About old anthropology studies

**Tommy Vercetti** · Wednesday, January 28th, 2004

Couple of weeks ago i coincidently found this forum, and since i've been reading this stuff(racial classifications, anthropological studies etc).I have noticed that classifications made here are based on many decades old studies.My observations characteristics of people are contradiction with those studies(Coon etc..).

I live in Finland in province of Carelia and all my ancestors are Carelian.According to Coons mean head length of Carelians for example is 188mm and mean stature somewhat 170cm.So ihad to take measuring devices and start working.After numberous and careful measurements i got results

head length:203mm
head breadth:157mm
stature:179cm

and I consider myself as a little among other people.According to coons I'm big, which I am not.

My conlusion is that old anthropometric data cannot be valid today.

Opinions

**nordic_canadian_male** · Wednesday, January 28th, 2004

First of all you can not measure your own skull, when the distance is calculated in mm it's very easy to get a head lenth of 203, when it's more like 196 mm. I also recommend taking 20 very accurate measurements then going with the median.

It's true though people have gotten taller and longer-headed and it would be great if we had up to date data, but we don't,so i guess we should discuss any question about anthropology on this forum and come to a decent conclusion. I do totally understand what your trying to say though.

**Tommy Vercetti** · Wednesday, January 28th, 2004

Originally Posted by nordic_canadian_male

First of all you can not measure your own skull, when the distance is calculated in mm it's very easy to get a head lenth of 203, when it's more like 196 mm. I also recommend taking 20 very accurate measurements then going with the median.

That part I don't quite understand.Head have some length, breadth and other dimensions.If you do measurements correctly by the standards, it should not matter what the increments are, mm:s or inches or whatever.

at least 10 measurements were taken by sliding caliber by someone else than me.

**Allenson** · Wednesday, January 28th, 2004

Originally Posted by nordic_canadian_male

First of all you can not measure your own skull, when the distance is calculated in mm it's very easy to get a head lenth of 203, when it's more like 196 mm. I also recommend taking 20 very accurate measurements then going with the median.

Well, one can measure themselves but yes, it can be tricky. I've done it dozens of times and always come within a mm or two of other attempts.

I agree that one should take measurements many times over and take an average of all results.

@haviaja,

Indeed, people have become larger since the "golden age" of physical anthropology...especially so in Europe and North America from what I've read (I don't actually know if this is true or not for Asia, Africa, etc...).

That being said, I wouldn't disregard all older anthropometric data....just use it with a careful mind and eye.

**nordic_canadian_male** · Wednesday, January 28th, 2004

I think that a more seasoned person can definetley measure themselves, but when your just starting out,you might need a hand depending on your own experience or lack there of. I was wondering what other members used to measure themselves besides a ruler. I myself made good use of my salad thong or fork whatever it's called. It was pretty good cause it had a a locking mechanism, but mostly i used multiple rulers and my desk. Pressed the ruler against one end of the desk, put my head in the middle and crushed it with another ruler to get a measurement.

**Tommy Vercetti** · Wednesday, January 28th, 2004

Measurements were taken several times with helping hand and many times.
those results are pretty accurate.When following standards and correct procedurse it should not matter whether the increments are, mm:s or something else.

**Tommy Vercetti** · Wednesday, January 28th, 2004

Sorry, it seems that my posts come about 1 hour late

browser is screwing me or something..

**Dr. Solar Wolff** · Friday, January 30th, 2004

Haviaja,

Coon is definately "old anthropology" but this information can be used in conjunction with the new anthropology/genetics to give us new insights. This, in my opinion, is one reason for this forum.

Coon published Races of Europe in 1939 but the metrical studies he cites are older. Many are from the previous century. Migrations after WW2 changed many things. Improved nutrition changes things. The statistical information Coon used was gathered from a VARIETY of sources. In your discussion above, you see how hard it is to compare measurements taken by two individuals. One study in the 1970s tried to show that one person measuring the same thing can get more than one measurement, so taking measurements is not an exact science. Still, as I remember, the measurements Coon used for northernmost Europe were among the best.