PDA

View Full Version : Khoi and San Original Ethnic Groups of Southern Africa



Oski
Sunday, January 3rd, 2010, 10:28 PM
"Khoisan (Khoi + San) - Is the name for the two original ethnic groups of Southern Africa. From the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period, a hunting and gathering culture known as the Sangoan occupied this area. Today's San and Khoi people resemble their ancient skeletal remains and are believed to be their descendants. The Khoisan people were the inhabitants of much of southern Africa before the southward Bantu expansion, and later European colonization. Both Khoi and San people share physical and linguistic characteristics, and it seems clear that the Khoi branched forth from the San when they adopted the practice of herding cattle and goats from neighboring Bantu speaking groups.

Culturally they are divided into the hunter gatherer San people (commonly known as Bushmen) and the pastoral Khoi. In the Khoisan language, consonants are pronounced with a clicking sound. This prompted their Dutch invaders to call them “Hottentots” – a derogatory word meaning "stutterer" or "stammerer" in the language of the Dutch invaders; Who, together with British and German settlers, would eventually exterminate them with the Herero and Namaqua Genocides.


One of the great ironies of Human History, is that this marks the second time, that these very same peoples – the British, Dutch, and Germans - would exterminate Khoisans and seize their lands. It is a repeat of what happened (ca. 500 B.C.), when the ancestors of today's British, Dutch, and Germans: The Celts and Germans who migrated into Europe from the place of their evolution, (the Eurasian Plains): exterminated the Khoisan inhabitants of Europe and seized their lands. It appears that unfortunately, word never got back to those in Africa, as to what the Caucasians were likely to do."

more:

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Prehistoric_Art/Grimaldi.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think about these claims?

Deifr
Monday, January 4th, 2010, 01:04 AM
I dont have any knowledge on the stuff in the article, but looking at the website its a black supremacist website which is even more biased than its white counterparts. It's most likely a load of complete lies.

Agrippa
Monday, January 4th, 2010, 05:00 PM
At the time of the Grimaldi people, we deal with various groups and small bands of people entering Europe from various directions it seems. Some of them survived, others didnt. Some left a genetic legacy, but their traits being long time bred out.

So in the end, it doesnt matter who entered Europe for its racial forms, nor whether they left a genetic footstep behind, but just which traits survived to this day and those of the Grimaldi type didnt. End of this part of the story.

The other part of the story being, that Sanids being among the most archaic, primitive people which still exist to this day, now like it is with Australoids, they have traits other populations and races lost long time ago. They were "bred out" by various forces of selective pressures, but survived in isolated rest populations in areas of retreat.

Even in America, the most primitive forms can be found in areas of retreat, so in India, so in South East Asia and in Africa (Bambutids in the jungle, Sanids in the desert).

The primitive people of Africa with their very reduced and one sided form, an adaptation to the unfavourable areas they now live in, didnt lived there all the time. No human form preferred areas like the inner jungle of Central Africa or the Kalahari, they were pushed there, by more culturally and biologically more progressive and numerous people, until they HAD TO adapt to a poor life in the worst habitats left for them.

So wherever we see those traits, we might rather link them with earlier waves of modern human migration and rests of people, which preserved those primitive traits which disappeared already elsewhere.

F.e. the skull from Combe Capelle shows similarities to Australoids in some respects, yet its a possible predecessor for many Europid racial forms and even then, 30.000 years ago, was more progressive than that of present Australids!

The primitive rest-traits were lost over time, the bands died out as a whole or only those variants with more progressive features survived.

Rather than with geographic-genetic relations alone, we also deal with layers, different levels. Obviously, 30.000 years ago primitive variants were still much more common among Europeans and Europids in general than they are now: They largely died off in between.

If you change your race and culture so completely, no matter if having the same ancestor or not, you are not the same people any long. Its like saying humans are the same as chimpanzees, just because having a common ancestor - not, rather not.

Yet if talking about Grimaldi in particular, I doubt they left anything important behind, not even neutral genetic markers, I just wonder if they can test their DNA somewhere in the future...