zaragenca wrote:Then in that case not history is going to cut it,becouse history is all about oral communication,(even the people which could alive at that time still have to communicate with witness, becouse nobody was everywhere to see everything..All those scholars in Universities writing books, are building the histories with communication in first place,(sometime they would not get the real deal because our ancestors didn’t trusts them,(it was their prerogative because in their condition they didn’t have to trust people which were not of their background).Dr. Zaragemca
bongosnotbombs wrote:zaragenca wrote:He made some reference to Dr. Fernando Ortiz…..Dr Zaragemca say…’With absolutely recognition for Ortiz’s afforts in conducting these studies,… a lot of scholars which followed the research find out and, he, himself,(Ortiz), recognized that he was wrong in many of his early writing because the lack of clear understanding of the subject..
It is quite possible that Ortiz may have been wrong in some of his early writings. The source in Warden's end notes was written in 1952 was 17 years beofre Ortiz's death, indicating it to be one of his later writings, as he was 71 when he wrote it.
Ortiz's writings are only quoted in regards to possible origins of the word conga and tumbadora. Neither author (Warden or Ortiz) comes to any precise conlcusion or determination , which is quite clearly stated by Nolan warden.
As the source quoted is not from an early writing and is merely speculation, and stated as such, I can see no reason to be prejudiced against Nolan's paper from their inclusion.
Return to Congas or Tumbadoras or...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest