It's all in the names

[barking_iguana]

I think I've mentioned here before how the way we use the words "Byzantine" and "Greek" thoroughly distort our view of the history of southeastern Europe and Anatolia. It now occurs to me another way we might be doing something similar.

We give the same name to civilizations along the Nile for many thousands of years, despite several turnovers in ruling classes and sometimes ethnic stock and/or language. Yet for the civilizations along the Tigris and Euphrates, we give a them a new name every few hundred years, perhaps obscuring the degree to which Mesopotamian culture has been continuous.

I'm not saying Mesopotamia is quite a linear as Egypt, but I think Egypt is not as continuous as is often presented and Mesopotamia is more so than presented.

Comments

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

What I wonder about more is how those bible guys got back and forth between Mesopotamia and Egypt without a railroad.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm curious about the Greek/Byzantine distortion. Are you saying that you think there was a more stable culture in the region than the words imply (tossing 'Roman' in as well), or that there was a less stable culture. Not really planning to argue either way, just curious.

On a distantly related note, I'm currently reading "The Fall of the Roman Empire" by Peter Heather. I don't think I've seen anything that changed my view of 375 - 475 AD in it, but it does seem like a well written, modern account of the period. One item from the book is a picture of the elite as 'global'. The basis of wealth was land, but the movers and shakers could show up anywhere around the Med. where they were needed.

-- BTW, I'm Doug, I just have forgotten my LJ password and so can't log in from this computer.