Sa terms distin a seri once i collec A amu Em Exc gassiz d waiters. s of his nguished s ies of 600 inhabited ction, by i A uel mpiri cerpt fr S did not sp . In the s visit to scientist a 0 skulls, m d all of Am itself, is w Geo icist rom the tephen pend all h ame lette the ana and physi most of I merica. No worth a tr org t of P e Misme n Jay G his time i er to his atomical ician Sam Indians fr othing lik rip to Am ge M Poly easure o Gould in Philad mother, collectio muel Geor rom all tr e it exists erica" (Ag Mor ygen of Man elphia re he wrote on of Ph rge Morto ribes who s anywhe gassiz to rton ny eviling bla e in glowi hiladelphi on: "Imagi o inhabit re else. T his moth n ack ing ia's ine or his her,
Transcript
Sa
termsdistina serionceicollec
A
amuEm
Exc
gassizdwaiters.
s of hisnguishedsiesof600inhabitedction,byi
A
uel mpiri
cerpt fr
S
didnot sp. In the svisit toscientista0 skulls,mdallofAmitself,isw
Geoicistrom the
tephen
pendall hame lettethe ana
andphysimostof Imerica.Noworthatr
orgt of Pe Misme
n Jay G
his time ier tohisatomicalicianSamIndians frothinglikriptoAm
ge MPolyeasure o
Gould
inPhiladmother,collectio
muelGeorromall treitexistserica"(Ag
Morygenof Man
elphia rehewroteon of PhrgeMortoribeswhosanywhegassizto
rtonny
evilingblae in glowihiladelphion:"Imagio inhabitreelse.Thismoth
n
ackingia'sineorhisher,
December 1846, translated from the original letter in HoughtonLibrary,HarvardUniversity).
Agassizspeculatedfreelyandatlength,butheamassednodatatosupport his polygenic theory. Morton, a Philadelphia patrician withtwomedicaldegrees—onefromfashionableEdinburgh—providedthe"facts" that won worldwide respect for the "American school" ofpolygeny.Mortonbeganhiscollectionofhumanskullsinthe1820s;hehad more than one thousand when he died in 1851. Friends (andenemies) referred to his great charnel house as "the AmericanGolgotha."
Morton won his reputation as the great data‐gatherer andobjectivistofAmericanscience,themanwhowouldraiseanimmatureenterprise from the mires of fanciful speculation. Oliver WendellHolmespraisedMortonfor"thesevereandcautiouscharacter"ofhisworks,which"fromtheirverynaturearepermanentdataforallfuturestudentsofethnology" (inStanton,1960,p.96).ThesameHumboldtwhohadassertedtheinherentequalityofallraceswrote:
Thecraniologicaltreasureswhichyouhavebeensofortunateastounite in your collection, have in you found a worthy interpreter.Yourworkisequallyremarkablefortheprofundityofitsanatomicalviews,thenumericaldetailoftherelationsoforganicconformation,and the absence of those poetical reverieswhich are themyths ofmodernphysiology(inMeigs,1851,p.48).
When Morton died in 1851, the New York Tribune wrote that"probably no scientific man in America enjoyed a higher reputationamong scholars throughout theworld, thanDr.Morton" (in Stanton,1960,p.144).
Yet Morton gathered skulls neither for the dilettante's motive ofabstract interest nor the taxonomist's zeal for completerepresentation. He had a hypothesis to test: that a ranking of races
could be established objectively by physical characteristics of thebrain,particularlybyitssize.Mortontookaspecial interest innativeAmericans.AsGeorgeCombe,hisferventfriendandsupporter,wrote:
Oneofthemostsingularfeaturesinthehistoryofthiscontinent,is,that the aboriginal races, with few exceptions, have perished orconstantly receded, before the Anglo‐Saxon race, and have in noinstance either mingled with them as equals, or adopted theirmannersandcivilization.Thesephenomenamusthaveacause;andcananyinquirybeatoncemoreinterestingandphilosophicalthanthatwhichendeavorstoascertainwhetherthatcausebeconnectedwithadifferenceinthebrainbetweenthenativeAmericanrace,andtheirconqueringinvaders(CombeandCoates,inreviewofMorton'sCraniaAmericana,1840,p.352).
Moreover,Combeargued thatMorton's collectionwouldacquiretruescientificvalueonlyifmentalandmoralworthcouldbereadfrombrains: "If this doctrine be unfounded, these skulls aremere facts inNaturalHistory,presentingnoparticularinformationastothementalqualities of the people" (from Combe's appendix toMorton's CraniaAmericana,1839,p.275).
