سامی (قوم)

اقوام سامی عرب‌ها ، آشوریان و عبرانیان را شامل می‌شود. [1][2][3][4] [5][6][7]

نخستین توصیف قوم‌شناسی تاریخی جهان بر پایهٔ سه پسر نوح: سام، حام و یافث. برای مشاهدهٔ متن، روی تصویر کلیک کنید.

این عبارت نخستین‌بار در سال‌های ۱۷۷۰ توسط اعضای مکتب تاریخ‌نگاری گوتینگن (Göttingen School of History) به کار رفت. این عبارت از قوم‌شناسی کتاب مقدس برآمده بود و اشاره به نوادگان سام پسر نوح در سفر پیدایش دارد. دو عبارت اقوام حامی (Hamites) و اقوام یافثی (Japhetites) نیز برای نوادگان دو پسر دیگر نوح استفاده شد.

این عبارت عمدتاً برای اطلاق به عرب‌ها و آشوریان و عبرانیان به کار می‌رود. شناخته‌شده‌ترین زبان‌های سامی زنده نیز عربی؛ عبری و آشوری هستند. بیشتر مردم سوی غربی خاورمیانه از نژاد سامی شمرده می‌شوند و زبان ویژه خود را دارند.آرامی ها‌، کلدانی ها‌، نبطی ها‌ از دیگر اقوام سامی هستند .

از دیدگاه دین‌های ابراهیمی و بر پایهٔ روایت تورات و اسطوره‌های سامی نسل کنونی آدمیان که پس از طوفان نوح به جای مانده‌اند از پشت سه پسر نوح سام، حام و یافث هستند.[8] سامی‌ها کسانی هستند که خود را فرزندان سام پسر نوح می‌دانند. هر چیز وابسته به آن‌ها مانند زبان‌های سامی، آیین‌های سامی و ... سامی خوانده می‌شود.

زبان‌ها
نوشتار(های) وابسته: زبان‌های سامی

جستارهای وابسته

پانویس

^  منبع این بند:

  • MOSCATI, SABATINO, The Semites in ancient history. An inquiry into the settlement of the Beduin and their political establishment. Cardiff: ۱۹۵۹، صص. ۱۶ تا ۲۱.

منابع
  1. Liverani1995, p. 392: "A more critical look at this complex of problems should advise employing today the term and the concept "Semites" exclusively in its linguistic sense, and, on the other hand, tracing back every cultural fact to its concrete historical environment. The use of the term "Semitic" in culture, subject as it is to arbitrary simplifications, shows methodological risks which exceed by far the possibility of positive historical analysis. In any case the Semitic character of every cultural fact is a problem which in each situation must be ascenained in its limits and in its historical setting (both in time and in the social environment), and may not be assumed as obvious or traced back to a presumed "Proto-Semitic" culture, statically conceived."
  2. On the use of the terms “(anti-)Semitic” and “(anti-) Zionist” in modern Middle Eastern discourse, Orientalia Suecana LXI Suppl. (2012) by Lutz Eberhard Edzard: "In linguistics context, the term "Semitic" is generally speaking non-controversial... As an ethnic term, "Semitic" should best be avoided these days, in spite of ongoing genetic research (which also is supported by the Israeli scholarly community itself) that tries to scientifically underpin such a concept."
  3. Review of "The Canaanites" (1964) by Marvin Pope: "The term "Semitic," coined by Schlozer in 1781, should be strictly limited to linguistic matters since this is the only area in which a degree of objectivity is attainable. The Semitic languages comprise a fairly distinct linguistic family, a fact appreciated long before the relationship of the Indo-European languages was recognized. The ethnography and ethnology of the various peoples who spoke or still speak Semitic languages or dialects is a much more mixed and confused matter and one over which we have little scientific control."
  4. Glöckner, Olaf; Fireberg, Haim (25 September 2015). Being Jewish in 21st-Century Germany. De Gruyter. p. 200. ISBN 978-3-11-035015-9. ...there is no Semitic ethnicity, only Semitic languages
  5. Anidjar 2008, p. (Foreword): "This collection of essays explores the now mostly extinct notion of Semites. Invented in the nineteenth century and essential to the making of modern conceptions of religion and race, the strange unity of Jew and Arab under one term, Semite (the opposing term was Aryan), and the circumstances that brought about its disappearance constitute the subject of this volume."
  6. Anidjar 2008, p. 6: "To a large extent, or rather, to a quite complete extent, Semites were, like their ever so distant relatives – the Aryans – a concrete figment of the Western imagination, the peculiar imagination that concerns me in the chapters that follow. And just as the witches (the simultaneous efficacy and deep unreliability of "spectral evidence"), Semites were – I write in the past tense because Semites are a thing of the past, ephemeral beings long vanished as such – Semites were, then, something of a hypothesis (Chapter 1), contemporary with, and constitutive of, that other powerfully incarnate fiction named "secularism" (Chapter 2). Again, and as underscored by Edward Said, who raIsed anew the "Semitic question", the role of the imagination can hardly be downplayed."
  7. Lewis, Bernard (1987). Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice. W W Norton & Co Inc. ISBN 978-0393304206. The confusion between race and language goes back a long way, and was compounded by the rapidly changing content of the word "race" in European and later in American usage. Serious scholars have pointed out–repeatedly and ineffectually-‑that "Semitic" is a linguistic and cultural classification, denoting certain languages and in some contexts the literatures and civilizations expressed in those languages. As a kind of shorthand, it was sometimes retained to designate the speakers of those languages. At one time it might thus have had a connotation of race, when that word itself was used to designate national and cultural entities. It has nothing whatever to do with race in the anthropological sense that is now common usage. A glance at the present‑day speakers of Arabic, from Khartoum to Aleppo and from Mauritania to Mosul, or even of Hebrew speakers in the modern state of Israel, will suffice to show the enormous diversity of racial types.
  8. باستانشناسی و جغرافیای تاریخی قصص قرآن، دکتر عبدالکریم بی‌آزار شیرازی، صفحهٔ ۴۰
در ویکی‌انبار پرونده‌هایی دربارهٔ سامی (قوم) موجود است.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.