Originally Posted by
GeistFaust
I say don't trust many of these old timers, although they were trailblazers in terms of laying the groundworks to understand the concept of sub-types in a more detailed fashion. Coon likes to generalize things too much, and I think that although he does a good job at identifying and positioning types into a geographical region, he does a poor job at differentiating.
The reason for this is because he puts multiple sub-types into a larger category instead of differentiating them in a much more detailed manner. Lundmann and Eickstedt are a good read, but the terminology might leave you hanging if you compare it with the standard terminology we deal with in terms of sub-types.
Hans Gunther is one of great anthropologists that I have read, but I think some people can find him to Romanticize and Mythologize things too much. His ties with the Nazis also get him branded a bit as a negative figure, but he has many good things to say. Von Eickstedt has a wide range of anthropological knowledge, and he took many different trips throughout the world, which gave him first hand accounts of his anthropological subjects.
I would read people like Agrippa though who have constructed a very systematic methodology and format for anthropological investigations. I would advise you to research what he has to say, and don't forget people will tell you that you are not truly classifying people in a scientific manner on here. Don't listen to them, because using measuring devices to figure things out is an overrated method in my opinion.
Bookmarks