quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Anyway, getting back to the topic. Egypt as a nation was of course nationalistic but that didn't mean it was "oppressive" or even imperialistic at least on the scale of say Persia or Egypt.
What do you mean by "Persia or Egypt"? Surely there is a typo here? I think you might mean the Assyrians for example?
Yes and all peoples the world over are divided into nations if not tribes. What is your point?? You think that's a problem? Perhaps you prefer the communist dream of no nations at all but one global collective under a totalitarian global order or something which will then bring world peace (?)
quote:
Yes the Narmer Palette shows conquest of the Delta and thus unification of the 2 lands. Do you believe this was something unique to Egypt?? LOL Every nation was unified through conflict either from within or without. Again what is your point?
quote:The type of nationalism the Egyptians displays national pride dominating foreigners, the king clubbing people to death, beheaded people and other nations forced to pay tribute. We can see that here in the first dynasty and in continuing such scene of "smiting", trampling people and bound captives scenes in later dynasties. The kings liked to put their nationalism on display and also making these massive tombs for the kings elevated to divine status, the pyramids
Domination was only done to enemies who posed a threat to Egypt. Egypt never conquered foreign lands until the New Kingdom when the Hyksos and Kushites formed an alliance to divide Egypt between them. So when the Egyptian retaliate and end the threat, do you really believe this was a matter of "national pride" or actual survival?!
Seriously, you sound like a naive Western white feminist with no sense of basic politics whatsoever even in something as threats to national security. I don't mean to sound sexist, but really it's females like you that make people question why women should be involved in politics let have any political leadership or authority. It's easy to make superficial judgements on the actions of a nation or government especially from ancient times without knowing all the facts while sitting in the comfort of your modern home in a nation whose status was built on far worse acts.
Read the definition again, Nationalism is not synonymous with having a nation although there is overlap
Nationalism leads to domination of minorities and war. They often try to portray themselves as victims defending themselves as they dominate and invade, the victors write the history
You can call me a commie feminist but I have not mentioned women, feminism or communism
The Egyptians were not the romanticized version,
Pair of sandals depicting bound enemies, Nubian and Asiatic
imagine the mentality of this, making slippers with your enemies depicted, that you force to pay tribute and step on, add to this footstools with foreigners depicted
And what did they use most of their labor for? Huge useless monuments monuments to their "divine" leaders of no benefit to the people
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Nowhere in any of these works are they discussing the specifics of math, architecture, the techniques and tools they used, how the knowledge was transmitted and organized, how the royal court functioned, how temples functioned on a day to day basis, how sacrifices and offerings took place, etc, etc. In other words a 'magical' place but not anything "classical" in terms of the history of math, art, architecture, astronomy, astrology, religious ceremony and belief, royal traditions, etc.
Nowhere in these works have you read this book You make a lot of assumptions And this is a book about Egyptian society not Egyptian math and engineering. Other books cover that
You could start a new thread on how they used their math an engineering to benefit the people apart from constructing colossal sculptures of the kings and temples run by elite priests
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Anyway, getting back to the topic. Egypt as a nation was of course nationalistic but that didn't mean it was "oppressive" or even imperialistic at least on the scale of say Persia or Egypt.
What do you mean by "Persia or Egypt"? Surely there is a typo here? I think you might mean the Assyrians for example?
Sorry, I meant to write Rome. I was in a rush when I first posted it and Roman Egypt was on my mind. LOL
But yes, Assyria is another example. My point is that the pharaohs never intended to conquer foreign lands until the conspiracy of Hyksos and Kushites.
Assyria was indeed an empire based on brutality and terror. These are the same Assyrians who would impale men and even flay their bodies and throw them into rivers and wells and enslave the women and children of cities that do not surrender. Yet Lioness complains about enemy warriors being smited and made execration artwork as evil acts of "nationalism".
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Read the definition again, Nationalism is not synonymous with having a nation although there is overlap
I've read the definition and even knew what it was before reading it. Nationalism is the promotion of a nation and its interests and culture. What other interests and culture would a nation promote other than its own??
quote:Nationalism leads to domination of minorities and war. They often try to portray themselves as victims defending themselves as they dominate and invade, the victors write the history
Here it is again
Pray tell where in the definition you provided does it say anything about war and domination of minorities??!
And again, do you deny the victimhood of Egypt under the Hyksos-Kushite alliance?? So it's okay for the Hyksos and Kushites to conquer and divide Egypt between themselves but it's not okay for Egypt rise up and retaliate against them both?
Your argument is as nonsensical as saying tribalism is about domination of families and communities and leads to warfare with other tribes. You realize that before nation states existed, there were tribes and tribal warfare and within a tribe or ethnic group there was possible feuding between different clans or families.
As long as groups existed there was conflict for varying reasons but it wasn't because of the very existence of the group itself!
quote:You can call me a commie feminist but I have not mentioned women, feminism or communism
LOL I never called you any label but merely questioned what position you are coming from, since I happen to hear the same type of rhetoric from mindless college girls who may or may not identify as commie feminist. By the way, communism and it's subsect of feminism is a social weapon created by powerful elites to subvert societies and economies and take them over. Young naive women are often used as pawns for their engineering.
quote:The Egyptians were not the romanticized version,
Indeed, and NEVER have I romanticized them. When have I ever expressed the idea that Egyptians were some pacifists who never resorted to violence?? Egypt is a nation and like any nation utilized violence to its own ends especially self-preservation.
quote:
imagine the mentality of this, making slippers with your enemies depicted, that you force to pay tribute and step on, add to this footstools with foreigners depicted
Yes it's called execration magic! It's a form of magic ritual practiced in other parts of Africa where enemies are depicted in ritually denigrating ways so as to deprive them of power so they would no longer be a threat. And what exactly would YOU do with hostile peoples? Ritually make dolls of them to hug and kiss? LOL
quote:And what did they use most of their labor for? Huge useless monuments monuments to their "divine" leaders of no benefit to the people
I thought it was made clear to you before that slaves (foreign enemies) were NOT used for building projects of sacred monuments since such was considered desecration. Only free Egyptian citizens were conscripted to build sacred monuments to the gods including kings. Slaves were used for other forms of labors, though there is debate about Biblical traditions of Hebrew slaves. Wars are costly and when enemies are defeated their labor was used as reparations-- this was the original purpose of slavery of enemies.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And what did they use most of their labor for? Huge useless monuments monuments to their "divine" leaders of no benefit to the people
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I thought it was made clear to you before that slaves (foreign enemies) were NOT used for building projects of sacred monuments since such was considered desecration. Only free Egyptian citizens were conscripted to build sacred monuments to the gods including kings. Slaves were used for other forms of labors, though there is debate about Biblical traditions of Hebrew slaves. Wars are costly and when enemies are defeated their labor was used as reparations-- this was the original purpose of slavery of enemies. [/QB]
I haven't mentioned slaves in this thread and I don't know what you refereeing to that somebody "made this clear" to me before When was this made by whom or are you making this up? Maybe you can shows us this imaginary quote of the past where I say slaves built the pyramids
You seem to think you are part of some authority that "makes thing clear" to people ? What are you my boss? Stop the nonsense, you are some anonymous dude on a computer.
You must think "labor" is synonymous with "slaves"
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Pair of sandals depicting bound enemies, Nubian and Asiatic
imagine the mentality of this, making slippers with your enemies depicted, that you force to pay tribute and step on, add to this footstools with foreigners depicted
And what did they use most of their labor for? Huge useless monuments monuments to their "divine" leaders of no benefit to the people [/QB]
this is two separate statements, one is about the depiction of foreigners The other about how they often used their own indigenous labor for a lot of beyond-grandiose projects deifying the image of kings
All of this smiting, trampling on people with chariots, stepping on them in sandals, kicking your feet up on foots stools with their image on it It is nationalism in it's ugliest form and I don't think it can be justified by speculation that it was magical belief. If people chop off other people's heads and put them on display it's not justified by them having a magical belief about it. And where is a primary source text that proves such a a magical idea to these sandals, etc? Also the excuse "but everybody else does it" is also morally bankrupt It is also very naïve to believe that by reading only the account of one side, that one actor only invaded other territory defensively and never just went in take stuff "like everybody else"
I cannot love a government that begins it's rule, proudly clubbing somebody to death for show If you see national pride in violence always speak out against it, dont make excuses
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Seriously, you sound like a naive Western white feminist with no sense of basic politics whatsoever even in something as threats to national security. I don't mean to sound sexist, but really it's females like you that make people question why women should be involved in politics let have any political leadership or authority. It's easy to make superficial judgements on the actions of a nation or government especially from ancient times without knowing all the facts while sitting in the comfort of your modern home in a nation whose status was built on far worse acts.
