Talk:Carleton S. Coon/Archive 1

Earlier comments
Text adapted and expanded from emuseum.mnsu.edu, a non-copyrighted source. User:JDG.

Intent to edit: I am preparing a major rewrite of the third paragraph of this entry. The existing text fails to capture the overwhelming rejection of Coon's racial theories by anthropologists, regardless of how "meticulous" his work may have been. If anyone is following this page and feels some stake in the work, let's have some discussion about it. --Norvell 20:19, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree the page goes a little light on Coon, but at the same time I don't want to see a back lash. More importantly, however, the emuseum bibliographies have no explicit legal statement on them (that I could find) putting their work in the public domain and so it IS under copyright automatically. I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that this page is in violation. I'll edit it to increase the quality and prose etc. Rex 20:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Intent to preserve the science in this man's work, even if his style is grossly out of touch with 21st century sensibilities. "Topsy" is apalling as a nickname, but he may have given it to her himself while doing the Melville Is. field work. The Alpha-Omega reference was meant to say "Caucasians are somewhere in between" the two extremes in terms of cranial development or brain complexity. Im not Chinese, but I think he may have had an impluse to show respect for a group of people who had the use of fire (chinese erectus) 300,000 years before Caucasians or their African genetic kin. Whites and blacks, have many good qualities, but we, are a bit closer to our erectus roots in terms of time. The same is true of the TiWi as evidenced by the smallest brain cases on the planet...yet they are certainly us...Homo sapiens. You could probably educate the Tiwi to be medical doctors, engineers, even anthropologists. We know that, sadly Coon lived too soon to get it! Gentlemen, the existience of Homo Florensis proves, as does the prior existence of Homo Nearderthalis, that non-Homo sapien humans co-existed independent of modern humans. Further, if the Florensis folk had been able to survive they may have by now transitioned into the sapien GRADE, or be well on that road. The physical evidence for some time shift in GRADE transition is reasonable nuetral science...Coon was just presenting it in a very insensitive manner...Don't discard a whole logical concept because it needs fine tuning. Reasonable workers in this field know that Coon had the the multi- type progression partially right. He just overlooked the overlap that actually exists in the all modern races which blurs the transitions he noted, and certainly blurs all the world's distinct population groups now. User:Allan Silliphant 11.30 Oct 28 2005


 * Good grief..."Tiwi...smallest braincases on the planet...could probably educate..." As a matter of fact, there are Tiwi doctors, educators, businesspeople, even politicians. Less of the speculation and inexorable "transition into sapien grade", more work on this rather badly-constructed and confusing article, is what we need here...--cjllw | TALK  05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Whites and Blacks are a bit closer to Erectus in terms of time ? What references do you have to support this claim ? Members of all human races have made remarkable scientific break throughs and to suggest Asians have more advanced brains is just ridiculous. These views are along the same lines of those which can be found in racial supremacist groups. Epf 04:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You are violating "Ad Hominem" You cannot attack a man, only the argument. In fact, the various "races" of man do have differing average brain case sizes. That is not a racist comment, that is fact. further, asians do have the largest average braincase of any group of humans. If you define advanced to be the size of brain, and 6000 years of human history shows we do, than yes, asian, do have the most advanced brain, on Average. I would agree that "respect" has no place in scientific discourse, only facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.42 (talk • contribs)


 * It is not a fact, it is an assertion, predicated on a host of contested assumptions, including the very utility of "race" as a proxy for genetics and functional differences. And yes, it is a racist comment, although there are differences between maliciously racist comments, and simply incidentally racist comments. --JereKrischel 14:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that many pre-historic uses of fire that pre-date that of "Chinese Erectus" have been located in southern France and northern Israel. His "respect" for the people of East Asia should be given for all races and the theory behind his "Alpha and Omega" comparison is ludicrous. Epf 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Confusion over a different C. Coon at MNSU's eMuseum
I have found references to another C. S. Coon, specifically the one described at  and at . Note the spelling variations, which might just be internet typos (?). Anyways, the other Mr. Coon was a career Foreign Service Officer and ambassador to Nepal 1981–1984. This article here  seems to confuse the two. Should we post some sort of disambiguation, even a short one? I myself spent some time trying to refute that eMuseum claim. (cf. the date of Prof. Coon's death and the term of Ambassador Coon) Mang 08:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

BIAS
To call Coon a racist is plain and simple bias, Coon merely dealt with facts and reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.136.204 (talk • contribs)

yeah, ok, I wouldnt consider his works "fact" or "reality", especially since many aspects of his works have been deemed unfounded and widely refuted by the majority of modern anthropologists. Coon's whole classification and "typological model" are obsolete in many respects. The photographic supplements he uses in books such as "the Races of Europe" for example, can be described as scanty at best and even disagree with his own observations. The only fact that deserves mention about Coon is his unacceptable and controversial opinions on the subject of "race" and society that is comparable to the obsolete eugenics and social darwinism common during the late 19th/early 20th century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.101.225 (talk • contribs).

Does it mean that you would want to present some sickening PC agenda here? Cartouche, August 2006

Instead of slandering coon, you should read his books again if you ever have. Coons plates are accurate.Far from obsolete, he is the one in the right direction. finalaval —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Finalaval (talk • contribs).

Terrible POV and malicious deliberated difamation
"Racial theories" deliberatedly misquotes coon to make him a racist. By "european types" he meant that, european types; types common in europe, his works were not politically inclined although many use him to refute nordicism. Section reviewed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Finalaval (talk • contribs).


 * While I agree that section should be "reviewed", I do not think it should just be deleted wholesale. If you have suggestions as to how to make it better, please feel free to give them. I saw nothing in the text you deleted that corresponded with your statement on here. An example of something misquoted would be helpful, if you can provide it. --Fastfission 01:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

the mere title "racial theories" implies POV, Coon didnt view his work as a theory. It is clear that whoever wrote that is following a political agenda --Finalaval 01:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You will need to be clearer on which bits constitute POV in your assessment. How exactly does "racial theories" (ie, theories about race) constitute POV? If Coon didn't see his work as a theory, then as what? As per Fastfission above, instead of just deleting the text with the misleading "section reviewed" comment, the onus would be on you argue and point out in which respects the text is deficient. And BTW, switching to edit under an anon IP after your account has been blocked for 3RR is not really the way to go about things either.--cjllw | TALK  03:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I alerady pointed out how he was misquoted. Coon was not an ideologist, he did no theorize, his work was scientifical. That whole posts tries to elaborate a certain conspiracy theory under which Coon would be a racist and his work biased. It is farly ridiculous that people would fall for such nonsense such as to even insult his name on death. Reminds of the communists fabrications and stuff. A whole new version of this article is needed (btw my account was not blocked) --201.231.161.9 03:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, he did theorize. His works contain explicit theories about the origins of the human races and their relation to one another. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the word theory? Einstein theorized about gravity, Darwin theorized about evolution; it is not a word with negative implications. And the page in question does not say Coon was racist, but it does say that his racial theories postulate a hierarchy of races, which is completely true. --Fastfission 13:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement that human races present "a continuous serial progression of populations" is quite funny. Is the difference between the centre of Washington and the violent black quarters also "a continuous serial progression of populations"? I would say that after some time, you will experience a sudden break, where you can't enter without a bullet-proof vest. But frankly, I am amused by this infantile PC propaganda spread by people, who obviously have no idea about anthropology or human psychology. This is the last desperate spasm of the multi-culti utopian ideology, whose wonderful plans about a multiracial mess can't somehow come true. Cartouche, 22.10.2006

Here i will expose this malice for what it is furthermore:
Already the beginning (not to mention the title, are political sounding and name calling disgraces).

1)"Carleton Coon believed different racial types fought for domination and annihilation of other racial types. He believed Europe was the refined product of a long history of racial progression."

