The argument so far can be summarised by resorting to Miroslav Hroch’s three stages in the development of European nationalist movements (Hroch 2000: 22-24). According to Hroch it is possible to outline a structural pattern of nation formation by what he calls ‘non-dominant ethnic groups’. Using the comparative method, he argues that these ethnic groups became aware of their own identity throughout the nineteenth century. During the initial stage, which he calls Phase A, some intellectuals used the disciplines of archaeology, history, and anthropology to identify the ‘signs’ of ethnicity, such as language, culture, and history. These intellectuals committed themselves to scholarly inquiry and did not attempt to mount a patriotic agitation in part because they were isolated and in part they did not believe it would serve any purpose. In the second stage, Phase B, a new generation of patriots infl uenced a growing number of members of the small nation. The actions of these nationalist intelligentsias were not very successful initially, but in time their efforts found growing acceptance. When the masses became aware of their cultural, linguistic, and ethnic individuality, a fully fl edged modern nation was formed, which Hroch identifi es as Phase C. When compared to other European cases, Hroch notes that the Basque ‘period of scholastic interest’ (Phase A) started relatively late. He observes that this period started very early in some cases, that is, around 1800 (the Greeks, Czechs, Norwegians, Irish), one generation later in others (the Finns, Croats, Slovenes, Flemish, Welsh), or even as late as the second half of the nineteenth century (Latvians, Estonians, Catalans, Basques) (Ozkirimli 2000: 157).