Some Considerations on the Historiography of Contemporary Capital Cities: Toward a Transnational Approach?*
Nari Shelekpayev Introduction If a definition of a ‘city’ is unlikely to be achieved because of its irreducible complexity, the one of a ‘capital city’ is generally deemed to be unproblematically unanimous. Most authors claim that a capital is first and foremost a seat of government. However, not only is it the case that some capitals do not govern,1 but other features of such cities – size, centrality, mobility (vs. stability) – are so divergent that applying any of them to all cases would make exceptions outnumber rules. Classifying capital cities into types is a helpless exercise as well: selection criteria are Procrustean to the point that the disadvantages of chaos are preferable to the merits of organization.2 In collective imaginations capital cities are large and mighty entities; a concentration of professional activities, leisure and culture, a place from where various decision-makers pull their invisible strings that cover countries and continents. But is this always true? Apparently not, for giants like Beijing or Mexico City are formally the same thing as dwarves like Dodoma or Belmopan that barely make ends meet.3 Do capital cities always have a specific form or a flamboyant appearance? Taking as an example Washington *
1
2 3
Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at the Global History Conference organized by the Free University of Berlin in April 2015, and at a Ph.D. Seminar organized by the Canadian Center for Architecture in June 2015. I would like to thank both institutions for their financial support and all the participants who provided valuable insights and suggestions. Many thanks to Imre Tarafás, Jaroslav Ira, Jan de Jong, and Aliki Economides who thoroughly read and commented on the final drafts of this text. The most obvious example of a capital that does not govern is Amsterdam. According to the Constitution of the Netherlands, Amsterdam is mandated the status of a capital city, though the seat of the Dutch government is situated in The Hague. For typologies see Hall 1993: 69–70, and 2006: 8. The annual budget of Mexico City exceeded $403 billion in 2014 while the budget of Belmopan for the same period was around $78 million. Sources: Global Metro Monitor and Statistical Institute of Belize.
204
Nari Shelekpayev
Picture 1. Plan of the City of Washington by Charles L’Enfant, March 1792, Engraving on paper. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
or Brasília, explicitly designed as governmental seats, one would say “yes.” Bern, however, remains a quiet provincial town with modest architecture and no traces “of ‘capital planning.’ ” Are capital cities singular or plural within a state? Are they static or do they move in space and time? Again we face a conundrum: for a number of reasons, a few states with multiple national capitals coexist with an overwhelming number of single-capital states. As for mobility, in the past, hundreds of capital cities moved for geopolitical or socio-economic reasons while many others remained in the same place for centuries. This being said, immobility or lack of movement from one site to another never signified the immobility of landscape inside a “stable” site: most capital cities have transformed themselves remarkably over centuries. This text will further discuss three historiographical approaches employed in the analysis of past and existing capital cities, followed by a proposal to look at them from a transnational perspective, taking some capital cities created in the last two centuries as cases in point.
Picture 2. A map from “Bern und seine Umgebungen,” C. H. Mann, 1882, Alpines Museum of Bern. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
Some Considerations on the Historiography of Contemporary Capital Cities
205
206
Nari Shelekpayev
Historiography of Capital Cities It is unclear what precisely should constitute the historiography of capital cities. On the one hand, if such a field or sub-field exists, should one include into it all the works dedicated to the existing and past capital cities of the over 190 countries of the contemporary world? Such a list would be long and uneven: libraries can be filled with books dedicated to London or Washington D.C. while many other capitals (especially in Africa and in Asia) are relatively under-explored. Establishing a “disciplinary” approach seems a more fruitful strategy. However, it provokes a dilemma: one would expect that given their importance, a study of capital cities should be located at the intersection of numerous disciplines, from urban planning to nationalism studies. What happens in reality is that capital cities – “an easily defined but poorly understood class of cities”4 – are rather at the periphery of all of these disciplines. Some scholars have argued that a study of capital cities should be a primary concern of history, rather than of geography or urban planning. According to Patrick Boucheron, Dénis Menjot and Pierre Monnet, “si la mégapole, la métropole, la grande ville sont des concepts de géographie urbaine, la capitale, elle, ne l’est pas. […] La notion de capitale comme un fait historique, [est] peu pertinente en analyse spatiale : autrement dit, une question renvoyée au questionnaire de l’historien.”5 This being said, the discipline of history never had a field of study devoted to a specific analysis of capital cities. Nor did it have a theory explaining the role of such cities in the modern period.6 This led to a situation in which scholars from various fields, such as urban history, architecture, sociology, geography and so on, addressed a wide range of topics related to individual capitals without considering them as a distinct “class of cities” or type of space. As a result, little has been written about capitals as a type, as opposed to specific capitals.7 In the following paragraphs, three main historiographical approaches to capital cities will be discussed separately. The first one defined and described them through the issues of centrality, mobility, and hierarchies, and was based on the analysis of their fixed forms in relation to their subordinated territories. The second one was mainly inspired by the history of architecture and urban planning. It sought to explain the origin and the ideology behind the plans and buildings in various capital cities. The third studied the role played by capital cities in the construction of national identities and the link between capital cities and nation-states. After a brief summary 4 5 6 7
Campbell 2003: 2. Boucheront–Menjot–Monnet 2006: 15. Vidal 2014: 7. Rapoport 1993: 31.
