http://the-ascended.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
the-ascended.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2005-10-17 04:50 pm
the-ascended.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomhigh2005-10-17 04:50 pm
Entry tags:
Egyptian Archaeology
Daniel is on another cup of coffee by this point, and is looking even more haggard than his earlier class.
"Good afternoon. I apologize for the missing classes; I had to leave town unexpectedly.
"Today, we are going to be talking about the processes of unification in Egypt. Now, there are a number of theories which have been put forward, and obviously we are unable to say with any certainty, which, if any, were even partly responsible.
I trust you've all done the reading, so if I list and describe the processes, I'd like you to give me some examples of evidence found supporting those.
Due to the number of varying theories, we will only be looking at the first half today, so if you've not doing your reading, I suggest that you make sure you have done by the next class, else I might not be so forgiving.
One reason, put forward by Barry Kemp in "Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization" is what is commonly referred to as a "Game Theory"
It describes the rise of 'Confederacies' based on the main cities of Naqada, Thinis, Hierakonpolis, Buto, A-Group at Qustul and possibly Maadi. Each city controled water, trade and agricultural resources, and there was a gradual shift in the balance of power as each competed with the other to form larger state. It could have come about through warfare, diplomatic marriage, trade links, or exchange of technology and mutual benefits.
Another reason is cultural diffusion. This is the gradual homogenization of culture and effectively shows the spread of Naqada culture through the Nile Valley and Lower Egypt.
Or there's conquest, where centers of power fight each other in aggressive armed conflict.
The last reason we will be looking at today is the development of complex economies. Controlled access to resources is shown by the increasing use of imported materials - examples please? There is also evidence of craftsmen quarters in cities, and the organization of agricultural resources to support them. Does anyone know where?
Right. Homework for this lesson is to pick one of those and write me a full description, citing your sources. If you don't know how to cite, please take a copy of the handout at the front of the class. Also, if you've not completed your reading, I suggest you do so, as I'll be noting who doesn't contribute to this discussion and will be calling on you next time.
If you have any questions, I'm here."
"Good afternoon. I apologize for the missing classes; I had to leave town unexpectedly.
"Today, we are going to be talking about the processes of unification in Egypt. Now, there are a number of theories which have been put forward, and obviously we are unable to say with any certainty, which, if any, were even partly responsible.
I trust you've all done the reading, so if I list and describe the processes, I'd like you to give me some examples of evidence found supporting those.
Due to the number of varying theories, we will only be looking at the first half today, so if you've not doing your reading, I suggest that you make sure you have done by the next class, else I might not be so forgiving.
One reason, put forward by Barry Kemp in "Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization" is what is commonly referred to as a "Game Theory"
It describes the rise of 'Confederacies' based on the main cities of Naqada, Thinis, Hierakonpolis, Buto, A-Group at Qustul and possibly Maadi. Each city controled water, trade and agricultural resources, and there was a gradual shift in the balance of power as each competed with the other to form larger state. It could have come about through warfare, diplomatic marriage, trade links, or exchange of technology and mutual benefits.
Another reason is cultural diffusion. This is the gradual homogenization of culture and effectively shows the spread of Naqada culture through the Nile Valley and Lower Egypt.
Or there's conquest, where centers of power fight each other in aggressive armed conflict.
The last reason we will be looking at today is the development of complex economies. Controlled access to resources is shown by the increasing use of imported materials - examples please? There is also evidence of craftsmen quarters in cities, and the organization of agricultural resources to support them. Does anyone know where?
Right. Homework for this lesson is to pick one of those and write me a full description, citing your sources. If you don't know how to cite, please take a copy of the handout at the front of the class. Also, if you've not completed your reading, I suggest you do so, as I'll be noting who doesn't contribute to this discussion and will be calling on you next time.
If you have any questions, I'm here."
Re: Dr Jackson
The north and south developed independently, with the south, Upper Egypt, displaying very distinctive cultural elements like artistic activities, highly specialised craftsmanship and religious belief and practice. The earliest of these distinctive phases is the Badarian, succeeded by Naqada I. Both of these were exclusive to Upper Egypt and are contemporary with the Faiyum Neolithic, and Western Delta Neolithic. Only a few artifacts appearing in Upper Egypt and fewer in Lower Egypt indicate any contact between the two areas.
However, after Naqada I, Upper Egyptian features began to appear in Lower Egypt and eventually, completely replaced Lower Egyptian elements. The most important of these sites in Upper Egypt were Naqada, Hierakonpolis and Abydos. Naqada had been at the height of its success, judging by graves and gravegoods in Naqada I, and was overtaken by Hierakonpolis, which was probably the dominant of the three proto-cities in Naqada II. Wilkinson (1999) describes them as “the centres of powerful territories, each ruled by a hereditary elite exercising authority on a regional basis.” The heads of these states are generally accepted as early kings, and some writers have gone as far as referring to Naqada II as Dynasty 00 to reflect this (Naqada III is often referred to as Dynasty 0). These were apparently contemporary with Maadi in the Western Delta and Minshat Abu Omar in the Eastern Delta, where there are regionally characteristic features but there are no signs of an evolving elitist state-based organization.
"Did you have any other requirements, Dr. Jackson? I know you asked to speak to me today regarding my independent study."
Re: Dr Jackson
"Are you happy just turning in the work like this? Or do you want to sit and talk through anything with me?"
Re: Dr Jackson
Re: Dr Jackson