So as trying to make him look like some sort of nazi or at least a strong darwinian right winger or nationalistic. That statement is not only a complete lie, it is totally malicious and politically oriented. The purpose is of course, that the reader dismisses Coon as "a racist". Coon all over his works pointed out the mixture of peoples and the different racial types that resulted (an example being his travel to north africa or to Montenegro to study the dinaric race, a mixture of mediterraneans and alpines). This mixtures were often subject of his studies. His position is that types mix if they live in a similar enviroment rather than stick together and try to eliminate the other. History proves he is right. Coon even proposes and is hated by some for asserting Upper Paleolithic survivors are a mixture of Neanderthals and Sapiens. Coon believed the racial stuation of Europe to be the result of mixtures, or as he himself said "At any rate, the main conclusion of this study will be that the present races of Europe are derived from a blend of (A), food-producing peoples from Asia and Africa, of basically Mediterranean racial form, with (B), the descendants of interglacial and glacial food-gatherers, produced in turn by a blending of basic Homo sapiens, related to the remote ancestor of the Mediterraneans, with some non-sapiens species of general Neanderthaloid form. The actions and interactions of environment, selection, migration, and human culture upon the various entities within this amalgam, have produced the white race in its present complexity. "

2)"according to his book The Races of Europe, The White Race and the New World. He believed the "maximum survival" of Europeans was increased by their replacement of the indigenous peoples of the "New World".(The Races of Europe, The White Race and the New World) He believed the history of the White race to have involved "racial survivals" of the different White subraces. (The Races of Europe, Chapter II Sec 12"

Here is what Coon said "

The Mediterraneans who peopled the New World were of two principal varieties, Nordics and small, or Ibero-Insular (in Deniker's sense), Mediterraneans. The Nordics went to North America, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, the Mediterraneans proper to Central and South America. Wherever the Nordics went, they found lands occupied by scattered tribes of hunters and gatherers, or of riverside agriculturalists who were too few to offer them successful resistance. The wars with the Blackfeet and the Sioux were long and bloody, but the Blackfeet and the Sioux have lost their racial hold on their land as completely as have the Arunta. Dispossession and gradual extinction has been the fate of those who opposed the English and the Dutch, whether their opponents were Bushmen or Tasmanians or Beothuks.

The Spanish, on the other hand, went mostly to countries where a dense native population lived close to the soil, and where mighty empires had already arisen; their colonization was largely a matter of conquest and subjugation, and in all the American countries of Spanish settlement, excepting Argentina and Chile, the Indian farmer has reemerged, and the Spaniard forms but an upper crust. The Portuguese, carving out, in Brazil, a vast empire of river and forest, found but little land suitable for the habitation of whites, and into this they brought black men from Africa whose descendants are now the chief possessors of the soil.

The expansion of the Mediterraneans, using the word in the larger sense, into the New World, was an extension of their earlier expansion into Europe. North America became, by the nineteenth century, the greatest Nordic reservoir in the world. But the century which saw the erection of this reservoir also witnessed the beginnings of its change in character; the tide of immigration brought with it members of all the other races cat Europe. The people who came to America, from the time of the Pilgrim Fathers to the imposition of the laws restricting immigration, were selected; none were fully representative of the countries from which they came. In America they were subjected to environmental forces of a new and stimulating nature, so that changes in growth such as their ancestors had not felt for centuries produced strange, gangling creatures of their children, In America we have before our eyes the rapid action of race-building forces; if we wish to understand the principles which have motivated the racial history of the Old World, it behooves us to pay careful attention to the New"

It is somewhat unclear what the writer he means with that, Coon states in that section that where the indians were reduced in numbers, populations largely did not mix, whereas to where they largely survived, populations mixed. This is a consecuence of what I said of Coon before and his belief wich was proved right by the mestization of latin america. It is common sense and not "theory" although this is deliberatedly written to make people believe Coon supported the elimination of indians. I invite everyone to read that chapter of the book.

3) "Carleton Coon did not embrace the Caucasoid racial identity he defined; he instead embraced a White racial identity. In his book the Races of Europe he mentions the term Caucasoid only in passing. He mentions the White race as more a primary identification. In his introduction of the Races of Europe he states the "concern (of his book) the somatic character of peoples belonging to the white race"

This is not only bulgar and ignorant, it is disgusting and purpousedly decieving. Coon used the term "white" all over the book as a sinonym of "caucasian" if you look at his graphic where he shows the different types and the main divison of the white race, you will see that middle eastern types are considered "white". The purpouse of the writer, however, is to make Coon look like some sort of proponent of White Nationalism.

4)"In other sections of his Races of Europe book he mentions people to be "European in racial type" and having a "European racial element" (Races of Europe, Chapter 7 Turks and Mongols) He did not consider studying non-White races to be of high importance. He advised studying the superior versions of European racial types seen in the quote from his book Races of Europe, "What is needed more than anything else in this respect is a thoroughgoing study of the inhabitants of the principal and most powerful nations of Europe".Carleton Coon believed Whites followed a separate evolutionary path from other humans. He believed "The earliest Homo sapiens known, as represented by several examples from Europe and Africa, was an ancestral long-headed white man of short stature and moderately great brain size." and "the negro group probably evolved parallel to the white strain" (The Races of Europe, Chapter II)"

Again more childish agitation. The book dealt with the white race, and so as to the subject of the book, further studies of whites are relevant. Coon even laments there are too few surveys of crania from europe and more from north africa and he thinks this is because european anthropologists find it more exotic and atractive to do it far away from their homelands. The writer however, wants to decieve you into thinking Coon wants more european crania examined because he would be "a racist". Read the section yourselves. Malicious and deliberate, there are no other words for that.

Again here is what Coon says

"For many years physical anthropologists have found it more amusing to travel to distant lands and to measure small remnants of little known or romantic peoples than to tackle the drudgery of a systematic study of their own compatriots. For that reason the sections in the present book which deal with the Lapps, the Arabs, the Berbers, the Tajiks, and the Ghegs may appear more fully and more lucidly treated than those which deal with the French, the Hungarians, the Czechs, or the English. What is needed more than anything else in this respect is a thoroughgoing study of the inhabitants of the principal and most powerful nations of Europe.

Much more badly needed, however, than data on the living is the publication of skeletal material of all cultural periods in European prehistory and history. European museums and private collections abound with skulls and long bones, only a small proportion of which have as yet been made available through the literature. Most of these are of Neolithic or later date; when a skull of alleged or real glacial age is discovered, it is, as a rule, soon published. "

Political correctness and hatemongering against scholars like Coon have no place in an objective Encyclopedia. I will not remove this, I want you all to see it now that my review is written. --201.231.161.9 04:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your response to #1 does not disprove #1 in the slightest. Try and focus on what it is in #1 that you disagree with, and avoid getting sidetracked by talking about all the things in Coon you like. I'm happy to take a look at the chapter in question for #2 and see what it says in more detail. Again with #3 you do not really go against what the text says, and it is curious that he used "white" and "Caucasian" interchangeably (most works of physical anthropology of the period do not do so). As for #4, I agree that it should be more contextualized as part of a book explicitly about Europeans that Coon is arguing for the study of Europeans. However the statements about the parallel development of the different races do line up with Coon's racial theories, which were that the various races of the world evolved into Homo sapiens independently of one another. In any case, I agree the section should be tightened up and some of the claims in it are a bit misleading, though I'm not sure alleging "hatemongering" is going to help anything. --Fastfission 13:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Remove Bias Comments Refering to Coon as a Racist
As stated plenty of times above, this needs to be fixed. The article is obviously bias.

To reiterate plenty of valid arguments, I will run through the vast list of problems with this article.

The Biography sub-article is generally valid. Some problems are that it is far too short and seems to spend a great deal of effort pointing out Coon's bad "21st century science ethics".

The Racial Theories sub-article has many problems. The following requires citation: "Carleton Coon believed different racial types fought for domination and annihilation of other racial types. He believed Europe was the refined product of a long history of racial progression." The reference to "The White Race and the New World" chapter of "The Races of Europe" book is an obvious attempt to make the unwise person think of Coon as a racist upon reading this article. This is an example of a terribly biased statement that has no citation: "Carleton Coon did not embrace the Caucasoid racial identity he defined; he instead embraced a White racial identity." A perfected valid argument to this opinion (in what is suppose to be an encyclopedia) is that his reference to "White" is nothing more than an alternate term for Europid/Caucasoid as the political term currently means. The constant quotation of material containing statement with the term "White" in it is obviously done so to display Coon as a racist. This sub-article ends with a vague statement that all his life's work is completely invalid due to some recent studies, none of which are cited.

The Legacy sub-article is nothing more than another attempt at showing Coon as a racist. This is yet another direct statement that requires citation: "thus providing origins in deep time for his five races of mankind, no longer has wide currency among scholars, and his using this to rank different races struck many commentators of resembling the scientific racism of the early twentieth century".

