Henri J.M. Claessen, Professor in Leiden, july 1994

(photo H.F. Venneulen)

' ~. )

·~'·

PllDT POLITICS CHANGING CULTURAL IDENTITIES

IN EARLY STATE FORMATION PROCESSES

Martin van Bakel, Renee Hagesteijn, Pieter van de Velde

[editors]

5 Het Spinhuis 1994

ETHNICITY AND ETHNIC GROUPS

IN EARLY STATES

ANATOL Y M. KHAZANOV

The nation and nationalism, apparently, are a modem creation (Gellner 1983; Anderson 1983), the ethnic group and ethnicity are not. Although some manifestations of nationalism can be traced back to pre-industrial societies (Smith 1986; Crone 1989), Gellner (1983: 11) certainly made a point when he claimed that in 'agro--literate society' almost everything militates against the definition of political units in terms of cultural boundaries. Ethnicity, however, can hardly be reduced to culture only and ethnic groups (ethnic communities, ethnoses, nationalities, etc.) were fairly conspicuous long before the industrial era despite a great variety of other entities with which ithey often overlapped. Any b'Toup has its boundaries and where there are boundaries there are also mechanisms to maintain them (Nash 1989: 10.) In many cases ethnicity as a conscious collective identity that reveals itself particularly strongly in those kinds of 'we-they' opposition in which cultural boundaries acquire political meaning, was crystallised already in the Early States.

It may be argued that the very use of the term 'ethnicity', or even an 'ethnic group', with respect to the Early State is problematic. Ethnicity in them was fluid, changing and manipulated, or intersecting with other identities. Still I think that it not only existed there but sometimes became a politically salient phenomenon.

The ethnic composition of different Early States varied significantly. Nevertheless, they may be tentatively subdivided into three main types.

Type!

The mono-ethnic Early States in which ethnic borders tend more or less coincide with political ones. This is the most favourable condition for the processes of ethnic consolidation. Ancient Egypt is a typical example. The ways in which the country was united are still unclear; however, already in the Archaic period (in accordance with different suggested chronologies, c. 3000 - 2500 BC. give or take 100 or more years), at the very dawn of their written history, the Egyptians appeared as a self-conscious nationality! without any sub-ethnic divisions that could be traced back to their prehistoric past (Janssen, 1978: 218.) It is often speculated that the nomes had emerged on a tribal base (Emery 1961: 109) but we do not have any evidence to support this

I The term "nationality" is more widespread in political science than in anthropology. Unfortunately, a common definition for this term is still absent. Strange as it may seem, I think that the term is applicable to the Early State situation, if one conceives by it a culturally and linguistically homogeneous ethnic community with a more or less clear self-consciousness and self-identification.

67

Pivot Politics

hypothesis. A more plausible assumption is that the original nomes had been chiefdoms or even nascent states (Trigger 1983: 44-8), however, virtually nothing is known about their ethnic composition and structure.

Another example from a different region and historical period is early medieval Norway (Gurevich 1970: 12)2. Up to the ninth century, Norway was nothing more than a conglomeration of separate polities. All of them were ethnically homogeneous and there were no significant linguistic or cultural differences between them. In the remote past they could correspond to some ethnic or other communities (Gurevich 1977: 87), from which the Norwegian nationality ultimately emerged, but by the end of the first millennium AD., they had already acquired a purely territorial character. By that time, the language, culture, religion and mytho!O!,'Y were the same for all Norwegians. Their territorial mobility only facilitated a formation of their ethnic unity.

The difficult and prolonged period of state formation in early medieval Norway is well­known. Although local separatism was very strong, it was in no way caused by ethnic controversies and divisions. On the contrary, the gradually strengthening all-Norwegian self--<:onsciousness sometimes facilitated a consolidation of the state, particularly in its struggle against the claim of the Danish kingdom.

The third and final example, the Hawaiian islands, is, again, another case from a quite different region and historical period. It is supposed that the first Polynesians arrived in Hawaii from the Marquesas islands circa 700 AD., or even a few centuries earlier and after them came migrants from Tahiti who brought new cultural influences. Both !,>Toups soon merged into a single ethnic community which occupied the whole Archipelago (Finney 1967: 54; Green 1967: 157-158; Spriggs 1988: 58, 68.) No linguistic, cultural or social differences can be traced between the occupants of the different islands.

We still lack exhaustive explanation of the fact that a statehood emerged in Hawaii very late and, possibly, under the influence of European contacts (Goldman 1970; Kirch 1986; however, cf. Seaton 1978; Van Bake! 1991.) Since the thirteenth century there were chiefdoms in Hawaii which embraced parts of each island, or even paramount chiefdoms which embraced territories of whole islands (Earle 1978; Spriggs 1988: 62.) But the next step was never made. The war that eventually resulted in the unification of the whole archipelago under the rule of Kamehameha I, never took place until five years after the islands had been visited by Captain Cook and his crew.

However, I would like to stress another circumstance. Whatever reasons made the unification of the Archipelago and state formation difficult, ethnic problems certainly were not one of them. Chiefdoms in Hawaii were shaped along ecological and geographical lines, not along non-existent ethnic ones. Apparently, ethnic homogeneity facilitated the emergence of a certain socio-political continuity. All forms of social

2 l am most grateful to A. Ia. Gurevich for his valuable consultation on this issue.

68

Anatoly M Khazanov

organisation were the same for all the islands. Moreover, the aristocracy was considered to be a single upper stratum for the whole archipelago; the birth-place and affiliation of its members with individual chiefdoms did not matter. One may sunnise that the Hawaiian nationality emerged long before the state of Kamehameha I came into existence, but this situation did not accelerate the state formation in Hawaii.

The examples suggest the following conclusions. In the mono-ethnic Early States, nationality had sometimes been developing already in the period of state formation, although by itself it neither accelerated state formation, nor hampered this process. In this respect it was rather neutral. The formation of the Early State in such cases naturally led to a further strengthening of internal information and communication networks and a consolidation of nationality. The consolidation was achieved not because of any specific measures undertaken by the state but rather as a result of general processes connected with the development of the Early Statehood. The mono-ethnic Early States lacked any specific ethnic policy, nor did they need it.

Type II

The monolingual Early States without clearly defined ethnic communities. Often, the linguistic boundaries of these communities far exceeded the political ones.

A typical example is the early city-states of ancient Sumer which originally emerged as polities, embracing several territorial communities. All of these city-states revealed a significant uniformity in terms of lin!,ruistic, cultural and even religious respects. Their economic and socio-political structures were also very similar. Some dialectal differences may be traced in the Sumerian language but, apparently, they reflected previous historical periods; in no way did they coincide with existing political borders (Diakonov 1959: 164.)

According to the later Sumerian tradition, at the very dawn of its dynastic history, lower Mesopotamia enjoyed a measure of cultural, religious and, to a certain extent, even political unity. This, possibly, reflected a kind of tribal confederation, or a religious league with a common centre in Nippur (Jacobsen 1957; Hallo & Simpson 1971: 38.) Later, political loyalties replaced tribal and other loyalties in the developing city-states. 'Love of the city-state naturally came first in time and was never altogether superseded by love of Sumer as a whole' (Kramer 1963: 260.)

It is not clear whether the Sumerians in the pre-Sargonic periods had a common self­identity (Diakonov 1967: 36.) Even the common self-appellation, the 'black-headed ones', came into existence rather late (Kramer 1963: 285.) Belonging to a certain city­state prevailed in Sumer above other identities. Local particularism was very strong, but it was of a strictly political order and did not have any ethnic connotations. There is no reason to follow MacNeish (1981: 140) and call late Uruk the 'pristine national state'. The separate city-states were not populated by specific ethnic !,>Toups, even less so by nationalities. Ethnic self--<:onsciousness of the Early State nationalities usually was

69

Pivot Politics

entwined with political, confessional, and other self-conscious feelings, but was never completely replaced by them. If ethnic self-consciousness and self-identification are weak, or absent, nationality does not exist.

Mesopotamia was temporarily unified, first, under the sway of the Semitic dynasty of Akkad, and then, by the third dynasty of Ur, which had little effect on the situation. Diakonov insists that it would be wrong to consider the two realms as the realisations of Akkadian and Sumerian national aspirations. 'At any rate, there are no grounds to consider the emergence of the third dynasty of Ur a result of(Sumerian) reaction against the 'national' dominance of Akkad, or to view the history of Mesopotamia in general as a conscious struggle of the two ethnic groups' (Diakonov 1959: 258.) Apparently, this is an exaggeration. In all probability, there was considerable friction between the Sumerians and Akkadians, at any rate during the period of the Sargonic dynasty. Sargon and his successors appointed fellow Akkadians to the higher administrative posts and garrisoned the Sumerian cities with Akkadian troops, and the Sumerians were unhappy with this situation (Kramer 1963: 61, 288.) In any case, centrifugal forces soon prevailed in the realms of the Sargonic dynasty and the third dynasty of Ur, and they were tom up by internal strife.

It seems that the birth of Sumerian nationality was prevented by peculiarities in the region's political development. In South Mesopotamia there were no stimuli for a stable and prolonged political unity of separate city-states. In this situation the Early State became an obstacle of ethnic integration and self-identification.

Another example of the second type of Early State was Mycenean Greece. It had already reached a significant linguistic and cultural unity and had a common literacy but, in political respects it consisted of separate kingdoms. The situation was similar to the Sumerian one. Political fragmentation into 'petty bureaucratic states' (Finley 1981: 53) prevented the development of a common self-identification. It even handicapped the emergence of a common appellation among the population of mainland Greece and Crete, and the formation of a single nationality. Thucydides (I, 8) with his customary perspicacity confirmed this quite unequivocally when he claimed that before the Trojan War, and even by the time of Homer, the Hellenes and Hellas had neither a common name nor a common cause.

Consciousness about belonging to a specific state, probably, was not coloured ethnically. Therefore, there are no grounds to discuss hypothetical Mycenean, Pylos or Tiryns ethnicities. They simply did not exist. Just like in Sumer, the emergence of local Early States hindered the development of ethno-inte!,>rative processes on the regional level, while common regional elements of a potential ethnic community, like language, literacy or customs, prevented the formation of separate ethnic groups on the local level. The realm of Ahhiyawa in the thirteenth century BC. may have changed this trend, however, and soon afterwards the central political power was broken up and Mycenean civilisation ended.

70

Anatoly M Khazanov

The second time the Early State emerged in ancient Greece in the first millennium BC., it developed rapidly into a very specific but mature one. Nevertheless, for the sake of comparison, I would like to pay some attention to the peculiarities of ethnic processes in ancient Greece of that period.

Dorians, Ionians and Aeolians never constituted political or territorial units. In their case the polysemantic ancient Greek term nomos, 'tribe', refers to a kind of ethno-linguistic unity with past historical connotations. One may surmise that at best these entities originally could have evolved into separate ethnic groups, but in the historical conditions of their migrations and resettlement, this potential, if it ever existed at all, remained unrealised in practice.

In ancient Greece ethnicity became a very diffused notion. Self-identification of ancient Greeks was realised on multiple levels, without any consistent taxonomic principles. Most important was citizenship in a polis, a city-state. Although patriotism in the polis was very strong, it reflected a political, not ethnic consciousness (Humphreys 1983: 130.) Phylai ('tribes') were possibly a political invention connected with an emerging polis (Snodgrass 1980: 25.) Ancient Greeks were also aware of their belonging to broader cultural territorial units. For instance, the Arcadians or Boeotians had some vague ethnic connotations, whereas the Dorians, or Ionians, had a broader, mote diffused, unity based on dialectical differences and on common genealogical and mythological traditions.

That was not all. Despite the political disunity of the first half of the first millennium BC., Hellenic ethnicity emerged and developed. It is possible to trace some stages of this process.

Homer did not have a common name for Hellenes, and in his time Hellenic ethnicity did not yet exist. However, in the eighth century BC., it is fairly certain that a notion of common Hellenic ethnicity was manifest. In that century the opposition between Hellenes and barbarians took a clear shape and all non-Greeks were excluded from participation in pan-Hellenic festivals. It was in that century that Hesiod first gave literary expression to the belief that all Hellenes had a common progenitor, Hellen, a grandson of Prometheus and a great-great-grandson of Heaven and Ocean (Finley 1986: 125.)

Significantly, the ideas of pan-Hellenic unity became much stronger after the wars with the Persians, during which citizens from different poleis fought their common enemy together. Herodotus (VIII, 144, translated by Grene 1987: 611), through the mouth of the Athenians, explained how these ideas of common Greekness emerged:

'we are one in blood and one in language; those shrines of the Gods belong to us in common and the sacrifices in common, and there are our habits, bred of a common up-bringing'.

This notion is not too different from modem conceptions of ethnicity. In all probability, by the fifth and the fourth centuries BC., Hellenic nationality, though heterogeneous in

71

Pivot Politics

composition and with a hierarchical self-consciousness, was in place. The necessity for the political unification of Hellas, albeit under the sway of Macedonia, certainly facilitated this development in the ethnic history of ancient Greece.

Thus, the process of forming a nationality that had remained incomplete among the Sumerians and the Myceneans advanced much further in ancient Greece. Why? The simplest and most plausible explanation consists in the obvious fact that, in its socio­economic and cultural development, ancient Greek society far exceeded the level of Early State societies. Identification based on culture, language, ideology and some other common characteristics turned out to be strong enough to overcome negative factors connected with political disunity.

Type III

The poly-ethnic Early State is, in all likelihood, the most widespread one, particularly if both pristine and secondary Early States are taken into account (Fried 1967; Khazanov 1978: 78-79.) The typological diversity of these states which had emerged and were functioning in quite different geographic, historic and other milieus, may explain why long-lasting ethnic processes in them were multi-directional and heterogeneous. Nevertheless, some general regularities may be traced in the majority of poly-ethnic Early States.

The most important of them is a certain correlation between the ethnic processes and the political, social and economic specificities of a given state. The state machinery became a means of intervention in and regulation of these processes whenever the ruling class considered this expedient and advantageous to its interests.

Ethno-genesis and ethnic history of any ethnic group and of any nationality have little semblance of a smooth evolutionary development. Their components, such as self­consciousness and self-identification, lant:,>uage, culture, historic-mythological tradition, etc., are moulded and are changing into specific historical conditions. These changes were by no means unilinear and mono-directional. This circumstance provided the state with additional opportunities of ret:,>ulation and direction of ethnic processes. It seems plausible to assume that some poly-ethnic Early States pursued what may be called, in an exaggerated way, deliberate ethnic engineering. In any case, there is no doubt that the ruling class in many of these states resorted to ethno-politics in order to maintain and to strengthen its privileged position in society.

Ethno-politics included those measures that were deliberately connected with regulation and regimentation of inter-ethnic relations and also those measures that were not aimed at this goal directly but nevertheless affected these relations strongly enough. The means that were chosen for pursuing specific ethno-politics might be different, their ideological substantiation might vary to a very large extent, the politics might be more or less consistent and their results not always met the expectations. Nevertheless, the goals were similar - to strengthen positions of the state and its ruling class vis-a-vis the rest

72

Anatoly M Khazanov

of society.

Different kinds of ethno-politics in the poly-ethnic Early States are so diverse that it is impossible even to mention them all in one paper. This is a task for historians and anthropologists of individual Early States. Instead, I will try to define the most characteristic manifestations and dwell a little on the results. But first, I will sketch the socio-political peculiarities of the poly-ethnic Early States which served as background for their ethno-politics.

By the time of their origin, these states were still fairly unstable polities. The composition of their ruling classes was not yet consolidated; the subjects consisted of various social strata and population groups; horizontal and vertical mobility existed on all levels of the social structure; and there were different forms of dependence and exploitation. Social, economic, legal and other gradations in these states did not completely coincide either with each other or with ethnic divisions. The former was not so much opposed but rather interlaced with the latter in many different forms. Since the Early State was actively involved in the stabilisation and consolidation of the socio­political organisation of society and its different classes and strata· composition, all measures undertaken in this direction, even those which lacked specific ethnic colour, nevertheless affected the ethnic processes operating in this state. Spontaneous ethnic processes of previous periods disappeared to a large extent. The ethnic processes in the poly-ethnic Early States became partly ret:,>ulated for the first time in evolutionary history.

Two tendencies in ethnic processes can be singled out in the poly-ethnic Early States; ethno-integrating and ethno-differentiating tendencies. Apparently, the ethno­integrating tendency predominated, albeit to a large extent it lay with stability and longevity of an individual state, as well as with its ethnic policy. It is important to stress, however, that one tendency did not completely exclude another one.

However, even the ethno-differentiating tendency in the Early States acquired a specific character. It cannot be reduced to just a repetition of the past condition, but rather represented a new coil of a spiral which led to the formation of new ethnic groups, usually larger and more consolidated than the preceding ones. Early medieval Germans and their Early States may serve as a good example.

The original Frankish polity consisted of various different ethnic t:,rroups and elements. However, two or three centuries of common political existence promoted their integration. By the time of Clovis, the Franks on the lower Rhine were well on their way toward the formation of a new nationality (Neusykhin 1974: 224.) In the second half of the fifth century, the old ethnic appellations were passe and the singly ethnonym 'Franks' became widespread. Directly or indirectly, the policy of Clovis was conducive to the process of ethnic consolidation. He eliminated autonomous polities in his realm which were often based on ethnic entities of the previous period, and physically destroyed the old nobility-the bearers of separatist tendencies (James 1988: 7.)

73

Pivot Politics

Still the Frankish Early States were neither stable nor strong enough to eliminate completely the ethno-differentiating tendency. The separation of the Ripuar Franks from the Salian Franks, which had begun in the fourth century, subsequently became even more noticeable. It is worth noting, however, that these entities were actually new and temporary fonnations. Their borders did not coincide either with political and ethnic entities of the previous period, or with polities that emerged later on.

In the fifth and sixth centuries, the polities of the Saxons, Bavarians, Thuringians and many others included different, though mainly Gennan ethnic groups, but within these groups certain ethno-integrating tendencies were already developing in these polities. The realisation of this tendency depended on their positions in the system of European Early States in the second half of the first millennium AD .. The Saxons, Bavarians and some others were autonomous dukedoms in the Frankish state, except during Charlemagne's reign. This circumstance facilitated their further internal ethnic consolidation (Giese 1979: 4.) The situation did not change much until the tenth century when royal power in Gennany became stronger. Territorial detachment and political separatism of these dukedoms favoured the growth of ethnic self-consciousness in their population (Kolesnitsk.ii 1978: 43), but hampered the fonnation of the Gennan nationality.

Thus the ethno-integrating and ethno-differentiating tendencies in the poly-ethnic Early States can seldom be completely separated from each other. One of the reasons explaining this situation is connected with the positions and the composition of the ruling class, as well as with its politics. As a rule, only one ethnic group in these states was occupying the dominating positions. Its upper stratum had become the ruling class of a whole state but, naturally, tended to rely on its own relation. At the same time, to strengthen the state and its own power-base it had to give a stake in this state to members of other ethnic groups, thus undermining their own privileged positions3. Contrary to the Soviet Union in which 'all animals were equal, but some animals were more equal than others', nobody was equal in these states even as a matter of principle. Within the framework of the Early State and at the level of its socio-political development, it was difficult and sometimes impossible to solve this contradiction. As a result, the same aspects and manifestations of ethno-politics did not affect different ethnic groups and social strata equally, and might be conducive to both tendencies of ethnic processes, sometimes even simultaneously.

The most conspicuous manifestations of ethno-politics in the poly-ethnic Early States were: ethnic segregation; ethnic displacement and transfer; ethnic incorporation; socialisation of ethnic divisions; linguistic assimilation; cultural unification and the fonnation of new ethnic groups and nationalities.

3 I have described this situation in detail occurring in the Early States founded by the pastoral nomads (see Kha7.anov 1984: 228 ff.).

74

Anato/y M Khazanov

Ethnic segregation

In the Early States this policy was sometimes directed at preventing ethnic merging and assimilation as its consequence. Jn other cases, the prime goal was to maintain the social partition.

The Matabele (Ndebele) state was founded by the Nguni (about 5 percent of the whole population), a splinter group from the Shaka state. The Nguni increased their strength by incorporating into their polity a large group of Soto (about 25 percent of the whole population.) Subsequently, they conquered a vast territory to the North of the Limpopo river and included into their state the ethnically heterogeneous population of the Mambo chiefdom (about 60 percent of the entire population.) All of these different ethnic groups were incorporated into a military-administrative organisation of the state and had to provide contingents for military fonnations. At the same time, social and political divisions that placed the Nguni in the most privileged positions were reaffirmed and marriages between members of different ethnic groups were categorically forbidden (Kuper, Hughes & Van Velsen 1954: 74; Hughes 1956: 58; Smith 1969: 119-121; Lye 1969: 10()-101.) The 'divide et impera' principle was in no way a Roman invention.

Even mixed marriages far from always prevented the ethnic segregation. A significant number of the Hausa traders settled in the Mossi states. They lived in separate quarters and enjoyed an internal autonomy. Mixed marriages were not infrequent and usually the Hausa knew the language of the local population, although they were separated from the former by their reli&rion, Islam. Jn any case, the state was not interested in their assimilation. It preferred that Hausa to remain an alien ethnic and professional group who were useful as the intermediary in foreign trade (Skinner 1975: 13 5.)

Ethnic displacement and transfer

The poly-ethnic Early States practised this policy to weaken the resistance of subjugated groups, or for some other reasons. In tenns of chronology, the Assyrians were apparently the first who practised large-scale ethnic deportations. However, from the evolutionary point of view, the Inca and Aztecs would have been their predecessors. The Inca considered resettlements either as precautions, to govern the newly conquered territories safely, or to support the growing state apparatus (Moore 1958: 103; Patterson 1987: 120, 123.) The Aztecs pursued a similar policy. They sought to make their provinces ethnically heterogeneous and strove to make the Calpulli ethnically mixed in order to prevent possible rebellions (Sanders & Marino 1970: 65, 82.)

In Mali and Songhai a portion of the captives and conquered populations were moved to specially organised settlements where they were compelled to practice agriculture for the ruling class. Remarkably, the state strove to maintain an ethnic homogeneity within these settlements and at the same time to make separate settlements ethnically different (Kubbel 1974: 114.)

75

Pivot Politics

Displacements and transfers often hampered a consolidation of subjugated ethnic groups. The subsequent fate of those who were transferred was different. Sometimes they gradually merged with the dominating ethnic group and usually became its lower strata or castes. In other cases they became encapsulated and eventually might evolve into new ethnic groups.

Ethnic incorporation

Ethnic incorporation consisted in a group's partial or complete incorporation into a dominating ethnic group. In the first case one may speak about the differential incorporation. Contrary to spontaneous assimilation, ethnic incorporation was a purely political act. Nevertheless, social advantages of incorporation often stimulated ethno­integrative and assimilating tendencies.

In this way, the Inca incorporated into their ethnic entity some Quechua-speaking groups in the regions adjacent to Cuzco. The aim of these measures is evident. Having been a minority in their vast and poly-ethnic realm, the Inca were interested in broadening their ethnic support base (Rowe 1946.) The Inca by privilege enjoyed almost the same rights as the Inca by blood and this situation facilitated their merging with the latter. It is worth noting that the state was simultaneously pursuing a policy aimed at the segregation of the Inca from other ethnic groups (Schaedel 1968: 296-297.) As I have already noted, the ethno-differentiating and the ethno-integrating aspects of ethno­politics in the Early States were not mutually exclusive.

The ethnic incorporation was particularly widespread in the pastoral nomadic polities. According to the last great Roman historian, Ammianus Marcellinnus (xxxi: 2, 13, 17), the Alans gradually imposed their name upon defeated peoples and included them into their polity.

The Swazi in South Africa deliberately imposed mixed marriages on subjugated ethnic groups in order to increase their own number (Kuper 194 7: 17.) The natural consequence of ethnic incorporation was the assimilation of subjugated ethnic groups, or parts of them, into a dominating group.

Socialisation of ethnic divisions

Basically, a poly-ethnic Early State faced the same problems as a mono-ethnic one. These problems included the formation of the main social strata and classes, a stabilisation of their composition and a fixation of their positions vis-a-vis each other. When the state included several ethnic groups, it might need a special policy to define mutual positions and relations between different strata of all groups, dominating and subjugated ones.

76

Anatoly M Khazanov

The simplest case involved the establishment of purely tribute relations between the dominating and subjugated ethnic groups. This was the case in many Early States founded by the Eurasian nomads (Khazanov 1984: 224, 228.) Both dominating and subjugated ethnic groups retained their own socio-economic structures. Their interaction took place mainly in the political sphere. Quite naturally, in such cases the ethno-integrating processes were either absent or very weak.

Another case involved the partial socialisation of ethnic divisions as a result of a differentiating policy aimed at different strata of subjugated ethnic groups. In such cases the socio-economic structure of subjugated ethnic !,>Toups was not completely destroyed, but rather restructured in accordance with the interests of the state and its ruling class. Different manifestations and ways of conducting this policy showed great variation.

In the Inca state provincial borders often coincided with ethnic ones and the lower levels of social organisation of subjugated ethnic groups did not undergo any serious change. However, the upper stratum of these groups was incorporated into the ruling class, though on less privileged conditions than the Inca by blood or the Inca by privilege. The former could further improve their social standing through marriages with Inca women (Schaedel 1978: 309.) As a result, the ethno-integrating processes in the Inca state did not embrace the whole subjugated population, but mainly its upper stratum.

The third case was connected with the complete transformation of ethnic divisions into social ones. In the Early States conditions, with their relatively undeveloped economic and social structures, ethnic segregation was often only the initial stage in the socialisation of ethnic differences, i.e., in their transformation into caste and class ones.

The Early States of the Jnterlacustrine region of Africa (Ankole, Toro, Rwanda and some others), with their pastoralist Tutsi aristocracy and the dependent Hutu agriculturists (in some places also the pygmy Twa), may provide an example. The state formation process in the lnterlacustrine region is still fairly obscure, but its final result is quite evident. Wherever pastoralists turned out to be stronger than agriculturists, a single socio-political system emerged on the basis of the social division of labour. The main tendencies in social stratification coincided with economic specialisation and, at the same time, with ethnic differences; this resulted in a tendency towards caste formation.

Not all pastoralists, of course, were included in the ranks of the ruling class, nor were all agriculturists denied access to it. Limited social mobility always existed; it plays a part in every society. An impoverished Tutsi could become Hutu, a Hutu could be elevated to the Tutsi status (d'Hertefeld 1971: 56-57.) However, in the Interlacustrine states this mobility usually took place on an individual level and occurred within the framework of an established social-ethnic cliche based on the opposition between the Tutsi and the Hutu (d'Hertefeld 1971: 56-57; Steinhart 1978: 145; Biick 1981: 19--20.)

77

Pivot Politics

It is difficult to classify the Tutsi and the Hutu precisely. Maquet (1954: 22-23) calls them castes, d 'Hertefeld ( 1971) calls them classes, other scholars call them ethnic groups. They shared a common language; many elements of a state culture; common political and ideological institutions; and a value system, including the so-called 'cattle complex'. The Tutsi willingly married the Hutu women. However, cultural differences, different historical traditions, and above all, different self-consciousness also remained.

The population of the lnterlacustrine states did not constitute single nationalities. The recent events in Rwanda and Burundi have proved this beyond any doubt. At the same time, it is difficult to assert that this population consisted of two, or more, different nationalities. An ethnic group is a better tenn but still too loose. Apparently it would be most proper to characterise them as ethno--castes which potentially could either merge into a single nationality (like in Buganda), or serve as a base for the fonnation of separate nationalities. Ethno--integrating tendencies in these states were operating simultaneously with ethno--differentiating ones; a prevalence of one of them depended on the specific historical situation.

A similar situation existed in some other regions of Africa (see, for example, Kubbel 197 4: 82 on the situation in the Songhai state) and in some other parts of the world. Evidently, some of the Indian castes were originally ethnic segments or groups which eventually blended into the social structure oflndian society (Wink 1990: 280.)

linguistic assimilation

Purely administrative and communicative requirements of any state demand the development of a common language, or at least, a lingua franca. Inasmuch as economic and other ties in the poly-ethnic Early States were still rather weak, a conducting factor of the linguistic policy in them often belonged to the state. Diakonov has noticed that the factual material at hand does not indicate that in the most ancient Near Eastern states any language was deliberately imposed upon a subjugated population (Diakonov 196 7: 5.) However, in other Early States the situation was different.

The Aztecs promoted the spread of Nahuatl language in the Valley of Mexico (Heath 1972.) The Inca actively imposed the Quechua language upon subjugated ethnic groups (Mason 1968: 8; Sanders & Marino 1970: 82; Toland 1987: 139.) One may also refer to the spread of hieroglyphic written language in China as a functional analogy to a state language. In the Chinese context, it proved to be a very effective means for infonnation transmission in the multilingual and multi-dialectal society.

Of course, a linguistic assimilation, particularly a partial one, did not necessarily involve an ethnic assimilation. However, it certainly served as an ethno--integrating factor and not infrequently it was a stage in the fonnation of new ethnic groups and nationalities.

78

Anatoly M Khazanov

Cultural unification

lit is often possible to trace in the poly-ethnic Early States that simultaneous existence of several cultures, or subcultures, which are characteristic of different ethnic groups and different political classes and strata. At the same time the fonnation of what may be called a state culture and a political ideology was occurring. These included a code and a style of government; the behaviour of different social strata towards a state and each other; a means of ideological influence of the state; and the legitimation of its power. Often the state culture was created above all on the basis of the culture of the politically dominating ethnic group. Naturally it reflected state requirements and, therefore, iit was usually broader than the former. In such cases it included cultural elements of other ethnic groups incorporated into the state.

Among the different manifestations of a state culture one may single out the state religion; the state pantheon; the state appointed, or supported, priesthood; the state ritual and the state ideology, including modified or newly created myths and legends aimed at the legitimation of state power (Kurtz 1981: 186.) In this fashion the Aztecs promoted the cult of their major god Huitzilopochtli and at the same time incorporated into the state pantheon many deities of other ethnic groups (Bray 1968.) By late Aztec times, common ritual, as well as diplomatic and military behaviour and some other factors, provided integration of some ethnic groups like Chalca, Tepanec and Acolhua into the wider Aztec society (Blanton et al. 1981: 152.)

The spread of the state culture might result in a partial levelling of those cultural differences that were connected with the ethnicity and, thus, indirectly facilitated the ethno--integrating tendency.

The Formation of new ethnic groups and nationalities

This completes the logical consequence of the ethno--integrating processes which were developing in many Early States. Maybe the best example of this is the fonnation of new nationalities in early medieval Europe. They emerged as a result of the conjoining of many Gennan and other ethnic groups that had migrated to the territory of the Roman empire with the local Roman or Romanised population.

Not every group within the ruling strata of the Early States that had emerged on the ruins of the Roman empire consistently encouraged a policy of ethnic merging. One may refer to the prohibition of intennarriage between the Romans and the Goths in the kingdoms of the Goth's which was abrogated only in the sixth century (Wolfram 1987: 232.) However, the general trend in socio-political, linguistic and cultural processes in these states gave way to the ethno--integrative and assimilatory tendencies.

Another example concerns the Tartars of the Golden Horde. The Mongol conquerors in the steppes of Eastern Europe physically destroyed the old Qipchaq aristocracy,

79

Pivot Politics

significantly altered a clan-like and tribal composition of the subjugated Qipchaqs and imposed themselves as the ruling class of a newly emerged Early State. During the next two centuries the Mongols, who were few in number, merged with their nomadic subjects and adopted their language. As a result, the Tartars of the Golden Horde emerged as a new nationality only to be destroyed later when the Golden Horde disintegrated into other states (Fedorov-Davydov 1973: 41-42.)

In another continent, Africa, such Early States as Bunyoro, and particularly Buganda, may serve as an example. Contrary to Ankole, or Rwanda, in Bunyoro the pastoralists of Nilotic origin actively mixed with the Bantu-speaking agriculturists. In these states the ethnic process took a path not towards a caste formation but toward obliterating ethnic and cultural differences and a formation of a new and single ethnic community (Steinhart 1981.)

Sensu stricto, all these examples are connected with ethnic assimilation. However, in the Early States this assimilation often had one peculiarity. Quite often, it resulted not so much in the mere disappearance of one ethnic group, but rather in the formation of a new ethnic community, sometimes a new nationality.

To conclude, ethnic processes in the poly-ethnic Early States were multifarious and sometimes even contradictory. The ethno-integrating and ethno-differentiating tendencies of these processes did not completely exclude each other. They might operate simultaneously on different levels of social organisation and might affect unevenly different social strata and ethnic groups of an Early State. My main point is that in the Early States these processes ceased to be spontaneous; the state played a direct and diverse role in the destiny of all ethnic groups that used to live under its sway.

References

Anderson, B. 1983 Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.

London: Verso.

Back, L.R. 1981 'Traditional Rwanda: deconsecrating a Sacred Kingdom', in H.J.M.

Claessen & P. Skalnik, eds, The study of the State, pp. 15-33. The Hague: Mouton.

Bake!, M.A. van 1991 'The political economy of an Early State: Hawaii and Samoa Compared', in:

H.J.M. Claessen & P. van de Velde, eds, Early State economics, pp. 265-290. New Brunswick/London: Transaction.

Blanton, R.E., S.A. Kowaleski, G. Feinman & J. Appel 1981 Ancient Mesoamerica. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

80

Anatoly M Khazanov

Bray, W. 1968 Everyday life of the Aztecs. New York: Putnam.

Crone, P. 1989 Pre-industrial societies. Oxford: Blackwell.

d'Hertefeld, M. 1971 Les clans du Rwanda anci~n. Elements d'ethno-sociologie et

d'ethnohistoire. Tervuren: Musee Royal de I' Afrique Centrale.

Diakonov, J.M. 1959 Obshchestvennyi i gosudarstvennyi stroi drevnego dvurech 'ia. Shumer.

Moscow: lzdatel'stvo Vostochnoi Literatury. 1967 Lazyki drevnei perednei Azii. Moscow: Nauka.

Earle, T. 1978 Economic and social organization of a Complex Chiefdom: the Hale/ea

district, kaua 'i; Hawaii. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology [Anthropological papers No. 63]

Emery, W.B. 1961 Archaic Egypt. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Fedorov-Davydov, G.A. 1973 Obshchestvennyi stroi zolotoi or<iy. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo MGU.

Finley, M.I. 1981 Early Greece: the Bronze and Archaic Ages. New York: Norton. 1986 The use and abuse of history. London: Hogarth.

Finney, B.R. 1967 'New perspectives on Polynesian voyaging', in: G.A: Highland et al., eds,

Polynesian culture history, 141-166. Honolulu: Bishop Museum [Special publication No. 56]

Fried, M.H. 1967 The evolution of political society. New York: Random House.

Gellner, E. 1983 Nations and nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.

Giese, W. 1979 Der Stamm der Sachsen und das Reich in ottonischer und sa/ischer Zeit.

Wiesbaden: Steiner.

81

Pivot Politics

Goldman, I. 1970 Ancient Polynesian society. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Green, R. 1967

Grene, D. 1987

'The immediate origins of the Polynesians', in: G.A. Highland et al., eds, Polynesian Culture History, 215-240. Honolulu: Bishop Museum [Special publication No. 56]

The History. Herodotus. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Gurevich, A. Ia. 1970 Svobodnoe krestianstvofeoda/'noi Non1egii. Moscow: Nauka. 1977 Non1ezhskoe obshehestvo v rannee srednevekovie. Problemy sotsial 'nogo

stroia i kultury. Moscow: Nauka.

