Which Skin Colour Distribution Map is Most Reliable?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reliability of two historical maps depicting the distribution of native human skin color: Biasutti (1940) and Gerland (1896). Participants explore the implications of these maps in light of historical migrations and changes in population demographics, questioning their relevance and accuracy in contemporary contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that both maps show significant divergences and similarities, raising questions about their reliability.
  • There is a concern that assigning geographical distributions of native skin color is outdated due to modern population mobility.
  • Participants discuss the historical context of the maps, emphasizing that they aimed to represent pre-1492 distributions despite the knowledge of migrations since then.
  • One participant highlights the challenge of defining 'native' in regions affected by diseases and immigration, suggesting that current data from living populations and DNA analysis may provide better insights.
  • There is a mention of the striking differences in the depiction of skin color variability across the Americas in both maps, prompting questions about the reality of this variability.
  • Another participant points out the uniform skin color representation in Australia as a contrasting feature agreed upon by both maps.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about finding a modern map of skin color distribution that is more reliable than the historical ones.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views regarding the reliability of the maps, with no clear consensus on which map is more trustworthy. There are competing perspectives on the relevance of historical data in light of contemporary demographic changes.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of the maps due to historical context, the challenges of defining 'native', and the impact of significant historical events on population demographics.

snorkack
Messages
2,388
Reaction score
536
I see 2 commonly quoted maps for distribution of native human skin colour.
Both are old; they have a lot of odd divergences - as well as many matching features, some of which are hard to explain.
One is Biasutti, 1940:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Map_of_skin_hue_equi.png
Another is Gerland, 1896:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human...780_Global_map_of_skin_color_distribution.jpg

Which of these is reliable? Is there any newer map considered more trustworthy?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
snorkack said:
I see 2 commonly quoted maps for distribution of native human skin colour.
Both are old; they have a lot of odd divergences - as well as many matching features, some of which are hard to explain.
One is Biasutti, 1940:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Map_of_skin_hue_equi.png
Another is Gerland, 1896:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human...780_Global_map_of_skin_color_distribution.jpg

Which of these is reliable? Is there any newer map considered more trustworthy?
With populations which are now highly mobile due to a number of factors, it's a bit dated, IMO, to assign some arbitrary geographical distribution of native human skin color, whatever is meant by that.

How has the world changed between 1896, 1940, and 2016? Any significant historical or political events which might have shaken up the "snow globe" over that period of time?
 
SteamKing said:
With populations which are now highly mobile due to a number of factors, it's a bit dated, IMO, to assign some arbitrary geographical distribution of native human skin color, whatever is meant by that.

How has the world changed between 1896, 1940, and 2016?
Both the 1896 and 1940 maps expressly aimed to show the native skin colour distribution. They were very much aware of migrations of people since 1492, and deliberately aimed to show the pre-1492 distribution.
With some conspicuous differences in results.
So which is the correct map?
 
snorkack said:
Both the 1896 and 1940 maps expressly aimed to show the native skin colour distribution. They were very much aware of migrations of people since 1492, and deliberately aimed to show the pre-1492 distribution.
With some conspicuous differences in results.
So which is the correct map?
That's asking a lot. Much of the globe was unexplored in 1492, and certainly the study of population demographics lay far down the scientific road.
 
Sure. But 1896 and 1940 were studies of population demographics. Seeking to get data about native people.
 
Clarification - So to that end, please tell us what are you trying to do, not how you think it should be done.
Here is why:
North America, for example, has been completely undone from 'nativity' (if there is such a thing) by the introduction of Western diseases and technology starting in the 1500's. And subsequent immigration. See J. Diamond 'Guns Germs, and Steel' The same is true in Australia, starting from the 1800's. Brazil, ditto. This list is long. So determining who is 'native' is not based on genetics but stories and fuzzy verbal histories and so on. This is why the approach used to approximate relative DNA for early humans(i.e., neanderthal, Denisovan, and modern humans) is considered most likely to reflect what happened.

So getting a reasonable static picture of native human traits is a huge challenge. IMO. The really good data comes from living people and DNA. Somewhat like the services Ancestry.com and its cousins provide.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pepper Mint
One feature about which the two maps agree is that they show a wide range of native skin colours in Americas.
The patterns, however, are quite strikingly different.
Is the wide variability of native skin colour across Americas a real feature?
 
snorkack said:
Is the wide variability of native skin colour across Americas a real feature?
What native skin color? Are you speaking of native Americans prior to the take over by Europeans? And why?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Fervent Freyja
Evo said:
Are you speaking of native Americans prior to the take over by Europeans?
Yes.
It contrasts with another feature both the maps agree on: uniform skin colour throughout Australia.
 
  • #10
snorkack said:
I see 2 commonly quoted maps for distribution of native human skin colour.
Both are old; they have a lot of odd divergences - as well as many matching features, some of which are hard to explain.
One is Biasutti, 1940:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Map_of_skin_hue_equi.png
Another is Gerland, 1896:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human...780_Global_map_of_skin_color_distribution.jpg

Which of these is reliable? Is there any newer map considered more trustworthy?

I doubt that you will be able to find a modern world map of skin colour distribution.
 

Similar threads

Input/processing aspects of adaptive camouflage
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Requesting suggestions for languages, libraries, and architectures for parallel (and sometimes non parallel) numerical and scientific computations
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K