Is Carleton Coon's Races of Europe still a good reference?

[Señor Malo]

Actually, we must admit that Coon's Races of Europe is one of the greatest works ever made on Physical Anthropology and that most of his postulates might have been succesfully demonstrated. But I wander if on some aspects his book did not become somehow obsolete.I mean, new discoveries that would have contradicted some of his estatements.I cannot name no exemple as is just a question I ask to my self.
Could anyone also recomend me other books on European anthropology written after Coon's races of Europe?
Thanks in advance

B RGDS

[Ingwaz]

Well, it's not a be-all-end-all reference....but it's still a worthy read and I would certainly recommend it.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Ingwaz

Well, it's not a be-all-end-all reference....but it's still a worthy read and I would certainly recommend it.

Yes, especially in English its still worth to read since many (f.e. German and Russian) alternatives are not available. But I would recommend to read at least John R. Baker and Bertil Lundman too and not too rely on him too much. Baker and especially Lundman made mistakes on their own, but they are available in English and if you read all three it gives at least an acceptable impression.

[Breogan]

I don't like when Coon puts uncommon phenotype examples instead of representative ones. Uncommon ones should have been put in a special section, like appendix or something like that IMO.

I'm thinking of Basque types for example.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

I gotta tell you guys the "inside baseball" on Coon. He was NEVER a good reference within Anthropology itself, at least within the USA. He was always considered very un-PC and was considered a borderline racist. This is inspite of the fact that he was a Harvard Professor of Anthropology!!! Anyone, at least any undergraduate, who uttered his name had better have done so in the negative sense or that person might as well kiss his grade in that class goodby.

My own feeling is that he is a great reference when it comes to anatomy since he summarized the work of so many in his own. Also, he summarized the work of all those metrical investigators of the previous century who took exhaustive measurements of the native peoples they found, especially in Europe and especially in Northern Europe.

Perhaps Coon did not originate the idea of hybridization between Neanderthals and sapiens but he certainly gave it life in The Races of Europe. Even if he went back on this in later years, the idea is still alive. Overall, his geographic subspecies concept is the basis for modern Multi-Regionalism. Also, his ideas on the formation of the Congoloid, Capoid and Australoid peoples are still alive and well and can even be incorporated into Out of Africa if you can get over that theory's total replacement model.

[Agrippa]

Perhaps Coon did not originate the idea of hybridization between Neanderthals and sapiens but he certainly gave it life in The Races of Europe.

What was one of his greatest mistakes. Alone the idea that Cromagnids are "no full sapiens" and Mediterranids "full sapiens" is absurd. They were all sapiens just two branches (Cold and Warm adapted) in Eurasia and the "Bruenn" (again a bad name for Cromagnids) /Dalofaelid features are in some regards even the opposite of real Neandertal-features.

However, what racial typologists had a better reputation in the USA? Or was the political correctness and Boas-insanity so strong that there were no real respected ones at all? I mainly know John R. Baker and Stephen Molnar. I already read Baker (Eickstedt/Breslauer School terminology used) but not too much from Molnar, who is a "there is no race fan" in some works anyway, would you recommend him or another English speaking author on that matter?

[Svyatoslav]

Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff

Overall, his geographic subspecies concept is the basis for modern Multi-Regionalism.

Coon espoused independent speciation; multi-regionalism demands that there be only one species of Homo -- everything (i.e neanderthalensis, erectus) being gradation therein. Coon's work lent itself well to racialism; multi-regionalism most definitely does not.

[Svyatoslav]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

I already read Baker (Eickstedt/Breslauer School terminology used) but not too much from Molnar, who is a "there is no race fan" in some works anyway, would you recommend him or another English speaking author on that matter?

I have read the second edition of Molnar's Human Variation: Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups (1975). At no point did he deny the race concept; he only wrestled with the criteria against which it should be based (breeding populations vs. clines etc.). He pointed out the potential unreliability of anthropometry, but at no point stated it is was irrelevant.

However, the Sixth Edition seems anything but honest:

Antiquated, out-dated race concepts continue to guide both social and medical research. Race, ethnic group, and class are commingled, and the heritability of numerous behavioral attributes is offered as an explanation for major social issues confronting the world today. The mix of biological and social explanations continues despite the advances that have been made in genetic technology. In fact, it is the very growth of knowledge about our genome that has, in some ways, supported a renewed confidence in biological determinism. In this edition, as in previous editions, I shall continue to explore the scope of our knowledge of human diversity and criticize the reliance on racial labels. The mass of new data on genetic markers underscores the weaknesses of these "classic" race divisions. I shall try to guide the reader past the major pitfalls of nineteenth-century thinking as the recent data on "gene geography" and human adaptation are discussed.

Of course, now we know that "the mass of new data on genetic markers" does not "underscore the weaknesses of these "classic" race divisions", but in fact has only served to strengthen them...

[Señor Malo]

Andf what about Roland Bourrage Dixon? I heard he was a good anthropologist and, if I understood well, he gave it's good reputation to the Harvard Dept of Anthropology...

[Agrippa]

He seems to be unimportant for the area of racial typology and seems to have been connected to Boas, the enemy of racial science. Furthermore his works seem to be outdated anyway:

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/informat...on_roland.html

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff

I gotta tell you guys the "inside baseball" on Coon. He was NEVER a good reference within Anthropology itself, at least within the USA. He was always considered very un-PC and was considered a borderline racist. This is inspite of the fact that he was a Harvard Professor of Anthropology!!! Anyone, at least any undergraduate, who uttered his name had better have done so in the negative sense or that person might as well kiss his grade in that class goodby.

