|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 30, 2006 11:05:36 GMT -5
Man I swear, why can't people leave dead end debunked anthropology alone?
|
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Jan 30, 2006 11:12:38 GMT -5
Man i swear, why can't people leave dead end debunked anthropology alone? You in fact sabotage the thread with off-topic. The topic of this forum is: Physical Anthropology. |
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 30, 2006 11:21:12 GMT -5
Hiernaux has been found to be erroneous many times and a study of his from 1975? Bass your so limited its lame.
|
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 30, 2006 11:28:10 GMT -5
Hiernaux has been found to be erroneous many times and a study of his from 1975? Bass your so limited its lame. How was he found to be erroneous Poindexter? Please explain and don't copy and paste racialreality's trash. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 30, 2006 14:12:36 GMT -5
Kafrid derives from the ethnic groups in South-Eastern Africa which represent the racial type best, so you might blame the ethnic designation. It was not thought to be offensive and if you like you can use Bantuid, which was used too. I explained that in another thread already with many examples and showed the ethnic groups from which it was derived, but again the search function is suboptimal and I dont want to search for hours.
First Hiernauxs work is older than the last updates to the typology of v. Eickstedt and in fact his distinctions go in a similar direction.
I know the article of Jean Hiernaux, Afrique moyenne btw, he uses mainly outdated methods of population biology like blood groups etc. I mean nothing against old studies if they are about things which were measured correctly - since that is the same if you made it 100 years ago or yesterday, with almost the same chances of mistakes, spoke about that in another thread, a comparison of Debetz and v. Eickstedt on Indian material, Debetz made serious mistakes whereas v. Eickstedt was as correct as always. But if its about blood types etc. we have much better genetic studies done now and it has not too much influence on the basic racial specialisations anyway since even immune type selection is more specific and mostly below even the subracial level.
My French is insufficient and I can only partly understand passively, but I read his article and had the impression it was partly rather anecdotal with an insufficient typological approach.
Whats nice are his descriptions, data and plates from Rwanda-Burundi, especially the Tutsi, Hutu and Twa examples which show again how huge the differences are and how different the specialisation of this three ethnic groups is.
The same French school used "Alpine" and "Nordique" to describe Berbers which were just partly depigmented Berberid (North African Cromagnoids), though that can be argued, they should have read v. Eickstedt and Schwidetzky first, what they usually did anyway, but without adopting their full terminology most of the time.
When he wrote that, it was the time when anthropologists made the big mistake to dismiss begin to partly or even fully dismiss the typological approach and using population-biological methods, though the methods were rather insufficient at that time especially if its about genetic results. Its better now, but still not sufficient.
And its a basic mistake to think that the physical trait variation, the feature combinations which show clear signs of specialisation in different directions could be even partly dismissed.
Hiernaux mainly quoted (what a surprise) French authors btw., unlike some of his colleagues from France. This article I refer to was from 1969 and printed in the "Rassengeschichte der Menschheit".
But again, his results were not significantly different from that of the German school he just made no complete typological system.
If you dont like v. Eickstedt read Baker, Schwidetzky or Knußmann.
Again, I ask you what I asked above: 75 percent difference between Sudanid Senegalese and Palaenegrid Kongo Negrids, you want to say they can't be typologically distinguished with a certainty of 75 percent +?
Those of the Kongo area show definitely more primitive traits and deviate partly in the direction of Pygmoids, the difference is in fact striking is speaking about the typical ethnic representatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 30, 2006 14:24:12 GMT -5
Hiernaux's chart came from a 1975 study and book, later than that crap you posted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 30, 2006 14:38:18 GMT -5
Hiernaux's chart came from a 1975 study and book, later than that crap you posted. Its no crap because it was reproduced later, I can show you plates and maps from the 1990's, just some examples: forum.stirpes.net/showthread.php?t=2343Furthermore were the results from 1969 really that different from 1975? Sorry, but I dont see a huge difference at all...what should have been changed? And his work from 1969 as well as the chart you posted seem to be ok if compared with the basic descriptions of v. Eickstedt et al., Hiernaux was just more anecdotal. Again you didnt answered my question: |
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 30, 2006 17:07:05 GMT -5
Hiernaux has been found to be erroneous many times and a study of his from 1975? Bass your so limited its lame. How was he found to be erroneous Poindexter? Please explain and don't copy and paste racialreality's trash. Tinkerbell listen up! Agrippa's sources are superior(even despite their age) to anything the erroneous Hiernaux wrote. He's not reliable...and once we can get past your constant recycling(your parroting ad nauseam) of the Keita and/or Hiernaux,your left with nothing to back your arrogant nonsensical imbecilic thoughts(actually you have none of own,you just post in other peoples abstracts & quotations ) on these subjects and get back to actual real learning and anthropology talk. |
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 31, 2006 0:30:17 GMT -5
How was he found to be erroneous Poindexter? Please explain and don't copy and paste racialreality's trash. Tinkerbell listen up! Agrippa's sources are superior(even despite their age) to anything the erroneous Hiernaux wrote. He's not reliable...and once we can get past your constant recycling(your parroting ad nauseam) of the Keita and/or Hiernaux,your left with nothing to back your arrogant nonsensical imbecilic thoughts(actually you have none of own,you just post in other peoples abstracts & quotations ) on these subjects and get back to actual real learning and anthropology talk. Translation: I have presented no evidence that Hiernaux was a fraud so now I'm resorting to a mostly ad-hominem response instead of backing up what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Jan 31, 2006 4:19:08 GMT -5
Alright. I´ll sticky that one too and then if the present thread does not improve the original I´ll de-sticky this one. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 31, 2006 10:49:16 GMT -5
Can you merge this threads? Because especially my answers to Planet_Asia and his plate of Hiernaux should be included.
|
|