Some Considerations on the Historiography of Contemporary Capital Cities
207
of these three approaches I will demonstrate why none of them, however significant and thought-provoking, are sufficient for the study of capital cities as complex entities situated at the intersection of political processes, social projects, and economic interests that not only carry a governmental function but also shape the life of societies and individuals. Finally, I will introduce some considerations that may be useful for developing a different approach that should permit to study capital cities comparatively and comprehensively, without typologizing them or reducing them to various features or functions that they may (or may not) carry.
A. Centrality, Hierarchy, and Mobility Linguistically, both in English and in French the expression “capital city” (ville capitale in French), as well as its shortened version “capital” (capitale), derives from the Latin adjective capitalis of which the root is caput, meaning “head.”8 Thus, according to Claude Raffestin, a capital is not primarily a place, but a person who manifests his or her authority in a given place.9 In other words, the importance of a place is secondary and a capital does not necessarily have to be a city. Indeed, in the distant past, capital cites did not always have a permanent location: premodern and modern history counts many cases in which capitals were shifted repeatedly, following rulers’ moves. Later, a relative sedentarization was achieved through a ramification of the state bureaucracies and a gradual crystallization of nation-states.10 As capital cities not only happen to change their location but also differ in size and importance, a purely “geographical” definition of them is problematic. Jean Gottmann defined the capital city as a “seat of central government of a separate political unit.”11 Although the later historiography generally referred to this definition, Gottmann’s thought was subsequently nuanced and developed. For example, Robert A. Harper claimed that “the capital function secures strong and lasting centrality; it calls for a special hosting environment to provide what is required for the safe and efficient performance of the functions of government and decision-making characteristics of the place.”12
8 9 10 11 12
The most comprehensive definition and etymology of the term ‘capital city’ in various languages is provided in Topalov et al. 2010. Raffestin 1993: 8. Raffestin 1993: 11. Gottmann 1977: 240–247. Brunet provided a similar definition in Brunet–Ferras–Théry 1992: 85–86. Gottmann–Harper 1990: 63.
208
Nari Shelekpayev
According to Walter Christaller, capital cities are central places within a given territory.13 Thus, to explore the centrality of a capital city means to study it as an element in a hierarchical urban network. As the top of the hierarchical pyramid, capital cities would not only contrast with the provinces but would presumably act as hinges between different regions of the country.14 Thanks to their capacity to influence redistribution, power, control, well-being and economic goods, the latter are supposed to flow from capitals towards the periphery that looks to the center.15 Capital cities may also distribute and regulate information flows. However, the notion of centrality may be misleading. On the one hand, many capitals, such as Lisbon, Rome, or Tokyo are situated in the geographical center of the country, or close to it, while many others, such as Paris, Beijing, or Moscow are not. On the other hand, many capitals assume the role of political and administrative centers that do not play a major role in the economic and cultural life of their states. For instance, Ottawa, Ankara, and Brasília have been overshadowed since their foundation by Montréal, Istanbul, and Rio-de-Janeiro, respectively.16 In fact, a “perfect” centrality, that is geographic, economic, political, cultural, and social all in one, is rare. Instead of insisting on a notion of centrality which has an ambiguous analytical value, Andreas Daum suggested an “integrative function” for capital cities. He writes: “A capital is the space that symbolically integrates the social, ethnic, religious, or political diversity of a country. […] A capital thus allows disparate social and political groups to be represented either physically or through participation in national political bodies and symbols.”17 Yet, it seems that the integrative function, suggested by Daum, is more an ideal type than a reflection of any existing situation. In practice there exist only a few capital cities that succeeded in creating symbolic spaces that are able to integrate and represent all the portions of their states. 13 14 15 16
17
Christaller 1966. Gottmann–Harper 1990: 91. Rapoport 1993: 34. The development of Ottawa as a capital city of Canada is of a particular interest. Its “capitality” began (and in fact remained for most of the 19th century) with the Parliamentary Complex (comprised of the Central Block and two Departmental Buildings) that were erected on a picturesque spot in the middle of a small lumber town. Other symbolic buildings and monuments (the Supreme Court, Château Laurier, the National War Memorial etc.) were added much later, and the master plan for the national capital of Canada was introduced as late as 1950. Ottawa as a capital thus developed from a building that symbolized the state authority, towards a master plan, and not in the opposite direction as its numerous homologues in the 19th and 20th centuries. Daum–Mauch 2005: 14.