I shouldn't reply to someone who proves their pettiness over and over again making personal attacks when you don't like someone disagreeing with you. Anytime a person says "I don't mean to be" they are being that way. You shouldn't be complaining, the new female PM of Italy is right up your nationalist alley.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting that a culture which were at its peak thousands of years ago can create such debate and hot feelings among people today, who live thousands of miles from Egypt.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2694 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That's because people like Lioness are projecting her modern morals and political insecurities onto ancient Egypt. And it's ridiculous.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I haven't mentioned slaves in this thread and I don't know what you refereeing to that somebody "made this clear" to me before When was this made by whom or are you making this up? Maybe you can shows us this imaginary quote of the past where I say slaves built the pyramids
I misunderstood then. You brought up conquest and then labor for building monuments afterward. Most people think slaves were used for such purposes.
quote:You seem to think you are part of some authority that "makes thing clear" to people ? What are you my boss? Stop the nonsense, you are some anonymous dude on a computer.
I never said I was an authority, but simply want to clarify things.
quote:You must think "labor" is synonymous with "slaves"
Again I wrongfully inferred that from the fact that you brought up labor right after the conquest of others.
quote:
this is two separate statements, one is about the depiction of foreigners The other about how they often used their own indigenous labor for a lot of beyond-grandiose projects deifying the image of kings
All of this smiting, trampling on people with chariots, stepping on them in sandals, kicking your feet up on foots stools with their image on it It is nationalism in it's ugliest form and I don't think it can be justified by speculation that it was magical belief...
It is NOT speculation but FACT. The ritual depiction of enemies in denigrating or humiliating ways is a form of magic called execration. Execration in itself is NOT "nationalism" as you claim but is simply a way of cursing enemies regardless of who they are. Are you even aware that execration was practiced by indidviduals from common households? Archaeologists have found wax dolls with names of individuals written on them broken and mutilitated or burned up.
This same magic ritual is practiced in many cultures around the world including Africa where in the West it is commonly associated with 'Voodoo'. If you have an enemy or foe you can curse him through those means. It has nothing to do with "nationalism" though in the case of the pharaoh it can be nationalistic in that these were enemies of the state. Again, you never answered my question. If you lived in an ancient society that believed in magic and your people (nation) had enemies what do you expect?? You seem to see the defeated foes as "victims" of Egyptian oppression without acknowledging why the Egyptians cursed them in the first place.
quote:If people chop off other people's heads and put them on display it's not justified by them having a magical belief about it. And where is a primary source text that proves such a a magical idea to these sandals, etc?
LOL First of all you are imposing your Modern Western morals onto non-Western peoples from ancient times. And second, you obviously have never heard of the practice of head-hunting which is exactly what you just described and IS based on magical beliefs! The belief is that if you decapitate your foes and keep their heads you can claim your dead foes' intellectual and spiritual powers, even subjugate their spirits. Are you aware that your Celtic and Germanic ancestors are guilty of this as are my Filipino ancestors?! That was their shared beliefs and rituals and if you acknowledge it's wrong then maybe you can thank God that they gave up those practices when they became Christian! And I just provided a primary source above.
quote:Also the excuse "but everybody else does it" is also morally bankrupt It is also very naïve to believe that by reading only the account of one side, that one actor only invaded other territory defensively and never just went in take stuff "like everybody else"
I never justified anything by saying others are guilty of it too, but since you bring up reading other accounts, I have! Which is why I question why you singling out the Egyptians for wrong doing when the evidence shows that their imperialistic NOT nationalistic actions were done out of retaliation and self-defense against enemies that want to take them over! I already cited several sources. So if your nation was constantly invaded on both sides and was as risk of annihilation by an alliance of those enemies, what then would YOU do? Kiss and make up? Again we are dealing with realities that you a pampered Westerner dare put moral standards which may not be applicable to those times.
What about the Assyrians? They were never threatened, yet they when on a horrific conquering spree of terror, death, mutilation, and slavery all the way into Egypt. Strange how you have no criticisms for them.
quote:
I cannot love a government that begins its rule, proudly clubbing somebody to death for show If you see national pride in violence always speak out against it, don't make excuses
Well this government you speak of was an absolute monarchy based on religious autocratic rule. Who said you have to love it? Apparently the Egyptian citizens did. Whether they believed their king was an actual god, they still relied on him for protection from foreign enemies like any ruler, and yes enemies had to be dealt with violence. As far as "national pride", the Narmer Palette actually portrays the founding of Egypt as a nation with Narmer conquering Lower Egypt. As an American do you have a problem with the so-called 'Founding Fathers' blasting away their British countrymen with muskets to found America? What about (Democratic) president Andrew Johnson who accelerated (Republican) Lincoln's program or moving out Indigenous Americans and appropriating their lands?? Can you please give me an example of any nation in history that is no guilty of violence or some inequity?? Because I sure as hell can't.
quote:I shouldn't reply to someone who proves their pettiness over and over again making personal attacks when you don't like someone disagreeing with you. Anytime a person says "I don't mean to be" they are being that way.
