Imperial Core Research Articles

Chemical Composition by Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) of Neo-Assyrian Palace Ware from Iraq, Syria and Israel

Neo-Assyrian Palace Ware is an 8th-7th century B.C.E. fine-ware which originated in Northern Mesopotamia and spread throughout the greater Levant. The mechanism by which Palace Ware moved across the Neo-Assyrian imperial landscape (trade or local imitation/emulation) is of great archaeological interest. This dataset provides chemical compositional data, generated using instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), for Palace Ware vessels from Nimrud and Nineveh, in the Assyrian imperial core (Iraq), Dūr-Katlimmu, in one of the annexed provinces (Syria), and Tell Jemmeh, located outside the Neo-Assyrian provincial system (Israel).

Reflective Colonization: Domination, Consent, and the Self in Imperial Russia

Historians have pointed out that as a terrestrial rather than an overseas empire, the Russian empire has had to grapple with a blurry boundary between imperial center and periphery. Ektind goes a step further to show that the Russian empire was the stage for intensive colonization of the imperial core itself and the attendant processes of self-orientalization and self-alienation. The review identifies and explores three dimensions of the process of internal colonization. In the first, colonization by consent, Russian historical writers’ interpretations of the origins of the state in terms of consent to (foreign) domination are contextualized by drawing on colonizers’ fantasy of consent across contexts and historical periods, and by pointing to resistance as an important aspect of the relation between Russian imperial elites and the colonized. The second dimension is the idea of colonizing “one’s own,” whereby elites not only coerced people of the imperial core into various practices, but also viewed them through an orientalizing lens, and this, from the beginnings of serfdom through the nineteenth-century populists’ efforts at rapprochement (the perceived divide between rulers and ruled is, it is argued, still salient in Russian politics). The last dimension, strangers to ourselves, deals with the “splitting of the self” from a postcolonial studies perspective but it is pointed out that the use of psychoanalytic frameworks and literary theory may reproduce orientalist interpretations of the Russian imperial self. Instead, it is argued that self-orientalizing discourses in the Russian context may serve to divert attention away from one’s actual power.

In the Hunt for the “Sultans of Smack:” Dope, Gangsters and the Construction of the Turkish Deep State

This article traces the development and evolution of the Turkish heroin trade against the backdrop of the Republic of Turkey's long transition from imperial core to nation-state. In taking up heroin's relationship to modern Turkey, I would like to specifically explore the meaning and manifestations of what many inside and outside of academia have called the "deep state." Heroin, I argue, was and is one of the most vital enablers of the factional "deep state" rivalries that compete for power in Ankara, adding a steady violent dimension to local and national politics.

“No country really now”: Modernist Cosmopolitanisms and Jean Rhys’s Quartet

Research Article| December 01 2010 “No country really now”: Modernist Cosmopolitanisms and Jean Rhys’s Quartet Amy Clukey Amy Clukey Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Twentieth-Century Literature (2010) 56 (4): 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1215/0041462X-2010-1001 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Amy Clukey; “No country really now”: Modernist Cosmopolitanisms and Jean Rhys’s Quartet. Twentieth-Century Literature 1 December 2010; 56 (4): 437–461. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/0041462X-2010-1001 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsTwentieth-Century Literature Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © Hofstra University2010 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Essays You do not currently have access to this content.

From the Editors. A Window on the Dilemmas of History Writing on Empire and Nation

387 Ab Imperio, 2/2003 Alexander SEMYONOV FROM THE EDITORS. A WINDOW ON THE DILEMMAS OF HISTORY WRITING ON EMPIRE AND NATION In this issue of Ab Imperio, we continue “The State of Art in History Writing on Empire and Nation” series. This project reviews the state of post-Soviet historiography as it encounters the problems of an imperial and national past. The project seeks to situate the works of historians in both the diachronic and synchronic contexts of intellectual traditions, national identity canons, contemporary nation-building, and identity politics in the post-Soviet space as they draw on constructions of the past and its historical boundaries. The present issue features a discussion forum on the problems, dilemmas, and trajectories of the historical profession in contemporary Ukraine and the writing of Ukrainian history. The editors entertain a hope that this forum is especially potent for simultaneously demonstrating the vicissitudes of national history writing and problematic encounters with the imperial past. Recognizing the centrality of Ukrainian history for the new field of empire and nationalism studies in the former Soviet Union, the editors chose to publish a Russian translation of Mark von Hagen’s article “Does Ukraine Have a History?” in Ab Imperio’s first issue.1 As works by A. Kappeler, 1 Ab Imperio. 2000. No. 1. Pp. 37-51. 388 A. Semyonov, From the Editors: A Window on the Dilemmas of History ... M. von Hagen, and A. Miller appeared, the Ukrainian case established itself as one of the “visible nationality questions” (in R. Pearson’s words) in the former Russian empire and assumed the role of a testing ground for hypotheses regarding the general nature of the Russian (rossiiskoe) imperial state and society. In contrast to the Polish (another “visible”) question, the Ukrainian case presented a more complex problem for students of Russian (rossiiskaia) imperial history: the boundaries of Ukrainian nation-building were less clear cut and often confused by competing Russian (russkii) and Polish national projects; multiple identities were further complicated by the presence of strong regional traditions (especially in Eastern parts of what came to be known as contemporary Ukraine); the predominantly peasant nation-building and the historical legacy of a frontier zone between Catholic, Orthodox, and Judaic worlds makes it necessary to consider the religious dimension of concepts of Ukrainian nationhood; the cultural, linguistic, and religious affinity of peasant population in Galicia of the Habsburg empire and southwestern region of the Russian empire and persistent references to that affinity made by Ukrainian nation-builders and empire minded bureaucrats make the Ukrainian case an illustration of the acute need of comparative research in the history of the macro-region of continental empires. The thriving interest to Ukrainian history on the side of those Western scholars who were called Russianists a decade ago powerfully demonstrates the potential of national history to spur the diversification and enrichment of imperial history. It is capable of attesting to the multinational composition of imperial society, presenting the history of empire “from below,” illuminating the “top-down” machinery of the imperial government , and revealing minutiae interactions in socially, culturally and ethnically heterogeneous milieu. Thus, it was, to name but a few, the work by Z. Kohut (Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy: Imperial Absorption of the Hetmanate, 1760s-1830s) that enriched historians’understanding of the development of the Russian (rossiiskii) imperial state, echoed recently in K. Matsuzato’s thesis of three cores comprising the history of Russian statehood,2 the work by D. Saunders (The Ukrainian Impact on Russian 2 Z. Kohut. Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy: Imperial Absorption of the Hetmanate, 1760s-1830s. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988; K. Matsuzato. General-Governorships in the Russian Empire: From Ethno-Centric to Territorial Approach // New Imperial History. Moscow: Ab Imperio & New Literary Review, forthcoming. 389 Ab Imperio, 2/2003 Culture 1750-1850) that expanded our understanding of cultural interactions and influences between the imperial core and borderlands (in keeping with P. N. Miliukov’s thesis),3 and the work by A. Miller (‘Ukrainskii vopros’v politike vlastei i russkom obshchestvennom mnenii) that offered an insight into the dilemmas of Russian nation-building from the perspective of the Russian-Ukrainian encounter.4 As the Ukrainian case served...

History, Memory and Nation Building in the Post-Soviet Colonial Space

The disintegration of the Soviet Union in December 1991 led to the de-colonization of the world's last remaining empire. Taking this into account, this article seeks to argue two points. Firstly, many of the imperial policies imposed by the imperial core in the Soviet empire were similar in nature to those imposed by imperial powers in Ireland, Africa, and Asia. Secondly, the nation and state building policies of the post-Soviet colonial states are therefore similar to those adopted in many other post-colonial states because they also seek to remove some—or all—of the inherited colonial legacies. A central aspect of overcoming this legacy is re-claiming the past from the framework imposed by the former imperial core and thereby creating, or reviving, a national historiography that helps to consolidate the new national state. All states, including those traditionally defined as lying in the “civic West,” have in the past—and continue to—use national historiography, myths, and legends as a component of their national identities.

Welcome to the Robbiedome

Welcome to the Robbiedome

NAPOLEON, CHARLEMAGNE, AND LOTHARINGIA: ACCULTURATION AND THE BOUNDARIES OF NAPOLEONIC EUROPE

This article attempts to redefine the parameters of Napoleonic hegemony by applying two models to the territories of the Napoleonic empire: one developed by Nathan Wachtel, predicated on levels of acculturation and assimilation to the imperial core ; the second, derived from the work of Braudel and Brunet, which detects a European core, based along the Rhine–Rhone axis, a macro-region with a long, if submerged, history. This study concludes that the acceptance of Napoleonic reforms was achieved only in a core region, already predisposed to them.

Who or what killed the Soviet Union? How three Davids undermined Goliath

The sources of Soviet collapse intertwined, but Baltic independence movements were as weighty as any factors in subverting the USSR. As the imperial core faltered, nationalists in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania gained strength, and links frayed between the authorities at the centre and political actors on the periphery. Activists in each Baltic republic used Gorbachev's platform of perestroika, glasnost’ and legality to assert their nation's sovereignty in specific domains, such as resources and the environment, but soon escalated to demand sovereignty overall ‐ independence. When the Kremlin complained and threatened repressive action, Baits stood fast. Depending on legal and moral force, including non‐violent resistance, they showed the centre to be irresolute. Fostering separatism in other republics, including a Russia led by Boris Yeltsin, Baits triggered multiple challenges to empire. Gorbachev's counter, a planned ‘Union of Sovereign States’, ignited the August 1991 putsch that effectively ended the USSR. Following the abortive coup, Russia and the world recognized Baltic independence.

Colonial Empires and the Capitalist World-Economy: A Time Series Analysis of Colonization, 1640-1960

For most of the history of the capitalist world-economy, imperial conquest was the principal factor in creating a periphery to the European imperial core. This study focuses on how the dynamics of the capitalist world-economy affected the pattern of colonization in the periphery. Colonization is considered a hierarchical alternative to market relations, increased when market relations perform poorly and slowed when the market expands. A time series regression analysis, covering the tonguee duree of the whole system, provides initial comprehensive quantitative support for two central propositions in world-system theory. The findings indicate that long waves of economic expansion and periods of unincentric hegemony negatively affected the rate of colonization. Major wars among core states had no immediate impact but had long-term positive effects. A shift in the international regime brought about by the rise of socialist states also contributed to the decline offormal colonization. The findings point to the utility of long waves, hegemony, and international regimes in long-term historical studies of the trade-off between market and hierarchical relations.