Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Persian Empire - a western quasi-simile offered

Expand Messages
  • Demetria
    Dear All, The Persian Empire dominated a huge part of Asia, Egypt, etc. Asia is a huge land mass with many peoples in it beyond the ANE, yet with large tracts
    Message 1 of 148 , Aug 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear All,

      The Persian Empire dominated a huge part of Asia, Egypt, etc. Asia is a huge land mass with many peoples in it beyond the ANE, yet with large tracts of seemingly unoccupied or sparsely populated areas throughout the millennia. Drought, earthquake, etc. makes us move to find the "grass that is greener" in another place.

      The westward expansion of the European descent peoples across the continent of North America has resulted in three large land area nations of modern political invention. If you were to excavate randomly (or with a clue of 'evidence')in Massachusetts, or Ohio, where there were some areas of sizable settled population from the early 19th c. CE, you are more likely to find evidence of early US society, buildings/ruins, etc. Perhaps even textual evidence from libraries or other archives might be found. It would be a larger quantity of obvious evidence of the European invasion, colonization, and dominance of these lands than one will find in western America.

      If you were to excavate randomly in Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, or Texas, looking for evidence of the conquering Euro-rooted US society, you might find evidence of a trading village, or a fort, but a severe lack of textual material is likely during periods of sparse contact with any government bureaus.

      You might miss the formerly settled area entirely, due to changes in the river courses, etc. Migration and relocation was recorded with letters, newspapers, books, treaties, etc. back in the more heavily populated eastern section of the country, where the older settlements had become cities, towns, etc. Copies of these texts were not kept in every western settlement or even every fortress outpost of the army. There are vast areas where one might find evidence of human occupation, Indian or Euro-descent, but perhaps nothing that would absolutely connect the people who lived there with the folks back east who had the idea they were governing the folks out west.

      The US govt. had jurisdiction over the Indian territories as far as the US was concerned, and the US produced documents as such. The government was established in its location on the Atlantic Ocean coast. Many Indians and white folks did not read at all, so kept no documents. Some of them acknowledged the federal govt. as their "rulers", others did not, yet they traded, made alliances, etc. under the aegis of the US.

      Does the lack of a stratigraphic settlement layer from approximately 1830 of either Native American Indians or other people in [Wherever you pick!] Oklahoma mean that there was nobody there for the US to trade with, or legislate over? Does the fact that some sites do not connect to a particular political/national time period with artifacts, bones, or permanent settlement evidence mean that they weren't there, ever? Do migratory peoples regularly leave cemeteries, border markers, and permanent buildings behind, or are they more likely to have migratory destinations of their own importance that are not concerned with the political rulers of any given day, or the culture of the "rulers"? Does it mean that folks need to keep on being open minded and looking in other sites for evidence of the people they seek, or do we assume that the people we modern folks don't find evidence of, (despite numerous textual mention), were just a scribal excursion into national myth-puffery?

      My Cherokee ancestors were in North Carolina when my white ancestors came here and married them. The Cherokee nation is in Oklahoma today, very far away from the bones of our earlier ancestors. Does that mean we didn't exist in Carolina, despite the textual mention of us? The Medes and Chaldaeans aren't found yet? Oh, dear, maybe they are a fantasy spun by mythical lotus-eaters, or maybe we need to keep on looking elsewhere. Since the Cherokee are also the Tsalagi, perhaps Medes and Chaldaeans called themselves something different, too, and if we find out, that will help us find them.

      It is fascinating to read the same arguments from the last few years coming up repeatedly in this forum. I also enjoy learning from other discussion threads, too.

      Thank you for some interesting topics. i look forward to more.

      Be Well,
      Demetria Nanos
      Chicago, IL.









      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, David Lorton <davidlorton@...> wrote:
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > >From: Clark Whelton <cwhelton@...>
      > >Sent: Jul 30, 2009 11:34 PM
      > >To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > >Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Persian Empire
      >
      > >Liz wrote:
      > >>>>>>>>>...Take Egypt for example. Where are the Persian period temples or
      > >>>>>>>>>artifacts?
      > >Well, we have an occasional statue of Darius, but not much>
      >
      > Let's not forget the temple of Hibis. Throughout the temple, we see Darius, dressed as an Egyptian pharaoh and identified by name in his cartouches.
      >
      > >Clark writes:
      > >
      > >I think there was a Persian Empire, but as things stand now it's mostly a
      > >literary construct. With so little material evidence it's only a matter of
      > >time until the Persian Empire shares the peculiar fate of the Medes,
      > >celebrated in Greek sources but absent in the ground, even in their Iranian
      > >homeland. The chronology of the ANE is trying to tell us something. The
      > >third and second millennia are rich in archaeological finds -- Sumerians,
      > >Old Babylonians, Mitanni, the New Kingdom, Mycenaeans. But the first
      > >millennium has nothing for the Chaldeans, little for the empire Persians,
      > >nothing for the Medes, little for pre-Ptolemaic Egypt, and a Dark Age in
      > >pre-Hellenic Greece. What's wrong with this picture?
      >
      > Mr. Whelton raises this question of the lack of Persian strata in Mesopotamia every year or so. It's always thoroughly answered . . . but then he raises it again. And now the question, "What's wrong with this picture?" Why should we think anything is wrong with the picture? And if Mr. Whelton thinks he has an answer to his question, would he kindly share it?
      >
      > David Lorton
      > Baltimore, MD
      >
    • Lisbeth S. Fried
      Hi David, I’ve seen it argued that it is not Darius, but a Saitic king, and Darius just added his name. I don’t have the references with me now, as I’m
      Message 148 of 148 , Aug 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi David,

        I’ve seen it argued that it is not Darius, but a Saitic king, and Darius just added his name.

        I don’t have the references with me now, as I’m in Israel at the WCJS.

        All the best,

        Liz

        Ann Arbor, and Jerusalem



        _____

        From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Lorton
        Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:34 PM
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Persian Empire





        -----Original Message-----
        >From: Clark Whelton <cwhelton@mindspring <mailto:cwhelton%40mindspring.com> .com>
        >Sent: Jul 30, 2009 11:34 PM
        >To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> com
        >Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Persian Empire

        >Liz wrote:
        >>>>>>>>>...Take Egypt for example. Where are the Persian period temples or
        >>>>>>>>>artifacts?
        >Well, we have an occasional statue of Darius, but not much>

        Let's not forget the temple of Hibis. Throughout the temple, we see Darius, dressed as an Egyptian pharaoh and identified by name in his cartouches.

        >Clark writes:
        >
        >I think there was a Persian Empire, but as things stand now it's mostly a
        >literary construct. With so little material evidence it's only a matter of
        >time until the Persian Empire shares the peculiar fate of the Medes,
        >celebrated in Greek sources but absent in the ground, even in their Iranian
        >homeland. The chronology of the ANE is trying to tell us something. The
        >third and second millennia are rich in archaeological finds -- Sumerians,
        >Old Babylonians, Mitanni, the New Kingdom, Mycenaeans. But the first
        >millennium has nothing for the Chaldeans, little for the empire Persians,
        >nothing for the Medes, little for pre-Ptolemaic Egypt, and a Dark Age in
        >pre-Hellenic Greece. What's wrong with this picture?

        Mr. Whelton raises this question of the lack of Persian strata in Mesopotamia every year or so. It's always thoroughly answered . . . but then he raises it again. And now the question, "What's wrong with this picture?" Why should we think anything is wrong with the picture? And if Mr. Whelton thinks he has an answer to his question, would he kindly share it?

        David Lorton
        Baltimore, MD





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.