Post by kel on Sept 5, 2021 12:24:42 GMT -5
(From Tukuler post on ES)
'Territorial and ethnic designations are seldom clearly defined in ancient sources.
Hence modern scholars resort to conventional translations. However, insidiously,
they foster long-lasting theories and uncriticaldata that can seriously flaw historical
construing. Too often, history anticipates and justifies geography, whereas a correct
approach requires the opposite. Where did events happen is the first question to elucidate,
so as to grasp their basic context and to give us a chance to understand what triggered them.
Geography is the ‘open sesame’ to history. Herein are stressed pitfalls resulting
from amalgamating translations of ‘Nubia’ and ‘Nubians’ for places and
people that are not necessarily so and that have fostered circular reasoning'
hampering our understanding.
www.academia.edu/7929647
file:///C:/Users/admin/Desktop/Pitfall_concepts_in_the_round_of_Nubia_T.pdf
This is a fascinating article for two reasons:
1. It sheds light on intellectual laziness and bias on the foundational Egyptologists. I believe the bias to be based in antiblack racism and also a European classism and notion of human separateness that the Nile Valley peoples themselves perhaps did not have.
2. It suggests that what Clyde Winters had been saying all along about the Hyksos, for example, may be true.
These Nile Valley populations (including near Levant) may be one source population - Winters identifies them as "Kushites" who later become sub-ethnicities based on the specifics of the localities where they live or hail from, occupational specialties for which they are identified, etc. All are aware of their relatedness and they float in and out of mainline Egyptian society as the interests align or they shift away.
'Territorial and ethnic designations are seldom clearly defined in ancient sources.
Hence modern scholars resort to conventional translations. However, insidiously,
they foster long-lasting theories and uncriticaldata that can seriously flaw historical
construing. Too often, history anticipates and justifies geography, whereas a correct
approach requires the opposite. Where did events happen is the first question to elucidate,
so as to grasp their basic context and to give us a chance to understand what triggered them.
Geography is the ‘open sesame’ to history. Herein are stressed pitfalls resulting
from amalgamating translations of ‘Nubia’ and ‘Nubians’ for places and
people that are not necessarily so and that have fostered circular reasoning'
hampering our understanding.
www.academia.edu/7929647
file:///C:/Users/admin/Desktop/Pitfall_concepts_in_the_round_of_Nubia_T.pdf
This is a fascinating article for two reasons:
1. It sheds light on intellectual laziness and bias on the foundational Egyptologists. I believe the bias to be based in antiblack racism and also a European classism and notion of human separateness that the Nile Valley peoples themselves perhaps did not have.
2. It suggests that what Clyde Winters had been saying all along about the Hyksos, for example, may be true.
These Nile Valley populations (including near Levant) may be one source population - Winters identifies them as "Kushites" who later become sub-ethnicities based on the specifics of the localities where they live or hail from, occupational specialties for which they are identified, etc. All are aware of their relatedness and they float in and out of mainline Egyptian society as the interests align or they shift away.