This is not a part of the world I know anything about, but something that has astonished me about the years-long glib dismissal of the steppe invader story was the degree to which scholars who knew no classical languages, couldn't read ancient anything, were superciliously dismissive of the insights of a generation of scholars who could read multiple ancient languages and just had a depth of knowledge about Antiquity that would make you think -- well, listen, even if they are mostly just sort of feeling their way via their pawpads, their pawpads are very highly sensitive. But then came a generation of scholars who were incredibly narrowly educated but felt sure that this narrow education gave them a knife blade with which to cut through prior work.
I'll give an example: I "grew up", so to speak, on the idea that Bachofen was a wooly-minded Victorian era old dear whom a few addled earth mamas had seized upon in the late 1960s to construct matriarchal fantasies about the past.
This impression could not survive actually reading his work -- which made me realize that in fact, no one ever does. not ever. That I'd been reading and taking as gospel the judgements of modern scholars who did not themselves care what the sources said, LET ALONE whether those sources (like Bachofen) had spent quite a lot of expert time looking at really original sources (Etruscan tomb paintings etc.)
Archaeogenetics is, in my mind, the most important subfield of study in regards to ancient history at this time. I feel very blessed to be a student in this era, capable of entering the fray as it is still in its rising phase.
Stone Age-- my cursory understanding and Wikipedia skimming tell me that it’s at this point totally confirmed that King Tuts line is R1b, right?
Why is there no hubbub over this? That’s the second kingdom (but before the sea peoples) so unrelated to the founding dynastic race, but still it seems like it should a bigger deal
So if we have mainly religious texts as historical records of this period to now, there must be a huge volume of written/tablet recorded history/ knowledge that has been lost or hidden- either through natural disasters or intentionally?
> If it does turn out that Neolithic Egypt was invaded from Mesopotamia, which ultimately led to the development of a Pharaonic elite complete with a new religion, alphabet, art style and so on, it would mark a new chapter in archaeological history.
Well Egyptian religion and mythology doesn't particularly resemble Sumerian religion and mythology.
Am rather bemused that the idea of outsiders taking over and ruling a given polity can be seen as "colonialist."
That's really the story of medieval and modern Europe. The western Roman empire fell to various exogenous groups like the Franks, Saxons and Goths. Ditto for England after 1066, and Ireland as well.
That the present British monarch's ancestors came from Germany in the 18th C also rather undercuts the idea of purely indigenous ("non-colonialist") rulers.
So let the evidence determine the best hypothesis, vice imposing a hypothesis that best fits a given emotional outlook.
The Return of 'Dynastic Race Theory'?
This is not a part of the world I know anything about, but something that has astonished me about the years-long glib dismissal of the steppe invader story was the degree to which scholars who knew no classical languages, couldn't read ancient anything, were superciliously dismissive of the insights of a generation of scholars who could read multiple ancient languages and just had a depth of knowledge about Antiquity that would make you think -- well, listen, even if they are mostly just sort of feeling their way via their pawpads, their pawpads are very highly sensitive. But then came a generation of scholars who were incredibly narrowly educated but felt sure that this narrow education gave them a knife blade with which to cut through prior work.
I'll give an example: I "grew up", so to speak, on the idea that Bachofen was a wooly-minded Victorian era old dear whom a few addled earth mamas had seized upon in the late 1960s to construct matriarchal fantasies about the past.
This impression could not survive actually reading his work -- which made me realize that in fact, no one ever does. not ever. That I'd been reading and taking as gospel the judgements of modern scholars who did not themselves care what the sources said, LET ALONE whether those sources (like Bachofen) had spent quite a lot of expert time looking at really original sources (Etruscan tomb paintings etc.)
Archaeogenetics is, in my mind, the most important subfield of study in regards to ancient history at this time. I feel very blessed to be a student in this era, capable of entering the fray as it is still in its rising phase.
Stone Age-- my cursory understanding and Wikipedia skimming tell me that it’s at this point totally confirmed that King Tuts line is R1b, right?
Why is there no hubbub over this? That’s the second kingdom (but before the sea peoples) so unrelated to the founding dynastic race, but still it seems like it should a bigger deal
Curious - is there any isotopic research on remains from this period?
So if we have mainly religious texts as historical records of this period to now, there must be a huge volume of written/tablet recorded history/ knowledge that has been lost or hidden- either through natural disasters or intentionally?
> If it does turn out that Neolithic Egypt was invaded from Mesopotamia, which ultimately led to the development of a Pharaonic elite complete with a new religion, alphabet, art style and so on, it would mark a new chapter in archaeological history.
Well Egyptian religion and mythology doesn't particularly resemble Sumerian religion and mythology.
Am rather bemused that the idea of outsiders taking over and ruling a given polity can be seen as "colonialist."
That's really the story of medieval and modern Europe. The western Roman empire fell to various exogenous groups like the Franks, Saxons and Goths. Ditto for England after 1066, and Ireland as well.
That the present British monarch's ancestors came from Germany in the 18th C also rather undercuts the idea of purely indigenous ("non-colonialist") rulers.
So let the evidence determine the best hypothesis, vice imposing a hypothesis that best fits a given emotional outlook.
REN is overcharged about this new "warriors conquer farmer" theory confirmed, isn't him?