Maps listed in chronological order. I’ll put an asterisk* next to the most accurate maps and will explain why the inaccurate ones are wrong. Will update this article if I find any more.

James Reynolds, Physical Geography
Country: England

This map includes some cool skull pictures. The weird dark patches symbolize population density. In earlier maps, Finnic Europeans and Hungarians are often labeled as “Mongoloids,” even though they are genetically ~95% European. This is because they speak Uralic languages and have some Siberian/Turkic ancestry. Interestingly, the map below recognizes Australo-Melanesians as being distinct from Africans, which is rare for an early map.

Alexander Keith Johnson, Atlas of Physical Geography
Country: Scotland

Earlier maps often grouped Indo-European language speakers (including Indo-Iranians) under one Caucasoid sub-race, in contrast to Afro-Asiatic speakers. Indo-Europeanism was huge throughout Europe in the 1800s, as the language family had recently been discovered by the Anglo philologist William Jones. Indo-Iranians are genetically and culturally closer to other Middle Easterners but are notably distinct from Arabs and North Africans.

Source Unknown
Country: Italy
Date: 1853

In typical Italian style, this map includes an illustrated fashion show of folk costumes from around the world. Although it inaccurately groups Southeast Asians under the Australo-Melanesian category, SEA do have some Australoid admixture.

Edinburg Geographical Institute
Country: Scotland
Date: Mid 1800s (?)

Uses three races instead of five. Amerindians and Australoids can (and should) be classed as distinct populations.

T. H. Huxley, On the Geographical Distribution of Mankind
Country: England
Date: 1870

Jumbles up major and minor races, e.g. Polynesian should come under Mongoloid, Melanasian under Australoid. The divisions seem arbitrary. For example, Central Asians are grouped under Mongoloid while Eskimos are listed as a separate race. Not a good map, especially for someone as prestigious as Darwin’s bulldog.

Meyers Konversations-Lexikon (Encyclopedia) *
Country: Germany
Date: 1885

Good map for its age, though it still lists European Finnic peoples as “Mongoloid” and Central Asians should be distinct from Siberian Asians (“Nordmongolen”).

Source unknown
Country: France
Date: 1902

Not bad.

Source unknown *
Country: Anglosphere (America?)
Date: 1967

The inclusion of theorized migration routes is a nice touch and the mention that some racial groups are “hybrids” between the five major races is good (this has been confirmed by modern genetics), though it would be improved by not using the simplistic three-way “white/yellow/black” classification. Finnic Europeans have finally been correctly classified as European.

Source unknown *
Country: Ukraine
Date: 1978

Very nicely made map, the inclusion of portraits is helpful and it’s easy to understand even for people who can’t read Cyrillic. Bottom left is population density.

Source unknown
Country: Russia (?)
Date: 1985

Excessive number of categories.

Source unknown *
Country: Russia (?)
Date: 1980s (?)

Looks good except for Southern Europeans being classified as Middle Easterners. Genetic analysis has shown that European Meds and MENA Meds are distinct populations. Southeast Asians are technically a Mongoloid-Australoid hybrid, to a minor degree, but the Madagascans aren’t (they’re African + East Asian).

Unknown school textbook
Country: Germany
Date: 1990s (?)

They got Adamanese Islanders and Veddoids (India) down as Australoids, which is good but, for some reason, Pygmies and Khoisan are under the same color label, which is nonsense.

Westermann (?) *
Country: Slovenia
Date: 2004

Source unknown
Country: Poland
Date: 2016 (?)

Map says 2016 but it looks older. Caucasus people are more closely related to Iranians than Europeans but looks okay otherwise.

Okay, that’s all I’ve found, for now. If you find any more good maps, post them in comments.