This is the second of three planned articles on ethnicity in the Assyrian empire, with ethnicity ... more This is the second of three planned articles on ethnicity in the Assyrian empire, with ethnicity involving the identification of group identities and/or differentiations on the basis of mutual contact, as observed from the protagonists' viewpoint or from that of the surrounding social order, along the Barthian model. On a documentary basis, the Assyrian empire lends itself in a unique manner as observation point for the study of the mechanisms of ethnicity in the ancient Near Eastern context. The article focuses, like the others, on the study of “ethnic-group terms” as identifiers of ethnicity within the Neo-Assyrian period, and specifically on those terms to which the "gentilic" suffix (nisbe) was applied. The particular theme chosen for this article regards the ethnic-group term "Assyrian" (Aššur?yu and other designations) as utilized in both official(royal) inscriptions and "everyday" (or state archival) documents from the Neo-Assyrian empire. Th...
This is the second of three planned articles on ethnicity in the Assyrian empire, with ethnicity ... more This is the second of three planned articles on ethnicity in the Assyrian empire, with ethnicity involving the identification of group identities and/or differentiations on the basis of mutual contact, as observed from the protagonists' viewpoint or from that of the surrounding social order, along the Barthian model. On a documentary basis, the Assyrian empire lends itself in a unique manner as observation point for the study of the mechanisms of ethnicity in the ancient Near Eastern context. The article focuses, like the others, on the study of "ethnic-group terms" as identifiers of ethnicity within the Neo-Assyrian period, and specifically on those terms to which the "gentilic" suffix (nisbe) was applied. The particular theme chosen for this article regards the ethnic-group term "Assyrian" (Aššurāyu and other designations) as utilized in both official (royal) inscriptions and "everyday" (or state archival) documents from the Neo-Assyrian empire. The attempt is to bring forth the flexibility, and even at times the ambiguity, of the definition that the Assyrians offered of themselves in different official or discursive contexts, as well as in the light of diachronical variations and shifts. After a lengthy overview of the sources, it may be concluded that the "everyday" and official documents differ in their definition of "Assyrians", due to chronological, compositional, and contextual factors involving the two textual corpora. Although some ranges of meanings of Aššurāyu or its synonyms show overlaps between them, only the state archival texts indicate "Assyrians" as members of the élite classes of the Empire, entitled to professional and juridical privileges on the basis of the king's favor; whereas the royal inscriptions are unique in pointing out the king's role as rescuer of poor "Assyrians" who had been left stranded or who had lost their possessions abroad. Summing up, a decided pride/relish in inborn/inbred group particularities, combined with a proactive (and ultimately optimistic) impulse to expand "Assyrianness" through the addition of external personnel to the commonwealth, characterize in a singular manner the Assyrians among ancient Mesopotamian peoples. RESUMEN Éste es el segundo de los tres artículos proyectados sobre etnicidad en el Imperio asirio, dedicados a la idea de etnicidad, a la identificación de identidades de grupo y/o diferenciaciones percibidas en el contacto mutuo, tal y como se observa desde el punto de vista de los protagonistas o desde el del orden social circundante, según el modelo barthiano. Gracias a la documentación que proporciona, el Imperio asirio se presta singularmente como punto de observación desde donde estudiar los mecanismos de etnicidad en el contexto del Oriente Próximo antiguo. El artículo se centra, como los otros, en el estudio de "términos de grupos étnicos" como identificadores de etnicidad durante el período neoasirio y, específicamente, en aquellos términos en los que se aplicaba el sufijo "gentilicio" (nisbe). El tema particular elegido para este artículo concierne al término de grupo étnico "asirio" (Aššurāyu y otras denominaciones), tal y como se empleaba tanto en inscripciones oficiales (reales) como en documentos "cotidianos" (o archivos estatales) del Imperio neoasirio. Se pretende clarificar la flexibilidad, e incluso a veces la ambigüedad, de la definición que los asirios ofrecían de sí mismos en distintos contextos oficiales o discursivos, así como a la luz de las variaciones y giros diacrónicos. Tras una larga revisión de las fuentes, se puede concluir que los documentos "cotidianos" y oficiales difieren en su definición de "asirios" debido a factores cronológicos, compositivos y contextuales, incluyendo los dos corpora textuales. Aunque algunas variedades de significados de Aššurāyu o sus sinónimos muestran superposiciones entre ellos, sólo los textos de archivos estatales
This is the second of three planned articles on ethnicity in the Assyrian empire, with ethnicity ... more This is the second of three planned articles on ethnicity in the Assyrian empire, with ethnicity involving the identification of group identities and/or differentiations on the basis of mutual contact, as observed from the protagonists' viewpoint or from that of the surrounding social order, along the Barthian model. On a documentary basis, the Assyrian empire lends itself in a unique manner as observation point for the study of the mechanisms of ethnicity in the ancient Near Eastern context. The article focuses, like the others, on the study of “ethnic-group terms” as identifiers of ethnicity within the Neo-Assyrian period, and specifically on those terms to which the "gentilic" suffix (nisbe) was applied. The particular theme chosen for this article regards the ethnic-group term "Assyrian" (Aššur?yu and other designations) as utilized in both official(royal) inscriptions and "everyday" (or state archival) documents from the Neo-Assyrian empire. Th...
