[Aztlan] Race and ethnicity in the past

[ECOLING at aol.com]

Thanks to Michael Smith for his interesting post yesterday
and the wonderful references comparing more recent times.

I am intrigued by the notion that the modern West is obsessed by race.
Is that actually true?   If so, why?   Is there more co-existence of large 
populations from radically different origins in modern societies 
which might give rise to that?   Or is it merely that we are closer to it so 
we 
see our own societies in a way which we can only get hints of for ancient
societies where we only have evidence from archaeology *and other fields*?

*

I must still second Nick Hopkins's presentation, however.
In particular, I must protest the following statement by Michael Smith.
(I am a linguist, but don't want to hold linguistics above other fields,
it's merely where I happen by accidents of history
to have the most skills and knowledge.)

<<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.>>

While I can agree with a fraction of this, the question itself is wrong.
We should not be in the business of trying to say what fields of
study are *more important* than others.   Knowing the ethnic identity
of parts of a cultural phenomenon may be crucial to *interpreting*
what they do or create.   Which of these types of behaviors and
objects are inherited from which of their ancestors, or may be
greatly illuminated by comparisons with their brothers and sisters
and cousins (other cultures who share parts of their ancestries)?
Which of the behaviors and objects are conservative (merely
carrying on what some of the ancestors did), and which are
innovations or syntheses?   Discovering partial answers to these
questions can suggest quite different interpretations, and can
sometimes rescue us from partly or completely wrong-headed
interpretations which a single field (whether archaeology or
any other) would come up with in isolation.   Question about
ethic identity are closely linked with questions about history
and ancestry.

By contrast, Michael Smith's comment shows a great willingness
to make other kinds of comparisons with other cultures across
time and space.   Wonderful.

The "more important" statement however 
seems to be much like the sometimes-cooperative and
sometimes-competitive relations between epigraphy,
iconography, and archaeology in Mayan studies.   Specialists in
one field tend to prefer and think their own field more important
that others in which they have less interest or skills.
Such claims of importance are usually quite wrong,
justified only from particular limited perspectives.
Better questions are not which is "more important",
but rather how each can contribute what the others will miss.

An example very much on my mind is the synthesis of 
climate history with human history which is greatly promoted
by Richardson Gill's _The Great Maya Droughts_.
(I've had it for years, and have lost much by not delving into it
earlier in depth much earlier -- one of those field boundary things.)
This synthesis strengthens and integrates several views of the past,
and can do as much as further studies of written or inscribed
records or archaeology to help establish historical validity
(or not) for parts of those records.   The records can also help
to validate parts of the climate history.   A fascinating item
from it is that the great drought and famine of "1 Rabbit" (1454) in
the Central Mexican histories is in Gill's analysis the same one as
brought down the city of Mayapan (1451-1454).   
These are usually not discussed together, because of multiple
kinds of field boundaries.
Alva Ixtlilxochitl recorded an eclipse for that time in Central Mexico, 
and an eclipse is also recorded for the corresponding passage 
in the Chilam Balam of Chumayel (Roys 1933:77).
Since eclipses are not mentioned for all droughts,
this may be significant.

Onwards in trying to integrate information.

Lloyd Anderson
Ecological Linguistics
PO Box 15156
Washington DC 20003
ecoling at aol.com
202-547-7683



**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)