NABATAEAN ETHNICITY: EMIC PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

Ethnicity is a self-definition more than a definition by others. The relationship between emic and etic perspectives on identity is of crucial importance if ethnicity, as a phenomenon, is to be understood. In social anthropological jargon, ‘etic’ perspective of ethnicity refers to externally-perceived identity (They-ness) whereas ‘emic’ perspective refers to self-perceived identity (We-ness). The Nabataeans refered to themselves as (nbÔw), the Nabataeans. Here we concentrate on the second usage of the term "Nabataeans" i.e. the reference of some individuals to themselves as ‘Nabataeans. Five inscriptions in which Nabataean individuals referred to themselves as ‘Nabataean’ were discussed. These texts written by: Ubaidu, Drb, Ýtq, MnÝm, and Mesmar. The reason for concentrating on these texts is that ethnicity is a self-definition more than a definition by others. In light of the analysis and discussion of the five inscriptions' words in which Nabataean individuals asserted firmly that they were ‘Nabataean’, we conclud that the value of the term (nbÔw), as far as the Nabataean ethnic identity is concerned, resides in the following two facts. First, one of the main indicia of ethnicity is to have an ethnonym. That is, an ethnic group must have a name. Second, this name must be given by the people in question to themselves and not imposed upon them