Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| early_dynastic_iiib [2010/01/09 07:33] – ong | early_dynastic_iiib [2015/01/27 17:02] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ===== Defining the ED IIIb period ===== | ===== Defining the ED IIIb period ===== | ||
| - | The traditional schema outlined for the Early Dynastic period is based, above all, on a somewhat problematic assignment of major archaeological sites and text-artifactual corpora to ... Bauer (1998, 431) refers to two distinct models (?) / definitions (?) of the beginning of the ED IIIb period: the theory that . . . proposed by [[Falkenstein]] and his students and the alternative model suggested by [[Hallo]]. These efforts to define the start of the period in political rather than archaeological terms may well be misguided and Van De Mieroop has recently argued that the entire Early Dynastic Period should be treated as a single organic whole from a historical perspective.\\ | + | The traditional schema outlined for the Early Dynastic period is based, above all, on a somewhat problematic assignment of major archaeological sites and text-artifactual corpora to ... Bauer (1998, 431) refers to two distinct models (?) / definitions (?) of the beginning of the ED IIIb period: the theory that . . . proposed by [[falkenstein_adam|Falkenstein]] and his students and the alternative model suggested by Hallo. These efforts to define the start of the period in political rather than archaeological terms may well be misguided and Van De Mieroop has recently argued that the entire Early Dynastic Period should be treated as a single organic whole from a historical perspective.\\ |
| This period is often subdivided into Early Dynastic I (ca. 2900-2750), II (ca. 2750-2600), IIIa (2600-2450), | This period is often subdivided into Early Dynastic I (ca. 2900-2750), II (ca. 2750-2600), IIIa (2600-2450), | ||
