[Aztlan] Race and ethnicity in the past

[Nick Hopkins]

Not to beat a dead horse, I agree with Michael Smith that the  
ethnicity of an archaeological population is not so important in  
itself, i.e., it's not a big research goal to identify ethnic  
identity.  However, I see the identification of ethnicity (again,  
mostly through language) as a research tool, since the ethnic  
identity of a population (and its language) ties it to historical  
processes that can be studied productively.

Nick Hopkins

On Jan 14, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Michael Smith wrote:

> Just a few comments on some of the posts:
>
> Nick Hopkins, Jerry Offner (and others) - Please don't confuse a  
> post to
> Aztlan with a scholarly statement. Historical linguistics is  
> fantastic.
> If I learned anything from 15 years as a colleague of John Justeson at
> Albany, it was the value of historical linguistics for archaeology and
> for any kind of well-rounded interpretation of the past. Perhaps my  
> Teo
> example was too hastily stated. My gentle criticism was that many  
> people
> today get too hung up on ethnic and racial issues (I didn't accuse
> anyone on Aztlan of this, my post came from looking at some of the  
> press
> items that are posted--very usefully--on Aztlan). I mentioned the Teo
> case as just one example of this tendency. Perhaps rather than saying
> that I don't care what language was spoken at Teo (I forget exactly  
> what
> I said), I should have said that the ethnic identity of the people of
> Teo is not the most important thing to know about them.