We were told that the first thing we need to do is reverse the
expected. If we expect that Egypt
influenced Nubia and the Levant (etc.) then we need to first try to see if
Kerma influences exist in Egypt (for example).
The reason for this is that it has often been found that it is the
periphery that develops the ideas that the center then adapts. (Although it seems that the Ammonites (in
modern-day Jordan) really did adopt Egyptian art-forms to express kingship (as
also did the Hebrews, at least in the form of seals), the same might not be
true of other areas.)
This is probably a good rule of thumb for any endeavor. Always explore the opposite of what you
expect (assume). Try to disprove what
you believe to be true.
So how does one do this? By
knowing the archaeological data before, during, and after the period you are
studying in both the periphery and the center, you can then compare data. If you discover that there is evidence for
the existence of the thing under study in either the periphery or the center,
when it does not exist in the other, you might have the answer (or at the very
least a start toward the answer) to the question you are trying to solve. At some point influence ends, and this is
also important to determine.
What can complicate the process is when there exists a network of
centers (such as is found in Egypt at various periods).
In Egypt, there are traditionally two major
kingdoms (Upper and Lower) that each have centers of civilization. One of the questions that archaeologists are
trying to discover is which of these kingdoms influenced the other. Because there is a different social profile
in both regions, it has been a complex and interesting study that is still
underway.
No comments:
Post a Comment