Suchergebnisse

A byproduct of Theban hegemony and a check against Spartan revival, the new city state of Messenia was simultaneously a return to the past (pre Spartan hegemony) and the creation of something brand new (the wholesale construction of the city of Messene upon the introduction of Theban hegemony). In this sense, the new Messenian polity was an artificial construct, a supposed rebirth of a city state, through the lens of classical rebellions and the ethnic diaspora, resulting in a new and free Messenia (Alcock 1998, Ober 1985, Luraghi 2008). The historical narrative tied to Messenian resurrection (mainly through Pausanias and Diodorus, whereas Xenophon is notably silent on this) is ripe for analysis. Indeed, in recent years, Messenian and Helot identity have witnessed a revival of interest in their own right within the academic community (cf., in particular, Luraghi and Alcock 2003). Through examining the Messenian ethnogenesis (Luraghi 2012) in conjunction with the sociopolitical subtext of the construction of Messene itself, we might better understand how groups "buy in" to one version of "resurgence"—namely, how new political realities look to the past to establish precedent and normalcy in the face of seismic change. The new Messenia was no return of the same, but rather a reinvention, one contingent on new historical circumstance. In this sense, we might look beyond the foundation of Messene to its legacy and notions of sustainability, in that its creation was dependent on Theban support and the leadership of Epaminondas. With the end of Theban hegemony and the ascendancy of Macedon, Messenia, like most of Greece, lost substantial political independence. The adversarial relationship between Sparta and Messenia remained long into the Hellenistic and Roman period. By studying the continuity of this adversarial historical narrative, Messenia offers a unique parallel with resurgent cities in the modern era.

AbstractAs a concept, ethnogenesis presupposes a category of individuals that are not a group becomes a group. Most accounts of ethnogenesis exhibit two features: they confuse ethnogenesis with the resilience of ethnicity, and they describe the "emergence" of ethnic groups as a response to external circumstances. This paper deviates from these perspectives by adopting a primordial approach, arguing that internal rather than external forces generate group cohesion. I establish three related propositions: First, while the debate between the so-called "circumstantialists" and "primordialists" suggests that these perspectives can be used interchangeably depending on scholarly preference, I argue that a "primacy" holds in favor of the primordial perspective. Second, I assert that this primordial perspective must be redefined, since ethnogenesis always incorporates "external" elements, thus changing and adapting to specific social and physical ecologies. Consequently, an ethnic group is constituted by the content of the ethnicity which functions as "boundaries." Third, I contend that the emergence of primordial (though adjusted) ethnicity is not a "natural" process but instead requires actors that shape it, and that the initiatives of ethnic leaders are crucial in this regard. These propositions are established through a comparison of British Indians in the three former Caribbean plantation colonies of Suriname, Guyana, and Jamaica.

This article analyzes the 1993 Kyana Corroboree of the Noongah Aborigines of Western Australia as a case study of the cultural production and cultural politics of ethnogenesis and indigeneity through public celebration. Kyana is a local example of how indigenous peoples globally experience "ethnic reorganization," an often inchoate, mutable process of social reproduction that encourages the survival of an ethnic group, albeit in an altered form. This article demonstrates how Noongah and Aboriginal ethnogenesis is composed of a mercurial mixture of conflict and concordance, especially in regard to aspirations toward some level of influence over the self‐definition of Aboriginality and its symbolic representations.The organization of contemporary ethnicity and the nature of current ethnic relations reflect contemporary adaptations and continually evolving identities and institutions.—Nagel and Snipp 1993, p. 225Celebration is a "text," a vivid aesthetic creation that reflexively depicts, interprets and informs its social context. [Celebration] articulates and modifies power relations.—Manning 1983, p. 6