|
Post by galvez on Jun 26, 2004 21:00:10 GMT -5
I am almost done with Carleton Coon's The Races of Europe, and when I am done I will post a review of the book.
So far, all I can say is that I am deeply disappointed, and have come to understand why there is so much gibberish in "phenotype forums."
Coon equates Southern Europeans with Arabs, and claims Eastern Europeans are "significantly Mongoloid."
While the book is seemingly acceptable to Nordicists who despise Southern Europeans, it has a noticeably anti-Eastern European slant. This makes my contempt for the "Slavic asskissers" who cite his largely outdated work grow more and more.
Lots of Nordicists treat this book as gospel, when in fact it smears the most Nordic populations of Europe. Anyway, I am almost done with it, but if anyone wants to give his take, go right ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 27, 2004 9:29:03 GMT -5
You have to understand that the book was written in the 1930s. Coon had the prejudices of the times negative towards Southern Europeans, Northeastern Europeans and positive towards Northwestern Europeans and those considered to be NW European like Germans and the English. Coon may have been highly educated in anthrology for the times, but he is grossly deficient by todays standards.
To take him and his hypotheses as gospel is unreasonable. His book is a good reference point and some of his conclusions are reasonable. I find the importance of Nordic features too much of an obsession and I don't understand the inclusion of non European types in a book on Europeans. His conclusion that the Yemenis are pure Mediterranids is odd. I don't know about you, but I can't see any similarity between the people grouped together on his plates. These photos get trotted out all too often as examples. Frankly most of those men look odd and stunted. I use some of his terminology so that I can understand the basis of physical anthrology forums. I am more interested in genetic markers and differences which can prove migrations and the affinities between groups instead of the guessing game indulged by Coon and some of his latter day followers.
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Jun 27, 2004 10:20:31 GMT -5
I am almost done with Carleton Coon's The Races of Europe, and when I am done I will post a review of the book. So far, all I can say is that I am deeply disappointed, and have come to understand why there is so much gibberish in "phenotype forums." Coon equates Southern Europeans with Arabs, and claims Eastern Europeans are "significantly Mongoloid." While the book is seemingly acceptable to Nordicists who despise Southern Europeans, it has a noticeably anti-Eastern European slant. This makes my contempt for the "Slavic asskissers" who cite his largely outdated work grow more and more. Lots of Nordicists treat this book as gospel, when in fact it smears the most Nordic populations of Europe. Anyway, I am almost done with it, but if anyone wants to give his take, go right ahead. You forgot the supposition of "Neanderthal-intermingling", regarding his UP/Cro-Magnoid types... If he set Nordids to be depigmented Meds, doesn't that make them Neolithic in his eyes? Frankly most of those men look odd and stunted. Maybe the examples are exaggerated to show the contrasts.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 27, 2004 11:02:22 GMT -5
Yes, Coon does include Nordid in the Mediterranean racial group, but he had Mediterranian as a supergroup composed of Danubians, Corded and so on with Mediterraneans as a sub group to include his Yemeni and gracile, pure Mediterranean. A little confusing particularly when you viewed his diagram of the contributors to the various caucasian sub races. Coon also separated the past Europeans from modern Europeans in that the past Mediterraneans were pure, gracile types or Atlanto-Mediterraneans who mixed with Alpines to produce the modern Southern European people. Similarly the past Northern Europeans were Danubians and Corded who mixed with UPs, Alpines to produce the modern Northern Europeans. So when Coon was describing Norwegians or Swedes he was looking for his UPs and so on in their phenotypic make-up.
I think Coon could have been more specific in his language because he did seem to deliberately confuse the past Europeans with the modern ones by using the same labels Nordic, Mediterranean and so on for the mixed moderns. Today UPs like Brunn and Borreby are thought of as Nordic when they are not Nordic; the Danubian/Corded are the Nordics according to Coon who were partially depigmented (old type) Mediterraneans.
Coon's 1930s statures are definitely out-of-date. How many Italian or Spanish adult males are 163 cm tall? And 172 cm is not really tall is it by todays standards. Yet no-one seems to notice this stature discrepancy when quoting Coon as some sort of bible.
