History

A disjuncture exists between popular conceptions and professional historians’ evaluation of the significance of Mangal Pandey to both the rebellion of 1857 and the subsequent genealogy of Indian nationalism. In popular memory he is Amar Shaheed, or immortal martyr, and first hero of the Indian independence movement. On the other hand, most historians regard his actions as little more than random, drug-fuelled violence. This paper attempts to recontextualize our understanding of Mangal Pandey’s agency through “against the grain” readings of colonial sources and discourses. It finds that, although often exaggerated, popular narratives probably come closer to the truth, while also concluding that both levels of historical consciousness have been unduly beholden to orientalist and colonialist constructions, including an over-emphasis on religious causes of the rebellion.

NE OF THE CORNERSTONES of ancient law was the principle that the true father of a child was the one who was married to the mother. This principle is problematized in Chariton's Chaereas and Callirhoe. This novel was written at some time between the first century B.C. and the mid-second century A.D. by an author who identifies himself as the secretary of a rh€tor.l His familiarity with the law and the construction of legal dilemma is apparent throughout the plot of his noveL2 This 1 Char. 1.1.1: Xapi'toov 'Acpp08tcrtl:u~, 'A&T,vayopo\l 'tou P1l'tOpo~ iJ7!OYPU(PEU~, 1taeO~ EPOO'ttKOV EV cr\lpaKoucrClt~ YEvollEVOV 8t1lY1lcrollut. References are to the Greek text in the Loeb Classical Library, ed. G. P. Goold, Chariton: Callirhoe (Cambridge [Mass.] 1995). For a summary of views of the novel's date, see B. P. Reardon, "Chariton," in G. Schmeling, ed., The Novel in the Ancient World (Leiden/New York 1996) 312-319. The later dating of Chariton is beginning to gain wider acceptance. E. L. Bowie, "The Readership of Greek Novels in the Ancient World,' in J. A. Tatum, ed., The Search for the Ancient Novel (Baltimore 1994) 435-459, esp. 442, shows signs of revising his previous date of "mid-first century B.C./ A.D." in favor of 'a date as late as the reign of Hadrian"; cf, Bowie, "The Greek Novel," CHCL I (1985) 683-684. Goold (1-2,207 n. e) adheres cautiously to a date of 25 B.C.-A.D. 50. 2The text indicates that he was well acquainted with both procedural law (the trials in Babylon and Syracuse show this) and substantive law. For example, in the episode of the sale of Callirhoe, the pirate who sells her to Dionysius' estate manager flees before the sale is properly: registered. The fact that Dionysius cannot prove how he came to possess Callirhoe later haunts him as he is preparing his case in the court of the Persian king. See F. Zimmermann, "Kallirhoes Verkauf durch Theron: eine juristisch-philologische Betrachtung

To aid in making the text accessible to nonspecialists, I have written Taiwanese geographic names according to transliterations used today in Taiwan, rather than by the Japa nese pronunciations employed during the colonial period (e.g., Taipei, not Taihoku). All Chinese phrases and names have been transliterated using Pin-Yin conventions, except for historical figures and places commonly known in their Wade-Giles versions, as well as when authors have themselves transliterated their names in Wade-Giles. Chinese and Japa nese names have been written in the order of last name first, reflecting how names would appear in these languages. However, for Chinese and Japa nese authors writing in En glish, and for those whose work has been translated and published in En glish, I have written their names according to the Western convention of first name first.

I present the following essay in this volume celebrating Professor William V. Harris partly in gratitude for the insightful training he provided me during my time as his student, partly to engage with the world of the Roman Republic presented so skillfully in his War and Imperialism, and partly (if I can so hope it) as a small complement to the Roman perspective of that work. War and Imperialism has grounded my understanding of the means by which Rome came to dominate the Mediterranean basin. Harris' analysis of the motives and practices of the Roman aristocracy, citizens and soldiers, strongly influences my reading of ancient texts and images, prompting me to ask how non-Romans reacted to Rome's growing power and of the role of visual culture in Romanization. 1 In this essay I examine three architectural ensembles from pre-Roman Gaul, all of them located in territory dominated by the Salluvian Celts and all of them, in one way or another, involving the display of human heads. These monuments, left in fragments by Roman armies, were, I believe, local reactions to the increasing Roman presence in their world. As such, they provide a fascinating glimpse into the effects of Roman power on a people not necessarily interested in the unfiltered adoption of an alien culture. 2 The three complexes span just over a century (c. 250-c. 100 B.C.E.). At the rural sanctuary of Roquepertuse, a gallery of stone piers brought a series of honored individuals and ornamented decapitations into a proud display. A more modest wooden gallery at Entremont accommodated a defiant and militarized community within the defensive confines of large city walls.

Xia Lingyi 夏令儀 (1796- c.1875) first came to my attention when a 12-leaf ink bamboo album, painted by her in 1832, was included in an exhibit of the Richard Fabian collection of Chinese paintings at the Honolulu Museum of Art in 2007. Still painting into her late seventies, she was “famous throughout the land 名满天下” for her “outstanding 尤佳” bamboo paintings, with formats including albums, fans, and most commonly, four-season scroll paintings. According to a local Suzhou gazetteer, she was known for her skill in light ink wash, focusing on bamboo thickets with their dense clusters of leaves, often suggesting the bamboo were trembling under a light rain. [Figure 1] Her delicate and feminine calligraphy was believed to show the influence of Cao Zhenxiu曹貞秀 (1762-1822), one of the most preeminent female artists of the era and also born in the Suzhou environs.  [Figure 2] More recently, her Xia Lingyi’s paintings have been featured in exhibits of traditional ink bamboo paintings from the Suzhou region. She is included in several Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) biographical dictionaries of artists, and is the subject of at least one poem by a female contemporary. These may seem like scant traces, but they constitute a more robust historical record than we have for many other female Chinese artists of her era, and provide an opportunity for a discussion of the role of women artists and their admirers in this era.

The growth of archaeology as a field in China was improved both by the presence of women as scholars and by research questions regarding women and gender in history. And yet women in archaeology and related fields in the first half of the twentieth century, in China as elsewhere, faced significant barriers to participation, from a lack of educational opportunities to unwelcoming professional climates. They also entered a field where the topic of women's history was often neglected. This essay seeks to center the question of women in twentieth-century Chinese archaeology in two respects. Who were the women in the field, and what were their contributions? And how did the study of women and gender become important to Chinese prehistory?

Over the last decade, broad scholarly interest in antiquarianism has steadily increased. The opening salvos of this academic surge included several large projects related to antiquarianism in China. In 2004, Peter N. Miller and François Louis of Bard College organized a symposium, "The Age of Antiquaries in Europe and China," and edited selected papers into a scholarly volume entitled Antiquarianism and Intellectual Life in Europe and China, 1500-1800.1 A year later, the Princeton University Art Museum held the exhibition "Recarving China's Past: Art, Archaeology and Architecture of the 'Wu Family Shrines,'" accompanied by a six-hundred-plus-page exhibition catalog.2 In the following year, Wu Hung of the University of Chicago organized the symposium "Reinventing the Past: Archaism and Antiquarianism in Chinese Art and Visual Culture," whose selected proceedings were published in an edited volume with the same title in 2010.3 In the same year, a symposium that was organized by the Fondation maison des sciences de l'homme of France and the Getty Research Institute, I would like to thank Matthew Flannery for his editorial assistance in the preparation of this review.

Japan, Thailand, and Ethiopia share a common historical narrative. They have never been colonized, or so the story goes. Recently, historians have begun examining what might be called the semi-colonial status, or even the imperialism, of these nations during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries particularly in relation to extraterritoriality and foreign political or economic hegemony. These studies tend to end their analysis well before the era of decolonization. As both victims of, and participants in, imperialist projects, and “having never been colonized,” these nations are usually excluded from studies of decolonization and postcolonialism.
In the wake of World War II, the heritage of never being colonized coupled with the heavy hand of, or even occupation by, the United States created a unique situation where these previously expansive empires did not have to concern themselves with international decolonization as did the European powers. Former subjects rarely “wrote back.” Moreover, because of the popularization of the “we have never been colonized” narrative, decolonization was not a pressing domestic issue as these nations did not look to throw off the shackles of imperialist policies as in the rest of the newly forming decolonizing states.
At the same historical moment, these three nations both took on an expansive role in decolonization in a global context and experienced a decolonizing world of their own. Cultural transformations, erasures of unwelcome history, diaspoic trajectories, and political revolutions associated with decolonization occurred in Japan, Ethiopia, and Thailand to varying degrees, sometimes helped and other times hindered by the narrative of never being colonized. Examining this process allows for new histories outside of established Cold War and postcolonial narratives while also shedding light on the semicolonial, decolonial, and developmental policies that continue to shape all three nations’ politics, cultures, and social structures.

In 1897, just before the dawn of the 20th century, there were less than sixty independently sovereign nation-states. Today according to the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, there are just under 200. This transition away from empires and kingdoms towards political bodies claiming to represent a single people can best be seen as a sort of group project between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Despite the narratives of mutual annihilation, fighting for “hearts and minds,” and ideological differences, this presentation hopes to demonstrate that the two largest hegemonic powers in the second half of the 20th century were both heavily invested in the creation of nation states as central aspects of their political goals.
After World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as leading global forces in opposition to previous forms of empire and were leaders in the ideology of nationhood. For the United States, nation building meant the introduction of democracy, anti-communism, and the creation or expansion of foreign markets. On the other hand, for the Soviet Union, the creation of independent nation-states meant self-protection for the Soviets, an end to capitalist empire, and the fulfillment of intermittent stages of development leading toward eventual world communism. While both sides believed their goals to be in direct opposition to each other, they often had similar results. New nations, or elements within them, were frequently supported by both super powers as they emerged from the process of decolonization.
Examining the proliferation of nation-states as both an American and Soviet project allows for a reinterpretation of post-WWII politics and seeks to challenge traditional Cold War narratives. By explaining aspects of decolonization through this lens, I hope to shed new light on the non-aligned movement, the national identity, and the ideologies of the nation as a form of resistance.