I hear this over and over on Dodona, but these points aren't really that valid:
Point one - Caucasoids seen as "non-White" by society are in fact more typically Europid than Europeans, so
pigmentation is not that important, despite the fact that:
(1) The people chosen by Blumenbauch to idealise his Caucasian race easily blend into Western Countries and are light for the whole Middle-East.
(2) The man's morphology chosen by Coon for his "Caucasoid" is more common for Europeans than for Middle-Easterners.
Point two--Coon said Irano-Afghans are the most Caucasoid, and that the Pathan he used for his best Caucasoid example is common for Irano-Afghans, which is common for Iranians and Afghans, who are the most representative Middle-Easterners.
But he didn't say that, it is not typical for Pathans, for the Irano-Afghan type (which in Coon's sense is a wide term anyway), and for Iranians or Afghans. And given the traffic into Iran from the steppes from Kurgans who undoubtedly carried Corded Nordid (which is what Irano-Afghans are metrically similar to, and in some cases, extactly the same metrically as - as in the case of this Afghan:
(about whom, to be perfectly clear, Coon wrote:
FIG. 7, (2 views, photo Gordon T. Bowles) Closely similar to the Syrian desert border
tribesman is this Afridi from eastern Afghanistan. Its high, narrow cranial vault, in
combination with a great facial and nasal height, and its general cast of cranial features
makes this type nearly identical with that of the Corded people who invaded Europe
from the east toward the beginning of the third millennium B.C.
), it is not all proven that this isn't a European-influence in the first place.
And if it isn't one, take the beard and headware off and do you have the typical Middle-Easterner?
Point three - Blumenbauch's Georgians best exemplfy the entire Europid race, which he named Caucasian. Since they're predominantly Armenoid, or the skull he chose was an Armenoid skull (no one ever elaborates on which it is), then Armenoids
actually common in the Middle-East must also be good examples for Caucasoids, despite the fact that:
(1) Those were no doubt Northern-Armenoids/Mtebids/Caucasids, intermediate in form between Dinaroid and Armenoid and are by no means typical of the Middle-East or Asia outside of the Caucasus.
(2) Taurids are not predominant in the extra-European Europid-territory.
(3) The un-orthogathous (orthognathy is a very imporant Europid feature b.t.w.) profile in Central-Southern-Armenoids is something which is closer to non-Europids.
If you want a better idea of what I mean, take a look at Coon's "Armenian Armenoids" plate . . . --
. . . where he shows (with the exception of the third, who's more of an Eastern Armenoid/Anatolid Armenid gracilsed with Eastern Mediterranid more or less the same as Adrian Brody) what I've been calling a "Northern Armenoid" which is more or less the Caucasid Armenoid that has as in common with Dinarics as much as with what you all mean, which is:
Also, the Caucasus has tons of this (Asian Alpinoid):
Which, like in Europe, (though perhaps thought not at in the same level) is found signifigantly all over the Middle-East, including Iran.
Point 3 - Dinarics, relatively uncommon in Europe, are un-Caucasoidly flat-faced, but their Middle-Eastern counter-part's flat-facedness is okay to ignore.
Point 4 - Brown hair is not typical of Europids, despite:
- 500 Million Europeans.
Point 5 - The Middle-East predominantly (1) Armenoid of Blumenbauch's point (2) "Irano-Afghan", despite the fact that:
(1) Afghanistan whs a lot of Taurid-Alpinoid elements (Pamirids) and racially foreign elements: Mongoloid elements (Aralids) and Veddoid elements.
(2) Lebano-Syria is essentially Asian-Alpinoid, Mediterranid, and Central-Armenoid.
(3) Turkey is general-Mediterranid and predominantly Anatolid (Eastern-Armenoid watered-down, gracilelised with Mediterranid)
(4) Arabia is predominantly Arabid (gracile, pigmentation, second to Indids, closest to non-Europid average rather than Europid average), and Armenoid at that point is at low-levels and influenced by Arabid.
(5) Egypt is self-evident enough I should think (it belongs here if Afghanistan belongs in the Middle-East).
(6) Israel... Armenoid, yes, but maxxed-out Caucasoid? Maybe in verbal ability.
So, to answer the original question:
East-Nordids/Fenno-Nordids/Corded-Nordids isn't any more Caucasoid than what the Pathan was in basic morphology, sans (assumed) untypical pigmentation and his downwards-pointing nose (which is not predominant in Europids or represents an 'average' anyway), so the Pathan, given the fact that his nose is more common than the Nordic's probably, is "more Caucasoid", but since he himself isn't typical of the Middle-East, it can't really be said this shows the Middle-East as more Caucasoid, since light skin is as common in Caucasoids or more, and as common or more seen as "Caucasoid".
The only way the 'extreme' (and 'ethnic') features of Armenoids (the ones you're speaking of), are "maxxed out Caucasoid" traits, are if (1) they were common in Caucasoids over-all, or (2) they were especially differentianted Caucasoids from non-Caucasoids.
They are not common and they are in fact closer to non-Europids - the traits which are most distinctive to Armenoids (the ones you're speaking of) are mesognathy, which is in the non-European direction, and the "Semitic" nose, which is approached by Amerindids.
Also the specific flared nostrils (think John Stewart on Crossfire).
By your own logic, because the Aztecs noticed the paleness of Cortés and friends' above all else, and since it would be and is that which would most contrast in the eyes of the non-Europids with themselves, depigmentation would be the most imporant feature - not that
I'm saying it is.