I apologize if you feel you are being attacked, but I do have little patience for ignorant mentalities like post modern moralist attitudes, or ignorance of politics and history in question.
quote:You shouldn't be complaining, the new female PM of Italy is right up your nationalist alley.
You mean Georgia Meloni who was praised by the Imperialist 4th Reich European Union and the Communist controlled Nato?? Even if she really was a nationalist, what does that have to do with me? I'm not Italian. Again go and read the definition of nationalism that you provided. Nationalism is simply being for your own nation. It's not about war, or oppression of minorities, or whatever leftist distortion you have on it. While you complain about nationalism, China is colonizing and taking control of countries in Africa and Latin America and even in the Carribean but your nationalist concerns are about Italy? Okay.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Let's tone down the fireworks a bit.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Are you aware that your Celtic and Germanic ancestors are
(from 06 November, 2022 01:08 PM post)
He was warned and here he is ignoring the warning throwing in personal attacks trying to race bait me with lies I have no Celtic or Germanic ancestors, it's garbage
mods can you delete his last post please so the thread can proceed
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
1 Investigating Ancient Egypt’s Societies: Past Approaches and New Directions 3 Danielle Candelora, Nadia Ben-Marzouk, and Kathlyn M. Cooney
SECTION I
2 Power and the Study of Ancient Egyptian Society 11 Nadia Ben-Marzouk
3 Hidden Violence: Reassessing Violence and Human Sacrifce in Ancient Egypt 17 Roselyn A. Campbell vi Contents
4 Making the Past Present: The Use of Archaism and Festivals in the Transmission of Egyptian Royal Ideology 29 Jefrey Newman
5 Divine Kingship and the Royal Ka 40 Jonathan Winnerman
6 Trade, Statehood, and Confgurations of Power in Ancient Egypt (Early-Middle Bronze Age) 49 Juan Carlos Moreno García
7 The Social Pyramid and the Status of Craftspeople in Ancient Egypt 62 Caroline Arbuckle MacLeod
8 Ancient Egyptian Decorum: Demarcating and Presenting Social Action 74 John Baines
9 Co-regency in the 25th Dynasty: A Case Study of the Chapel of Osiris-Ptah Neb-ankh at Karnak 90 Essam Nagy SECTION II People 101
10 The Egyptianization of Egypt and Egyptology: Exploring Identity in Ancient Egypt 103 Danielle Candelora
11 Ancient Egyptian “Origins” and “Identity” 111 S. O. Y. Keita
12 Eight Medjay Walk into a Palace: Bureaucratic Categorization and Cultural Mistranslation of Peoples in Contact 122 Kate Liszka Contents vii
13 The Value of Children in Ancient Egypt 140 Caroline Arbuckle MacLeod
14 Orientalizing the Ancient Egyptian Woman 152 Jordan Galczynski
15 The Ancient Egyptian Artist: A Non-Existing Category? 163 Dimitri Laboury and Alisée Devillers
16 Hellenistic Warfare and Egyptian Society 182 Christelle Fischer-Bovet
17 Revealing the Invisible Majority: “Hegemonic” Group Artefacts as Biography Containers of “Underprivileged” Groups 195 Gianluca Miniaci
18 Reevaluating Social Histories: The Use of Ancient Egypt in Contemporary Art 210 Nicholas R. Brown SECTION III Place 223
19 People of Nile and Sun, Wheat and Barley: Ancient Egyptian Society and the Agency of Place 225 Kathlyn M. Cooney
20 Shifting Boundaries, Conficting Perspectives: (Re)establishing the Borders of Kemet Through Variable Social Identities 235 Danielle Candelora
21 Urban versus Village Society in Ancient Egypt: A New Perspective 248 Nadine Moeller viii Contents
22 Reassessing the Value of Autobiographical Inscriptions from the First Intermediate Period and “Pessimistic Literature” for Understanding Egypt’s Social History 265 Ellen Morris
23 Othering the Alphabet: Rewriting the Social Context of a New Writing System in the Egyptian Expedition Community 279 Nadia Ben-Marzouk
24 Language Policy and the Administrative Framework of Early Islamic Egypt 299 Jennifer Cromwell
25 New Methods to Reconstruct the Social History of Food in Ancient Egypt: Case Studies from Nag ed Deir and Deir el Ballas 313 Amr Khalaf Shahat
26 Stop and Smell the Flowers: A Re-Assessment of the Ancient Egyptian “Blue Lotus” 325 Robyn Price
27 The Body of Egypt: How Harem Women Connected a King with his Elites 336 Kathlyn M. Cooney, Chloe Landis and Turandot Shayegan [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. You confuse nationalism with oppression and imperialism, you make out ancient enemies to be hapless victims, and you don't have a clue as to what is going on politically in the world today.
So it seems the only one making assumptions that are baseless even is YOU. Go figure.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Van Sertima is often credited with what he didn't himself write.
If anyone's interested I can post Manu Ampim's The Problem of the Bernal-Davidson School article from the Journal of African Civilizations Spring 1994 edition Egypt: Child of Africa edited by Ivan Van Sertima.
posted
Getting back to the book's assumption challenging, the blurb below from CHap 2 on power- talks about newer or different approaches where AE social history would be written "from below", but is rather vague on a clear outline of what this "bottom up" approach would look like. See Chap listing/contents nd preview links posted by lioness.
"Such approaches thus permit access to groups underprivileged in the scholarship (Miniaci, this volume). Moreover, we can begin to explore how production-related knowledge may have served as a source of power (Stauder 2018; Ben-Marzouk 2020), and reexamine the status and social identities of producers (Miniaci et al. 2018; Arbuckle MacLeod, this volume; Laboury and Devillers, this volume). These approaches to producers, production, and technology more broadly refect shifts toward writing ancient Egyptian social history from the bottom-up (Grajetzki 2020, 2021; Miniaci, this volume). When combined, these approaches allow us to better understand political fgures and the systems in which they operated, as well as those individuals and communities who played active roles in shaping ancient Egyptian society but have been overlooked due to skewed datasets..." --FROM CHap 1:
Certainly there is room for a more expansive view from those areas and people not in the loop of royal power and spin of the elites, but given that so much info comes from "official" state sanctioned sources, just how effective will this "bottom up" approach be? Hence some questions:
1--Will said approaches satisfy the popular imagination in that people flock to Egypt to see big monuments and such, or use the big eye-catching stuff for their own religious/mystical ideologies, not the humble dwellings or tombs of the ordinary folk?
2--Can said approaches miss "the big picture", including AE's own forays into imperial power and conquest?
3--Would such approaches threaten to deconstruct SOME so-called "Afrocentric" models re Egyptian prominence, dominance and hegemonic power?
4--Can said approaches adequately grasp some of the differences Djehuti talks about re Egyptian hegemonic practices/ooutlooks (more localized and regional) compared to say the more domineering mentality or outlook of say Rome, that of universal hegemonic power or influence across the "known" world (known according to Rome), with few limits?
5--Can "history from below" morph in part into a narrow ethnocentrism such as the almost hysterical response of some modern Arabist Egyptians that "nothing black" or "African" (roll ominous music) be attached to their allegedly "pure" past? The furious emotional reaction to Lou Gossett portraying Sadat years ago, even though Gossett has some physical resemblance to Sadat, is an earlier example, and continued by Hawass et al?
6--Thus don't some of these "newer" approaches supposedly challenging assumptions have heir own set of problems?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
I don't really know what is in the book apart from the chapter titles and the parts available for preview. Brandon P seems to have more access to it, to what is actually said in it. He seems to be in the process of reading it
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, some pieces can be previewed via Google books. But the chap listing is helpful. What do you make of a history from below approach as one of the challenger items?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: Getting back to the book's assumption challenging, the blurb below from CHap 2 on power- talks about newer or different approaches where AE social history would be written "from below", but is rather vague on a clear outline of what this "bottom up" approach would look like. See Chap listing/contents nd preview links posted by lioness.
