I completely understand your frustration. Like you, I\u2019m interested in applying the transnational lens to the early modern world and those non-state actors who traversed it. I share your skepticism about the existence of relevant source material though, and your anxiety as to exactly why individuals should be discussed in the transnational context.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First off, I\u2019m convinced the transnational perspective is applicable to the early modern era: this is something I\u2019ll tackle in my short essay. I was irritated by the transcripts of those transnationalists in the AHR conversation piece who expressed uncertainty as to the prospect of applying the \u2018lens\u2019 to the pre-19th<\/sup>century period. My ego took another knock when I turned to the Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History, in which \u2018Discipline or subdiscipline were not discriminating factors, as long as a potential author had a bent for grappling with time and the history of the last 160 years\u2019<\/em>.[1]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n We shouldn\u2019t take this too much to heart though. A number of \u2018transnationalists\u2019 (like me and you perhaps) find the term \u2018transnational\u2019 rather unhelpful. Take a look at this \u2013 \u2018\u2018I have to confess that I find \u201ctransnational\u201d a restrictive term for the sort of work which I am interested in\u2019<\/em>.[1]<\/sup><\/a>Bayly\u2019s\u00a0Birth of the Modern World\u00a0<\/em>drew connections and comparisons between nations, societies and cultures in the 18th<\/sup>century.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anyway, I think there\u2019s scope for suggesting that \u2018nations\u2019 existed in the pre-modern world. Liah Greenfeld made this argument in her\u00a0Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity<\/em>, as did Anthony Smith. In his article (\u2018Nations in Antiquity?<\/em>) he conceived \u2018the nation\u2019 as a \u2018moving-target\u2019 (always in the making and never really \u2018made\u2019). You might be able to use that type of reasoning to \u2018prove\u2019 that the writing of transnational history is applicable to the early modern world. If you do, it wouldn\u2019t be too much of a stretch to write a trans – \u2018national\u2019 history of a traveller like\u00a0al-Nahrawali in the 16th<\/sup>century. I think it\u2019s more than possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lack of source material on your protagonist must be frustrating. Of course, I know next to nothing about his life, but one way to explore it in a \u2018transnational\u2019 context (and make it \u2018worth discussing\u2019) might be to explore how he (or others) moved between Mecca and the Ottoman interior: via specific trading networks or waterways for example. Or you could explore how the Ottoman interior managed its imperial periphery in a much broader context. This might explain al-Nahrawali\u2019s capacity to move across imperial space (more \u2018transcultural\u2019 than \u2018transnational\u2019 perhaps, but maybe worth considering).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n I think if you take a \u2018macro\u2019 approach in the first instance it might shed light on al-Nahrawali\u2019s more or less \u2018micro\u2019 history.\u00a0\u00a0
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n