The whole article is bias and seems to be written by someone who not only sees Coon as a racist, but also wants others to see their point of view. The author of this Coon-bashing article needs to be banned from Wikipedia for displaying such false information and forcing a bad image of Coon into Wikipedia users' minds. How about actually talking about Coon and his studies instead of displaying all this misinformation?!


 * I agree that some of that should be probably be toned down, as some of it is vague and unsourced (i.e. the "embraced.. identity" part) and other parts don't correctly differentiate between views that are uniquely Coon's or were common sentiments at the time (i.e. the "fought for domination and annhilation", which is was a fairly common way of conceptualizing the evolution of race from the 1880s through Coon's time). I'm happy to dig up a citation for the "scientific racism" part, which I think is both correct and neutral, but should be cited.
 * I think the calls for a user to be "banned from Wikipedia" are uncalled for, though. As for the article, it should give a broad overview of Coon's work but also be very attentive to the reception of the work, which in Coon's case is very important. --Fastfission 19:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This article definitely needs more work - I've made some changes. "Carleton Coon believed Whites followed a separate evolutionary path from other humans" comes across as implying he's a white supremicist (or something like) whereas, the presumably equivalent statement "Carleton Coon believed different races followed a different evolutionary paths" would not have the same  overtones. Rich Farmbrough 16:07 2  August 2006 (GMT).


 * That's a sensible alternative, though it should be noted that Coon did conceive of the races in a hierarchical fashion (whites and Asians at the top, Africans and Australoids at the bottom). This is a rather important point not only to his theory but to his reception. --[[User:Fastfission|F

Fastfission repeatedly pushes his liberal and anti-Coon agenda, he is a malicious character whose partiality has alerady been noted and should not be considered seriously. Now he comes up with another invention to imply Coons "racism" with no basis at all. Stephen Jay Gould, Boas, Sforza and other race-deniers like him should be observed first of all for their lack of integrity and deliberate promotion of the dissolution of truth in fields they have no knowledge of. --Finalnow 20:44, 29 August 2006

His racial theory is absoulute bull. Whites are not superior to anyone else, it's just that in history, they stole gold and money from other native empires to make themselves richer.(By the way, Ethiopians are not white). There once was a time that Europe was poor and stricken with disease and war, while others were much better off. As a result, the Europeans (who were accustumed to warfare; due to Europe being a small continent anyway), developed better weapons-that's all. Other empires were not in war like the Europeans, but they had the resources. Sooner of later, the Europeans would become jealous of these native empires and steal their gold and rescources and make themselves richer-not necessarily better. As a result of stealing their money, the Europeans (who had sophisticated weapons) were able to conquer the people, and since then have started a rediculous ideology that they are better than everone else, even though they started out poorer. In the end, coon is just another foolish individual who lives in an overshadow of white supremacy-assuming that their race is and has always been better than others even though his ancestors were criminals who stole money from others. Not to mention, a lot of people conquered such as the Native Americans gave strong resistance. The only thing that caused them to loose was diseases given to them by the Europeans that they were not immune to. Otherwise without the diseases Europeans would of never conquered these places. So when I see all these stupid ideologies, I ignore it because it is only done to get attention or to "think" that ones race is better than others which is nonsense. If any white men say they are better than everyone else, they are lying and they are simply doing it to get attention or even avoid real history-the history of their diseases conquering people-not them.-I hate dishonesty!
 * Where are you writing from? From a mental house? You probably forget that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for presenting childish conspiracy theories. The level of your argumentation clearly indicates that the findings of Rushton, Lynn et al. about some racial groups being deficient in IQ are based on reality. Bye! Cartouche, 22.10.2006

"Physical" v. "Biological" anthropology

 * "biological anthropology" - 4580 hits
 * "physical anthropology" - 22,100 hits

It seems a minor point to get hung up on - I've found google scholar is often a good neutral measure to use to judge the popularity of a term. --JereKrischel 05:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points
See the header to this page for links about these and other guidelines regarding article discussion. KarlBunker 11:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of personal attacks here. Please note that this is contrary to Wikipedia rules and can get you banned from editing. Comment on article content, not contributors.
 * Please sign your posts to the discussion page with four tildes: ~

AGAIN POV IN QUOTE
"Wherever Homo arose, and Africa is at present the most likely continent, he soon dispersed, in a very primitive form, throughout the warm regions of the Old World....If Africa was the cradle of mankind, it was only an indifferent kindergarten. Europe and Asia were our principle schools."

From all of Coons works, you manage to find a little quotation that you find usable to twist it and claim "racism". Liberal propaganda at its best. That is supposed to be representative of Coon? Seems like linking persons that show the reality of race to racism and then claim bias is standard liberal procedure to "prove" races dont exist. Here are other quotes by Coon:

"No type of man is more purely sapiens than a negro"

of UP survivors and Nordics : "equally evolved forms of humanity"

of european cultural "superiority" : I recall him writing that in the past europeans were far behind and one should not think europeans superior because of present conditions.

Coons work refuted Nordicism (proved Nords are Meds) and Eurocentrism (proved european types werent exclusive), both strong tendencies at the time, to a large extent but apparently in "modern" standards thats still "racist" for histerically liberal minds. All that being said, it should only be the facts and not his inclinations, whether to the left or right, that should be judged. This childish attempt to make him look like a racist only backfires and indeed will only make people gain interest in Coon the most. --Finalnow 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Finalnow, the first quote you cite, "No type of man is more purely sapiens than a negro", seems to indicate that in Coon's eyes, the negro was the pure, unfinished product that had to be refined in order to become white. Could you provide direct references to those quotes, so that we may read them in context?  Thanks! (p.s.: I think it's quite clear that Coon's ideas were steeped in archaic racism - whether or not that makes him inherently evil or simply a product of his times is an open question.  We should present him in a sympathetic light, but it simply isn't possible to avoid the racialism he represented.  The quote currently presented is directly from Coon, and does accurately express his point of view...why should it be removed?  It doesn't seem like a childish attack, IMHO, and it has made me gain interest in Coon (even if I disagree with him), which I don't think anyone sees as a bad thing.)  --JereKrischel 16:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I found your first quote with a footnote: "There is no type of man more completely sapiens (As opposed to Neanderthaloid.) than a negro.". (http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-II07.htm).  It seems that in context your quote doesn't show Carleton favorably comparing negroes to whites.  A further quote from the same chapter states, "Disregarding for the moment their racial affinities, we may be sure that they were fully  sapiens, and that they resembled Galley Hill in stature and in gross cranial vault form. The vault dimensions, however, are smaller. They thus show nothing whatever of the great size and robusticity of the crania belonging to the total Upper Palaeolithic group, and nothing of the latter’s exuberance of bodily growth."  Here he clearly states that being "fully sapiens" is no indication of being completely equal - in fact, he explicitly notes the difference in brain vault size. --JereKrischel 16:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are honest in your criticism. If so, it shows you havent read TROE or are familiar with Coons writings at all. The quote in question clearly doesnt provide a good representation of his understanding of peoples. Coon says whites are either Sapiens or Sapiens+ Neanderthal. White mediterraneans and nordics (also sapiens) are also smaller than Neanderthals. If anything that would point toward negroes as a whole being more developed than whites. But then again Coon doesnt consider sapiens more human than neanderthals. I advise you to read the whole book or at least a good share of it. Coon only dealt with facts, and if he was a racist, there is no indication in his works. But then again this is not the place for conspiracy theories. --Finalnow 16:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a conspiracy. Of course, Coon wouldn't label himself a racist; nobody in their right mind would. But history has shown that physical anthropology the way it was generally practiced in the 19th and early 20th century (and Coon's work is a representative example of it) is basically pseudoscience.--Ramdrake 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Coon certainly dealt with facts as he understood them, but his entire works are strong evidence of the kind of archaic racialism common in the early 20th and late 19th century. I'm certainly enjoying reading his book, and I'm glad it is online, but there's no question that he got stuck in a world-view that has since been thoroughly refuted.  Again, I think you're being a bit sensitive on this - pointing out that he saw Africa as an "indifferent kindergarten" is not a slight on his character, simply an example of his POV.  I find it hard to claim that a direct quote of his is not a good representation of him - perhaps, Finalnow, you have other quotes where he contradicts himself? --JereKrischel 17:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Both Ramdrake and Jere: stop claiming racism without giving any evidence. The quote, be it from him, certainly isnt representative and I already explained why. He wasnt a believer of superiority of certain groups or at least that cant be infered from his books. The quote, just like the rest of the "racial theories" section, is just a mere attempt to deceive the casual reader into thinking Coon was racist.--Finalnow 18:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Finalnow, I think you misunderstand the concept of racism - it is not necessarily about which race is completely superior, it is simply asserting that each race is inherently different. In Coon's case, he clearly states that he believed whites to be different on the evolutionary scale, and superior in specific measures such as brain size.  Again, I'm sorry you feel that his own words don't represent his position well, but we cannot simply read his mind post-mortem - all we have is his words.  --JereKrischel 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, if you have any doubt about what BIAS in the worst sense means, just read the section that took me hours "Here I will expose this malice for what it is furthermore" here in the discussion, to see how I effectively proved the entire section of "racial theories" as pure propaganda. If after reading that you continue to claim my additions are biased while defending that part, I have very much to doubt your intentions and honesty. --Finalnow 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that anyone who disagrees with your point of view must be dishonest and filled with malintent. Certainly we can both be honest, rational people, and still disagree without having ulterior motives. --JereKrischel 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Racism Noun

