The lines between sound research and misconception, between mental weakness and fraud, between somebody's being simply misinformed and somebody’s deliberately disinforming others may be often difficult to draw.The earliest mentions of anything specifically "Caucasian" known to me were present in a 1930's biography of one certain Georgian, Josif Dzugashvilli (better known to the world under a quasi-Russian pseudonym Stalin).
The man reportedly could not even speak Russian fluently — a circumstance which could have easily escaped the notice of the Americans, etc., etc., dealing with "the Russians" of the USSR period (sort of "on the margin" note).
That one scion could hardly be considered a credit to anything Georgian ; nor, by extension, to anything Caucasian. Considering the quantities of false data which were entirely deliberately spread round the globe by the Kremlin-controlled propagandist one might do well to gain some understanding of some non-criminal parts of the history of Georgia, the Caucasus, etc.
In the volume mentioned (on that certain embarrassment to the Georgians), 'Caucasian' was applied to some three or four separate nations inhabiting some regions near the Caucasus, which is the name of a range of mountains. This much I know of the matter — and it is not much.
When having seen some more recent mentions of the things "Caucasian" I have usually had a distinct impression that something else was being spoken about. A, or, the, 'white' raceness, so to speak.
From the outset some fundamental questions appear, noted below.
WPT
From The rise and fall of the Caucasian race, Bruce Baum, 2006
“It was . . . . important not to confuse “Caucasian” with “Aryan” or “Indo-European,” since the latter were “linguistic rather than ethnical designations. (Etc.) ”113
(pages 137 and 141)
[ 101. A. H. Keane, Ethnology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1895] 1901 . . . ]
113, ibid., p. 227.Comment This much seems certain : it is "important not to confuse" the linguistic with "ethnical designations".
The reader may observe that a language is a something which can be learned by virtually any person, of any race or ethnic group — possible exceptions not to be considered with any profit to this subject.
The subject of 'race' is yet far more debatable — and it offers a fertile ground for any sorts of troublemaker. (Evidence : the American newspaper ; others).
I have not seen enough of the book referenced to tell whether one could, or could not, consider it a somewhat reliable text on the subject. Not enough emphasis has been placed in it on correcting the fallacies ; and some new fallacies are being mentioned in it. Throw the coin, the reader, on such a proposition as obtaining this volume -- this much I could tell if asked.
WPT