Search Results

Thomas Schneider

encouraged us to undertake an “archaeology of subjectivization” and as a prerequisite, to “disembody” or “dematerialize” the past—to move away from a survey of found objects to an analysis of the lost subjects of history. In this spirit, the articles in this volume are building stones for a new Egyptology

Uroš Matić

was most subjective as he assigned the most bulbous crania to his favored Pelasgic type (understood as Greek forebears) and the most flattened to Egyptians, without mentioning criteria of subdivision. 26 Interestingly enough, he considered the Pelasgic lineaments to be those of Greek art “remarkable

Kate Liszka

themselves as members of that group. If they do not, the so-called “ethnic designation” is in fact an “ethnic stereotype” that other people apply to a group of people who they believe are similar to each other. It does not reflect internal, subjective ethnic divisions. However, people can adopt external

Stuart Tyson Smith

. Ethnic identity is subjectively constructed and has the potential to shift and adapt as individual actors confront different social contexts. 10 This fluidity means that ethnic groups are not as clearly bounded as one might expect and thus can be difficult to track in both the historical and

Uroš Matić

examples. Nowadays, most archaeologists would agree with Jones’s assertion: ethnic identity is based on shifting, situational, subjective identifications of self and others, which are rooted in ongoing daily practice and historical experience, but also subject to transformation and discontinuity. 16

Robert Morkot and Peter James

–17. 53 James, et al. , Centuries of Darkness , 254–55; Morkot, The Black Pharaohs , 193, 315–16, n. 27; Morkot and James, “Peftjauawybast, King of Nen-nesut,” esp. 41–42, 44. 244 peter james and robert morkot illustrates the danger of subjective assessments about the reality of a given Pharaoh

Leo Depuydt

as “proven.” Second, Kienitz assumes that the reference to the conquest is worded in such a way that the letter must have been written soon after the conquest. I find this interpretation of the wording in ques- tion (see above) subjective and hardly compelling. Speusippos’ Letter as Terminus ante