Talk:The Races of Europe

Untitled

 * Online version here: http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/troe.htm death metal maniac (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It is intresting to note that Ripley & Coon have no proof of their theories. Their work should be moved to fiction section of libraries.


 * Lots of people like to deny racial classification, but science hasn't spoken the final word -- only some politically motivated scientists. Forging scientific conclusions using data which does not support those conclusions is dishonest. There is no proof race is not genetic, and lots of evidence to the contrary. Further, there's no proof that multiculturalism or even pluralism can sustain a society, so maybe your "Progressive" views are more destructive than you think. death metal maniac (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent genetic testing proves their theories Cyrus111 (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The races of Europe was written by William Z. Ripley, not Coon. Coon produced a rewritten and updated version of the text. Paul B 18:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * coons the races of europe was not rewritten, it is a new book. also the article is neutral. If you feel like starting a site about ripleys book go ahead and do it, but it is nowhere as known as this one.
 * It was explicitly commissioned as a rewrite of Ripley's book. Read the intro, Coon himself says it. --Fastfission 01:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

--201.231.161.9 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Coon bias
Im noting anti-Coon politically motivated bias in the addtions to this page. finalaval

Also there is no POV in what im posting, if you dont think so discuss it with the cerator (diocalionite) finalaval.

Before wasting my time discuss here. First of all, I wrote most of this article, second nowehre it says "incredibly brillant",. it goes "incredibly consistent and brillant compared to its predecessors".

HAVE YOU EVEN READ THIS BOOK? I think not. Educate yourself before you post because you really sound like you have no idea what you are talking about - finalaval


 * Please attempt to understand NPOV policy, and to write in an appropriate style. Coon's work is certainly subject to reasonable criticism, as one should expect of a book written so long ago. Paul B 00:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is your "reasonable criticism"? Political motivations in the area of racial research do not have place in a NPOV article. Popularity is not a measure of wether something is right or not. And by the way, stop spreading misinformation and deliberatedly editing my articles.


 * What political motivations? We cannot make statements like "incredibly consistent" and "brilliant" compared to predecessors unless that is a clear consensus view, and then we should provide evidence. Have you read the predecessors - such as Ripley, Grant, Gunther etc? Caeleton Coon's work has been much criticised over the years, and with the rise of DNA studies, its anthropometic basis is further problematised. The articles are not yours. Please sign your posts. Paul B 01:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Im aware of their works, but none of those come even close to where Coon did. Only a blind person could not see the importance of his work and the validity of his morphological observations. Pretty much the metaphor of the puzzle putting together a whole racial history of a continent (and far beyond) is quite valid. A lot of other racial researches even classified people of Upper Paleolithic types as nordics (most notably guenter) and couldnt even grasp the understanding and data Coon gave us. Brillant indeed. --Finalaval 01:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Finalaval, please review our WP:NPOV policy. Your edits are far outside them. --Fastfission 01:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am expecting your argument fastfission, if you have one that is --Finalaval 01:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your "legacy" session is not actually an assessment of how the book(s) were received and what their current status within the scientific/historical communities is now. It is instead a list of why you think the book is great. It has no correlation with our WP:NPOV policy, and you seem to think that any portrayal which takes into account historical context or the opinions of the current scholarly community is an "anti-Coon" bias. --Fastfission 13:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The value section says nothing about me. It merely describes the book and its impact on the world. "scholarly community"? Since when do people get degrees of physical anthropology? Have you evn read this book? Have this "scholars" you mntion read it too? Have they studied similar works? The fact is the book is seen by most physical anthropologists of today as the best of its type. It is quoted widely in dodona or by dienikes for instance, not to mention the SNPA site and so forth. --201.231.161.9 14:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, people do get degrees in physical anthropology. As a field it has come a lot way since 1939, and it's an easy way to take care of one's undergraduate science requirements at some universities (as I can testify to having done, years ago). I've read much of the book and have done historical work on it, as well as Ripley's book, and their reception by the scientific community. I also have read much work on physical anthropology today which discusses Coon's books and theories, and know them to be not respected. The Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology (which is what I assume you mean by SNPA) is not a scholarly organization, I'm fairly certain. Dodona and Dienikes seem to be websites and blogs, not scholars. An example of a scholar who discusses Coon's theories and their biological value is, for example, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, who in The History and Geography of Human Genes discusses Coon's polycentric theories of race specifically (and negatively). There are many anthropologists, geneticists, and historians who have written about Coon and his theories; I'm happy to provide references if you are interested. This is what I mean by "scholars" -- not people who post anonymous websites proclaiming allegiance one historical anthropology over another. --Fastfission 15:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You should show people with degrees in physical anthropology (there are courses of physical anthropology but not degrees in universities) who have critizised Coons work. At any rate, correctness is not a matter of popularity. This site is merely meant as a mirror of Coon and a way to show people "his case". Cavalli Sforza was a geneticist, not a physical anthropologist and his findings nowhere disprove what Coon said. Genetics are largely speculative and are in no position to disprove evident facts such as morphologies on the living. The SNPA is a scholarly organization (or provide any evidence it isnt) started by students of anthropology from Norway. As for Dienikes and dodona I meant them as example of people interested in physical anthropology. Nearly all people interested in this discipline use Coons book as their most important work. I repeat, have you even read The Races of Europe? --201.231.161.9 21:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I already answered your last question, feel free to read it again. In any case, please read our Neutral Point of View and No Original Research policies. We do not report "truth" on Wikipedia, we report first on scholarly consensus and second on fringe views. Cavalli Sforza is a completely relevant figure for this, he is currently regarded as one of the top researchers in the world on the question of human origins, human genetic diversity, and the question of "race" (though he has his critics). SNPA does not list who their founders are on their site, and they have no institutional affiliation. That's a sure sign that they are not a scholarly organization. Being started by three grad students does not make you a scholarly organization in any case. It is pretty clear to me at this point that you have no knowledge of the current scholarly work on anthropology, as you cite only non-scholarly websites and blogs that ascribe to pre-World War II sources. You also seem to misinterpret the point of this encyclopedia entry, it is not "a way to show people 'his case'". Take a look at WP:NOT. --Fastfission 21:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

" SNPA does not list who their founders are on their site, and they have no institutional affiliation. That's a sure sign that they are not a scholarly organization. Being started by three grad students does not make you a scholarly organization in any case" They were shown in a previous version of the site, I recall the last name of one to be Vegard. Now the site is under construction. Scholarity is a matter of using proper sources and reasonable demonstrations, not of "officiality". Cavalli Sforza is insignificant when compared to Coon in matters of race and he himself did not say Coon was wrong definitely, he proposes that he believes the "multiregional" explanation less likely. The common standard today amongs "scholars" is that races dont exist. Cavalli Sforza showed a gear grouping genetically alike people that is usually used to say they do. There is no such thing as a "concesus". As for the "fringe view" label, it already implies a certain POV. Coon deserves an article about him and not what about others think of him, unless of course according to you encyclopedias should be politically edited. Your desire of nobody editing this article merely shows that you have no arguments to against Coons validity (and there are none) and are determined to push anti-Coon namecalling by extreme left wingers and race deniers and so forth. Unsurprisingly, you have not even read the book, but you are quick to prevent people who know about it to edit and inform on its impact and value. Those who dont appeal to reason should not waste my time.''' --Sghn 23:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strange, do you know, you spell "concensus" exactly the same way as Finalaval! Paul B 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * SNPA is not a mainstream anthropological scholarly organization. Such is fairly obvious just from looking at it, as well as the fact that the Nordish race is not a major focus of any current anthropological work (and is a term used by white nationalists and anthropologists from the 1930s exclusively). And yes, labeling things as "fringe" and "mainstream" implies a POV, but if you'd read our policy on NPOV this is explicitly sanctioned. And all of our biographies of controversial people cover what others think of them, Coon is no exception to that. So far there has been no name calling except from you. --Fastfission 02:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Political bias
Fastfisson seems to intend to push anti race bias andother pseudopolitical afiliations in this article. --201.231.161.9 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I intend to make an article on both of these books which satisfies our WP:NPOV and WP:NOR standards, that's all. I think they are both interesting books whose contents should be presented in an encyclopedic manner. I don't have an axe to grind, though the preemptive attack on me as having "pseudopolitical afiliations" (whatever that means) makes me suspect that you do. --Fastfission 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

rather your counter offensive does, by the way i suggest you create an article for ripleys book that can be soolved in "disambiguation". Also I dont inted to go and disrupt whatever Stephen J. Gould and other anti race mythologists do. Show respect for Carleton Coon and the person whos time was spent in the creation of this article. --201.231.161.9 01:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ripley's book was the original "The Races of Europe" and it was the one which Coon was writing his as an update of. I don't at the moment think both need separate entries, we can do them both on one page. There is no need to "show respect" for the subjects of our articles, and my changes to the article are in no way meant to imply disrespect to whomever worked on it. Wikipedia is a place where everyone's content, including my own, is "edited mercilessly" (as the bottom of the edit screen clearly says), and it does not imply respect or disrespect. --Fastfission 13:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Coon wrote an entirely different book, it is not similar to Ripelys in any way. This page was meant by its creator for Coons Races of Europe. Feel free to do one for ripleys book if you wish. And if you neglect the value of his work or ,like somebody else did, say it is bias you are indeed disrespecting him. --201.231.161.9 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what "its creator" wanted -- nobody "owns" articles on Wikipedia (see WP:OWN). Coon's book was explicitly a re-write of Ripley's book; to say it is "not similar to Ripley's in any way" is just false. And again, I could care less if I am "disrespecting" Coon. I am trying to write an encyclopedia entry, it doesn't matter to me who it is or is not respectful to. --Fastfission 13:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does Coon say his book was a rewrite of Ripleys? Can you provide any evidence for such a claim? Even if it were, Ripleys book is entirely different and deserves a different article. Deleting a section of a page about Coons work wont help that. If you are so concerned with Ripleys book go and make a page for it. Your attacks on this site only started after Coon was not difamated or the article given a politically correct disclaimer. If you had true interest in Ripleys work you would have edited it before when the whole thing was what is now "ilirians and dorians". It took me great work to write most of this article and I am determined not to let political bias erase it. --201.231.161.9 13:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that he explicitly says in the preface that he was contacted to do a re-write of Ripley's book. I don't have a copy in front of me at the moment but can rustle one up later in the week when I have some time. Instead of attacking the motivations of other contributors, why don't you work instead to improve the article, rather than reverting to a poorly written and incorrect version of it? You do not own the article, please do not get confused about that fact. --Fastfission 15:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * From three contemporary reviews of Coon's book: "The phrase 'Races of Eruope' recalls to thel ayman the homeland of his ancestors, while to those habituated to libraries, it stands for the most useful book on the subject, Ripley's Races of Eurpe, until now the one ready source of reference. The first writing of Ripley's book was a stupendous job, but hte remaking of the volume by Coon was an even more difficult undertaking." (review in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1939); "Dr. Coon's book is of outstanding importance. It is Ripley's Races of Europe entirely rewritten and brought up to date and the author dedicates the volume appropriate to his predecessor." (review in Man, March-April 1941); "Since the turn of the century, when W.Z. Ripley published his Races of Europe, much water has flowed under the bridge of ethnic research -- turbulent, muddied water which has left, and is leaving, strange precipitates. The present volume [by Coon] on the Races of Europe reports on discoveries and interpretations of the last forty years, seeking white ethnic orgins in Pleistocene Primate forms and tracing progressive racial intricacy through mesolithic, neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age to the present." (review in American Journal of Sociology, 1939). Anyway, in the absence of having the book in front of me at the moment, hopefully you will accept this multi-sourced evidence that Coon's book was, and was even in its time interpretted as being, a re-write of Ripley's book. --Fastfission 15:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

None of those statements are made by Coon, "rewrite" means to those that the books have the same title nothing else. A mention of Ripleys book could be made but it should be solved in disambiguation in a different article.--201.231.161.9 20:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to get the Coon later in the week, just for the joy of proving you wrong on the re-write issue. Surely you don't believe there was a massive conspiracy in 1939 to say that Coon had been commissioned to write a re-write of Ripley's book, and that Coon had even dedicated the book to Ripley? Give me a break. Both books are important, they can both co-exist in the article. You've given no reason that this shouldn't be so except your own ludicrious claims of ownership over the page. --Fastfission 02:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Finding a copy of Coon's Races of Europe will take me a day or so, but I did come across a copy of his 1962 Origin of Races, the introduction of which begins: "In 1933 I was invited to rewrite Professor W. Z. Ripley's classic The Races of Europe (New York: Appleton & Co.; 1899). My completely new version of the book was published by the Macmillan Company in 1939." (Coon 1962, p. vii) Which accords completely with what I have been claiming -- the book was a deliberate re-write of Ripley's, though of course it was a thorough re-write. --Fastfission 15:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions
I see a war brewing in this discussion page. I simply cannot wait for the archives upon archives of argumentative rhetoric. However, I much prefer to see this article expanded and refined. The "neutrality sign" above the article's content does hang like an accursed Damocles Sword. Yet, I do have some suggestions for anyone willing enough to take the time and update the article information in an honest fashion.

Here is a basic list of suggestions:

1) An honest account of the content within Ripley's "Races of Europe".

2) A truthful account of the information contained within Coon's "Races of Europe".

3) A section comparing/contrasting both tomes.

4) A section comparing/contrasting Ripley's and Coon's anthropological methodologies.

5) A section comparing/contrasting Ripley's and Coon's anthropological methodologies to modern anthropological studies/methods.

6) A section discussing the value of both Ripley's and Coon's contributions to academia (be they "controversial" or not).

7) A section discussing the past and present favorable/unfavorable perceptions people had of Ripley's and Coon's respective works.

I do not expect anyone to create all of these sections (or deem them "adequate" in lieu of Wikipedia standards). However, the only way for honesty to prevail in this article is to provide as much information as possible so that readers are more cognizant of both versions of "The Races of Europe". I think the contents of both books should speak for themselves. Afterwards, contributors to this article should provide information about how people today value both book versions.

On a sidenote, I think that the website "Racial Reality" should remain in the article. It is there only as an example of where and how Coon's work is being used. Moreover, the website does provide interesting anthropological/genetic data on various populations across the world. It would truly be a shame to remove something that tries to be as objective as possible (look at the disclaimer if you find my statements to be of "windbag" quality). Of course, I do not expect anyone to agree with me on this point.

I hope that these suggestions are helpful. If not, then ignore them and carry on with the war. I recommend the use of trebuchets, composite bows, and Greek Fire. Don't forget to wear your lorica segmentata. Over and out. - Deucalionite May 15, 2006 12:22 P.M.


 * All of this sounds fine to me. The things which I think this article should definitely have are at least are: 1. brief discussions of the two works, why they were written, the basics of their big, take-away points, and 2. a brief note on their reception at the time and how they are regarded today. I don't have too much time to do this at the moment but should be able to find a little later in the week. --Fastfission 17:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Page protection
I've temporarily special protected this page from editing by new and unregistered. Continual revert warring is not acceptable, nor is continually removing the NPOV template. --Fastfission 21:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And lest anyone think I intend on letting this languish indefinitely, when I get some time later in the week I plan to come back and do a pretty extensive overhaul, adding some of the information discussed in the section above. But I invite others to do so as well, of course, and if any of those incapable of editing the page would like to make suggestions as to content to add, this is a good place to put it. --Fastfission 02:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, let's try unprotecting it and see what happens. Hopefully everyone will play nice and not resume the revert warring. The page has some substantial content at this point so hopefully that will encourage substantive edits rather than reverting to old versions. --Fastfission 23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

TICHONDRIAS GOES ON WITH ANTI COON MALICE
SHAMEFUL HATEMONGERING BY HIM ALREADY REFUTED IN COONS PAGE CLICK HERE FOR REFUTATION. NO NEED FOR FURTHER AGITATION HERE. --201.231.161.9 18:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please learn to work with other editors and to realise that treating Coon as beyond criticism does not help. However, I do have serious problem with the Racial Theories section, which I am moving here. I do think this is a deeply prejudicial account of Coon. The assertion that he believed that "racial types fought for domination and annihilation of other racial types" is not supported by the quotation, which simply asserts the standard Darwinian view that differences in populations lead to differential survival of descendents. It's true that he sees this happening at the level of what he calls "strains", rather than of individuals or specific adaptations. It could be argued that this is a rather equivocal term blurs the distinction between "adaptations" and "families". Other statements are equally biassed. Why should he "embrace" a "Caucasoid identity"? The term "white" is a reasonable one for a book on the Races of Europe intended for a general readership. Likewise, it's reasonable in a book on European races to say that more research should be done on this particular subject. This statement is distorted to make it seem as though he is saying that only white people are worth studying ("He did not consider studying non-White races to be of high importance") The last para simply asserts Coon's well known view that the different races evolved into modern humans following parallel but separate developments. Saying "Carleton Coon believed Whites followed a separate evolutionary path from other humans" is neither more or less true than saying "Carleton Coon believed Blacks followed a separate evolutionary path from other humans". In any case it's a truism, since he obvious belived that racial difference evolved. It's difficult to see how differentiations can occur without following a "separate evolutionary path".Paul B 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure that Coon did believe that different racial groups fought for dominance (he says the same thing in his later works), but I do not think that this in and of itself necessarily deserves the attention it is given here (it is not an idea new with Coon -- Darwin had similar beliefs, that different races of humans would interact and dominant groups would win). I haven't had a chance to go over his version of ROE yet but I should be able to this week. IMO the most important thing to talk about with Coon is the "different evolutionary branches"/candalabra model of race, but I am fairly sure that doesn't come up until his later works? I'll take a look at Coon's book soon and will hopefully be able to hash out a more-or-less fair summary of the main points which is in between the two poles of Coon-worship and total dislike for Coon. --Fastfission 01:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and 201..., please don't revert to really old versions of the page. If the current page needs work, that's fine, one can do the work or otherwise mark it. But simply reverting to an old and at this point very out-of-date and very poor version of the page is not going to help anything, and will without a doubt will be just reverted itself. --Fastfission 01:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

confused about article.
Upper paleo survivors are modern/neanderthal hybrids? Is there any proof of that from genetic studies of modern descendants?
 * None whatever, and rather more to the contrary. That's was just Coon's view at the time he wrote the book. Paul B 12:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By survivors, Coon meant "recombinations". I don't think any anthropologists in the twentieth century thought pure lineal descents existed. Ledboots (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nordic theory is out of place.
There should not be a link to the "Nordic theory" in this article, as this article is based primarily on scientific anthropology of which its conclusions do not by any means coincide with those of Nordicism.

language
Cyrus, why are you repeatedly adding the following?:

"Some of Coons racial description or theories regarding language are today obsolete, in which it has no basis on modern genetic or language studies".

What "racial description or theories regarding language" are these? I know of none. If you cannot say what they are, then the passage, which is gnomic at best, has no place here. Paul B (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh what a surprise. It turns out to be about Iranians. I never would have guessed. I assume you are referring to the statement that "Although the Persians derive their language from Nordics who entered the Iranian plateau from the plains to the north, there is little evidence of Nordic blood in the population except as it appears rarely among individuals." In other words he is replicating the model that IE expanded into Persia from Central Asia, which was a common view at the time and now, but with the difference that the expanding group is defined as "Nordics", and adding that the Persians are predominently of the so-called "Mediterranean race", which was also normative in the period. This is a single sentence, which simply fits with models of the period. I doubt that it is significant enough to mention (there are many many passages with similar statements based on normative views at the time that are now questionable or downright obsolete). It does not justify a gnomic, unexplained utterence in the lede which actually tells us nothing of substance, since we aren't even told what these "theories regarding language" are. If you think that it is worth adding, do so in the body of the text. Paul B (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "He is confusing Nordic Iranian with Nordics"? What does that mean? He is saying that that speakers of IE were "Nordic", a racial category of the period. The concept of "kurgans" did not really exist when he was writing. His model is somewhat similar to Grant's - as illustrated by this map which depicts the supposed extent of Nordic (pink) populations at the time of IE expansion. Paul B (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting for a response. If no meaningful engagement with these points is forthcoming I will edit accordingly. Paul B (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Nordics" shown in red are not traced to the main massif of the pontic/caspian, if thats where the PIE homeland was, as recent genetic puts it closer and closer to Iran, right now caucasus is in focus as well. The original population are thought to be mongolic however not mongolic as in east asian but "Eurasian". One theory finds strong support in modern genetics, which shows today's Nordics to have comparatively little Indo-European ancestry. 

The question is what does he equate with Nordic? Is he implying the continental Nordics shown in pink? These would be Nordic Iranians or does he mean Nordics of Northern Europe? Which have nothing to do with the Persian language, If anything Germanic being a Indoeuropean lang received their lang from R1a1 Iranian Scythian tribes, as not to say the lang have undergone some changes since... If Implying the continental nordics his theory has some validity as these would reflect the Iranian Scythians ass with r1a1. He is also wrong if he means that the Nordics, here implying perhaps "white people" are rare in Iran as there are millions found in Iran these would be R1b (Turkic/European) not to be confused with Indo-European. Still not to be confused "Nordish of Northern Europe" as haplotypes here are shared with finns, such as I1a, U5 as a detailed nuclear genetic study has implied as well as "depigmentation" not being a northern hemisphere or nordish trait alone  Cyrus111 (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

=
========

Where on earth does Coon attempt relate Illyrians to Dorians and further more, where does he make the slightest reference to "language, national costume, belligerent tendencies, tribal orders and vendettas." Enough already with this ridiculous spreading of Albanian propaganda and celebrations of inferiority complexes !!! (Phallanx (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

TRoE: Upper Palaeolithic conclusions are flawed
As Ernest Hooton put it, The Races of Europe is an "excellent survey" ... but nothing more. Statistical analysis performed on skeletal evidence and on the living provide great detail, but various asserted conclusions and thesis are incorrect. The biologic principles used to support some claims upon closer inspection were omitted in other similar claims. In Ch 7, Sec 2 Coon states: "In admitting the partially Neanderthaloid character of Upper Palaeolithic man (which is no new theory), we must accept at the same time some genetic principles which apply to modern primary crosses between distant races, as well as to these ancient interspecific mixtures. Although blending is the rule in most characters, simple dominance appears in a few; while major changes in size appear through this mixing." with a reference given to Shapiro's “The Heritage of the Bounty”. What Coon does not consider with anything beyond this passage regarding Neanderthal-sapiens intermixture, a "reasonably stable hybrid race" (Ch 2, Sec 12), is that preceding elements - two (in this case, Neanderthal and sapiens) end types - blend to form Upper Palaeolithic man (i.e. Cro-Magnon, Brünn, etc).

In Shapiro's reference, in various chapters of TRoE, and in the Photographic Supplement, one fundamental element of the principle in question is that even in a highly stable blended population, end types will reëmerge. Coon cites examples of end and/or intermediate types in Plates 3 & 30 (Chuvash), plate 5 (fig 1), he discusses it in Ch 11, Sec 8 with Nilotic/Hamitics. Shapiro's work on 6th generation Pitcairn Islanders also maintains the basic principle that even within populations of "hybrids of considerable stability" (Ch 11 / Sec 6 and plate 35, regarding Dinarics), the vast majority of hybrids are intermediate, either stable or variable, and a few of the end types will always be present. That is the basic thesis.

It is rather contradictory in Coon's assertion that Neanderthal and sapiens intermixed. Examining the Irish population, in Ch 10, Sec 2 Coon declares: “The living composite Irishman is not a pure Crô-Magnon or Brünn-Predmost man, but it would be no exaggeration to say that, from a metrical standpoint, at least half of his genetic ancestry is to be derived from such a source.” Considering the hybrid principle, and with such a profound influence of Upper Palaeolithic genes manifest in bodily composition of so many Irish, the question remains: why are there not extremely rare examples of Neanderthaloids amongst the living Irish? If rare pure whites and Veddoids are isolated amongst the mixed Somali's (Ch 11 / Sec 8 & Photographic Supplement, Plate 20); if a rare Corded individual can be isolated amongst Danes (Photographic Supplement, Plate 27, fig 3), why not a Neanderthaloid amongst the Irish, as Coon himself professed that the same principle must be followed for "ancient interspecific mixtures" as modern (distant) races? Simply put: the intermixture did not take place. It could not have, if adherence to this principle is to be universally applied. Hybrids likely took place between the two, similar to Mt Carmel and Skhul in gross morphology, but were sterile. All of the hybrid evidence in this book can only be offered counter to, not in support, of Coon's claim of a Neanderthal-sapiens (Combe-Capelle) hybrid, demonstrated by a lack of atavistic evidence amongst the living rather than by skeletal remains that take a supposed intermediate metrical position, followed by mere assumptions. Ledboots (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are trying to prove that the Irish are not in fact descended from Neanderthals, congratulations. Does this help the article in some way? Coon's theories are hopelessly obsolete. We have genetics these days. Paul B (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! But of course, my intent is to show that even amongst a population that supposedly has such a tremendous concentration of a reemerged Upper Palaeolithic, no rare individual end-type was isolated and plated, though other rare end-types were; yet all should theoretically follow the same (Mendellian) principle. Hence, any other population would be more difficult to isolate an end-type. These oversights were published defacto before DNA profiling made his theories obsolete post facto. The genetic argument has been used to support both sides of the debate, has it not? It seems a section on objective criticisms may help the article. Ledboots (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Both sides' are what in this case? Can you be more specific about what 'debate' you mean? Paul B (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Neanderthal genome project at least on a preliminary basis concluded that Neanderthal intermixture with modern humans did not occur. Yet, reference #6 in this article, for example, suggests that 5% of European DNA may be Neanderthal. Common sense and basic Mendelian genetics should dictate that such a large quantity of DNA would likely give rise to at least a rare, and publicized, recombinant Neanderthaloid individual. But those are the sides I am referring to. Ledboots (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither common sense nor Mendelism suggest any such thing. Your comments are WP:OR.Paul B (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would like to elaborate rather than simply disagree. Ledboots (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Read WP:OR. You cannot create your own conclusions on the basis of your own thought processes - or rather you can't include them in Wikipedia articles. You are synthesising your own idiosyncratic interpretation of Mendelian genetics with other evidence to create an assertion that a "Neanderthal"-like individual would at some point be born if humans had inherited a small amount of DNA from an ancient Neanderthal population. That's like saying that an Australopithecus should be born every so often if humans descended from them. DNA constantly undergoes mutation and selection. That's evolution. You seem to be arguing that every so often all the "bits" of Neanderthal DNA floating around would, by chance, join together in a child and a Neanderthal would be reborn. Is that it? Paul B (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no! We are not talkng about the same thing. There was no evolutionary process involved between sapiens and Neanderthal - it was hybridization! Or at least that what was being asserted. And those principles were ignored; it's there black and white. A reference was provided regarding Shapiro's Pitcairn Islanders; he rated them on appearance with "English" and "Tahitians" being the end types; individuals were included within the entire range, of course, most being "intermediate" in phenotypes. There are multiple examples in the book as well, especially regarding the fringe/clinal areas of white settlement, namely Asia and Africa. The intermixture between Combe-Capelle and Neanderthal is clearly referenced by Coon using Mendellian principles; he did not completely follow those principles and only considered the "intermediate" form referred to as Upper Palaeolithic. We see all around us in nature, atavism, ferrel populations (pigs, pigeons, etc) - returns to ancestral types. We are not talking about evolution here, my friend! Ledboots (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not remotely clear what you are talking about. Evolution occurs all the time and phenotype is subject to strong selective pressure. When Coon talks about racial hybrids he is speaking in terms relevant to the models of race existing at the time - in the 1930s. He envisages types emerging at various points in history and then intermingling. This process is supposed to visible in phenotype. All this is obsolete science in any case. If we are to include criticism, it must be from reviewers and commentators at the time, or from modern experts looking back at Coon's assumptions in the light of modern science. In any case we can only include experts, not your own personal theories. Paul B (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that makes two of us, because I'm not remotely clear about what your talking about either. The last 30,000 years or so since the supposed hybridization took place, is an evolutionary blink of an eye. How much change do you think took place since then? And if supposed to be visible in phenotype, then that takes us back to my original point and the principle involving hybridization - two end types reemerging with intermediates predominating. At any rate, we'll leave it as POV. Ledboots (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at how fast dramatic phenotypical changes can occur in dogs, for example. All those dramatically different breeds have occured in very recent history. In humans differentiating 'racial' features such as skin colour and nose shape have probably evolved quite recently. Selective pressure can work rapidly. In any case your opinions are OR. GEDDIT???? Paul B (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But various breeds of dog are bred-back to produced a wolf appearance - the ancestral breed! For example, Northern Inuit Dog. Your knowledge seems limited in this area. And whether this OR or not, please DON'T SHOUT!! It's rude and only professes ones ignorance. Ledboots (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I will have to shout if you don't bother to read WP:OR. The dogs are not "bred back", a meaningless phrase. The results of selective breeding can also be produced by natural selection if there is strong selective pressure. A feral group of laboradors would not "revert" to a wolf by some atavistic mechanism, but natural selection would soon work to create physical changes advantagous to survival. You simply are not getting the point and it is clearly absurd trying to reason with you. Paul B (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Go back to my comment about being rude; this is the discussion page, free to engage in any type of discourse, correct? Especialy since I already agreed about POV. I recommend you take a look at what Mendel had to say about cross-bred reversions. I also recommend you check out back breeding, although I am referring more to individual ancestral types rather than populations; there is a different mechanism between the two, but the end result is similar. Ledboots (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I recommend you get some idea what Wikipedia is about and why. You clearly know nothing whatever about genetics, and I doubt you've ever read a word of Mendel. If you did have a real interest or knowledge in tis area you would be contributing to relevant pages, not archaic musings on race. Paul B (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean to the degree that you contribute to articles pertaining to archaic notions on race, to the point that you insist on editing the number of colons preceding my comments? And what might your motivation be other than being annoying to people? At least I can say I'm very familiar with this book by a prominent classic anthropologist, well regarded 4 or so decades ago, and still relevant to disciplines such as forensic physical anthropology. Ledboots (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The number of colons indicates the progress of dialogue. It's part of talk page "etiquette" for clarity. My motivation is to improve the encyclopedia and follow its rules where applicable. Paul B (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Illyrians as Dorians
This section seems to be advancing some cause independent of the general theme of the article and should be removed. Ledboots (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)