1. The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.

2. Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/racism

Apparently you disagree with Websters dictionary on what "racism" is. Of course races are different. But Coon didnt even say there were significant mental differences among races. His work was ANTHROPOLOGY, no psychology. You continue to make claims without evidence and ignore my refutation of the "racial theories" section propaganda. --Finalnow 18:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is not "of course races are different". There is great debate over that archaic idea, and a wealth of scientific and genetic evidence to the contrary.


 * Also, regarding a more complete definition of "racism" -

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.


 * Note the word usually. --JereKrischel 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Websters dictionary is the main source for the english language. And also the common use of the term doesnt apply to racial differences but to superiority. Did you read my section "here i will expose this mallice for what it is" in the discussion? Lastly, Coon didnt speak about behavioural differences resulting from different forms, or provide evidence if you think so. --Finalnow 19:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference to back up your assertion that Webster's dictionary is the main source for the english language? --JereKrischel 19:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

it doesnt even make a difference in light of many other problems i already showed regarding your conspiratory racism-accusation. --Finalnow 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Finalnow, I'm nitpicking at your inaccuracies and bluster, and I should be more sympathetic to your emotional state. I understand you feel strongly about Coon's work being associated with the negative connotations of racism, and we can work together to build a good NPOV article, but I think first you'll have to assume good faith on the part of other editors.  Let's try and tackle your concerns one sentence at a time and see if we can find compromise. --JereKrischel 19:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Proved bias?
I'm sorry Finalnow, I strongly disagree with your characterization of anti-racialist scientists as being "proved biased". You have absolutely no way to assert that. --JereKrischel 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * read mismeasure of gould and lewontin fallacy. Coon was also a scientist by the way, and they didnt demonsrtate anything. --Finalnow 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Finalnow, are you simply stating that if a book exists claiming bias on the part of someone, that it is therefore proven and true? --JereKrischel 19:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

not if the bias was effectively demonstrated. also i would like your account on gould or any other proving coon wrong.--Finalnow 19:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is to judge whether or not bias was effectively demonstrated? Just you? --JereKrischel 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * no you could read the books as i have and decide, but my guess is you didnt --201.231.161.9 19:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you guess that simply because I disagree with your decision? I'm afraid that's an awfully narrow-minded point of view, to assume that if you decided something, that everyone else with the same evidence you've seen must also agree with your conclusions. --JereKrischel 19:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In regards to proving Coon's theories incorrect, please see Recent single-origin hypothesis, and the work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. --JereKrischel 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

yes sforza even himself admits his is only a hypotesis. and that wasnt about sforza, but about gould and lewontin. Coon also wrote about a lot more than the multiregional explanation--201.231.161.9 19:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it is a hypothesis - however, it is one that isn't contradicted by any evidence as of yet. The multi-regional explanation has been contradicted by genetic evidence. --JereKrischel 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

i already told you this wasnt about sforza, coon was only one proponent of the multiregional theory and this wasnt his only assertion. there were many others as well. it hasnt been contradicted by genetic evidence and as far as i am aware the mutliregional explanation is well founded by analisis of crania in asia, as well as the Neanderthal upper paleolithic linkage. Again even by your own words there is no evidence to claim coon was "demonstrated" wrong. --201.231.161.9 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me be perfectly clear - Coon's primary assertion in Origin of Races, that asserted a multiregional theory, has been decisively proven incorrect by the genetic evidence linking us all back to a single mitochondrial Eve. Cranial analysis does not hold up against the genetic evidence.  Even prominent racialists like Rushton agree on this point now. --JereKrischel 19:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Again you show no evidence how this disproves the multiergional theory. Nobody claimed all humans didnt have similar ancestors, only that they evolved separatedly afterwards. Cranial observations are direct and far less far fetched than genetical theories based on a few markers and a majority of genes whose use is not even known. I dont care what Rushton said, again you are implying multiregionalism or Coon mean racism. Rushton has no authrotiy concerning Coon or physical anthropology. It is impossible to build a NPOV article with somebody who sees nothing wrong in the racial theories propaganda section that I already proved just that, propaganda. Have you read my section about unmasking the malice.--Finalnow 20:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me turn this around, Finalnow - how are you going to show me evidence that proves bias on the part of anti-racialists? What evidence do you think I should consider irrefutable?  Maybe if you can come up with that definition, then I can provide you with the same type of evidence on the single-origin theory.  Again, though, you seem very emotional about this - please, try to calm down and we can work together on making this a better article.  Assume good faith. --JereKrischel 20:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And yes, Finalnow, I read your section on "unmasking malice", and I think you're overreacting. You seem to lose your train of thought half-way through, and don't effectively address the real issue. --JereKrischel 20:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Race and intelligence controversy
Although you are correct, Finalnow, that Coon did not write specifically about Race and Intelligence, you cannot deny that his work prominently figures in the controversy. His assertions and study of crania size are cited and referenced over and over again by racialists like Rushton, Lynn, etc. Putting his page in that category does not assert that he was a proponent of any particular intelligence correlation to race, but simply that his work figures prominently in that field. --JereKrischel 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Coon has no control on what others may do, this point is beyond absurd --Finalnow 19:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you personalizing this? Coon's work figures prominently in the Race and Intelligence controversy, no matter if his primary work was not in that field.  The category label is not saying that he was a primary proponent of any race and intelligence theory, but simply that his work figures prominently on the topic.  Sun Tzu may not have fought in WWII, but his theories and work still are prominent in the field of modern warfare.  You seem to be very emotional about any possible correlation between Coon's work, and controversy - why is that? --JereKrischel 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read the last correction of mine, I didnt say they were biased, it was quite neutral. This article is about Coon, I dont have to prove anything about the others I dont claim. However anyone that browses www.nordish.com and reads its ton of evidence in the library and gallery, can pretty much get a hunch that they lie. Im not personalizing anything, this anti-Coon histeria in which you collect everything you can to say the worst possible thing about Coon, make up conspiracy theories and then claim people who want to let the rest know just what he stood for are biased is simply disturbing. It doesnt come as a surprise regarding the liberal bias in all social sciences after WW2, but I will address it and see that a fair account of Coon is given to the public instead of conspiracy theories. Coon relates to intelligence as much as a car to Argentina (ie X used a car to go to Argentina, therefore car relates to argentina).--201.231.161.9 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said, nor do I believe, the multiregional evidence to be irrefutable. However I think this is good evidence racial types do exist. http://amorsit.sitesled.com/AMOR_archivos/Page581.htm. You claim however that Coon was wrong and the others 100% right and give no evidence for it. The problem is the page is as strongly anti-Coon as it could be. My stand so far I consider less than moderate. --201.231.161.9 20:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that perhaps english is not your first language, 201.231.161.9. I appreciate your attempt to work on this article that clearly isn't in a language you are very familiar with.  Let me assure you that nobody here is trying to promote anything "anti-Coon" - we are simply attempting to build a NPOV article that clearly paints the man's history, works and influence in a sympathetic light.  Nobody is starting a conspiracy when they quote Coon directly.  On the other hand, the insistence that Coon has nothing to do with discussions of racialism seems a bit unreasonable.  It also seems unreasonable to assert that your "hunch that they lie" is the only valid point of view to be had. --JereKrischel 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV? The whole "racial theories" section deliberately takes Coons quotations out of context, thats NPOV to you and my additions are? And again you are putting things in my mouth that i didnt say and turn them the other way around to try and make a point.


