In many Egyptology forums I go I see a tendency to use second hand sources done by western Egyptologist. This is where the problem lies. People to understand a long dead culture like ancient Egypt you need to first grasp the language. Using the language you can reconstruct many facets of the ancient Egyptian society:from priesthoods to commoners. Understanding the language is vital to understanding ancient Egypt.
The only living portion of the ancient Egyptian language we have is Coptic. Neglected linguistic reserch on the rural colloquial Arabic might also give hints to what ancient Egyptian was like. Unfortunately, very few linguists,Egytologist,or anthropologist have done this. Some exceptions is resercher Elizabeth Wickett who recorded the funeral laments of rural Egyptian women in Luxor.
One element that might give Egyptologist clues is incorporating cultural anthropology and ethno-Egyptian studies into Egyptology. Meaning documenting and observing the praticies of the rural Egyptians. Egypt is unique from other regions because of the relative isolation of rural communities. Modernization could elminate or change the cultural pratices of the rural people in Egypt;thus the need for documentation or study of rural Egyptians.
One must also remeber that many facts on dates and chronology in Egyptology books are not always accurate. What we have of ancient Egyptian history is simple fragments that need constructive piecing together. All we have know is monuments,papyri,ostraca,graffiti,kings lists,annal stones,and Manetho. One cannot be %100 concrete in any conclusion that Egyptologist might give,for this is the primarily reason peer-review journals and conferences exist on Egyptology.
Anyway, stop depeding on Western Egyptologist for the gospel of the ancient Egyptians. Do your own reserch and learn the language of the ancient Egyptians. Nobody owns the monopoly on the past of ancient Egypt,and you don't need an Egyptologist to tell you everything.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well ausar, those evil western egyptologists, you don't point out they have given us 90% of the information we have on egypt. Secondly, if we assume there is much to learn about private lives in ancient egypt the question is....how much can we learn? Private lives are a very popular area of history now but even in the 19th century it starts becoming diffult to draw reasonable conclusions.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Our friend Wally provides an excellent example of someone who took it upon himself to learn the ancient Egyptian language and then study the primary texts:
posted
I ordered a book on the ancient egyptian language. There are some good 'learn to...' books out there. Probably a good place to start. I haven't had time to fool with it yet but I will.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Ha! ha!ha!ha!ha! Rasol I was learning Metu Neter at one time but had to stop (other menancing priorities). I will be relearning this ancient sacred writing again soon. When I do I will hop over to Ausar's board and post about my experience.
Posts: 303 | From: Inside my Mind | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well ausar, those evil western egyptologists, you don't point out they have given us 90% of the information we have on egypt.
This post was not really a slam on Western Egyptology,for I appreciate people like James Henery Breasted and Sir Flinders Petrie or others. However, ancient Egypt is not a western culture and should not be looked out through the lense of Western soceity. I just feel that you should not take the gospel of Egyptology %100.
quote:Secondly, if we assume there is much to learn about private lives in ancient egypt the question is....how much can we learn? Private lives are a very popular area of history now but even in the 19th century it starts becoming diffult to draw reasonable conclusions.
You missed my point. Linguistics can reconstruct facets of AE life that is not available through a archaeologist pick or shovel. You can desern information about ancient Egypt from the peasent to the pharaoh.
In history you have primary and secondary sources. Reading a book by a Egyptologist is a second hand source. Second hand information is good but people make errors ascribing to it like some religious Orthodoxy.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it is not possible to be a historian without being able to speak or read the language of the area you are studying. For the layman secondary sources are probably a better tool. Using primary sources can be reveling, as you note, but this requires the traing of a professional historian. Most of the people on our board look at the subject as a hobby. They have other jobs and responsibilities that demand most of their time. History is the study of change and continuity. As the result of events that take place what changes and what stays the same. The social history of the common people can shed a great deal of light on those questions. that said, I doubt the average ancient Egyptian had much in common with modern egyptians or western Egyptologists. The trained historian is, however, in a better position to understand what he/she is reading.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes, but people should be free thinkers and not take everything as orthodoxy. Egyptology without free-thinkers makes the profession seem stuffy and stagnent. We just have people repeating the same ideas over and over.
quote:he social history of the common people can shed a great deal of light on those questions. that said, I doubt the average ancient Egyptian had much in common with modern egyptians or western Egyptologists. The trained historian is, however, in a better position to understand what he/she is reading
I must disagree with this statement about an average modern Egyptian having little in common with ancient Egyptians. Many of the more rural people in Egypt have customs that reflect back to the anceint Egyptians. The average Egyptian is still very much rural either in the Delta or Middle or Upper Egypt. Through study of the rural Egyptians is probably the cloest we will get to understanding the customs of the ancient Egyptians in our modern era.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I must disagree with this statement about an average modern Egyptian having little in common with ancient Egyptians. Many of the more rural people in Egypt have customs that reflect back to the ancient Egyptians
A trained historian [Egyptologist] should know this. Or if not, then his training is faulty and he is unqualified to teach the subject.
posted
many non professionals have diffiuclty with secondary sources, mush less primary. The danger is that the level of confusion would get worse. Our real problem, both on this board and elsewhere is getting people to learn the basics so that they might have a context to work from. I would like to see some avilability of basic classes, perhaps on the net on a non credit basis, of just basic history.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First and foremost, the ones to be thankful to, are the ancient Egyptians themselves, for leaving quite extensive records, which would have been found one way or the other. For instance, can you imagine the pyramids never being discovered? They were good record keepers for their time, and so, no matter what early racist Euro Egyptologists wanted to fabricate, it lay in contradiction to available Kemetic records. And then, all truth seeking scholars should be admired for doing what they were suppose to do...quest for interpretation of truth, not imperialist propaganda, which is what early racist Egyptologists were going after, and one which neo-reactionaries would like to keep alive. These early racist Egyptologists didn't give a damn about indigenous Egyptians during their time, and weren't reconstructing history on their behalf. However, we know that truth seekers have quite a contrasting agenda. And of course, Ausar has a point about not looking at every work in Egyptology as an absolute truth. If people did that, whatever little progress Egyptology has made since the early reactionary Egyptology, wouldn't have been possible!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...no matter what early racist Euro egyptologists wanted to fabricate..."
This statement is a classic example of why for some people the use of primary or secondary sources does not matter. Ignorance like this has to be over come before we can get anywhere.
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: This statement is a classic example of why for some people the use of primary or secondary sources does not matter.
Actually, your comments are a typical example of the pointless ranting of an idiot who has no sources, primary or secondary.
quote:Originally posted by Super car: First and foremost, the ones to be thankful to, are the ancient Egyptians themselves, for leaving quite extensive records, which would have been found one way or the other. For instance, can you imagine the pyramids never being discovered? They were good record keepers for their time, and so, no matter what early racist Euro Egyptologists wanted to fabricate, it lay in contradiction to available Kemetic records. And then, all truth seeking scholars should be admired for doing what they were suppose to do...quest for interpretation of truth, not imperialist propaganda, which is what early racist Egyptologists were going after, and one which neo-reactionaries would like to keep alive.
Even as they are forced by overwhelming weight of evidence to admit....
Recent skeletal and DNA evidence suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed invaders from the North - Mary Lefkowitz
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic