重新评估政治边界的作用(tꜢšw)

IF 0.3 Q2 HISTORY
Oren Siegel
{"title":"重新评估政治边界的作用(tꜢšw)","authors":"Oren Siegel","doi":"10.1163/18741665-bja10011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Chains of frontier fortresses and the presence of boundary stelae have understandably encouraged scholars to emphasize parallels between Pharaonic political boundaries and contemporary political borders. However, ancient Egyptian territoriality and conceptions of political boundaries differed in several key ways. First, Pharaonic boundaries were not defined by their permeability, but rather their capacity to be altered by royal action. Second, specific territorial claims were often less vital than the sovereign act of claiming or marking a boundary. Finally, ancient Egyptian boundaries were often discussed in personal terms, as belonging to a particular pharaoh. They were not abstracted, linear features that aspired to an ahistorical permanence, but functioned as powerful, performative displays of political authority in liminal spaces. Recognizing these fundamental differences builds upon the insights of earlier scholarship and provides new perspectives on Pharaonic boundary-making practices.","PeriodicalId":41016,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Egyptian History","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reevaluating the Role of Inter-Polity Boundaries (tꜢšw) in Middle and New Kingdom Egypt\",\"authors\":\"Oren Siegel\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18741665-bja10011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Chains of frontier fortresses and the presence of boundary stelae have understandably encouraged scholars to emphasize parallels between Pharaonic political boundaries and contemporary political borders. However, ancient Egyptian territoriality and conceptions of political boundaries differed in several key ways. First, Pharaonic boundaries were not defined by their permeability, but rather their capacity to be altered by royal action. Second, specific territorial claims were often less vital than the sovereign act of claiming or marking a boundary. Finally, ancient Egyptian boundaries were often discussed in personal terms, as belonging to a particular pharaoh. They were not abstracted, linear features that aspired to an ahistorical permanence, but functioned as powerful, performative displays of political authority in liminal spaces. Recognizing these fundamental differences builds upon the insights of earlier scholarship and provides new perspectives on Pharaonic boundary-making practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41016,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Egyptian History\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Egyptian History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18741665-bja10011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Egyptian History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18741665-bja10011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

可以理解的是,一连串的边境堡垒和界碑的存在鼓励学者强调法老政治边界和当代政治边界之间的相似性。然而,古埃及的领土和政治边界概念在几个关键方面存在差异。首先,法老的边界并不是由其渗透性来定义的,而是由王室行动改变的能力。其次,具体的领土主张往往不如声称或标记边界的主权行为重要。最后,古埃及的边界经常以个人的名义被讨论,因为它属于某个特定的法老。它们不是抽象的、线性的特征,渴望非历史的永恒,而是在边缘空间中作为政治权威的有力、表演性展示。认识到这些根本差异建立在早期学术见解的基础上,并为法老的边界制定实践提供了新的视角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reevaluating the Role of Inter-Polity Boundaries (tꜢšw) in Middle and New Kingdom Egypt
Chains of frontier fortresses and the presence of boundary stelae have understandably encouraged scholars to emphasize parallels between Pharaonic political boundaries and contemporary political borders. However, ancient Egyptian territoriality and conceptions of political boundaries differed in several key ways. First, Pharaonic boundaries were not defined by their permeability, but rather their capacity to be altered by royal action. Second, specific territorial claims were often less vital than the sovereign act of claiming or marking a boundary. Finally, ancient Egyptian boundaries were often discussed in personal terms, as belonging to a particular pharaoh. They were not abstracted, linear features that aspired to an ahistorical permanence, but functioned as powerful, performative displays of political authority in liminal spaces. Recognizing these fundamental differences builds upon the insights of earlier scholarship and provides new perspectives on Pharaonic boundary-making practices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
42.90%
发文量
5
期刊介绍: The Journal of Egyptian History (JEgH) aims to encourage and stimulate a focused debate on writing and interpreting Egyptian history ranging from the Neolithic foundations of Ancient Egypt to its modern reception. It covers all aspects of Ancient Egyptian history (political, social, economic, and intellectual) and of modern historiography about Ancient Egypt (methodologies, hermeneutics, interplay between historiography and other disciplines, and history of modern Egyptological historiography). The journal is open to contributions in English, German, and French.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信