Difficulties with skulls

On page 196 of “Race” by John Baker, we are presented with the following representations of an Eskimo skull versus a Lapp skull:
While I have no reason to suspect that the Eskimo is not typical of his race, I have my doubts about the Lapp.  It is difficult for me to imagine what such a person might have looked like, at least as an adult.  An 1884 expedition by Prince Roland Bonaparte involved photographing quite a few Lapps.  Browsing through the photos, the Lapps do appear to be mixed – to the point where I don’t see how any one of them could be described as “typical Lapp”.
But back to the Eskimo skull, he resembles somebody we all know: Kennewick Man.
I cannot take full credit for this; a poster at Mathilda’s Anthropology blog, who calls himself Salsassin,  brought up the similarity though he did not include any illustrations.  So all the hoopla over Kennewick Man being European might have been for naught.  How could all the scientists who studied Kennewick’s remains have missed this?  Either Salsassin and myself are missing something or those scientists are not familiar with Eskimo skulls.

This entry was posted in racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Difficulties with skulls

  1. Valkea says:

    Having been in Lapland several times, I have never seen people like e.g. in plate 39 and 48. 39 could be found in far east and 48 looks like a negroid mixture. Suspicious. At that time anthropology was politicized, but the goal was then to exaggerate differences, opposite what it is now; to exaggerate similarity.

    • Gaurav Ahuja says:

      How much politics could you put in the differences between the people of Lapland and Inuit/Eskimos? I do not believe the exaggeration of difference in the past was nearly as strong as the exaggeration of similarity during the present time.

      • jewamongyou says:

        The politics come in by way of who you select to photograph and who you ignore/reject. As for the “Lapp” skull shown by John Baker, I have no idea whether it is authentic, fake, some sort of malformed individual or if Baker had an agenda in showing it.

    • jewamongyou says:

      I agree and I also agree with Gaurav that today’s goal of exaggerating similarities is much stronger than yesteryear’s goal of exaggerating differences. I also noticed that #48 looks out of place but I doubt that those photos were falsified – though they could have been selected with a goal in mind.
      Valkea, since you are familiar with Lapland and the Lapps, would you tell us if you have ever seen a Lapp with features similar to those shown in the “Lapp” skull from Baker’s book? Thanks!

  2. niggerbehindyou says:

    Hobbyist-blog-anthropology is a joke. It’s plagued with people relying on old, poor research, and picking random individuals as arbitrary “holotypes” of ill-defined/fantasized populations, while never even bothering to describe the supposed significant similarities in instances like this, versus Kennewick man and other native-Americans. It’s mostly gut feelings and ignorance assisted by jargon and random snippets of information.
    “Reanalysis of W. W. Howells’ worldwide modern human craniometric data set29 (Supplementary Information 9) shows that biological population affinities of individual specimens cannot be resolved with any statistical certainty. Although our individual-based craniometric analyses confirm that Kennewick Man tends to be more similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples than to Native Americans, Kennewick Man’s pattern of craniometric affinity falls well within the range of affinity patterns evaluated for individual Native Americans (Supplementary Information 9). For example, the Arikara from North Dakota (the Native American tribe representing the geographically closest population in Howells’ data set to Kennewick), exhibit with high frequency closest affinities with Polynesians (Supplementary Information 9). Yet, the Arikara have typical Native-American mitochondrial DNA haplogroups30, as does Kennewick Man. We conclude that the currently available number of independent phenetic markers is too small, and within-population craniometric variation too large, to permit reliable reconstruction of the biological population affinities of Kennewick Man.”
    But probably the researchers are cultural marxist jew-nigger-feminist-faggots conspirators, as well as “Nature” itself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *