6027Re: [ANE-2] Re: New Theory on the Evolution of Egypt
- Sep 10, 2007Dear Mr. Segovia,
Thank you for your comments.
>It´s quite clear that individuals and their power strugglesIt is my believe that "Egyptology" and Egyptian archaeology dealing with the
>are not new in egyptology, but the concept of "aggrandisers"
pre- and proto-history of Egypt are hardly quite the same discipline
(although the first two "Dinasties" are correctly identified as the very end
of Naqada IIIC1-IIID).
As far as one can conclude from Prof. Castillos own words: "aggrandizers,
that is, individuals seeking to benefit from favourable circumstances to
create a power base for themselves and emerge like god-like rulers of a
larger community than the one to which they originally belonged", it pretty
much looks like the very same thing (i.e. power struggle of individuals),
and accordingly, can hardly be perceived as "new".
>the beginning of class stratification in predynasticHere is an excerpt from my 2004 reference:
>Egypt I have never read it discussed in any egyptology book or paper so far
"We have no doubts that conflict was, if not a prime mover (cf. Griswold
1992b: 237), a prime method then of the state formation. Therefore, we agree
with Campagno (2002b: 21) that "in the beginning [and ever since] was war",
but we are prone to disagree over the reason, namely exotic prestige goods,
he suggested for the conflict. Exotic goods were, in our view, merely an
item in a long list of gains that went to the ultimate winner of the "grand
prize", because what the Egyptian elite were really fighting for was
absolute power. Needless to say, the final winner was the Divine King. A
number of authors (e.g. Patch 1991: 359-360; Geller 1992: 156-157; cf.
Griswold 1992b: 239; Siegemund 1999: 243-252) reject
competition/conflict/warfare as a motivating factor because they likewise
consider only a few isolated items of the winner's list. Indeed, the
conflict was hardly caused by shortage of land, approaching of the carrying
capacity, or scarce resources. The natural resources and energetic potential
were more than abundant in the Nile Valley. Nonetheless, the most manifest
aspect of the power competition was truly a fight over land, or better said,
fight over territory (and more territory) caused, as Needler stressed (1984:
31) by "the inherent tendency of absolute power to expand beyond its
borders". In essence, Bard and Carneiro (1989; cf. Bard 1992: 16) were
right with their circumscription model, except in omitting to reveal the
main and the most important reason for the competition - the true prime
mover - the will to power."
The other two of my references (I have mentioned in my previous mail) are
still in press, so no wonder that you have never read them. The similar is
valid for my PhD "The Evolution of Gerzean Culture: Internal and External
Factors" (submitted December 2002, defended June 2003, University of
Belgrade) that was, unfortunately, written in Serbian.
However, let me mention but a few, I believe that similar views are held in
the several papers of my friend and colleague Dr. Marcelo Campagno
(including his PhD, "From Kin-chiefs to God-kings. Emergence and
Consolidation of the State in Ancient Egypt: From Badarian to Early Dynastic
Period, ca. 4500-2700 B.C.", defended December 2001, University of Buenos
Aires), as well as in the works of Dr. Alejandro Jimenez-Serrano
(Universidad de Jean).
I have to add that I know, respect and appreciate Prof. Castillos work very
much. The point that you might have missed is rather related to Eliot
Braun's comment (September 3, 2007) "It seems that once every few years
someone discovers 'America' and the PAPERS PICK IT UP." [emphasis added]
With best regards,
Editor, Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society
Dr. Branislav Andelkovic
Asst. Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology
Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Archaeology
Cika Ljubina 18-20, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Tel.+381 11 3206 235; Fax.+381 11 2639 356
The Belgrade Mummy: http://www.f.bg.ac.yu/bemum/
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>