You touched many points which in turn brought evidences and draw the attention on "Interpretations".
When I said "writings" in its complete form:
I would draw the attention what writings deal with BUT I did not specify about INTPRETATIONS whichQuote
because we have trace of transmission culture by writing, which "writing" give explanation about living
systems, laws, construct buildings such as houses, temples etc, religions and enlargement of population,
during last 2 centuries and may be before, researchers and "Others" give to such discovered writings.....
MDaines in his post clearly evidences the question of "TRANSLATIONS", which has been object during
slows of time to "subjective interpretations" on what for the translator (scribe) did not find an absolute
sense into his running Language.
I a lot of time draw the attention about this phoenomenon of "INTERPRETATIONS" quoting what Guiambattista Vico
state about that:
In Italian: Un’altra proprietà della mente umana è che quando l’uomo non riesce a formarsi un’idea
delle distanti e sconosciute cose, egli le giudica con quanto gli e’ famigliare ed alla mano
which I translated in Englis as:
It is another property of the human mind that whenever men can form no idea of distant and unknown things, they judge them by what is familiar and at hand.
Such "raw reality" has pratically Always been ignored, leading people to "deeply believe into their Language translation".
Personally many and many years ago I learned a very simple but indisputable rule:
When you think about the past and you search what probably went on, you must think with the mind
and mentality of people who lived in the context on which your focused on.
His name is Gabriele Rossi Osmida, the first European who brought to the light a "cultures" which dated
back at least to about 6 thousand year BP, in Central Asia, Turkmenistan, which I mentionned in my first
post in this thread [grahamhancock.com]
About the 5 W questions it has to be specify that them are applicable to little details as weill
as in ascending sequences till macro events, areaa etc. strictly starting ALWAYS in this order:
strictly identify the obiect and subject of your examined question Beyond your personal opinion about it.
strictly identify whenever is possible Beyond any serious doubts, the time on which object or subject belongs to.
strictly identify with the maximun accuracy wether possible, the geaographic area along with the
historical context on which the object or subject belongs to.
strictly identify with maximum accuracy wether possible, the person or people who were involved into the question.
strictly identify with maximum accuracy wether possible, the motivations and of course the causes who lead
person or people do it.
After that you will not get the OUT OF ANY DOUBT ANSWER but ONLY WHAT PROBABLY WENT ON.
At this stage it rise up the question OF H - HOW - YOU EVIDENCED.
At this point then other many unsolved questions arise, to which became hard give any right and Beyond any doubts answer.
> ... that are just my prsonal opinion
> (and NOT inside the mainstream) toughs of mine.
Likewise, and I'm thinking that you don't really mean "personal opinion", but rather "hypothesis, based on the available physical evidence".
Well not really like that because to rise Hypothesis it needs an identified postulate, which if postulate
is based only to few and not accurate evidences, would lead toward a not reliable "Hypothesis".
As you well mentioned about interpretations of Dinasty....
In my case what I exposed are just thoughs which arose and formed seeing what we have acquired nowadays,
let say not Hypothesis but a sort of an invitation to think with our "Ancestors mind and menthality" in order
to try to get out from "strict linear classifications" and have a "wide multi-scientific" approach to
the examined questions.
You can not solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that you used to create it.