Hallo, W.W. & W.K. Simpson 1971 The ancient Near East. A history.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Heath, S.B. 1972 Telling tongues: language policy in Mexico, colony to nation. New York:

Teachers College.

Hughes, A.J.B. 1956 Kin, caste and nation among the Rhodesian Ndebele. Manchester:

University of Manchester.

Humphreys, S.C. 1983 Anthropology and the Greeks. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Jacobsen, T. 1957 'Early political development in Mesopotamia', Zeitschriftfiir Assyriologie

und Vorderasiatische Archaologie 52: 91-140.

Janssen, Jae. J. 1978 'The Early State in Ancient Egypt', in H.J.M. Claessen & P. Skalnik, eds,

The Early State, 213-234. The Hague: Mouton.

Khazanov, A.M. 1978 'Some theoretical problems of the study of the Early State', in H.J.M.

Claessen & P. Skalnik, eds, The Early Staie, 77-92. The Hague: Mouton. 1984 Nomads and the outside world. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

82

Anatoly M Khazanov

Kirch, P .V., ed 1986 Island societies. Archaeological approaches to evolution and

transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Kramer, S.N. 1963 The Sumerians. Their history, culture and character. Chicago: University of

Chicago.

Kubbel, L.E. 1974 Songaiskaia derzhava. Moscow: Nauka.

Kuper, H. 1947 An African aristocrac,y: rank among the Swazi. London: Oxford University

Press.

Kuper, H., A.J.B. Hughes & J. van Velsen 1954 The Shona and Ndebele of Southern Rhodesia. London: International

African Institute.

Kurtz, D.V. 1981 'The legitimation ofEarly Inchoate States', in H.J.M. Claessen & P.

Lye, W.F. 1969

Skalnik, eds, The Study of the State, 177-200. The Hague: Mouton.

The Ndebele kingdom South of the Limpopo River. Journal of African History 10: 87-104.

MacNeish, R.S. 1981 'The transition to statehood as seen from the mouth of a cave',.in G.D.

Jones & R.R. Kautz, eds, The transition of statehood in the New World, 123-154. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Maquet, J.J. 1954 le :;ysteme des relations sociales dans le Ruanda Ancien. Tervuren: Musee

Royal du Congo Beige.

Mason, J.A. 1968 The ancient civilization of Peru. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Moore, S.V. 1958 Power and property in Inca Pen1. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.

Nash, M. 1989 The cauldron of ethnicity in the modem world. Chicago: University of

Chicago.

83

Pivot Politics

Neusykhin, A.I. 1974 Problemy Evropeiskogofeodalizma. Moscow: Nauka.

Patterson, T.C. 1987 'Tribes, chiefdoms and kingdoms in the Inca Empire', in T.C. Patterson &

C. W. Gailey, eds, Power relations and state formation, 117-127. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Rowe, J.H. 1946 'Inca culture at the time of the Spanish conquest', in J.H. Steward, ed,

Handbook of South American Indians, Vol. 2, 183-330. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology [Bulletin No. 3, Smithsonian Institution]

Sanders, W.T. & J. Marino 1970 New World prehistory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Schaedel, RP. 1978 'Early State of the Incas', in H.J.M. Claessen & P. Skalnik, eds, The Early

State, 289-320. The Hague: Mouton.

Seaton, L. 1978 'The Early State in Hawaii', in H.J.M. Claessen & P. Skalnik, eds, The

Early State, 269-288. The Hague: Mouton.

Skinner, E.P. 1975 'Competition within ethnic systems in Africa', in L.A. Despres, ed, Ethnicity

and resource competition in plural societies, The Hague: Mouton.

Smith, A.D. 1986 The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Smith, I. 1969 'Pluralism in Precolonial African Societies', in L.Kuper & M.G. Smith, eds,

Pluralism in Africa, 91-167. Berkeley: University of California.

Snodgrass, A. 1980 Archaic Greece. London: Dent.

Spriggs, M. 1988 'The Hawaiian transformation of ancestral Polynesian society:

conceptualizing Chiefly States', in J. Gledhill, B. Bender & M.T. Larsen, eds, State and Society. The emergence and development of social hierarchy and political centralization, 57-73. London: Unwin Hyman.

84

Anatoly M Khazanov

Steinhart, E. I. 1978 'Ankole: pastoral hegemony', in H.J.M. Claessen & P. Skalnik, eds, The

Early State, 131-150. The Hague: Mouton. 1981 'From "Empire" to State: The emergence ofthe kingdom ofBunyoro­

Kitara: c. 1350-1890', in H.J.M. Claessen & P. Skalnik, eds, The study of the State, 353-370. The Hague: Mouton.

Toland, J.D.

1987 'Discrepancies and dissolution: breakdown of the early Inca state', in H.J.M. Claessen & P. van de Velde, eds, Early State dynamics, 138-153. Leiden: Brill.

Trigger, B.G.

1983 'The rise of Egyptian civilization', in B.G. Trigger, B.J. Kemp, D. O'Connor & A.B. Lloyd, eds, Ancient Egypt. A social history, 1-70. Cambridge:

Wink, A. 1990

Cambridge University.

The making of the Indo--lslamic world Vol. I. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Wolfram, H.

1987 History of the Goths. Berkeley: University of California.

85