Abstract
The notion of a homogeneous, qualitatively indifferent space, viewed as the geometrical locus of reciprocal positioning among objects, which in consequence is unchanging from any point of observation, is an abstraction which is appropriate only to particular fields of analysis. In political activity, and more generally in human relations, however, space — or territory — has hardly ever been viewed as homogeneous. This is so today because, while we are ‘Euclidean’ and rational beings when dealing with problems of geometry or physics, we are not when facing other persons or other political communities. This was even more true in the period which is the subject of this study, when ideas and symbols in official texts found a free application that in modern political documents tends to be less obvious — partly hidden by rewriting in the terms of hegemonic rational thought.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
P. Janni in AION, 33 (1973), pp. 445–500
Liverani in VO, 3 (1980), pp. 15–31. On animal languages W. G. Lambert in AnSt, 20 (1970), pp. 111–17
H. Schäfer in MDIK, 12 (1943), pp. 73–95
H. Goedicke in Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, I (Cairo, 1985), pp. 307–24.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2001 Mario Liverani
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Liverani, M. (2001). Inner vs. Outer Territory. In: International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 BC. Studies in Diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230286399_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230286399_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-41439-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-28639-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)