorians:e.g.thesharpnessofdivisionbetween premodernityandmodernity,thetriumphofsecularisminmodernhistory, avarietyofotherEurocentricassumptionsaboutthenatureandtrajectoryof modernity,theexclusivelyWesternoriginsofnationalism,etc.Hence,rather thansimplyrehashingandreengagingintheexistingtheoreticaldebate,what wehaveattemptedinthesevolumesistostepoutsideitsconﬁnesbydoing what,ashistorians,wethinkwecandobest:lookingempiricallyand comparativelyatthelinkedphenomenaof “politicizedethnicity,”6 national

4 ErnestGellner ﬁrstusedthisimageshortlybeforehisuntimelydeath,duringadebate withhisformerstudentAnthonyD.SmithatWarwickUniversityin 1995.Thatdebateis reproducedat www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpert ise/units/gellner/Warwick.html (accessed 13 September 2020).Theirpresentationswerepublishedinthe followingyearasAnthonyD.Smith, “OpeningStatement:NationsandtheirPasts,” NationsandNationalism, 2/3 (November 1996), 358–365;ErnestGellner, “Reply:Do NationshaveNavels?” NationsandNationalism, 2/3 (November 1996), 366–370

5 EricHobsbawm. “Introduction:InventingTraditions,” inEricHobsbawmand TerenceRanger(eds.), TheInventionofTradition (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1983), 12.

6 VictorLiebermanintroducedtheterm “politicizedethnicity” inhistwo-volumemagnumopus, StrangeParallels:SoutheastAsiainGlobalContext,c.800–1830, 2 vols.(NewYork: CambridgeUniversityPress, 2003–2009).AzarGatcoinedtheterm “politicalethnicity”

consciousness,andnationalismacrossarangeofcasesthatarenotlimitedto themoderneraandnotconﬁnedtotheWesternworld.

Itis,afterall,throughtheaccumulationofnewevidencethatdoesnot fit existingparadigmsthatparadigmshiftshappen.Ashistorians,wedon’tset outtoarticulateanewsocial-scientificmodel,butwedorefusetobe confinedbyexistingones.Whatourapproachdoesassumeistheformation andevolutionofnationhoodasacomplexsetofhistoricalprocessesstemmingfromasuperimpositionofseveralsuccessivelayersofsocialrepresentations,thelateronesreadaptingincomplex,unpredictable,andoften conflictingwaysthepreviousones.Althoughnationalismisnomorestatic thananyotherhistoricalphenomenon,itdrawsonandadaptssentimentsof kin-cultureaffinitythatappearquasi-universal.Ifwearetounderstandthe workingsanddistinguishingdynamicsofmodernnationalism – aboveall,its mechanismsofinclusionandexclusionandtherootsofitsemotional strength – wemuststudyhownationsaregraduallyconstructedandcontinuouslyreconstructedinwaysthatbothdrawuponandreshapepreexisting mentalities,sentiments,traditions,andpractices.

Inmanycollectionsonthehistoryofnationalism,theperspectiveadopted isclearlyand ﬁrmlythemodernistone.Theseeminglyindisputablestarting pointofthehistoryofnationalismistheFrenchRevolution,andthe emphasistendstobeplacedondiscontinuitieswithearlierfeelingsofcommunalityandsolidarity.Ouraim,bycontrast,hasbeentoconsidercontinuitiesasmuchasdiscontinuities,engagingcriticallyandanalyticallywith sweepingassertionsabouttheprimordialnatureofkinshipandethnotypes withoutdisdaining,apriori, longuedurée analysis;thisallinacknowledging thedistinctivefeaturesofmodernnationalism.Bythesametoken,weaimto explorenationalism’srelationshipswith,manifestationsin,andimpactsupon avarietyofculturalpracticesandsocialinstitutions – inadditiontothe phenomenon’scrucialpoliticaldimensions.Theaimistobroadenandenrich thedebate,notbyofferinganew,overarchingtheoryofthenationandof nationalism,butbyintroducingnewandmoreholisticperspectivestothe phenomenonbyapproachingthehistoryofnationalismthroughtheprisms ofother – intimatelyrelated – categoriesofconceptualandhistoricalanalysis. Indeed,oneofthecentralconcernsanimating TheCambridgeHistoryof

inAzarGatwithAlexanderYakobson, Nations:TheLongHistoryandDeepRootsofPolitical EthnicityandNationalism (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2013).Foraconcise versionofLieberman’sargumentabouthowethnicandpoliticalidentitiescouldoverlap inprecolonialSoutheastAsia,seeVictorB.Lieberman, “EthnicPoliticsin Eighteenth-CenturyBurma,” ModernAsianStudies, 12/3 (1978), 455–482

NationhoodandNationalism istheneedtobreakthe “internalistic” frameof referencethatstilllargelyinformsmanystudiesofnationalism.Itisamatter thatsociologistshavelongdebated,followingUlrichBeck’sfamousindictmentof “methodologicalnationalism”7:thetendencytoconsidersocietyas coincidentwith,andcoextensiveto,thenation.Itis,importantly,anassumptionthathasledmanyscholarstosearchforthecausesoftheworkingsof nationalismfromwithinthenationitself,thusignoringthecrucialimportanceofculturaltransfersandoverarchinggeopoliticalforces.Itisafaultthat muchhistoriographystillsuffersfromtoday.Evenwhenlookingatthe curriculaofuniversitiesworldwide,thestudyofthepastisstilllargely organizedaroundsinglenations.

Althoughanentirelytransnationalhistoryofnationalismmightbe,atbest, problematic – notleastbecauseofthehistoricalweightoftheprincipleof nationality,whichhassostronglytiedthenationtoboundedformsof politicalsovereignty – thereremainsapressingneedtoescapetheperspectivaltrapassociatedwiththeinternalistviewofnationalism.Thereareat leasttworeasonsforthis.First,because,asAnne-MarieThiessecogently arguedsometimeago,nationalismemergesalwaysinconfrontationwith othergroups.Ifwearetoacceptthat “thereisnothingmoreinternational thanthecreationofnationalidentities,” thenwemustrecognizethatinternalismcanleadtoseriousmisconceptionsandmisunderstandings.

8 Thesecondreasonisthatmethodologicalnationalismcausesknowledge, aspeciﬁcformofknowledge,tocontinuouslyreproduceitself – anditsfaults andmerits – ratherthantoevolveandchangeinresponsetonewresearch needs.Moreover,weseekpathsbeyond,notjusttheempiricalinternalismof thenation-by-nationcasestudy,buttheconceptualinternalismofstudying nationalisminisolationfromthemultipleotherframeworksofidentity, power,andbehaviorwithwhich,historically,itsdevelopmenthasbeenso intimatelyconnected.

Againstthepracticesofhistoriographicalandtheoreticalinternalism, manyofthechaptersinthesevolumesadoptacomparativeaswellas atransnationalapproachthatshedsnewlightonthehistoryofnationalism(s). Thus,ratherthanhavingaseriesofcasestudiesonindividualnations,we haveincludedchaptersthatlookatthehistoryofpeoplehoodacrossacrosssectionofsocietieswithinanygivenera.Insomesections,contributors

7 UlrichBeck, “TheCosmopolitanCondition:WhyMethodologicalNationalismFails,” Theory,CultureandSociety, 24/7–8(2007), 286–290.

8 Anne-MarieThiesse, Lacréationdesidentitésnationales:Europe,XVIIIe–XXe siècle (Paris: Seuil, 1999), 11

explorethehistoryofnationalisminthecontext,notofethnicgroupsand nation-states,butofreligionsandofempires(betheyterritoriallycontiguous politiesoroverseascolonialenterprises).The ﬁnalpartincludeschapterson theintertwinedrelationshipbetweennationalismandavarietyofsociocultural,political,andinstitutionalpractices,rangingfromwarandviolenceto tourism.

Asecondaimof TheCambridgeHistoryofNationhoodandNationalism is aglobalengagementwiththehistoryofnationhoodsandnationalism.Itis atruismthatmodernnationalismacquiredmanyofitstraitswithinthe Europeansettingandthatithasthenbeenadoptedandreadaptedinother contextswhich,inturn,havedeeplyinﬂuenceditsshape(s).Yet,forallthe truthintruisms,theycanbecomeanalyticaltraps.Amidstallthetalk,in recentyears,ofglobalizingthestudyofhistory,muchofthehistorical(as wellastheoretical)studyofnationalismhasremainedoverwhelmingly Eurocentric;eitherithasfocusedexplicitlyandexclusivelyontheEuroAtlanticsphere,orithasassumedthatnationalidentitiesoutsidethatsphere canonlybeexplainedandunderstoodasbyproductsof,andresponsesto, Westernimperialism.Theattentiontothevariousandcomplexformsof culturalandideologicalhybridizationderivingfromcontactwithordominationbyEuropeannationalitiesandempireshas,ontheonehand,ledtothe assumptionthattherearenosigniﬁcantindigenousantecedentstonationalisminthenon-Europeanpartsoftheworld,aviewonlyrecentlycontested, and,ontheother,producedthebeliefthatthenationwasthesolepossible wayoforganizingpoliticalspacesandcommunitiesinthemodernage.

Weface,then,theparadoxthatnationalismiswidelyviewedasaWestern export,evenasithasbeencelebratedastheprimarymeansofresistanceto theWestinmanycases.Theefforttowrestlewiththisseemingcontradiction intermscontinuestoplayoutinthehistoriographyofnationalism,as reﬂectedintheideaofmultiplemodernities,theSubalternStudiesschool’ s indictmentofIndiannationalismasaformofinternalcolonialism,therecent effortsbysomehistoriansto ﬁndproto-nationalismsintheprecolonial historiesofSouthandEastAsia,etc.9 Bythesametoken,therelationship betweenthenationandtheworldisanevercontestedissuewithineachof theWesterngreatpowersthemselves(LittleEnglandersvs.Imperial

9 See,forinstance,AtsukoIchijo, NationalismandMultipleModernities:EuropeandBeyond (London:PalgraveMacmillan, 2013);ParthaChatterjee, TheNationanditsFragments: ColonialandPostcolonialHistories (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1993); PrasenjitDuara, RescuingHistoryfromtheNation:QuestioningNarrativesofModern China (Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress, 1995);Lieberman, StrangeParallels

Unionists,Americanisolationistsvs.liberalinternationalists,etc.).TheJanusfacednatureofthenationis,ofcourse,awell-knownissuetoscholarsofneoandpostcolonialism – andanironicconundrumformanyofthem.Butthe implicittheoreticalconcernthatshouldinterestus,here,istheneedtograsp, throughcomparison,differencesandsimilaritiesbetweenEuropeanand extra-Europeannation-buildingexperiencesinordertocomprehendnot onlyhowdifferenthistorieshaveinteractedandmerged,buthowthey mayhavebothparalleledoneanotherinprecolonialtimesandhowthey maydivergeinourownevermoreconnectedworld.Itisacrucialconcernin thiseraofglobalization,inwhichtheautonomyandsovereigntyofevery singlenationisconstantlychallenged,amidstthepersistenceofnationalism itself – aphenomenonthat,notwithstandingperiodicrumorsofitsimminent demise,isstillfarfromdefunct.

PlanofOrganization

Thetwovolumesaredividedinto ﬁvemajorparts,asfollows:

Volume I:PatternsandTrajectoriesoverthe LongueDurée

Part I:ThePoliticsofEthnicity,Nationhood,andBelongingin theSettingsofClassicalCivilizations

Thechaptersunderthisheadinginvestigateimagesofcommunityandpractices ofinclusionandexclusionintheancient worldanduptothesixteenthcentury. Takingintoaccountavarietyofgeographicalregionsthroughoutseveral centuries,theauthorsconsidercontinuitiesanddiscontinuitiesinfeelingsof solidarityandinteractionacrossdifferentcivilizationsandsocieties.These chapterstrytocreateaframeworkforanalyticalcomparisonandforthe dissectionofcontinuitiesanddiscontinuitiesacrossspaceandtime,without becomingstuckinthebinarytrapofarguingoverwhetheranygivencasedoes ordoesnotmeritthelabelof “nationalism.” Theaimistocreatethebasisfor moresubstantiveandinformeddiscussionsabouttheevolutionofculturaland politicalidentities,andtherelationshipbetweenuniversalisticandparticularistic conceptionsofcommunity,overthe longuedurée ofhistory.

Part II:ParadigmShiftsandTurningPoints intheEraofGlobalization, 1500 tothePresent

Thispartexaminestheevolutionofethnocultural,ethnopolitical,and/or nationalidentitiesfromthesixteenthcenturyonwards.Eachchapter

considersaglobalturningpointoraspeciﬁcerafromatransnationalperspective.Particularattentionisgiventocross-culturalpracticesinthedeﬁnitionofothernessandtopatternsofconvergenceanddivergenceinthe evolutionofethnicandnationalidentitiesinanerawhennetworksof culturalandeconomicexchangeandpatternsofdomination,conquest, collaboration,andresistancewerebecomingsteadilymoreglobalinscope.

Volume II:Nationalism’sFieldsofInteraction

Part I:ImperialandPostcolonialSettings

Empiresarecommonlythoughtofas,insomesense,theoppositeofnations andnation-states.Infact,asrecentscholarshiphashighlighted,imperialelites bothfosteredandprovokedthecrystallizationofnationalidentitiesin avarietyofforms,evenastheystruggledtocontainvariousmanifestations ofpopularnationalism.Thispartonceagainstepsoutsidethebounded analyticalframeworkofthenation-state,lookingatthedevelopmentof nationalidentities,movements,andpolitiesfromtheperspectiveofimperial, colonial,andpostcolonialhistory.

Part II:TransnationalandReligiousMissionsandIdentities

Nationalismhasshaped,andbeenshapedby,avarietyofinternationalistand universalisticforcesandideologies,thestudyofwhichhasalltoooftenbeen siloedawayfromthatofnationalism.Itistheinteractionamongthese ﬁelds ofnational,transnational,civilizational,andcosmopolitanidentity,loyalty, andconﬂictthatconcernsusinthispart.

Part III:Intersections:National(ist)SynergiesandTensions withOtherSocial,Economic,Political,andCultural Categories,Identities,andPractices

Howdoesnationalismpermeateeverydaylife?Howdoesnationalisminteractwithandshapediverseactivities,behaviorpatterns,andculturalpractices inthemodernworld?Conversely,towhatextentdothesepracticesinturn inﬂuencetheever-evolvingformsandexpressionsofnationalidentity?Inthis part,weexaminesomeoftheprincipalwaysthatnationalidentityisexperienced,withparticularemphasisonitsintersectionwithothersocialand politicalidentitiesandpractices.Insodoing,wealsohopetobringthe historicalandthecontemporarytogetherbylookingattheeffectsofpolitics, theinternet,socialmedia,sport,andotherculturalpracticesonhistorically evolvingnationalisms.

Asthisbookwasabouttogotopress,weweredeeplysaddenedtolearnof thepassingin 2022 ofoneoftheco-authorsofthiswork,ProfessorJaimeE. RodríguezO.Wearegratefulhewasabletocontributetothesevolumes withachapterwhichisadistillationofhisyearsofoutstandingscholarshipin his ﬁeld.

THEPOLITICSOFETHNICITY, NATIONHOOD,AND

BELONGINGINTHESETTINGS OFCLASSICALCIVILIZATIONS

NationalityandEthnicityintheAncient NearEast

stevengrosby

AscertainingwhetherornotnationsexistedintheancientNearEastis notmerelyforthesakeofdetermininghistoricallywhentheseterritorial relationsofsocialkinshipappear.1 Iftheevidence,howevercomplicated, suggeststheexistenceofnations intheancientNearEast,amore accurateunderstandingofnotonlyantiquitybutalso “moderntimes” shouldemerge,astheclassiﬁ cationoftheselfandothersonthebasisof birthandresidenceinaterritorywouldnothaveoriginatedwiththe 1648 TreatyofWestphalia,andcertainlywouldnotbenoveltothesocalled “ AgeofNationalism” ofthenineteenthcentury.Thedistinction betweentheputativelyethnic,tradition-infusedlocalcommunity (Gemeinschaft )ofthedistantpastandthem odern,commercialsociety (Gesellschaft)oftoday,orvariationsofthatviewofsocialdevelopment suchasahistoricallyoriginalrelationofstatusbasedonbirthincontrast totheachievementoftheindividualthroughmoderncontractualrelations,willbeseentobetheoreticallyantiquatedandhistoricallysimplistic.Thatdistinctionwronglyimpliesthatinantiquitytherewereno territoriallyextensivestates,largemetropolises,extensivemarketsfor goodsandservices,andlong-distancetrade.2 Infact,kinship,arelation ofstatusbetweenindividualsthatisbasedonthesigniﬁ canceattributed totraceabledescent,persistsi ntothepresent,notonlyobviously throughthefamilybutalso,andwithincreasingsalience,through

1 For “socialkinship,”“socialrelation,” andtheirrelationtoterritoryandnationality,see StevenGrosby, “Time,Kinship,andtheNation,” Genealogy, 2 (2018), 1–19; StevenGrosby, Nationalism:AVeryShortIntroduction (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, 2005), 27–42;StevenGrosby, “Territoriality:TheTranscendental,Primordial FeatureofModernSocieties,” NationsandNationalism, 1/2 (1995), 143–162

2 Forcriticalevaluationofthecontrastbetween Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft,statusand contract,seeStevenGrosby, “NationalismandSocialTheory:TheDistinctionbetween CommunityandSociety,” inGerardDelantyandStephenTurner(eds.), Handbookof ContemporarySocialandPoliticalTheory (London:Routledge, 2011), 280–289

whattheanthropologistRobertLowielongagodescribedasthe “territorialtie. ” 3 Territorialrelationsbetweenindividuals,forexample, nationality,arealsoanthropologicalcategories.Theyareformsofkinship,astheyentailself-classifi cation,distinguishingoneindividualfrom anotherindividualandonegroupfromanothergroup,basedonthe signi fi canceattributedtotraceabledescent,albeitnotfromaparentbut withinaterritory.Finally,theinterpretationofthatevidenceshould involvesubjectingthecategoryof “ ethnicity” tore fi nedscrutiny,resultinginamorerestricteduseofitthanone fi ndstodayinhistorical scholarship.

Onlytheshamefulneglectbymanyuniversityhistorydepartmentsandthe majorityofscholarsofnationsandnationalismofthethree-millennia-long historyoftheancientNearEastmakesthisexaminationpressinglynecessary – ahistorythatincludestheemergenceofurbanism,writing,the alphabeticscript,clearlydemarcatedterritories,lawcollections,states,standingarmies,empires,long-distancetrade,andreligiousmonolatry,dualism, andmonotheism.Theproblemsposedbythisinvestigationofnationalityin thehistoryoftheancientNearEastcanbeformulatedasaseriesofquestions. Weretheredistinctionsbetween “peoples” throughoutthathistory?How shouldweunderstandthesepeoples?Werethereboundedterritoriesdistinct frommerelygeographicalareas?Didthoseterritoriesconveyameaningto theirinhabitants,speciﬁcally,wherereferencetoaterritoryhadabearingon theclassiﬁcationoftheself?Whilethroughoutthishistorythereweretribes, city-states,andempires,weretherealsonationsandnationalstates?Finally,if therewerenations,whatwastherelationbetweennationandempire?

KinshipandPeoples

OurevidencethroughoutthehistoryoftheancientNearEastclearlyindicatesacontinualdifferentiationofpopulations.Infact,referencestoterms distinguishingonepeoplefromanotheraresocommonthatitisonlyaslight exaggerationtostatethatitisdifficultto findexamplesamongthetensof thousandsofinscriptionsdiscoveredthatdonotcontaintermsofselfclassificationdistinguishingonepeoplefromanother.Asearlyastheearly dynasticperiod(2900–2350 BCE),distinctionsweredrawnbetweenthe Sumeriancity-statesofUr,Uruk,Lagash,Umma,Nippur,andKish,the territoriesofallofwhich,whilerevolvingaroundanurbancenter,contained

3 RobertLowie, TheState (NewYork:HarcourtBrace, 1927), 51–73

withintheirbordersothertowns.Adramaticexampleofthesedistinctionsis thedescriptionoftheconﬂictbetweenLagashandUmma.4

Enlil,thekingofthelands,fatherofthegods,uponhis firmcommanddrew theborderbetweenNingirsu[godofLagash]andShara[godofUmma] ... Eannatum,rulerofLagash ... madetheborderbyextendingtheInun-canal toGu’edena[totheedgeoftheplain] Atthatboundary-channelhe inscribednewboundary-stones ... IfthemanofUmma,inordertocarry offthe fields[takesthe fieldsbyforce]crossestheboundary-channelof Ningirsu[Lagash] beheamanfromUmma[anUmmaean]or aforeigner,may[thegod]Enlildestroyhim!

Thereareseveralobservationstobemadefromeventhisoneexcerptofone inscription.NotonlyisthereanobviousdistinctiondrawnbetweenLagash andUmma,butalsooneindividualisdistinguishedfromanotherdepending uponwhatcityhewasfrom,so “manfromUmma,” oran “Ummaean,” in contrasttobothamanfromLagashandaforeigner.Thisdesignationof “man(orson)ofcity-statex”– characteristicoftheMesopotamiancity-states – indicatesthatterritoriallocationwasareferenceinself-classiﬁcation.Of course,within,forexample,Umma,thepopulationofwhichisestimatedto havebeenapproximatelytwentythousand,5 theindividualwouldhavealso understoodhimselforherselfasamemberofafamily.Wethushave acomminglingoftwoformsofkinship:descentwithinaterritoryand descentwithinthefamily.

Thisterritorialkinshipofthosewhoarefrom,orof,thecity-stateis dependentuponthestabilityovertimeofanimageofitsterritory.The classificatorysalienceaffordedbythestabilityofthatimagewillbeachievedif therearerelativelyprecisebordersovertimeincontrasttoimprecisefrontiers, fluctuatingbothgeographicallyandtemporallyoftenasaresultofwar. WeseethatinthedescriptionoftheconflictbetweenLagashandUmma therewerecarefullydemarcatedborders,andspecificallymanmadeborders: theboundary-canal/channelandboundary-stones.Thereisagreatdealof evidencethroughoutthehistoryoftheancientNearEastofcarefullydemarcatedborders,onlyafewexamplesofwhicharetheboundarybetweenHatti andthelandimmediatelytoitswest,Tarhuntassa,6 theprovincesofthe

4 JerroldCooper, PresargonicInscriptions (NewHaven:AmericanOrientalSociety, 1986), 54–57

5 PiotrSteinkeller, “AnEstimateofthePopulationoftheCityofUmmainURIIITimes,” inYagmurHeffron,AdamStone,andMartinWorthington(eds.), AttheDawnofHistory: AncientNearEasternStudiesinHonourofJ.N.Postgate (WinonaLake:Eisenbrauns, 2017), 535–566

6 GaryBeckman, HittiteDiplomaticTexts (Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1996), 104–105

AssyrianEmpireasdescribedintheAnnalsofTiglath-PileserIII,7 andtheland ofIsraelasdelineatedinNumbers 34:2–12. 8 Theideathatinantiquitythere wereonlygeographicallyimprecisefrontiers,dependentsolelyuponnatural barrierssuchasmountainranges,deserts,andrivers,isfactuallyincorrect. Moreover,asoneshouldexpect,thisterritorialkinshipofthecity-state ﬁnds expressioninlaw,speciﬁcallyinthelegal-anthropologicalcategoryofthe Akkadianterm awı ¯lum (Sumerian lú),thefreeadultindividual.

Thisterritorialkinship,conveyed,onceagain,bythedescriptiveclassificatoryidiom “son(s)ofcityx”– aclassificationseeminglydistinctfrom “son(s) ofatribe” (or “houseofaneponymousancestor”) – consistsoftheinhabitantsofthecity-state,who,asmembersof(or “sonsof”)thecity-state,claimed privilegesandrightsbasedupontheirterritorialdescentandresidence.9 Needlesstosay,notallwhodwelledwithintheterritoryofthecity-state hadthoseprivilegesandrights,asthelawsdistinguishedbetween,ontheone hand,the awı ¯lum,and,ontheother,theindenturedservant,slave,and foreigner,wherethe awı ¯lum,asafreeadultmemberofthestate,possessed authorityoverhimselfandhispropertywithinthestate.10 Itmayverywellbe thatthehistorianisjustifiedintranslating awı ¯lum as “citizen.” Puttingaside considerationofthemeritofthispossibilityanditshistoriographicalimplications,the awı ¯lum isnotmerelyalegalcategory.Itisalsoimplicitlyan anthropologicalcategoryasthereisaterritorialkinshipwithotherswho arerecognizedtobe awı ¯lum – akinshipconveyingjurisdictiontothelawful exerciseofthe awı ¯lum’spoweroverhimselfandhisproperty.Thisterritorial jurisdictionofthelegalcategoryofthefree,adultmaleisexplicitinthe biblical ’ezra¯h ˙ ha’ares ˙ , “nativeoftheland”– atermoflegalanthropology distinctfromboththealienwhoresidescontinuallyintheland(ge¯r)andthe foreigner(nokrî),andwhichappears,eitheras ’ezra¯h ha’ares ˙ orabbreviatedas

7 HayimTadmor, TheInscriptionsofTiglath-PileserIII (Jerusalem:IsraelAcademyof SciencesandHumanities, 1994).

8 Forotherexamples,seeStevenGrosby, “BordersandStates,” inDanielSnell(ed.), ACompaniontotheAncientNearEast (Malden,MA:Wiley-Blackwell, 2019); StevenGrosby, “Frontiers,AncientNearEast,” inRogerS.Bagnell,KaiBrodersen, CraigeB.Champion,AndrewErskine,andSabineR.Huebner(eds.), Encyclopediaof AncientHistory (Malden,MA:Blackwell, 2012), 2770–2771

9 AmélieKuhrt, TheAncientNearEast,c. 3000–330 BC (London:Routledge, 1995), 614;see alsoMarcVandeMieroop, “TheGovernmentofanAncientMesopotamianCity,” in KazukoWatanabe(ed.), PriestsandOfﬁcialsintheAncientNearEast (Heidelberg: C.Winter, 1999), 139–161

10 EvaVonDassow, “FreedominAncientNearEasternSocieties,” inKarenRadnerand EleanorRobson(eds.), OxfordHandbookofCuneiformStudies (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, 2011), 205–228;seealsoDanielSnell, FlightandFreedomintheAncientNearEast (Leiden:Brill, 2001); TheAssyrianDictionary,vol. I (Chicago:OrientalInstitute, 1956–2011), A,part 2, amı ¯lu, 48–57