 * Why do you think they are being taken out of context? What context would you add that would help explain them better? --JereKrischel 01:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Coon and the "racist" label
May I suggest we compromise on this and instead use the word "racialist" (which is simply defined as "an emphasis on race or racial considerations")? It would prevent us from having to debate whether he meant to say that some groups were "more advanced evolutionarily speaking" or better in any way than others. Just that he put stock and emphasis on the reality of races, which I think is thoroughly indisputable.--Ramdrake 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Racialist is usually used as a political term for people such as White Nationalists who claim to be for their won race and not against others thus trying to avoid "racist" http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/racialist . It is a political term not scientific /scholar. Coon was interested in races, but he displayed no preference nor did he advocate for any in his works. Guenther, for example, was both a race researcher and a racist/racialist sice he believed "nordics" were superior. Coon was merely a physical anthropologist. --201.231.161.9 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Racialist is defined as someone who believes in the reality of separate races, without saying whether one might be superior or inferior to others. That's as close to a neutral term as you will be able to use taking into consideration Coon's works and views.--Ramdrake 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * However, that's a bit beside the point, as after searching, I found out there isn't a single instance of the word "racist" in the whole text. So, what again are you complaining about?--Ramdrake 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look at a more detailed dictionary besides "websters-online-dictionary.org".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racialist

Racialism

1. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.

2. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.

If you go directly to Merriam-Webster's dictionary online, you get this definition:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racialist

racialism

a theory that race determines human traits and capacities;

The dictionary you're citing seems to be the personal work of one man:

http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=websters-dictionary-online&tld=org Registrant Name:Phil Parker Registrant Organization:Webster's Online Dictionary Registrant Street1:4370 La Jolla Village Dr.

It's probably not a good idea to cite from his online dictionary. --JereKrischel 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry JK, are you saying you agree or disagree with what I just said? Sorry for having to ask, my brain is pretty much turning to mush by now.--Ramdrake 21:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ramdrake, that wasn't directed at your comment - it was directed at the citations of definitions of "racialism" and "racism" that are solely negative in connotation. I'm also having a difficult time understanding the specific concerns of "racism".  If I understand correctly, the pro-Coon supporters are concerned that any quotes taken from Coon that might imply racism on his part are inappropriate.  I personally think they are being too sensitive, but I'm supportive of finding compromise language to put his quotes in context if they feel they need to be explained further.  However, we can't just say, "Coon said this, but he wasn't a racist and didn't mean it in any sort of racist way", without any sort of reference or citation to back it up. --JereKrischel 21:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Racialist is defined as someone who believes in the reality of separate races, without saying whether one might be superior or inferior to others. That's as close to a neutral term as you will be able to use taking into consideration Coon's works and views." - 	Again, you are wrong, read even your definition from the Webster site. Coon wasnt a theorist for the capacities of races, he only identified and described cultures and types. I have repeated this many times. This isnt Coons field. What is the problem with calling him for what he was, a physical anthropologist? And to Jere, it is you who has to provide evidence for him being a racist in the first place. Today that word will highly discredit him. --201.231.161.9 21:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your lack of english language skills are hampering your ability to understand what I'm saying, 201.231.161.9. I'm sure that I wouldn't be able to come close to effectively communicating to you in your native language, so I'm certainly impressed at your level of skill with english as a non-native speaker, but your skill is apparently not enough to clearly understand this conversation.  Note the definition I cited: "1. An emphasis on race or racial considerations,".  Clearly this is a neutral definition, as I had stated before.  I don't know why you feel that this word will "highly discredit" him - perhaps when you learned english that word was given excessive negative connotation. --JereKrischel 21:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually OED seems to support the idea that racialist = racist (which is my experience - that racialist is the BE equivalent of AE racist:
 * "Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one's cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being."

while "racist" has two meanings:
 * "a. The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.   b. = RACIALISM."

OED is pretty good at covering both AE and BE usage, it's about the most definitive dictionary of the English language. That said, based on what I remember of Coon's writings, his position was racist. Guettarda 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What matters, of course, is not our own opinions on things, but rather the interpretations for which we can find reliable (preferably mainstream) sources. Guettarda 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the cite Guettarda - us Americans often forget there is more than one way to speak English :). That all being said, I guess the most sympathetic light we could put Coon in was that he was unable to challenge the racist foundation of physical anthropology in the late 19th, early 20th century, but that at heart he did not look down upon people simply because of their race - perhaps he even sympathized with them even more given what he must have seen as inherent disadvantage.  Although his work is prominently cited by abject racists of today, who do believe in superiority, and has been thoroughly repudiated by scientific study since his time, I could give him the benefit of the doubt on his personal POV...--JereKrischel 01:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I never had a problem with calling Coon for what he was, a physical anthropologist. All the rest is just ad-hominems and speculation. I was referring to racist not racialist, but then again the latter term is not precise either.--201.231.161.9 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is it ad hominem to quote Coon directly? And what makes you think that a physical anthropologist couldn't be a racist or a racialist? --JereKrischel 01:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please help correct this article. It is interpreting Coon and his theories just the opposite of what is true. For example, the article states that, "Carleton Coon believed different racial types fought for domination and annihilation of other racial types." This is just the opposite of the truth. Coon believed that human races evolved "parallel" with various races exchanging genes rather than one superior race leading to the extinction of another race. This is the "Weidenreich Theory of Human Evolution" based on Franz Weidenreich's examination of Peking Man. Being an anatomist, Weidenreich observed numerous anatomical characteristics that Peking Man had in common with modern Asians. The Weidenreich Theory states that human races have evolved independently in the Old World from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens sapiens, while at the same time there was gene flow between the various populations. According to the Weidenreich Theory, genes that were generally adaptive (such as those for intelligence and communication) would flow relatively rapidly from one part of the world to the other, while those that were locally adaptive, would not. This is contrary to popular theories of human evolution that have one superior race displacing other races. It is ironic that Coon is being labeled a racist while the theory in fact proposed that no one race was superior and displacing others. --Matses 16:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Coon is wrong about the distribution of Caucasoid subraces
He names belgium as an example of the nordic race. I am Belgian and i should only take a look out of the window to see that is NOT the case. And i am not living amongst immigrants. He probably named "us" nordic because the language we speak, but you can see clearly people look rather alpine/dinaric.


 * Not true, Coon claimed that nordic, alpine and dinaric people were all present in Belgium. So you could only claim that he got the % wrong. Coon never claimed that any nation was composed of merely one of his subraces, in fact I don't think that he ever even claimed that any nation in Europe had >50% of any subrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.11 (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dinarization? What the heck?
The text of this article mentions "dinarization," but there is no such word. If people are going to make up words they should take to writing novels. If they are importing technical terms that haven't made it to the dictionaries yet, then they owe their readers a definition. P0M 03:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dinarization is a word from The Races of Europe far as I can tell....


 * Yes, it is very much a word from said text. Myrkkyhammas 14:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "When reduced Upper Paleolithic survivors and Mediterraneans mix, occurs the process of dinarization which produces an hybrid with non-intermediate features."


 * Since when could people be "hybrids" ????? futurebird 04:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since always, I'd imagine. People are animals as well, Futurebird. Myrkkyhammas 14:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the entire historical controversy be centred around hybridisation/miscegenation?

Tamrhind 17:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php/aryan-sub-races-303814p3.html?s=8c7f71f0a28b393e5711764c3b1e15dd&amp;page=3&t=303814 these people] seem to take it pretty seriously. I think that gives us a good idea of the um... "usefulness" of this word. futurebird 04:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I take it you're not aware of the obvious fallacy your comment above suffers from. Myrkkyhammas 14:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Von Eichstädt mentions a dinaric type in his classification (that has fallen out of use now). The whole idea that Paleolithic and Mesolithic people in Europe were joined there (and mixed with) new arrivals from the Eastern Mediterranean area during the Neolithic has some modern evidence in favour of it. As has the idea that there were some migrations from Eastern Europe during the early Bronze Age. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This wikipedia page is just using the outdated versions of Coon and I have proven why few weeks ago (now references seem removed by an unknown reason). Coon later on his career changed opinion and considered certain types of Mediterranean Mesolithic and Upper Paleolithic (which is actually supported by more recent comparisons between modern and Epipaleolithic skulls) and dropped much of his Unreduced Upper Paleolithic Northwesterners for Nordic/Alpines mixes. It´s even quite easy to find the Brno Upper Paleolithic Gracile Mediterraneans on google: «Two 25,000-year-old skulls discovered in Dolni Vestonice (Czech Republic) were described by Jelinek as "gracile dolichomorphic" and "practically typical Mediterranean".

The Brno (Czech Republic) skull can therefore be regarded as the oldest find of the Mediterranean type.

(Jelinek 1968)

«Denise Ferembach (1974) could only inventory 136 "more or less complete" individuals from Cabeço da Arruda and Moita do Sebastião: 25 percent were under fifteen years of age (two-thirds of those were under five), and among the adults of all ages, from eighteen to over fifty, that could be sexed, men (sixteen) predominated over women (nine). Ferembach's study's main concern was still the establishment of a "racial diagnosis." It was concluded that the "protomediterranean" type predominated and that there were also small and gracile "cromagnoids," as well as a few "alpine" and "mixed protomediterranean-cromagnoid" people. Since this mix still exists in modern-day Portugal, a large degree of population continuity until the present was inferred.»

João Zilhão

Gracile-Mediterranean Ibero-Insular (Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic):

«Types.—The anthropological characters studied on the Portuguese population, permit us to establish the identity of the medium Portuguese type with the Ibero-insular race (Homo europaeus var. mediterraneus), which certainly descends from the race of Baumes-Chaudes that is represented in the neolithic stations of the country. This type is found purest in remote mountainous regions where natural bulwarks kept it free from admixture.»

-ORIGINS OF THE PORTUGUESE A. A. MENDES CORREA

«The Magdalenian form of Laugerie Chancelade survived through the Mesolithic transition, and is to be found in the early neolithic form of Baumes-Chaudes.

Herve finds that the Magdalenian race was continued in the Neolithic represented at Baumes Chaudes-Cro-Magnon...»

http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Mediterranean_Race_1000306155/203

And much more I could post it, if I had more time.

I have posted here (discussion) the actual passages and references, on which Coon mention this, but some moderators or admins of this wikipedia page, removed it. It was like compelling evidence in vain. Anyway, this is just Wikipedia and it´s probably one of the only places where people nowadays keep posting Coon´s outdated stuff and ignore his last references (at least, by what I see on International Anthropology foruns and on any researcher more recent work that uses him as reference). So there you go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.115.109.3 (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, the most archaic morphological type of the Mediterranean subrace is that known as the Upper Paleolithic, sometimes also called Galley Hill or Compe Capelle(or, by Coon, the "Brunn race") from type fossil finds in Europe, and also frequently referred to as Atlanto-Mediterranean(Deniker). This exceptionally long-headed type is notable for the great size of the brain-case and its rugged bony construction. The face is commonly long and massive, but it may be rather short, perhaps oftenest when bodily stature is below medium. The jaws are nearly always deep and heavy. It seems improbable that this type, when identified in Wales, Cornwall, and Ireland, or elsewhere, represents the pure lineal descendants of Upper Paleolithic men. It is more likely to be due to recombination of genetic factors from old strains. It is hard to believe that anywhere in Europe there are inbred, unmixed survivors of Paleolithic colonies. This type, which is easy to recognize, but does not easily lend itself to selection by any mechanical sorting process, is fairly common in Iran and Iraq and probably elsewhere in the Middle East.

-Hooton, Up From the Ape 1946

The cranial index shows also certain tendencies towards uniformity. ... finds from San Teodoro in Sicily are Proto- Mediterranean, very close to the Combe Capelle type. The author mentions also certain Mesolithic finds.

http://books.google.com/books?id=krpWAAAAMAAJ&q=san+teodoro+cranium&dq=san+teodoro+cranium&hl=en&ei=xtGmS7DhGoGBlAfYvtzXAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwADgU

The paleoanthropological remains from Grotta di San Teodoro near Acquedolci (province of Messina, Italy) represent the oldest and largest skeletal collection yet found documenting human settlement of Sicily. The sample, attributed to the Late Epigravettian (between 14,000 and 10,000 years B.P.), consists of seven variously complete adult individuals (San Teodoro 1-7). We compare the cranial sample to an array of both prehistoric and recent samples using multivariate techniques including D(2) distance analysis, canonical variate analysis, cluster analysis, and multidimensional scaling. Overall, the San Teodoro cranial sample displays a morphometric pattern close to Western European groups of similar antiquity, in particular those from Central and Southern Italy. The morphometric affinities indicate that these people probably came from peninsular Italy by sea during the Late Epigravettian epoch. An alternative hypothesis is that they descended from immigrants that arrived by land during a low sea level episode corresponding to the maximum Würmian regression, about 18,000 years B.P, with gene flow accounting for the morphological homogeneity with the populations of peninsular Italy. The San Teodoro skeletal sample provides the first reliable evidence for human settlement of Sicily.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19446307 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.115.109.3 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The southwestern European racial groups-Berids, West-Mediterraneans, and Alpines - evidently originated from shorter-statured and darker Cro-Magnids. These more southerly Cro-Magnids were less adapted to cold climate.

Most of the Berids live in the more unfavorable areas of southwestern Europe. In part they were forced there by other races. In the case of the Berids, we evidently have before us a more original type.

Hence, the more gracile West-Mediterraneans originated then in the more favorable regions of this part of Europe. Their present overly slender extreme-types are probably entirely late products of the environment. These body types - as in the case of similar types of other of the more slender races - were lacking in their actual rather near-peasant forefathers.

The Alpine race arose only rather late through brachycephalization in the poorer and colder regions of Berids and Berid-mixtures. The origins of this race can be traced back to the Neolithic period. But only in the Middle Ages is the Alpine race more strongly prominent.

The East-Mediterraneans and the East-Alpines have probably originated in an approximately similar manner from East European long-skulled and high-skulled old groups ("Brunnids"). These groups probably came across East Europe and southwestern Asia from northwestern - perhaps even central-India in the later Old Stone Age.

-Lundman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.115.109.3 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, it isn't appropriate to discuss his ideas here or argue for them. Doug Weller (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Doug

Who´s not giving anything relevant to this wikipedia page is yourself.

Coon later dropped this anti-mediterranean non-sense:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5959136/2/?x=0#post1746277

So I wonder if this wiki page prefers just to stick on Coon´s old theories, instead on also the Coon´s updated theories, out of convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.115.140.89 (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * We can't use a forum discussion, find some academic sources that discuss where he changed his theories. We can't use Coon as a source as that would be original research which we can't do. Doug Weller  talk 15:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of www.snpa.nordish.net as a source
I may be completely off-base, but www.snpa.nordish.net seems suspect. Although it claims not to have a political or racist POV, and I didn't find anything on there that appeared racist outside of the copy of Coon's work, I did find some discussion board posts on places like Stormfront which seem to be saying there used to be a racist forum there. Perhaps, even if that's true, the site no longer has an agenda, but it smells fishy to me. 71.82.214.160 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The site is devoted to the concept of race, which is now basically rejected by mainstream science, and it claims that "no significant studies on the topic have been made since the 50s" (I quote by memory). The very concept of "nordish" appears to be widely used by white nationalists. --91.148.159.4 14:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The concept of race is not "basically rejected by mainstream science" unless by "mainstream science" you really mean "the Marxist/post-Marxist revisionist junta currently dominating anthropology." The rejection of the notion of race as a physical phenomenon becomes more and more common the further one gets from the hard sciences - that is, most biologists accept race as a physical phenomenon whereas most cultural anthropologists reject it. Be careful with what you say: it's because of people like you that the real bigots are gaining popularity via poking holes in all your fallacious revisionist claims. Myrkkyhammas 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, about 80% of biologists reject the notion of race as anything else than a cultural construct, and that number goes up to 89% for physical anthropologists (according to Lieberman in his paper from 2001), so I would say yes, it is rejected by most of mainstream science as a useful way to subdivide human genetic diversity.--Ramdrake 19:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. Compare also what Britannica has to say, as well as our own article on race. Myrkkyhammas seems to adhere to an extreme minority view, and to be very emotional about it, too, judging from his wording above. I don't edit in this field, but I would recommend that more people should take a look at this, so as to avoid undue weight / a POV slant. --91.148.159.4 19:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First, that 80%/89% statistic is highly suspect - what exactly are you citing? Second, I said nothing of "genetic diversity." I was talking about race as a physical phenomenon in general and while yes, DNA is an example of a measureable, physical entity, it is not the only one. Others include skin pigmentation, hair form, stature, skull form etc. - all of which are very real are physical entities. I, for one, am convinced that they have no influence on the meaningful aspects of humanity (e.g. intelligence, creativity, criminality etc.) but to deny that they exist altogether is dishonest and perhaps even dangerous. Myrkkyhammas 18:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, the reference can be found in Lieberman (2001), an article called: How Caucasoids got such big crania and why they shrank - From Morton to Rushton. However suspect you may think it is, I didn't invent it.--Ramdrake 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC) —