Althoughhevacillatedearlyinhiscareer,Mortonsoonbecamealeader among theAmerican polygenists.Hewrote several articles todefendthestatusofhumanracesasseparate,createdspecies.Hetookon the strongest claim of opponents—the interfertility of all humanraces—byarguing frombothsides.He reliedon travelers' reports toclaim that somehuman races—Australian aborigines andCaucasiansinparticular—veryrarelyproducefertileoffspring(Morton,1851).Heattributedthisfailureto"adisparityofprimordialorganization."But,hecontinued,Buffon'scriterionofinterfertilitymustbeabandonedinanycase,forhybridizationiscommoninnature,evenbetweenspeciesbelonging todifferent genera (Morton, 1847, 1850). Speciesmustberedefined as "a primordial organic form" (1850, p. 82). "Bravo, my
dearSir,"wroteAgassizinaletter,"youhaveatlastfurnishedsciencewith a true philosophical definition of species" (in Stanton, 1960, p.141). But how to recognize a primordial form? Morton replied: "Ifcertain existing organic types can be traced back into the 'night oftime,'asdissimilaraswesee themnow, is itnotmorereasonable toregard them as aboriginal, than to suppose them the mere andaccidental derivations of an isolated patriarchal stem of which weknownothing?"(1850,p.82).Thus,Mortonregardedseveralbreedsofdogs as separate species because their skeletons resided in theEgyptiancatacombs,asrecognizableanddistinctfromotherbreedsastheyarenow.ThetombsalsocontainedblacksandCaucasians.MortondatedthebeachingofNoah'sArkonAraratat4,179yearsbeforehistime, and theEgyptian tombs at just 1,000 years after that—clearlynotenoughtimeforthesonsofNoahtodifferentiateintoraces.(How,heasks,canwebelievethatraceschangedsorapidlyfor1,000years,and not at all for 3,000 years since then?) Human races must havebeenseparatefromthestart(Morton,1839,p.88).
But separate, as the Supreme Court once said, need not meanunequal. Morton therefore set out to establish relative rank on"objective" grounds. He surveyed the drawings of ancient Egypt andfoundthatblacksareinvariablydepictedasmenials—asuresignthatthey have always played their appropriate biological role: "NegroeswerenumerousinEgypt,buttheirsocialpositioninancienttimeswasthesamethatitisnow,thatofservantsandslaves"(Morton,1844,p.158). (A curious argument, to be sure, for these blacks had beencapturedinwarfare;sub‐Saharansocietiesdepictedblacksasrulers.)
But Morton's fame as a scientist rested upon his collection ofskulls and their role in racial ranking. Since the cranial cavity of ahumanskullprovidesafaithfulmeasureofthebrainitoncecontained,Mortonsetout to rankracesby theaverage sizesof theirbrains.Hefilled the cranial cavity with sifted white mustard seed, poured the
seed back into a graduated cylinder and read the skull's volume incubic inches. Later on, he became dissatisfied with mustard seedbecausehecouldnotobtainconsistentresults.Theseedsdidnotpackwell, fortheyweretoo lightandstillvariedtoomuchinsize,despitesieving.Remeasurementsofsingleskullsmightdifferbymorethan5percent,or4cubic inches inskullswithanaveragecapacitynear80cubic inches. Consequently, he switched to one‐eighth‐inch‐diameterlead shot "of the size calledBB"andachieved consistent results thatnevervariedbymorethanasinglecubicinchforthesameskull.
Morton published three major works on the sizes of humanskulls—hislavish,beautifullyillustratedvolumeonAmericanIndians,theCraniaAmericanaof1839;hisstudiesonskullsfromtheEgyptiantombs, theCraniaAegyptiaca of 1844; and the epitome of his entirecollectionin1849.Eachcontainedatable,summarizinghisresultsonaverage skull volumes arrangedby race. I have reproduced all threetableshere(Tables2.1to2.3).TheyrepresentthemajorcontributionofAmericanpolygeny todebates about racial ranking. Theyoutlivedthetheoryofseparatecreationsandwerereprintedrepeatedlyduringthenineteenthcenturyasirrefutable,"hard"dataonthementalworthofhumanraces(seep.116).Needlesstosay,theymatchedeverygoodYankee'sprejudice—whiteson top, Indians in themiddle,andblacksonthebottom;and,amongwhites,TeutonsandAnglo‐Saxonsontop,Jewsinthemiddle,andHindusonthebottom.Moreover,thepatternhadbeenstablethroughoutrecordedhistory,forwhiteshadthesameadvantageoverblacksinancientEgypt.StatusandaccesstopowerinMorton's America faithfully reflected biological merit. How couldsentimentalists and egalitarians stand against thedictates of nature?Morton had provided clean, objective data based on the largestcollectionofskullsintheworld.