My own feeling is that he is a great reference when it comes to anatomy since he summarized the work of so many in his own. Also, he summarized the work of all those metrical investigators of the previous century who took exhaustive measurements of the native peoples they found, especially in Europe and especially in Northern Europe.

Perhaps Coon did not originate the idea of hybridization between Neanderthals and sapiens but he certainly gave it life in The Races of Europe. Even if he went back on this in later years, the idea is still alive. Overall, his geographic subspecies concept is the basis for modern Multi-Regionalism. Also, his ideas on the formation of the Congoloid, Capoid and Australoid peoples are still alive and well and can even be incorporated into Out of Africa if you can get over that theory's total replacement model.

I personally disbelief the neanderthal-Sapiens sapiens hybridization.
Months ago I read in another forum that DNA from Cave bear had been recovered and scentist put their hope on the possiblility of recoverering, in the same way Neanderthalian DNA...if htis comes to occur, it will confirm or ban the neanderthal/sapiens-sapiens hybridization theory

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

He seems to be unimportant for the area of racial typology and seems to have been connected to Boas, the enemy of racial science. Furthermore his works seem to be outdated anyway:

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/informat...on_roland.html

Here is the story on Franz Boas. First, Franz Boas is American Physical Anthropology. The Boasian School was founded in 1939 as a reaction to the physical typology being used by Nordicists in Nazi Germany. In other words, Boas and American Anthropology were reactions to Hitler. Any typological system was attacked and attempts were made to discredit them. Thereafter, attacks were made on the subject of race in Homo sapiens and an attempt was made to discredit race in general. The result of this was that all research into race stopped after 1945. Only weak references to "populations" were allowed in genetics. Coon fell victim to this Semitic Correctness and was its favorite whipping boy in the USA. The work of typological anthropologists, especially German pre-world war two anthropologists was verboten in the USA. This was not a problem to enforce since most Ameicans can't read German anyway. Even in Anthropology, students were guided into French or Spanish as a language for study. Things slowly began to reverse themselves after 1974 and Sarich and Wilson but it has taken two generations to get back on track. The period between 1945 and 1974 was the Dark Age of American Anthropology.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff

Here is the story on Franz Boas. First, Franz Boas is American Physical Anthropology. The Boasian School was founded in 1939 as a reaction to the physical typology being used by Nordicists in Nazi Germany. In other words, Boas and American Anthropology were reactions to Hitler. Any typological system was attacked and attempts were made to discredit them. Thereafter, attacks were made on the subject of race in Homo sapiens and an attempt was made to discredit race in general. The result of this was that all research into race stopped after 1945. Only weak references to "populations" were allowed in genetics. Coon fell victim to this Semitic Correctness and was its favorite whipping boy in the USA. The work of typological anthropologists, especially German pre-world war two anthropologists was verboten in the USA. This was not a problem to enforce since most Ameicans can't read German anyway. Even in Anthropology, students were guided into French or Spanish as a language for study. Things slowly began to reverse themselves after 1974 and Sarich and Wilson but it has taken two generations to get back on track. The period between 1945 and 1974 was the Dark Age of American Anthropology.

Yet, Lawrence Angel piblushed his study on racial typology of ancient greeks from 1946 on, right?

But in the general sense, it is true that we find a very tinny bibliography on the subjet since 1946 and up to the 80's ...

[Agrippa]

The work of typological anthropologists, especially German pre-world war two anthropologists was verboten in the USA.

Was it really banned? In which way?

Never heard about it. I know the reception was weak and there were strong sentiments against the European, especially German-Scandinavian school (main people v. Eickstedt, Schwidetzky, Lundman) but also against Soviet anthropology, but still I thought they were availabe and discussed to a certain degree.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Was it really banned? In which way?

Never heard about it. I know the reception was weak and there were strong sentiments against the European, especially German-Scandinavian school (main people v. Eickstedt, Schwidetzky, Lundman) but also against Soviet anthropology, but still I thought they were availabe and discussed to a certain degree.

Coon was never banned, but you might be if you cited his work in a positive way in an academic setting.

It was always given that Coon was a great source of anatomical analysis. Few people have ever read as many descriptions of fossil remains as Coon. Sometimes it seems like he spent a lifetime at this alone. So, it is ok to cite Coon, in a discussion, in anatomical context but not about his theories or his conclusions--especially racial conclusions.

It is this anatomical analysis which Coon did and because he, after Weindenreich, was the real father of Multi-Regionalism, that we still find his work useful. Also because The Origin of Races was written on sort of a second-year anthropological level, and so within the reach of everyone, that he is still a convenient point of reference.

[Agrippa]

My point was that it was in the 1960's and 1970's almost impossible to totally ignore v. Eickstedt and especially Schwidetzky et al. in a scientific discussion on a worldwide standard, because she was such an important figure in European anthropology.
Sure, Coons descriptions are quite interesting, but his theories were partly dubious - even for me, so I dont really wonder.

[Ingwaz]

Originally Posted by The Blond Beast

I have read the second edition of Molnar's Human Variation: Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups (1975). At no point did he deny the race concept; he only wrestled with the criteria against which it should be based (breeding populations vs. clines etc.). He pointed out the potential unreliability of anthropometry, but at no point stated it is was irrelevant.

Thanks for the tip Agrippa & Blond Beast. I'd never come across Molnar until now.

However, the