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Jun 28, 2004 1:47:13 GMT -5
Thanks for outlining this. the Danubian/Corded are the Nordics according to Coon who were partially depigmented (old type) Mediterraneans. I just read the parts about Danubians and Corded people. Coon says the following about the Mediterranean-ness of Danubians: - - - I'm 182 cm tall, that's a medium height for younger people in Germany, afaik.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 28, 2004 11:43:33 GMT -5
I am the only one who borrows that book in the whole of Sydney. Outside of the photographs I find it an interesting book. Coon put a lot of time and work into it. However European Anthrology needs to be updated to include more recent archaeological finds and genetic data. Most research today ignores physical differences and concentrates on mtDNA and Y chromosome and sometimes on specific "junk" DNA. Everyone seems to be dancing around the actual DNA, genes and alleles that make humans different. I for one would like to know whether blood group B is non European in origin or if the average Russian is 5% mongoloid. Just out of curiosity.
I am 177 cm tall, I don't know what the mean height is in Malta, but in Australia every young man seems to be at least 181 cm tall. And the race, nationality or ethnic group makes no difference.
|
|
|
Post by johndon86 on Jun 19, 2005 13:50:22 GMT -5
Coon is totally outdated in 2005. we need more data on today reality ,i would like if someone could post Fisher scale about hair colour.THANK YOU
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jun 20, 2005 3:04:36 GMT -5
It is the Haarfarbentafel nach Fischer-Saller you are talking about. It is not modern. It is a group of hair swatches of different color. Not very high tech. Coon is not totally outdated. Some parts of his book and his hypotheses are antiquated but there are not much in the way of alternatives. It is unlikely that any one man or woman today would undertake a similar study of Europeans, West Asians, Central Asians, North and East Africans. The best that can be had are small scale studies on limited population groups like Faroe and Orkney Islanders, or studies limited to pigmentation and the incidence of freckles, moles and skin cancer.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jun 20, 2005 3:07:59 GMT -5
It is the Haarfarbentafel nach Fischer-Saller you are talking about. It is not modern. It is a group of hair swatches of different color. Not very high tech. Coon is not totally outdated. Some parts of his book and his hypotheses are antiquated but there are not much in the way of alternatives. It is unlikely that any one man or woman today would undertake a similar study of Europeans, West Asians, Central Asians, North and East Africans. The best that can be had are small scale studies on limited population groups like Faroe and Orkney Islanders, or studies limited to pigmentation and the incidence of freckles, moles and skin cancer. Races of Europe is totally outdated as in Coon's work in other books. To quote the encyclopedia of Evolution, Coon's work was pseudoscience.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 20, 2005 3:13:50 GMT -5
Bass we know you hate Coon,you go on about endlessly,but Coon is not totally outdated ...
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jun 20, 2005 3:22:27 GMT -5
Bass we know you hate Coon,you go on about endlessly,but Coon is not totally outdated ... I don't hate Coon but I dislike his work and it is pseudoscience. I don't under why people still feel a need to put faith in obsolete pseudoscientific books.
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jun 20, 2005 5:36:48 GMT -5
Actually Evolution is not science. It is a theory which cannot be proven, so in a sense it is pseudoscience. Who cares what the pot smoking, farty, arty set with no science under their belts think is science or not science. Anthropology, Archeology, Paleontology and lots of other studies are not science, yet you think their pronouncements have validity. They are just opinions which can never be proven, ever. All works on racial classification, human differences, human evolution, charts with old humanoid skulls on it representing human evolution and the line of descent. is all pseudoscience. The conclusions made of genetic studies is pseudoscience. Charlie, everyone of those people you quote as rebuttals are mostly not scientists or talking out of their asses. No-one can link any living human living anywhere in the world with any long dead humans or humanoids even if they are living Amhara with long dead humanoids living in East Africa or even thousands of years ago found in Ethiopia. You don't like Howells. Well his assessments used living races as his guide to the race of human remains of ancient age. Well, coincidence in skull shape and skeletal morphology of human or humanoid remains compared with modern remains does not mean they were of the same race or the same phenotype. The idea that Cro-Magnons look mostly caucasoid does not mean they are. The argument over Badarians or Naqqada is pointless. The only way to know for sure what they looked like racially or phenotypically is to reconstruct their nuclear DNA and clone them. That is beyond the technology of today.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jun 20, 2005 5:50:57 GMT -5
Charlie, everyone of those people you quote as rebuttals are mostly not scientists or talking out of their asses. Which is what you do so well since you never post any evidence for anything that you say. I don't dislike Howells but his samples are *NOT* representative of whole populations and some are not representative of typical people within those populations[check Howells 26-30th Dynasty 'Egyptians' which was later proved *NOT* to be representative of any Egyptians population.] Dogon do not represent *ALL* West Africans just as Teita people do not represent *ALL* modern East Africans.