This is the second of three planned articles on ethnicity in the Assyrian empire, with ethnicity ... more This is the second of three planned articles on ethnicity in the Assyrian empire, with ethnicity involving the identification of group identities and/or differentiations on the basis of mutual contact, as observed from the protagonists' viewpoint or from that of the surrounding social order, along the Barthian model. On a documentary basis, the Assyrian empire lends itself in a unique manner as observation point for the study of the mechanisms of ethnicity in the ancient Near Eastern context. The article focuses, like the others, on the study of "ethnic-group terms" as identifiers of ethnicity within the Neo-Assyrian period, and specifically on those terms to which the "gentilic" suffix (nisbe) was applied. The particular theme chosen for this article regards the ethnic-group term "Assyrian" (Aššurāyu and other designations) as utilized in both official (royal) inscriptions and "everyday" (or state archival) documents from the Neo-Assyrian empire. The attempt is to bring forth the flexibility, and even at times the ambiguity, of the definition that the Assyrians offered of themselves in different official or discursive contexts, as well as in the light of diachronical variations and shifts. After a lengthy overview of the sources, it may be concluded that the "everyday" and official documents differ in their definition of "Assyrians", due to chronological, compositional, and contextual factors involving the two textual corpora. Although some ranges of meanings of Aššurāyu or its synonyms show overlaps between them, only the state archival texts indicate "Assyrians" as members of the élite classes of the Empire, entitled to professional and juridical privileges on the basis of the king's favor; whereas the royal inscriptions are unique in pointing out the king's role as rescuer of poor "Assyrians" who had been left stranded or who had lost their possessions abroad. Summing up, a decided pride/relish in inborn/inbred group particularities, combined with a proactive (and ultimately optimistic) impulse to expand "Assyrianness" through the addition of external personnel to the commonwealth, characterize in a singular manner the Assyrians among ancient Mesopotamian peoples. RESUMEN Éste es el segundo de los tres artículos proyectados sobre etnicidad en el Imperio asirio, dedicados a la idea de etnicidad, a la identificación de identidades de grupo y/o diferenciaciones percibidas en el contacto mutuo, tal y como se observa desde el punto de vista de los protagonistas o desde el del orden social circundante, según el modelo barthiano. Gracias a la documentación que proporciona, el Imperio asirio se presta singularmente como punto de observación desde donde estudiar los mecanismos de etnicidad en el contexto del Oriente Próximo antiguo. El artículo se centra, como los otros, en el estudio de "términos de grupos étnicos" como identificadores de etnicidad durante el período neoasirio y, específicamente, en aquellos términos en los que se aplicaba el sufijo "gentilicio" (nisbe). El tema particular elegido para este artículo concierne al término de grupo étnico "asirio" (Aššurāyu y otras denominaciones), tal y como se empleaba tanto en inscripciones oficiales (reales) como en documentos "cotidianos" (o archivos estatales) del Imperio neoasirio. Se pretende clarificar la flexibilidad, e incluso a veces la ambigüedad, de la definición que los asirios ofrecían de sí mismos en distintos contextos oficiales o discursivos, así como a la luz de las variaciones y giros diacrónicos. Tras una larga revisión de las fuentes, se puede concluir que los documentos "cotidianos" y oficiales difieren en su definición de "asirios" debido a factores cronológicos, compositivos y contextuales, incluyendo los dos corpora textuales. Aunque algunas variedades de significados de Aššurāyu o sus sinónimos muestran superposiciones entre ellos, sólo los textos de archivos estatales
Uploads
Papers by George Odisho