Some Considerations on the Historiography of Contemporary Capital Cities
209
Picture 3. Place de la Concorde, Paris.18
Among the few relatively successful examples of a state-inspired “integration,” one may mention the Place de la Concorde in Paris. Inextricably linked to many dramatic events in French history during the 18th century, the large public square went through a series of radical transformations during the first half of the 19th century. The Place de la Concorde may be considered to be a truly national square because in addition to central elements situated in the heart of the square symbolizing Paris, as well as some “national” values or ideals, its hexagonal outline symbolizes the entire territory of France. To enhance the effect, eight allegorical statues representing eight French cities occupy four corners of the square.19 Ottawa may serve as an opposite example.20 Originally established on the border between Québec and Ontario, the two founding provinces of Canada have always had a strong presence in Ottawa’s physical and symbolic landscape. Ottawa possesses a lot of statues that commemorate various 18 19 20
Quoted from: http://www.frenchmoments.eu/place-de-la-concorde-paris/. The statue symbolizing the city of Strasbourg was draped into black in 1871, when Alsace-Lorraine got annexed to Germany. Of course, unitary and federal states have very different historical and political backgrounds and cannot be compared directly. To my knowledge, there does not exist a specific historiography dedicated to the issues of “capitality” in federal states as opposed to that of unitary states.
210
Nari Shelekpayev
personalities from Ontario or Québec and most of its political leaders and public servants still hail from these two provinces. The other eight provinces and three territories of Canada are barely visible in Ottawa. There is almost nothing in this city that may remind a Canadian citizen or a foreign tourist of New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, or Nunavut. The relocation of a capital city is also related to the issues of centrality, hierarchy, and integration. The reasons for relocation are complex and depend on many factors. A different site can be selected for security reasons, or a capital might be moved to a more beautiful setting,21 or according to a new (geo)-political strategy.22 A capital can be established as a mediator or compromise between competing regions or ethnic groups. For instance, Washington is a perfect example of such a case in the late 18th century. The site on the Potomac River was appointed as the capital city of the United States as the result of a bargain by which several Southern politicians agreed to change their votes and support accession if Congress would first pass a bill locating the capital city where Washington is now. Similarly, the designation of a capital city may be an attempt to create a physical and symbolic distance from the past, associated with the history of a previous place or a political regime: such was the epic move of the Brazilian capital from Rio de Janeiro to Brasília in 1960.23 Finally, a capital city may be chosen to maximize the international visibility of the state that it represents: the most recent example of this is Astana, which replaced Almaty as capital of Kazakhstan in 1997.
B. Urban Planning and Architectural History Approaches In scholarship to date, the main interest of urban planners has been to explore the relationship between various plans and ideas related to capital cities’ planning on the one hand, and the realization of these plans and associated ideas on the other hand. According to Wolfgang Sonne, at the beginning of the 20th century several types of capital cities existed, inspired by the City Beautiful, the Garden City, the Picturesque tradition, etc. Although planners and decision-makers shared the idea that urban forms were supposed to convey symbolic meanings and that nations were to be represented through their capital cities, no ideal type or universal consensus existed about the specific meaning of the urban forms and design of capital cities.24 Peter Hall has suggested that there existed six (1993) or seven (2006) types of capital cities based upon the function and the roles performed by them. 21 22 23 24
Gordon 2001: 6. Schatz 2003: 123–128. Cunin 2015: 253–255. Sonne 2003: 286.
Some Considerations on the Historiography of Contemporary Capital Cities
211
Multifunctional capitals combined most of the national higher-level functions; global capitals enjoyed influences and dominated networks beyond their national boundaries; political capitals specifically focused on being the seat of government for their respective states; former capitals and eximperial capitals played an important role in the past but have lost their role as the seat of government; provincial capitals once functioned as de facto capitals and still have importance in their territory. Finally, there are supercapitals, which host international organizations.25 This typology is useful for understanding the differences between contemporary capital cities. It is not clear however in which way this helps to understand how capital cities emerged and developed and why they gained or lost their status.26 Both evolved and specifically designed capitals share one common feature. They represent and materialize their states through the environment of their buildings, monuments, and public spaces. In other words, the urban space of capital cities is a vehicle to represent the state and to define its national identity. But national identity is neither monolithic nor fixed: it is constructed and co-constructed by the actors who always have their own interests and goals. That is why some scholars have sought to analyze the link between these interests and goals on the one hand, and what was conceived and represented as “national identities” on the other hand. In a seminal book dedicated to postcolonial capital cities, Lawrence Vale suggested that the buildings that host national governmental institutions and their spatial relationships with the surrounding landscape were the product of a balance of power between political and cultural forces. He has argued that “regimes build capitol complexes chiefly to serve some personal, subnational, and supranational interests rather than to advance national identity; designers cannot mold political change; and governments still find it necessary to demonstrate their power through aesthetic exaggeration.”27
25
26
27
The classification elaborated by Peter Hall was not the first of its kind. Earlier such attempts were undertaken by Paul Claval (Claval 1981) and Anne Querrian (Querrain 1996). In fact, some capitals that may appear to be “natural,” like Athens or Rome, were designated as such in the relatively recent past. Consequently, what is considered “natural” is but a result of a perception of false continuities. Lawrence Vale suggested that there were cities that evolved in capitals and those that have been specifically designed to fulfill this function. The distinction between “evolved” and “designed” is therefore more accurate than the one between “natural” and “from scratch” capital cities, that some authors have adopted. For details see Vale 1992: 13. Vale 1992: 292.
212
Nari Shelekpayev
C. Nationalism Studies Approaches Patrick Boucheron, Denis Menjot and Pierre Monnet pointed out that in the Middle Ages capital cities seldom had a fixed location or precise administrative status.28 The situation changed after the crystallization of nation-states. Paraphrasing Eric Hobsbawm, Andreas Daum claimed that “capitals – like nation-states themselves – were the products of political machinations, ideological contestations, and personal ambitions: they were – and are – ‘invented.’”29 According to Benedict Anderson, capital cities are no more and no less than “a metaphor of the nation-state.”30 Indeed, despite the existing variety of physical characteristics of capital cities, their visual identity does serve as a link between the abstract idea of a state and direct visual experiences of the nation’s citizens. Thus, a “symbolic” function of a capital city consists in translating a state structure that lies beyond immediate human comprehension into the material reality of a city. Besides, capital cities mostly serve as stages for ceremonies and rituals. Parades and states visits, jubilees and leaders’ funerals, sporting events, and international fairs are some of the typical expressions of such spectacles, which have become increasingly prominent since the last third of the nineteenth century.31 On the one hand, historians of nationalisms have certainly provided a framework that is useful for the analysis of national identity, which capital cities help to establish and transmit. On the other hand, these frameworks have tended to conceptualize the development of capital cities chiefly as a by-product of nation-states and thus have reduced their cultural and material complexity. Also, recent historiography has demonstrated that in the last two centuries nation-states were quite porous entities: many aspects of what constitutes contemporary nation-states are now thought of as a product of co-construction and exchanges carried out by elites and professionals who circulated through countries and continents. Thus the imaginary of a nation and traditions, even those invented, are quite often based on some choices or prototypes that are not easily “nationalizable.”
28 29 30 31
Boucheron et al. 2006: 17. Daum–Mauch 2005: 6. Anderson 2006: 11–8, 31, 164. Daum–Mauch 2005: 18.
Some Considerations on the Historiography of Contemporary Capital Cities
213
A transnational approach? In the previous pages I attempted to demonstrate that the above-mentioned approaches (geography, urban planning and nationalism studies) have important qualities but also a number of flaws. Analyzing capital cities through their position, plans, or built environment may help to understand why they were (not) conceived in a certain way. However, such an approach privileges a study of “ready” forms from a synchronic perspective and, in many cases, entails an implicit juxtaposition of the existing cities with their own ideal types that for some reasons deviated or evolved from original prototypes. Nationalism studies focuses on capital cities through a lens of nation-states and their efforts at representation. At the same time they largely ignore or underestimate both the agency of cities designated as capitals and the role of non- or cross-national actors and mechanisms involved in their elaboration. Lawrence Vale and Wolfgang Sonne have demonstrated that the elaboration of the urban plan and the establishment of a capitol design for some contemporary capital cities (especially in postcolonial states or those states who previously were parts of larger empires) was a complex process that involved both national elites and transnational professionals who realized them.32 If we develop this idea further, not only the establishment of plans and buildings for such cities but the whole process of their elaboration including the choice of the site, the design competition(s) for the conception and construction of symbolic buildings and governmental districts, and subsequent activities related to the inauguration and media promotion of a new version of “capitality” may appear to be a transnational process in which many capital cities’ projects over the last two centuries have been involved. Pierre-Yves Saunier argued that “transnational history emphasizes what works between and through the units that humans have set up to organize their collective life, rather than what has been happening within these units taken as monads.”33 A transnational approach is thus marked by an explicit desire to bypass national frames and focus on the transnational as different from global and international history in its agenda and goals.34 The purposes of such an approach are three-fold. The first is the historicization of contacts between communities, polities and societies. The second is the recognition of foreign contributions to the design, discussion and implementation of domestic features within communities, 32 33 34
See Knight 1991; Sonne 2003; Vale 1992. Saunier 2013: 6. The understanding of this disciplinary nuance is particularly important because there exist studies on “global” or “world” cities. See Sassen 2001; Knox–Taylor (eds) 1995.
214
Nari Shelekpayev
polities and societies, as well as the projection of domestic features into the foreign. The third is the engagement of trends, patterns, organizations and individuals that have been living in-between and through these self-contained entities that were used as units of historical research.35 Let us take the elaboration of the newly established capital cities for former colonies or parts of empires as an example. This process has usually occurred in two phases. The first – a choice of a new capital site – implied the transfer from a previous place and a consensus among the decision-makers and elites concerning the new location for a capital city. The second – design of the city plan and construction of buildings that would materialize the state – depended heavily on urban professionals who, after consultation with decision-makers, established the symbolic canvas of the states’ values and ideologies through the planned and built environment of capital cities. I argue that a transnational approach may provide useful insights for exploring both of these phases or moments. For example, the factors that led to the transfer of “old” capitals to new sites are related, both economically and psychologically, to the changed relationship between former colonial states and their ex-empires and thus go beyond the national boundaries. Indeed, capitals established during colonial eras ended up being seen as anti-models after decolonization. Their planning and built environment symbolized oppression and their geographic location had to facilitate the export of primary goods from colonies to empires and not the development of communications and infrastructure inside former colonies. Brazilian politician Israel Pinheiro bitterly complained: “Once gold mines were exhausted [...] and the alluvial soils used up, and the mineral soils abandoned as being unsuitable for agriculture and too distant from the population 35
Undoubtedly this approach had predecessors both in social and in intellectual history. For instance, Fernand Braudel’s Mediterranée in the 1940s, as well as Denis Lombard’s research on the Javanese Crossroad in 1990s are pieces of transnational history because they historicized contacts between societies and individuals, etc. In urban history, Shane Ewen and Pierre-Ives Saunier recently suggested that “from the mid-nineteenth century there emerged enduring protagonists and durable structures, cultures, legal, and organizational frameworks, which facilitated the transnational activities of municipal urban governments, patterned on long-lasting circulatory regimes and spaces, which still contribute to frame the activities of cities on the world scene.” According to Peter Hall, the development of many of the twentieth century cities, including capital cities, was possible thanks to a circulation of several key planners and architects. Although the ideas of these persons were mainly “badly understood and poorly realized,” capital cities have been among the most dynamic places of landscape transformation in last one hundred years. For details see Braudel 1990; Lombard 1990; Ewen–Saunier 2008: 103, 177; Hall 2002: 7, 11.
Some Considerations on the Historiography of Contemporary Capital Cities
215
centres forming along the seaboard, we found ourselves back at the point of departure: we returned to the coast and never again left it.”36
In fact, many capitals of former colonial states found themselves completely de-centered in relation to their states’ territories after the decolonization. However, if transfer projects existed in many such states, in some cases – such as Argentina, for example – they remained unrealized. In other cases – such as Australia – they had to wait for a long time before realization. Paradoxically, in some cases imperial powers themselves helped their ex- or semicolonies to establish new sites through the agency of various intermediary actors. It is known that British Governor Lord Elgin played an important role in the choice of Ottawa as the capital city of the United Provinces of Canada, which competed for this role with Montreal and Toronto, among other cities.37 If the process of the selection of capital sites was conditioned by chiefly internal reasons, capital cities’ design and architecture were often established by architects and planners invited from abroad. The reason for this was that in some cases, states simply had no professionals of the necessary caliber. Another reason could be that inviting a reputed foreigner could provide additional legitimacy to the people who invented the capital cities or to the spaces that they would create and that would subsequently be wrapped up urbi et orbi. A brief survey of capital cities’ planning since the nineteenth century confirms this hypothesis. The city of Washington was planned by the French-educated engineer Pierre Charles L’Enfant, appointed by George Washington to design the future American capital. The Centre Block of the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa was designed by Thomas Fuller, a British architect who moved to Canada in 1857 and later emigrated to the United States. Almost a century later, a comprehensive plan of Ottawa as a national capital was prepared by another overseas architect, Jacques Gréber. Brasília was planned by Lucío Costa and designed by Oscar Niemeyer: both were from Brazil but shared many of Le Corbusier’s ideas and collaborated with him on other projects. Le Corbusier himself submitted many planning projects for capital cities to various governments but could realize fully only one of them, Chandigarh, a new capital city of the Indian Punjab in the 1950s.38 Japanese architect Kenzo Tange authored governmental buildings in Tokyo and Islamabad and capital city plans for Skopje and Abuja. Among recent examples, one can name Astana, whose governmental district was planned by another Japanese architect, Kisho Kurokawa. 36 37 38
Evenson 1973: 102–103. Eggleston 1961: 98–110. Le Corbusier also prepared unrealized projects for other post-colonials cities, such as Bogotá and Addis-Ababa, and expressed interest in planning Brasília.
216
Nari Shelekpayev
Conclusion Capital cities are distinct spaces, and their origins and conceptions differ from those of other cities. While non-capital cities emerge or evolve from industrial, logistical, trade, or worship sites, capital cities are founded, designated, or moved. While the majority of cities develop gradually, capital cities are often created by a planner and possess a more uniform vision of their urban plan than other urban territories. Juridically, capital cities are most likely to be governed ad hoc, being organized in federal or special districts under the direct control of state authorities. People who inhabit capital cities are different too: as capitals normally host the state bureaucracy, political and cultural institutions, as well as some private sector offices, expats, and foreign representatives, capital cities’ inhabitants may form a special caste not found in the rest of the country. If a number of features make capitals differ from other cities, it is the study of these features that should constitute a distinct approach to scholarly methodology. One such distinct approach would be to adopt a transnational perspective, which better enables an analysis of capital cities and their construction not solely as a by-product of nation-states. Rather, such an approach prioritizes an analysis of capital cities as complex and dynamic processes that occur through several phases and involve a number of actors, many of whom circulate through cities and continents and help to establish forms or models of “capitality” that were or are being adopted and constructed rather than being imposed top-down or copy-pasted. Without concealing any of the existing controversies and tensions that arise from each particular case, this approach allows for creating a new thread for the study of capital cities, which was previously the case in neither political nor urban history. Ultimately, a transnational perspective would help to productively place the study of capital cities at the intersection of history, nationalism studies, urban planning, and the social sciences from the disciplinary periphery where it has remained for decades.
References Anderson, Benedict 2006: Imagined Communities – Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Boucheron, Patrick – Menjot, Denis – Monnet, Pierre 2006: Formes d’émergence, d’affirmation et de déclin des capitales : rapport introductif. In: Boucheron, Patrick et al.: Les villes capitales au Moyen Âge, XXXVIe
Some Considerations on the Historiography of Contemporary Capital Cities
217
Congrès de la SHMES (Istanbul, 1er - 6 juin 2005). Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. 13–56. Braudel, Fernand 1990: La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’ époque de Philippe II. Paris: Colin. Brunet, Roger – Ferras, Robert – Théry, Hervé 1993: Les mots de la géographie, dictionnaire critique. Montpellier: Reclus – Documentation Française. Campbell, Scott 2003: The Enduring Importance of National Capital Cities in the Global Era. Urban and Regional Research Collaborative. http:// www.caup.umich.edu/workingpapers (Last download: August 6, 2015.) Christaller, Walter 1966: Central places in southern Germany. Englewood Cliffs – New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Claval, Paul – Claval, Françoise 1981: La Logique des villes – Essai d’urbanologie. Paris: Litec. Cunin, Elisabeth 2014: Belmopan. A New Capital for a New Nation. Pouvoir et ethnicité à l’independence. In: Vidal, Laurent (ed.): Capitales rêvées, capitales abandonnées. Considérations sur la mobilité des capitales dans les Amériques (XVIIe-XXe siècle). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Daum, Andreas W. – Mauch, Christof (eds) 2005: Berlin-Washington, 1800–2000: capital cities, cultural representations, and national identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eggleston, Wilfrid 1961: The Queen’s Choice – A Story of Canada’s Capital. Ottawa: National Capital Commission. Evenson, Norma 1973: Two Brazilian capitals. Architecture and urbanism in Rio de Janeiro and Brasília. New-Haven – London: Yale University Press. Ewen, Shane – Saunier, Pierre-Yves (eds) 2008: Another Global City. Historical Explorations into the Transnational Municipal Moment 1850–2000. New York: Palgrave. Global Metro Monitor 2014: brookings.com. (Last download: June 15, 2015.) Gordon, David L. A. 2006: Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities Planning. London: Routledge. Gottmann, Jean – Harper, Robert A. (eds) 1990: Since Megalopolis: The Urban Writings of Jean Gottmann. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Gottmann, Jean 1977: The Role of Capital Cities. Ekistics (44.) 240–247. Hall, Peter 2002: Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Hall, Peter 1993: Six Types of Capital Cities. In: Taylor, John H. – Lengellé, Jean G. – Andrew, Caroline (eds): Capital Cities: International Perspectives/ Les capitales: perspectives internationales. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. 69–84.
218
Nari Shelekpayev
Hall, Peter 2006: Seven Types of Capital Cities. In: Gordon, David L. A. (ed.): Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities. New York: Routledge. 8–14. Knight, David 1991: Choosing Canada’s Capital. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. Knox, Paul L. – Taylor, Peter J. (eds) 1995: World Cities in a World-System. Cambridge University Press. Lombard, Denis 1990: Le carrefour javanais. Essai d’histoire globale. Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS. Querrian, Anne 1986: The Metropolis and the Capital City. Zones (1.) 2. 219–222. Raffestin, Claude 1993: Une capitale est-elle l’expression d’une sémiosphère nationale ou le lieu de mise en scène du pouvoir ? In: Taylor, John H. – Lengellé, Jean G. – Andrew, Caroline (eds): Capital Cities: International Perspectives/ Les capitales : perspectives internationales. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. 69–84. Rapoport, Amos 1993: On the Nature of Capitals and Their Physical Expression. In: Taylor, John H. – Lengellé, Jean G. – Andrew, Caroline (eds): Capital Cities: International Perspectives/ Les capitales: perspectives internationales. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. 31–68. Sassen, Saskia 2001: The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Oxford: Princeton University Press. Saunier, Pierre-Yves 2013: The Palgrave Macmillan Transnational History. London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Schatz, Edward 2003: What capital cities say about state and Nation building. Nationalism & Ethnic Politics (4.) 9. 111–140. Sonne, Wolfgang 2003: Representing the State: Capital City Planning in the Early Twentieth Century. Munich – Berlin – London – New York: Prestel Verlag. Statistical Institute of Belize, sib.organization.bz (Last download: June 15, 2015.) Topalov, Christian – Coudroy de Lille, Laurent – Depaule, Jean-Charles – Marin, Brigitte 2010: L’aventure des mots de la ville à travers le temps, les langues, les sociétés. Paris: Robert Laffont. Vale, Lawrence J. 1992: Architecture, Power, and National Identity. Hew Haven and London: Yale University Press. Vidal, Laurent 2014 (dir.): Capitales rêvées, capitales abandonnées. Considérations sur la mobilité des capitales dans les Amériques (XVIIe-XXe siècle). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Vidal, Laurent 2002: De Nova Lisboa à Brasília : l’invention d’une capitale. Paris: Éditions de l’IHEAL.