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jun 20, 2005 7:38:34 GMT -5
It really does not matter what peoples are chosen. You can only compare known samples with known samples to get similar results. Using any known living Africans to compare with unknown dead Africans like the Badarians or anyother human remains of unknown providence is a waste of time. Modern Egyptians are known. The remains of humans found in Egypt of whatever Dynasty or time frame is pointless. How can you prove who or what many of those people were and what race or phenotype they were? I unlike most other people am not willing to make any assumptions as to the phenotypes or genotypes of ancient remains found in or near Egypt or anywhere else. Using the Dogon or Teita as standards is as valid as any. And probably more valid than using ancient remains of people whose phenotypes and races are not known. The further in time those remains are to living humans in the same vicinity the less valid the comparison exercise is. Howells only has value to me when comparing modern remains, as in recent, with modern human races, and even then errors will occur. Obviously I consider comparing ancient remains with modern ones to work out race or place of origin has no validity.
My job on this board is to point out that many of the things people accept as fact or proven is not fact or proven and just assumptions. You believe in the OOA theory, I don't. I don't believe any theory of human origins as none can be proven. I am not willing to give up my ability to check the veracity of claims made about genetics or human origins or ideologies. I will leave my belief system to my religion anything else, I want proof, not opinion, not assumptions and not discussions to try to explain the results.
|
|
|
Post by johndon86 on Jun 20, 2005 8:25:40 GMT -5
HAIR BLONDISM Fair hairs Fischer scale numbers 9 - 26 (light brown and lighter shades, red hairs are not included)
Vepses - 61% Estonians - 56% Poles - 55% Northern Bielorussians - 53% Finns - 51.5% Latvians - 50% Norwegians - 50% Lithuanians - 47.5% Northern Russians - 47.5% Southern Russians - 30%
Data on Swedes and NW Germans/Frisians is not available for relevant comparison. Swedes must be blonder than Southern Russians and NW Germans/Frisians may be blonder than Southern Russians, but both groups are less blond than Norwegians. EYE BLONDISM Pure light eyes
Sweden:
Light and light mixed eyes - 67% - 87%, thus *pure* light eyes must be around 38.5%.
Norway:
Light and light mixed eyes - 76%, including 38.5% of *pure* light eyes.
The blondest Norwegian group - 86.5% of light and light mixed eyes, thus *pure* light eyes must be about 43.25%.
Ireland:
Light and light mixed eyes - 76%, including 46% of *pure* light eyes.
Eastern Europe:
Estonians - 64.5% of *pure* light eyes. Latvians - 62.5% of *pure* light eyes. Vepses - 62% of *pure* light eyes.
Northern Bielorussians - 56% of *pure* light eyes. Eastern Russians - 50%-55% of *pure* light eyes (regional max. 60%). Western Russians - 45-50% of *pure* light eyes.
Lithuanians - 47.5% of *pure* light eyes.
Ukrainians - 38% of *pure* light eyes.
Sources:
1. Coon, Carleton, The Races of Europe, Chapter IX, The North.
2. Bunak, Viktor Valrievich, Origins and Ethnic History of the Russian People, various charts.
3. Dyachenko, V. D, Anthropological Composition of the Ukrainian People, various charts. i would like if someone show me what means on skale 8-25 and what iz deference on skale 8 and 9 .has anyone data for my country?
|
|