Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Subraces - A Well Established Science?

  1. #1
    Captain Nemo - SF

    Subraces - A Well Established Science?

    Most of the Skadi members seem to subscribe to theories of subraces, how they evolved, and were divided inside later ethnic and linguistic groups.

    I'm not very familiar with anthroplogy, so I would like to ask if this is a well established scientific theory?

    Is it recognised and widely accepted by modern anthroplogy, or are those some theories created or propagated by the Nazis.

    How solid are the scientific foundations of that or these subrace theories, their statistical base, methodology etc?
    Is there solid correlations with modern genetical science?

    Some time ago I stumbled on a web site with a really extensive collection of photos, supposedly corroborating subraces theory. I don't remember its web adress.
    Probably from some old book, as those were obviously old black and white images.

    I was supremely unimpressed by the site, as many of the comments under the photos were really, really arbitrary and even plainly wrong in their descriptive dimension.

    So if the subraces theory is based on "facts" like that, it would appear very arbitrary to me.

    So, are the scientific foundations of that theory and approach to anthroplogy solid?

    Are they accepted by the scientific community?

  2. #2


    I'm in a bit of a hurry today but even WELL before World War 2, race classifying was common place. When new ancient humans were discovered they looked at the skull shape and classified them according to skull shape. Read the book Rise of the Celts written around the first world war- and which discusses skull shapes of ancient Celtic tribes. Humans are descendant from many different sources like Neanderthals and Cro-magninds- BOTH OF WHICH are evident in European human classifying. Look at the occipital bun that occurs common place in Scandinavia- a Neanderthal trait. Look at the robust cro-magnid features that are evident in certain populations in Ireland (Brunn) or Northern Germany (Dalo-Falid).

    The more I learned about sub-race classifying the more practical it has been for me. (In fact, I'd even say that on average different sub-races have different behavioral traits on average; Brunn vs. Hallstatt for example- but data on this hasn't been studied yet.)

    And yes many people are combinations of different sub-races but within different geographic regions certain sub-races dominate the percentages of population like Alpinids in Switerland, or Hallstatts in Sweden, or Gracile-Med in southern Italy, or Baltid in Prussia.

    The facts that the subraces are based on are skull sizes, facial features and pigmentation. These are all measurable and when a random sample of people are categorized throughout all of europe vastly different sub-races emerge and are identifiably (obviously) different. Keep in mind that most people have influence of more than one sub-race.

    So, are the scientific foundations of that theory and approach to anthropology solid? Yes. But some people don't agree with some of the more classifying methods- for example, one classifier created a group called North-Atlantids, which are slightly narrower skulled (CI less than 74.9 and lighter pigmentation) and Atlantid (CI less than 74.9 and lighter pigmentation) to differentiate between Atlanto-Meds. Some people think all three of these categories belong in one sub-race called atlantonordid.

    Anyways, there are distinct sizes that different classifiers use- Coon for example- to describe the different sub-races. These size differences measure many different areas of the skull.
    Here is an example,...

    There is a great thread post on here that details the different measurement differences between ALL European sub-races but I cannot find the thread right now.

    Are they accepted by the scientific community? Yes, but there is an aversion to going into too much detail probably to try to distance themselves from the detail given by Nazi race studies. For example, when finding new human remains they typically refer to new found remains as simply "Mesocephelic" and do not publicly give more size measurements and definitively do not look for any relation to current modern day human populations in the area.

    I had my doubts just like you did at first but after reading the measurements and viewing differences from Russia to Iceland to Spain to Greece- clearly there are differences and this form of classifying describes much of it.

    If I were you a good intro book would be Coons "the Races of Europe".

    Also check this site...
    click on gallery click on the picture then click on the sub type

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Anselm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011 @ 05:44 AM
    Scotland, and England
    United States United States
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    The truth doesn't change. Your race can be determined from your bones long after you're dead, so it's deeper than skin. Subraces are real.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, December 10th, 2016, 10:32 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, August 5th, 2011, 11:41 PM
  3. Is Science Racist? Liberals Want to Drop Science Classes
    By Nachtengel in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 02:40 PM
  4. Questions About Subraces
    By Blood Bound in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Wednesday, October 29th, 2008, 03:20 AM
  5. How to Distinguish Subraces?
    By manvatara in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Tuesday, November 9th, 2004, 07:57 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts