Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T05:04:03.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ancestry of the Mende: An appraisal of Migeod's argument1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2009

Matthew H. Hill
Matthew H. Hill
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The widely accepted argument of Migeod, that the existence of polar morphological types among Mende men is evidence of an ancestral mixture of Mandingo and forest-dwellers, is examined and rejected. Despite the great probability that the ancestry of the Mende is indeed heterogeneous, neither Migeod's argument nor his data support his conclusions. The uncritical acceptance which the argument has had suggests that a general caveat is as important as the particular point.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of African History , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , April 1974 , pp. 193 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Migeod, F. W. H., A View of Sierra Leone (Kegan Paul, London 1926Google Scholar; reprinted, Negro Universities Press, New York 1970).

3 Migeod, op. cit. 204.

4 Abraham, A, ‘Some Suggestions of the Origins of Mende Chiefdoms’, Sierra Leone Studies, N.S. XXV (1969), 30–36.Google ScholarLittle, Kenneth, The Mende of Sierra Leone (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1967).Google ScholarMcCulloch, M., Peoples of Sierra Leone (International African Institute, London 1950).Google ScholarRodney, W., A History of the Upper Guinea Coast: 1545–1800 (Oxford 1970).Google Scholar

5 A different view sometimes expressed would foresee a morphologically intermediate population as the result.

6 E.g. Armelagos, G. J., ‘Aiken's Fremont Hypothesis and Use of Skeletal Material in Archaeological Interpretation’, American Antiquity, XXXIII (1968), 385–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBoyd, W. C., ‘Four Achievements of the Genetical Method in Physical Anthropology’, American Anthropologist, LXV (1963), 243–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarHunt, E. E., ‘Anthropometry, Genetics and Racial History’, American Anthropologist, LXI (1959), 64–87.Google ScholarSchneider, E., ‘Typology and Biometrics’, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, CXXXIV (1966), 789–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 It is interesting to note that an awareness of this is now making itself felt in archaeological studies.

8 Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and Bodmer, W. F., The Genetics of Human Populations (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco 1971) 491.Google Scholar

9 Hunt, op. cit. 81.

10 Olivier, G., ‘Emigration et Métissage’, Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d' Anthropologie de Paris, XI série, VII (1965) 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Little, op. cit. 8.

12 Abraham, op. cit. 32.

13 Migeod, op. cit. 205.

14 Migeod, op. cit. 206.

15 If any reader knows of the whereabouts of Migeod's notes, the author would appreciate receiving the information.

16 Migeod, op. cit. 204.

17 Hunt, op. cit. 73. The excluded penultimate word in the quotation is ‘conjectural’. I am unable to perceive any basis for distinction between conjectural and other history or, indeed, conjectural and other knowledge.