...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ethiopians, Somalis
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] ^Personally, I don't see there being any problem. Rightmire is the problem. But some of his colleagues (see Coon in the quote below) got it right as far as the descriptive part where Rightmire totally failed. Coon correctly identifies the Rift population as being its own population, both with respect to modern Africans, palaeolithic Europeans, and with respect to what seems to be a hybrid European - N. African population (the Afalou sample). So, for me the 'racial' models work well, after taking what is useful and discarding what is not useful. [/qb][/QUOTE]I don't subscribe to those racial models, including bantu, sub saharan, negro, cushitic, hamitic, etc, because they are arbitrary and come with baggage that have nothing to do with biology. However, metric clustering of populations on a regional, global and temporal scale absolutely makes sense, but that is not 'race'. It is just plotting relationships over time of various human biological characteristics to see patterns and trends based on local evolution and migration. As such, biological functioning involving mutations and emergence of various traits cannot be subscribed to any one population at one time or any particular place, which is the problem with what I am calling the 'racial' model of anthropology, which has always caused more problems than it solved in my book. The issue is in separating the wheat from the chaff when in reality the underlying ideology and mentality leading to models of human biology is the core problem. And partly because of this reinterpretation of these models over time the other problem becomes language as when you say "bantu" it may have different meanings to different people. But that is neither here nor there I am not trying to bog down this thread with that side discussion, other than to say you must frame those older works in the context of the time and models they were working under. [/qb][/QUOTE]The loose racial categorization served it's purpose as being a short hand way to describe in detail what people were observing. Retroactively characterizing modern populations via relatedness as pigeon holing their affinities are separate issues. "Just because he/she is black doesn't mean they're negroid" -isms are newer problems which was unnecessarily conflated with anthro-terminology. With that being said, I don't fully see how the Bantu become relevant in these contexts as they weren't even a part of the Archaeological record dating that far back and the majority of their markers are quite recent in founding and distribution. [URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009885;p=3#000122]See E-V3224[/URL] [/qb][/QUOTE]Unfortunately I cant agree with that. Any look at the works of the early 19th century on African crania shows the overt racialist tone and ideology behind how these crania were categorized. So it is impossible to claim that those studies had merit and the problems of classification arose later. If anything, later scholars after the 70s had to change their approach to be less overt due to the social upheavals and independence movements in the wider world. [QUOTE] But the distinction is based on social, linguistic, and cultural, as well as on physical grounds, so that, as at present constituted, the Sudanese and Bantu really constitute two tolerably well-defined branches of the Negro family. Thanks to Muhammadan influences, the former have attained a much higher level of culture. They cultivate not only the alimentary but also the economic plants, such as cotton and indigo ; they build stone dwellings, walled towns, substantial mosques and minarets ; they have founded powerful states, such as those of the Hausa and Songhai, of Ghana and Bornu, with written records going back a thousand years, although these historical peoples are all without exception half-breeds, often with more Semitic and Hamitic than Negro blood in their veins. ........ But in Negroland the case is reversed, and here the less cultured Bantu populations all, without any known exception, speak dialects of a single mother-tongue, while the greatest linguistic confusion prevails amongst the semi-civilised as well as the savage peoples of Sudan. [b]Although the Bantu language may, as some suppose ^ have originated in the north and spread southwards to the Congo, Zambesi, and Limpopo basins, it cannot now be even remotely affiliated to any one of the numerous distinct forms of speech current in the Sudanese domain. Hence to allow time for its diffusion over half the continent, the initial movement must be assigned to an extremely remote epoch, and a corresponding period of great duration must be postulated for the profound linguistic disintegration that is everywhere witnessed in the region between the Atlantic and Abyssinia. Here agglutination, both with prefixed and postfixed particles, is the prevailing morphological order, as in the Mandingan, Fulah, Nubian, Dinkan, and Mangbattu groups. But every shade of transition is also presented between true agglutination and inflection of the Hamito-Semitic types, as in Hausa, Kanuri, Kanem, Dasa or Southern and Teda or Northern Tibu.[/b][/QUOTE] https://archive.org/details/cu31924014120814/page/44/mode/2up [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3