members of the same ethnic (or racial, in the vocabulary of the time) group,
demanded political independence. As Eric Hobsbawm indicates, ‘in conse-
quence of this multiplication of potential ‘‘unhistorical’’ nations, ethnicity
and language became the central, increasingly the decisive or even the only
criteria of potential nationhood’ (Hobsbawm 1990: 102). The triumph of this
essentialist notion of the nation resulted in an intensiWcation of the search for
and legitimization of the nation’s ethnic and/or linguistic roots, a search in
which archaeology, as seen in the previous section, became deeply implicated.
This was no politically innocent search. The growth of racism already men-
tioned in the previous section was steadily becoming successful among many
of the learned classes. Literature about national identity became available, and
among the many publications of these years perhaps one needs to highlight
the work by one who has been later considered as the ‘father’ of racist
ideology, Joseph-Arthur, Count de Gobineau (1816–82), hisEssai sur l’ine ́-
galite ́des races humaines(The Inequality of Human Races) (1853–5).
For most people race, language, and nation became synonymous. There
were, however, dissonant voices. During these central decades of the century,
as well as later on, some nationalists, such as the Irishman Thomas Davies
(Hutchinson 1987: 94), rejected the importance conferred on race for the
formation of the nation. So did the French scholar Ernest Renan (1823–92)
(Chapter 6), when he stated: ‘On what criterion is this national right to be
based?...Manywillboldly reply, from race... This is a very grave error, and if
it should prevail, it would spell the ruin of European civilization’ (Renan 1999
(1882): 147). Looking at the racial mix of nations, he argued against the
simple equation of race and nation. He explained that, historically, ‘France is
Celtic, Iberian and Germanic. Germany is Germanic, Celtic, and Slav.. .’
(Renan 1999 (1882): 148). With regard to language, he then contended
‘what we have said about race, applies also to language. Language invites
union, without, however, compelling it’ (Renan 1999 (1882): 150). There
were also classical historians who opposed the identiWcation of race, language,
and nation. The French historian, Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges
(1830–89), challenged Theodor Mommsen (1817–1903) in this respect:
I am amazed that a historian like you [Mommsen] aVects not to know that it is not
race or language which make nationality. It is not race: cast your eyes on Europe, and
you will see clearly that peoples are almost never constituted on the basis of their
primitive origins. Geographical convenience, political or commercial interests are
what has formed populations and founded states. Each nation is thus formed little
by little, each fatherland emerges without anyone being preoccupied with these
ethnographic matters which you would like to bring into fashion.
(Schnapp 1996: 56–7).350 National Archaeology in Europe