 * The website may seem fishy but I have a copy of Coon's text and they seem to have it copied word for word. Myrkkyhammas 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If so, the book itself should be cited, rather than the fishy website.--91.148.159.4 19:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Myrkkyhammas 18:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

THIS WEBSITE SNAP NORDISH IS BIASED!!!

they have missed sections out of carelton coons races of europe on purpose.

they left out the 're-emergence of the mediterranean element in the british isles' section on purpose!

they are a bunch of nordicists.


 * The text of TRoE on the SNPA site is complete, no sections are missing. I have the book, and have checked. But the site should not be cited in citings from the text, as the racialist connotations are tangible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.146.74 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Human species.
Different types of Human IE Carcasions and (for want of better words) Negroes and Mongoloids. Im guessing these aren't designated as separate species, are these classed as being a different Genus? BTW I'm not a white supremacist of nothing, I have black family and I'm part Jewish, I'm just interested.

Not even genus, I wouldn't have thought. At the VERY most, subspecies perhaps.

Tamrhind 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The entire Coon article is a joke. Caleton Coon was a hard-core racists who "filled in the blanks" to make certain races and ethnicities appear superior or more advanced vis-a-vis others. It is a well known fact that he collaborated closely with one of the most despicable racists of the 20th century, his cousin, Carleton Putnam. Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiregional model and racial hierarchies
A reference is made to Proceedings of the NAS in 1999, regarding the finding of the skeleton in Portugal. The paper referenced does not say what the editor implies, however.--Parkwells (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
This article is lacking substance. The Criticism section needs to be supplemented so that people can understand what late 20th c and contemporary thinkers concluded about Coons. I don't think it's there yet, even though the abstract of an article on the reception of his 1962 book was copied.--Parkwells (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Falling into Disfavor
This paragraph notes that Coon couldn't absorb new work by several scientists (Lewontin and Gould) who were considerably younger than he. They began to do their important work late in Coon's life, and really started their careers after his major work on the European races had been published. They didn't seem to overlap much. Is this an accurate statement? Also, it mentions work of Boas, but Boas died 20 years before Coon published his 1962 work on races. Again, this needs more material so we understand more about the issues. --Parkwells (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so I will list more concrete objections: Why do authors of this article want to refute Coon's racial ideas by a link at an academic debate that primarily concerns psychological differences among races? (14) What does it have in common with the "dismissing of race"? What we read in that article is Mr. Lieberman's yelling that since race doesn't exist, IQ differences among races also doesn't exist. But shouldn't we at first look at, if race really doesn't exist? Not speaking about that the debate full of well-known PC-stars also includes Mr. Loring Brace, a person with obvious mental problems, who himself classified human skulls into discrete groups corresponding with classical races (in an article ironically called "A Non-racial Craniofacial Perspective on Human Variation"), but passionately claims that race doesn't exist.

There is no contradiction in mr. Loring Brace`s classification of skulls and saying that race does not exist. His classification of skulls refers to anatomy, his saying that race does not exist refers to genetics. Both are based in fact, since forensic anatomists can distinguish "races" while studies of genetic variation clearly shows that race does not exist. One of the major constituents in mr. Loring Brace`s human evolution theories is just the unreliability of inferring genetics from anatomy. Any references for his "obvious mental problems"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.94.57 (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/37649/1/1330820310_ftp.pdf
 * Why is it that here on Wikipedia opinions of people defending traditional racial classification are often refuted by a single link on a PC-study, while the article about race clearly shows that the debate by far isn't settled and in fact, the arguments against race can be easily refuted as well? Centrum99 (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Boaz is inappropriate. Clearly if you were dead before WWII you didn't advance any ideas after 1962.Nitpyck (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence of Coon's entry
It is pitifully biased and unfair to use as the opening paragraph that Coon was "an...anthropologist noted for books on race in which he proposed the superiority of Europeans". That is an oversimplification and to generalize about his career using what is, in contemporary discourse, an inflammatory and political statement, only belittles his career as a scientist. The "superiority" of certain or other races may have been an implication of his studies and writings, but he was an anthropologist first and foremostP, and people forget that pre-WWII, anthropology was the study of race. This was perfectly respectable and the norm at the highest levels of academia. All of this shifted radically with the wave of political correctness that swept campuses in the decades after the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.15.238 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not rewrite it so it makes more sense - refer to his time and ours.--Parkwells (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apart from that it is highly arguable that it is even factually correct. "Superiority" is more or less being used as a weasel word here. What specifically did he believe that is supposed to amount to a belief in "superiority"? In the same way that James Watson apologising for his statement on race and intelligence by saying that Africans are not inferior to Europeans said nothing to repudiate the factual content of what he actually said the use of "superiority" in this article says nothing much about Coon's actual beliefs either, particularly in the context of an academic scholar. It is a rhetorical device.80.229.27.11 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Coon was not a racist in the pejorative sense
I have a special claim to authority on this subject as I am Carleton Coon's son. I grew up with him. He firmly believed that race is a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, in that subspecies have evolved and that differences between them can affect not only normative physical features, but also behavior. He detested adversaries like Ashley Montagu and most of the Boas school that decided ex cathedra that race doesn't exist, and he could express himself quite strongly when he got on the subject. But he never agreed that racial stereotypes could legitimately be applied to individuals. In fact he prided himself on the fact that his friends and correspondents were distinguished representatives of all racial groups. Here's what he had to say in his article, "What is Race?", in the December, 1957 issue of the Atlantic Monthly:

"...in most if not all races men of superior intelligence are born from time to time. In the past it was rarely possible for many of them to meet and exchange ideas, and even in social situations where they were accepted, much of their individual brainpower was wasted. Thanks to the new techniques of transport and communication of our century, world-wide meetings of the intellectual elite of all races are becoming common. In them it has often been observed that the world's most intelligent men find it completely natural to forget about race, for the mutual stimulation of intellectual exchange creates in such a group a new level of equilibrium, in which looking alike is of no importance.

"It seems safe to predict that the frequent association of the world's top minds in various disciplines can turn out to be the equivalent of that step in biological evolution for which many have been waiting:the appearance of a new and superior race based on a new adaptation, not to a special physical environment, but to the need of solving special problems which men have themselves created. As it will be drawn from many races, no master-race behavior need be feared."

In other words, my father was an elitist but not a racist, not in the present pejorative sense. But how about that opening reference to "most if not all races"? I am quite confident, on the basis of my recollection of my discussions with him, that he did not mean to include all negroes, or Congoids, or sub-Saharan Africans, as a blanket category incapable of producing superior minds. Africa being the cradle, there is probably at least as much racial variation within the region as outside it, and generalizations about race within the region always troubled him. (I recall his commenting on the large cranial capacity of the Ibo, for example). I infer that his phrase "most if not all races" referred to subgroups, perhaps some very minor groups, not to any of his five major categories.

That last point is arguable but with the increasing homogenization of the global gene pool it may also be becoming moot. Race as a whole, however, will never become moot. In his passion for analyzing its particulars, my father was not behind his times. I feel confident that future generations will look back on the record and judge that he was ahead of them.

Carl Coon (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It must be difficult to have such a controversial father. I recall a short discussion I had with either a colleague or student of his, who claimed to have heard explicitly racist comments from him. Many in academia consider(ed) him a racist. just as examples. Doug Weller (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. WP:COI is relevant so the best way to improve the balance is by showing good references on the talk page for incorporation into the article. Which brought me here – gives an interesting analysis. . . dave souza, talk 08:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Here's what he had to say in his article, 'What is Race?', in the December, 1957 issue of the Atlantic Monthly:" Did any one else fail to find such an article in that magazine's archive? Did any one else attempt to check that reference? 67.124.201.178 (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "What is Race?" Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 200, No. 4, 1957, pp. 103-108. I have no reason to disbelieve the discussion I had, nor the statements of other academics. Obviously a large part, perhaps most, of his generation was also racist. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Both Criticism, and Disfavor?
It does not make sense to have both a criticism and a disfavor section. Likewise, it does not make sense to include criticism as the second to the last subsection under Coon's own theories. If there are no reasoned objections intend to move the criticism text under the disfavor text, and merge the two as Criticism so there is one section but with no deletion of the curent text. Kja er (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but let's try to understand that the two sections are there to represent two different situations: criticism during his life upon reception of some of his work, and later utter fall into disfavor when racial typology became progressively obsolete. It might be worthwhile to keep the two ideas each with its own header, but in a single section. Just a thought.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "New ideas introduced in work by academicians and scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leonard Lieberman and others, argued that race is not a valid concept with which to classify human biodiversity."
 * LOL
 * And what are these "new ideas" based on? On blatant lies and misinterpretation of facts. 89.235.19.212 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

multiregional evolution
Based on the following summary and the lack of any new reports in this century about Lagar Velho child I feel the paragraph about it should be removed from this article. http://www.pnas.org/content/96/13/7117.full Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution  1. Ian Tattersall*,† and 2. Jeffrey H. Schwartz‡ In summary, the analysis by Duarte et al. of the Lagar Velho child’s skeleton is a brave and imaginative interpretation, of which it is unlikely that a majority of paleoanthropologists will consider proven. The archaeological context of Lagar Velho is that of a typical Gravettian burial, with no sign of Mousterian cultural influence, and the specimen itself lacks not only derived Neanderthal characters but any suggestion of Neanderthal morphology. The probability must thus remain that this is simply a chunky Gravettian child, a descendant of the modern invaders who had evicted the Neanderthals from Iberia several millennia earlier. However, in this contentious and poorly documented field, any new data are eagerly sought, and Duarte et al.’s courageous speculations will doubtless spur much-needed new research. Further I'm taking Boaz out of the group new researchers since Boaz preceded Coon and Coon's work was in part an effort to refute the Boaz school of thought. Finally I'm changing Middle East to Greater Middle East for clarity; I believe Coon meant from Afghanistan across North Africa. Nitpyck (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
I noticed that the criticism section says that pretty much he was not liked; however, all criticism seems to be unspecific as it does not mention why his works were disputed, and on what grounds, just that they were. Where was his thesis criticized? Which of his concepts? And why? And were the other "more advanced" theories better at explained what he "failed" to explain? I say this because criticism sections aren't welcomed in the first place here on Wikipedia, let alone be ambiguous. --136.183.240.185 (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree, criticism sections are common on controversial wikipedia articles, especially if there is a significant amount, which there is here - his views did not find acceptance, and I think this section does a good job of explaining with references to point one in the right direction as to why. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not advocate taking down the criticism section; all I asked was to provide actual criticism of where he was wrong -- no where in the section is explained, so it does not do a "good job of explaining with references to point one in the right direction as to why". --136.183.240.185 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Coon was criticized in large part because many of his specific ideas were contrary to findings of other researchers. If we turn to the most reliable sources, we find that few of the ideas that Coon originated have stood the test of time. That should be reflected in the article, because articles on Wikipedia are to be  verifiable and  neutral in point of view. This article, and many more, still needs to be updated in light of better sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote in "Posthumous reputation" secn
Legitimate use of square brackets in excerpted material is limited to saving the reader's time (usually by reducing text) while providing information about the intent of the source's author (Jackson in this case) that no reasonable reader of the source would dispute. But in this case our editing colleague saved
 * segregationist [and Coon relative] Carleton Putnam,

inserting the bracketed three-word phrase into the otherwise verbatim quotation of the Jackson's complete abstract (p. 247) of the 39-page paper that is the editor's stated source. It is true that Jackson put some significance on the information that Coon and Putnam were relatives. The untitled introductory section ends with two paragraphs (p. 250) that each mention Putnam. One 'graph presents "[interest] in the activities of" Putnam, within the first of his paper's three goals, and presents the second goal as
 * trac[ing] Putnam’s relationship with Carleton Coon [ -- ] a relationship I will argue is much closer than previously thought.

Those two 'graphs set the stage for the first titled section,
 * Carleton Putnam and the "Equalitarian Dogma"

which begins
 * The scion of an established New England family (and a cousin to Carleton Coon), Carleton Putnam ....

It would be easy (the more so if one read little or none of what follows that) to construe his interest as lying in nothing more nor less than that cousinhood (whose number of generations of remoteness goes unspecified by Jackson). Nevertheless, what follows only undercuts that construction. Jackson offers no suggestion that Putnam's solicitations to Coon were premised on their genetic relationship, but plenty that the congruence of their views made sense of Coons assistance to Putnam's project. Jackson's more detailed comment, at p. 255,
 * Coon’s response was to invite Putnam to his home to discuss the matter [of Putnam's writings on race] as well as to see some antiques that had once belonged to their mutual ancestor, Revolutionary War General Israel Putnam....

does not rule out his finding that their genetic link compounded the explicit covertness of their cooperation. But the early mention is of a "cousin", which technically includes anyone with a common ancestor other than a one or both parents (any other human, we now realize!), and he means "a cousin via a traceable common ancestor". And 1904-1718= 186 years suggests Izzy Putnam would have had around 500 descendants in Coon's generation -- if his line reproduced only enough to replace themselves (but didn't marry 1st thru 19th cousins). His failure to go beyond mentioning the fact that the Coon papers implicitly mention that link makes it unlikely that he found it much more than a coincidence; on the other hand, his detailing of forms of assistance of Putnam by Coon and his being satisfied to omit mention of the genealogy in the abstract, make that assistance the obvious object of his concern about the closeness of the relationship. Nevertheless, our colleague has "second-guessed" Sawyer, suggesting an editorial insight that that author intended the genetic relationship to be a major point in the paper, and has abused the reader by implicitly claiming that that unlikely view is essentially a mere rewording, for clarity or grammar, of the abstract. Mention of the genealogy, appropriately subordinated, would IMO be valuable. Mention in the colleague's fashion is a serious error and an instance of OR, and damages the article. I will provide some kind of revision remedying the damage. --Jerzy•t 21:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Biography" secn and related potential refactoring
Ugh! I started trying to relieve the vagueness about TOoR in the Bio secn, without realizing that discussion of Coon's views is scattered in several sections. My draft may be of some value, but I'm not willing to undertake the bigger task of figuring out whether and how to refactor. Its text, following, may help some interested colleague, or not:
 * In his "Introduction", he recounted "decid[ing] that the framework for the study of fossil man should be built in two dimensions, time and space", in contrast to "most other writers", whom he saw as having "ignored or neglected geography." He contrasted them to Franz Weidenreich (died 1948), who had studied what was then called Sinanthropus, and concluded that (in Coon's wording) "From the evolutionary point of view, [he] was more primitive than any known living population [while] racially he was Mongoloid." Coon acknowledged that prevailing professional views saw races as subdivisions of homo sapiens that could arise only after the species itself had evolved, but had drawn on views he attributed to Ernst Mayr, G.G. Simpson, and others, to conclude that - - -

That's based on the Intro, and perhaps fragments of the early pages of the first chapter, which i expected to suffice to elucidate what i understand as a model of "racial characteristics persisting thru each race's evolutionary acquisition, at vastly different times, of the same constellation of traits that constitute a H.-erectus-to-H.-sapiens change of species". Happy editing! --Jerzy•t 04:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo is not Carleton S. Coon
The photo putatively of Carleton S. Coon is that of Alfonso Ribiero. Was the page vandalized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLauckBenson (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)