[thulimo]

Originally Posted by Tuurikerttu

There is a problem defining what is "East-Baltic". Pre-WW2 definion was very wide, Paul von Hindenburg was one text book example of Coon for example. Most widely known Pre-WW2 anthropologists never did any field study in the lands with the highest densidy of Baltid people. The most noted Finnish anthropologist (Niilo Pesonen) who did very thorough research in the 30's published his studies in the anthro language of the time which was German, and thus Coon and even Lundman never referred his studies but based their publications on sources that were scant and/or erroneous. According to Pesonen's studies his "East-Baltid" was more Baltid proper and similar to Hindenburg. West-, -, and East-Baltid division seem totally post-WW2 thingy, from the era the "real" anthropology didn't exist anymore so I don't like that division at all so I avoid using it. I prefer to terms like Faelid-like Baltid (since I think it's futile to invent new names for something that is very similar to the other thing), Baltid proper, reduced Baltid and borealized Baltid. Lappoid is different thing, you just see the difference.

There are no proper studies of eastern populations by anthropologists of the West. According to that, there have never been "real" anthropology.