"Such approaches thus permit access to groups underprivileged in the scholarship (Miniaci, this volume). Moreover, we can begin to explore how production-related knowledge may have served as a source of power (Stauder 2018; Ben-Marzouk 2020), and reexamine the status and social identities of producers (Miniaci et al. 2018; Arbuckle MacLeod, this volume; Laboury and Devillers, this volume). These approaches to producers, production, and technology more broadly refect shifts toward writing ancient Egyptian social history from the bottom-up (Grajetzki 2020, 2021; Miniaci, this volume). When combined, these approaches allow us to better understand political fgures and the systems in which they operated, as well as those individuals and communities who played active roles in shaping ancient Egyptian society but have been overlooked due to skewed datasets..." --FROM CHap 1:
Certainly there is room for a more expansive view from those areas and people not in the loop of royal power and spin of the elites, but given that so much info comes from "official" state sanctioned sources, just how effective will this "bottom up" approach be? Hence some questions:
1--Will said approaches satisfy the popular imagination in that people flock to Egypt to see big monuments and such, or use the big eye-catching stuff for their own religious/mystical ideologies, not the humble dwellings or tombs of the ordinary folk?
2--Can said approaches miss "the big picture", including AE's own forays into imperial power and conquest?
3--Would such approaches threaten to deconstruct SOME so-called "Afrocentric" models re Egyptian prominence, dominance and hegemonic power?
4--Can said approaches adequately grasp some of the differences Djehuti talks about re Egyptian hegemonic practices/ooutlooks (more localized and regional) compared to say the more domineering mentality or outlook of say Rome, that of universal hegemonic power or influence across the "known" world (known according to Rome), with few limits?
5--Can "history from below" morph in part into a narrow ethnocentrism such as the almost hysterical response of some modern Arabist Egyptians that "nothing black" or "African" (roll ominous music) be attached to their allegedly "pure" past? The furious emotional reaction to Lou Gossett portraying Sadat years ago, even though Gossett has some physical resemblance to Sadat, is an earlier example, and continued by Hawass et al?
6--Thus don't some of these "newer" approaches supposedly challenging assumptions have heir own set of problems?
Personally I think the problem with the 'bottom up' approach implies some new facts or information about the plight of the masses within the day to day society which isn't available.
It is obvious that the standard model of the society was based on a pyramid structure, with Pharoah at the top and the masses at the bottom. I guess the bigger question is whether the masses actually viewed the pharaoh literally as a god voluntarily? Or was this something forced on them as part of belonging to the society at an early age? Various shrines to the pharaoh have been found in private dwellings, so it does imply that some sort of worship did take place. We have never heard of any revolts taking place among the masses so there must have been some level of support but also possibly some sort of systemic encouragement of support. A lot of that we just don't know. But these are the the kinds of things we would need more information on, in my opinion,to really get a bottom up view. And there are nothing I know of from the ancient Nile giving a commoners perspective on much of anything. The only two models I see are the people viewed the pharoah and bureaucracy as fundamental to the functioning and well being of the state, which means the people and saw themselves as organic to that structure and cosmology. That would be a more communal type of system whereas everyone saw themselves as part of the whole with their own role to play (a common theme in ancient cultures). Or it was a very dictatorial coerced top down system that imposed its will on the people whether they liked it or not (more Medieval style). I would argue for the former versus the latter, while certainly there were elements of the latter that did come into play. The reason I would argue for that is because of the consistency in the representation of the symbols of state across the years as basically a form of national unity in culture and identity that was very ingrained into the people. Which can only be explained as an organic evolution among a population that was in place for a long period of time as opposed to something imposed from outside. And this pattern was common in the ancient world because of the relative homogeneity among those ancient populations.
The difference here is that elsewhere in other parts of Africa and elsewhere this unity was more at an ethnic or daresay "tribal" level versus a national level. In fact I would argue that the ancient Nile was the most fullest expression of African nationalism ever seen on the continent. In that it went somewhat beyond ethnic identity but was more of an all encompassing national identity which retained characteristics of ethnic cohesion within itself. How that evolved would be a very interesting discussion, especially avoiding the conflicts and chaos of city states merging into larger entities as seen elsewhere. Not to mention also being able to absorb various influxes of other groups over time but still maintaining that core identity and national unity. Of course there were always those who may have been naysayers or against that established order, but it is hard to tell how many it would have been, especially in good times.
All of that to say the society functioned as a feudal state and a theocracy in many ways. And it would be interesting to know how much "faith" the people actually had in this system or whether they just went along to survive. And it would be interesting to know more about the social support system of the state for the people's well being. Did they have organized medical care and how was it provided? How was food distributed, was it market based or state sponsored? Knowing those things would also help understand the relationship of the common people to the elites and the state itself.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic