Hooton against Coon's Upper Palaeolithic survivors theory.

[Visigodo]

As I add this information in another forum I have thought that it would be interesting for some people at Stirpes to reading the following critics that Hooton made in his work "THE PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF IRELAND" (1955) about Coon's UP survivors theory and conclusions from Ireland. For example:

"The implication that such contemporary "Upper Palaeolithic" types represented actual straight line descendants of genetically isolated Palaeolithic stocks is very difficult to accept anywhere, and specially in a region so throroughly overrrum by successive streams of invaders and colonizers as has been the case in Western Europe and even in Ireland, its jumping-off place.

Again, although there is considerable skeletal and other evidence that suggest that a certain process of slenderizing and refinement has commonly taken place in Homo sapiens since the close of the Ice Age, tending to produce human types with less massive skeletal structure and of generally more gracil form; it is hardly reasonable to designate all of the rugged, heavy-boned men as "Palaeolithic survivors" and to relegate all of the less sturdy to other categories which have putatively undergone "reduction". We cannot be sure that the entire recent trend of evolution of Homo sapiens has been consistently in the same direction. It is wholly possible that high-statured, heavy-boned massive types have emerged in certain areas as a result of died and other environmental conditions, hybridization and heterosis, or other causes quite removed from having preserved unbroken the types of their Palaeolithic ancestors. Of course, all of us must have had Palaeolithic ancestors and probably some of them were runts and some giants".

"In the case of the Irish, it seems to us unsafe to conclude that because they are tall and have big heads, they are necessarily derived in large measure from putative Mesolithic settlers of "Upper Palaelithic" types. In the first place we have no skeletal remains that can be attributed with certainly to these Mesolithic settlers and consequently we do not know that they were of the "Brünn" and the "Borreby" types. In the second place there is no evidence of a Mesolithic culture in Kerry and Cork, or anywhere in western Ireland, where Dr. Coon identifies living types as particulary little modified "Palaeolithic survivors". To suppose that these massive and physically superior western Irish types were necessarily the earliest in Ireland and were banished to the farthest and least desiderable quarters of the island by physically inferior invaders who knew how to polish stone is a somewhat gratuitous assumption. Actually, we are far more certain that the Bronze Age or Beaker types of men who invaded Great Britain and Ireland, were tall, heavy-boned, and generally rugged, than we are of such characteristics of UP or Mesolithic inhabitants of the British Isles. Of course, we can argue that the Bronze Age invaders are themselves "Palaeolithic survivors", but that gets us nowhere".

"Having cleared the ground for a comparison of Coon's results with ours, by attempting to equate his racial classification with ours, we may now proceed to a brief discussion of the differences and agreements in conclusions.

In the firs place, we do not think that the big-headed, heavy-bodied men of western and specially southwestern Ireland are necessarily Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic "survivors" or descendants, because we have no evidence that the Mesolithic people in Ireland either possessed such physical characteristics or ever reached western and southwestern Ireland. We do not agree that size and ruggedness of the cranial vault and stature are sufficient criteria for the identification of Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic types. The evidence of the stature and general size of Mesolithic man in norwestern Europe is so scanty as to be almost infinitesimal. The chances of a direct genetic survival of a Mesolithic or Upper Palaeolithic type in western Ireland, either through isolation and inbreeding or selective survival, seem to us very small. On the other hand, there is nothing improbable about the idea of a "reëmergence" of Irish Mesolithic or Palaeolithic types in the more remote areas of Ireland or elsewhere in isolated regions of northwestern Europe. We think that such ancient types do recur in modern man by recombinations of ancestral characters. We do not know that the western Irish represent such a "reëmergence" of Irish Mesolithic types because we do not know what the latter were. We are perfectly willing to admit that these western Irish do appear to be similar in the flesh to those heavy-featured north-western Danes, Germans and Norwergians whom Coon refers to as the survival of Palaeolithic strains. It seems very unlikely to us, nevertheless, that "at least half of the genetic ancestry" of the composite modern Irishman is to be referred to the survival of strains from the original Mesolithic settlers... We may conclude this discussion by the summarizing statement that Dr. Coon's very able analysis of Irish racial composition and history, based upon our data, seems to us to exaggerate the supposedly "Upper Palaeolithic" elements in the contemporary Irish population and also the "Nordic elements". The basic Irish strain today is, and probably always has been, a tall, long-headed, dark-haired mixed-eyed or dark-eyed type which we call Nordic-Mediterranean and is surely not referable, for the most part, to Mesolithic inhabitants of Ireland, although they probably contributed to it. The second strain is also long-headed and dark-haired but light-eyed. We have called it "Keltic". (Most probably this type can be related with Lundman's North-Atlantid in my opinion -blue eyed Atlanto-Mediterranean according to Coon ¿?-) Some of this type may have come in during the Megalithic period. We think that more may have been brought by Laginian Keltic invasion".


Hope some people can find the text interesting.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Visigodo

"In the case of the Irish, it seems to us unsafe to conclude that because they are tall and have big heads, they are necessarily derived in large measure from putative Mesolithic settlers of "Upper Palaelithic" types. In the first place we have no skeletal remains that can be attributed with certainly to these Mesolithic settlers and consequently we do not know that they were of the "Brünn" and the "Borreby" types. In the second place there is no evidence of a Mesolithic culture in Kerry and Cork, or anywhere in western Ireland, where Dr. Coon identifies living types as particulary little modified "Palaeolithic survivors".

"Excavations at Ferriter's Cove, near Ballyferriter, have revealed evidence of the first settlers, who were hunters and gathers, exploiting the food sources along the coast, and also using locally-found hard stones to make tools. This site was inhabited during what is known as the Mesolithic Period (8000-4000BC). This was a temporary settlement, for seasonal use. It has produced a wide range of food such as hazel nuts, red deer, pig, hare, birds (including the guillemot and gannet). There were 14 different species of fish identified, among them wrasse, conger eel, thornback ray, tope and haddock. The remains of several species of shellfish can still be seen in the sand dunes of the area, where they were deposited 6,000 years ago. One of the most important finds were some cow bones, dating to 5700 BP (Before Present), making them the earliest evidence for cattle in Ireland."

Dingle Peninsula, Kerry

There is, as I read, more megalithic monuments in Cork than in Kerry.

Originally Posted by Visigodo

As I add this information in another forum I have thought that it would be interesting for some people at Stirpes to reading the following critics that Hooton made in his work "THE PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF IRELAND" (1955) about Coon's UP survivors theory and conclusions from Ireland. For example:

"The implication that such contemporary "Upper Palaeolithic" types represented actual straight line descendants of genetically isolated Palaeolithic stocks is very difficult to accept anywhere, and specially in a region so throroughly overrrum by successive streams of invaders and colonizers as has been the case in Western Europe and even in Ireland, its jumping-off place.

Again, although there is considerable skeletal and other evidence that suggest that a certain process of slenderizing and refinement has commonly taken place in Homo sapiens since the close of the Ice Age, tending to produce human types with less massive skeletal structure and of generally more gracil form; it is hardly reasonable to designate all of the rugged, heavy-boned men as "Palaeolithic survivors" and to relegate all of the less sturdy to other categories which have putatively undergone "reduction". We cannot be sure that the entire recent trend of evolution of Homo sapiens has been consistently in the same direction. It is wholly possible that high-statured, heavy-boned massive types have emerged in certain areas as a result of died and other environmental conditions, hybridization and heterosis, or other causes quite removed from having preserved unbroken the types of their Palaeolithic ancestors. Of course, all of us must have had Palaeolithic ancestors and probably some of them were runts and some giants".

"In the case of the Irish, it seems to us unsafe to conclude that because they are tall and have big heads, they are necessarily derived in large measure from putative Mesolithic settlers of "Upper Palaelithic" types. In the first place we have no skeletal remains that can be attributed with certainly to these Mesolithic settlers and consequently we do not know that they were of the "Brünn" and the "Borreby" types. In the second place there is no evidence of a Mesolithic culture in Kerry and Cork, or anywhere in western Ireland, where Dr. Coon identifies living types as particulary little modified "Palaeolithic survivors". To suppose that these massive and physically superior western Irish types were necessarily the earliest in Ireland and were banished to the farthest and least desiderable quarters of the island by physically inferior invaders who knew how to polish stone is a somewhat gratuitous assumption. Actually, we are far more certain that the Bronze Age or Beaker types of men who invaded Great Britain and Ireland, were tall, heavy-boned, and generally rugged, than we are of such characteristics of UP or Mesolithic inhabitants of the British Isles. Of course, we can argue that the Bronze Age invaders are themselves "Palaeolithic survivors", but that gets us nowhere".

"Having cleared the ground for a comparison of Coon's results with ours, by attempting to equate his racial classification with ours, we may now proceed to a brief discussion of the differences and agreements in conclusions.

In the firs place, we do not think that the big-headed, heavy-bodied men of western and specially southwestern Ireland are necessarily Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic "survivors" or descendants, because we have no evidence that the Mesolithic people in Ireland either possessed such physical characteristics or ever reached western and southwestern Ireland. We do not agree that size and ruggedness of the cranial vault and stature are sufficient criteria for the identification of Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic types. The evidence of the stature and general size of Mesolithic man in norwestern Europe is so scanty as to be almost infinitesimal. The chances of a direct genetic survival of a Mesolithic or Upper Palaeolithic type in western Ireland, either through isolation and inbreeding or selective survival, seem to us very small. On the other hand, there is nothing improbable about the idea of a "reëmergence" of Irish Mesolithic or Palaeolithic types in the more remote areas of Ireland or elsewhere in isolated regions of northwestern Europe. We think that such ancient types do recur in modern man by recombinations of ancestral characters. We do not know that the western Irish represent such a "reëmergence" of Irish Mesolithic types because we do not know what the latter were. We are perfectly willing to admit that these western Irish do appear to be similar in the flesh to those heavy-featured north-western Danes, Germans and Norwergians whom Coon refers to as the survival of Palaeolithic strains. It seems very unlikely to us, nevertheless, that "at least half of the genetic ancestry" of the composite modern Irishman is to be referred to the survival of strains from the original Mesolithic settlers... We may conclude this discussion by the summarizing statement that Dr. Coon's very able analysis of Irish racial composition and history, based upon our data, seems to us to exaggerate the supposedly "Upper Palaeolithic" elements in the contemporary Irish population and also the "Nordic elements". The basic Irish strain today is, and probably always has been, a tall, long-headed, dark-haired mixed-eyed or dark-eyed type which we call Nordic-Mediterranean and is surely not referable, for the most part, to Mesolithic inhabitants of Ireland, although they probably contributed to it. The second strain is also long-headed and dark-haired but light-eyed. We have called it "Keltic". (Most probably this type can be related with Lundman's North-Atlantid in my opinion -blue eyed Atlanto-Mediterranean according to Coon ¿?-) Some of this type may have come in during the Megalithic period. We think that more may have been brought by Laginian Keltic invasion".


Hope some people can find the text interesting.

far back in time the earth was scarsely populated. simple clans distributed here and there were the people who survived. upper paleolihic man was in perect harmony with the nature. magdalenian people were probably never more crowded than the maximum people who could inhabit the caves they lived in for generations. the population probaby never exceeded what the nature could offer. as a real paleolithic society the aleutian practiced a sad rituel when an unwanted baby was born. shortly, the population of upper paleolithics were even able to grow in number after they were introduced a new technology. neolithic revolution brought something as the hands which had to be fed increased the hands that work to feed increased. even small children were efficient in guarding the felds from animals or seeding the fields or taking care of domestic animals.
now we have the picture let us go back to Hotton. obviously we cannot know where the evolution would go, for example during the erly phases of industrial revoltion the average stature was not much tall but it increased by time and is still increasing. we do not know whether after an alpinizatipon had ocurred, when the climate and the conditions improved what changed in the alpins? probably the stature increased but the gracilizaiton of robusticity would probably not be so quick to change tugh as we can see stature may change in a few generations. it is very common for a boy to become taller than his dad.
therefore Hooton is right gracilization is not the unavoidable fate. ruggednss and ranial vault is not enough call to someone UP survivor. but obviously when we exclude theextraordinary shape of our cromagnon ancestors, the similarity of the brunn and borreby types to the cromagnon is so obvious that Hooton cannot have missed. still if there are UP survivors (UPS) in ireland they dont have to have survived in ireland. they may have even migrated ireland with megalith builders. Still that would make them UPS who have survived somewhere else. i dont know why Hotoon overexagerates the nonexistance of cranial findings. it is simply very unnecessary. obviously UP survivors survived the age age in place where conditions were relatively favorable and probably migrated upwards as glaciars retreated.
Coons Celtic nordic is the type attibuted to Halstatt and La Tene cultures. Coons label is archeoanthropological, while the usage of celtic by Hotoon points to a politically celticized britain and simply confusion of historically political lables with anthropology or in other words simply gosssip. atlantomedeiterraneans whether blue eyed or not are remnants of british neolithic who were politically celticized (by the way there is no evidence that these people are derived from iberic UP survivors. ) Coons Celtic nordic is the core of the schythian or sarmatian people. the brachycephaly of sarmatians or the mesocephaly of the celtic type (Coon's celtic type who were real celtics) is due to the brachcyephal remnant who were mixed with the iron age types. Brachycephaly is almost a rule for the upper palelithic survivors of europe in many places. As coon points out when we exclude the presenc o brachycephal types in the average mean of sarmatians one can clealy identify original iron age nordic type. It is for long known that the longbarrow people after inhabiting britain , migrated to jutland and mainland europe.
bellbeaker people whatever they say were exotic and cannot be derived from regional types of europe. In short, Coon is king.

[Savorgnan]

I have always thinked that the UP weren't of a different race than the later Neolithic populations. The extreme difficult existence in the Paleolithic times, by a harsh and cruel selection process, only allowed extremely robust individuals to make it to adulthood, thus making them look from a different race than the more gracile and/or reduced farmers. Or the other way around, wich is the same thing: The much less hard farming lifestyle allow many not-so-robust individuals to survive, then to breed, making the Neolithic poulations look from a different race than the UP's.