During the summer of 1977 I spent several weeks reanalyzingMorton's data. (Morton, the self‐styled objectivist, published all hisraw information.We can inferwith little doubt howhemoved fromrawmeasurementstosummarytables.)Inshort,andtoputitbluntly,Morton's summaries are a patchwork of fudging and finagling in theclear interest of controlling a priori convictions. Yet—and this is the
mostfraudpublis
CointeresLiars, iprofess
intriguin;indeed,shedhisd
Table
onscioussting, forif discovesion has
ng aspecthadMortdatasoop
e2.3Mort
fraud isit tells uered, are properl
of the ctonbeenpenly.
ton’sfinals
probablyus little aexcommly police
case—I finaconscio
summary
y rare inabout themunicated;d itself,
nd no evousfudge
ofcranial
n science.e nature; scientisand the
vidence or,hewou
capacityb
. It is alsof scientts declarey return
of consciouldnotha
byrace
so not veific activire that thn to wo
ousave
eryity.heirork,
mythology unimpaired, and objectively vindicated. The prevalence ofunconsciousfinagling,ontheotherhand,suggestsageneralconclusionaboutthesocialcontextofscience.Forifscientistscanbehonestlyself‐deluded to Morton's extent, then prior prejudice may be foundanywhere,eveninthebasicsofmeasuringbonesandtotingsums.
ThecaseofIndianinferiority:CraniaAmericana1
Mortonbeganhisfirstandlargestwork,theCraniaAmericanaof1839,withadiscourseontheessentialcharacterofhumanraces.Hisstatements immediately expose his prejudices. Of the "Greenlandesquimaux,"hewrote:"Theyarecrafty,sensual,ungrateful,obstinateand unfeeling, andmuch of their affection for their childrenmay betraced to purely selfish motives. They devour the most disgustingalimentsuncookedanduncleaned,andseemtohavenoideasbeyondproviding for the present moment. . . . Their mental faculties, frominfancy to old age, present a continued childhood. . . . In gluttony,selfishnessandingratitude,theyareperhapsunequalledbyanyothernationofpeople" (1839,p. 54).Morton thought littlebetterof otherMongolians,forhewroteoftheChinese(p.50):"Soversatilearetheirfeelings and actions, that they have been compared to the monkeyrace, whose attention is perpetually changing from one object toanother." The Hottentots, he claimed (p. 90), are "the nearestapproximation to the lower animals. . . . Their complexion is ayellowish brown, compared by travellers to the peculiar hue ofEuropeans in the last stages of jaundice. . . . The women arerepresentedasevenmorerepulsiveinappearancethanthemen."Yet,whenMortonhadtodescribeoneCaucasiantribeasa"merehordeofrapacious banditti" (p. 9), he quickly added that "their moral
Morton's summary chart (Table 2.1) presents the "hard"argument of theCraniaAmericana. He hadmeasured the capacity of144 Indian skulls and calculated amean of 82 cubic inches, a full 5cubicinchesbelowtheCaucasiannorm(Figs.2.4and2.5).Inaddition,Mortonappendedatableofphrenologicalmeasurementsindicatingadeficiencyof"higher"mentalpowersamongIndians."Thebenevolentmind," Morton concluded (p. 82), "may regret the inaptitude of theIndian for civilization," but sentimentality must yield to fact. "Thestructure of hismind appears to be different from that of thewhiteman,norcanthetwoharmonize in thesocialrelationsexceptonthemost limited scale." Indians "are not only averse to the restraints ofeducation,butforthemostpartareincapableofacontinuedprocessofreasoningonabstractsubjects"(p.81).
Since Crania Americana is primarily a treatise on the inferiorqualityofIndianintellect,InotefirstofallthatMorton'scitedaverageof82cubicinchesforIndianskulls is incorrect.HeseparatedIndiansinto two groups, "Toltecans" from Mexico and South America, and"BarbarousTribes"fromNorthAmerica.Eighty‐twoistheaverageforBarbarousskulls; thetotalsampleof144yieldsameanof80.2cubicinches,oragapofalmost7cubicinchesbetweenIndianandCaucasianaverages. (IdonotknowhowMortonmade thiselementaryerror. Itdidpermithim, inanycase, toretaintheconventionalchainofbeingwithwhitesontop,Indiansinthemiddle,andblacksonthebottom.)
Butthe"correct"valueof80.2isfartoolow,foritistheresultofanimproperprocedure.Morton's144skullsbelongtomanydifferentgroupsofIndians;thesegroupsdiffersignificantlyamongthemselvesin cranial capacity. Each group should be weighted equally, lest thefinal average be biased by unequal size of subsamples. Suppose, for
example, that we tried to estimate average human height from asample of two jockeys, the author of this book (strictly middlingstature),andalltheplayersintheNationalBasketballAssociation.Thehundreds of Jabbars would swamp the remaining three and give anaverage inexcessof sixandahalf feet. If,however,weaveraged theaveragesofthethreegroups(jockeys,me,andthebasketballplayers),thenourfigurewould lieclosertothetruevalue.Morton'ssample isstronglybiasedbyamajoroverrepresentationofanextremegroup—thesmall‐brainedIncaPeruvians.(Theyhaveameancranialcapacityof 74.36 cubic inches and provide 25 percent of the entire sample).Large‐brainedIroquois,ontheotherhand,contributeonly3skullstothetotalsample(2percent).If,bytheaccidentsofcollecting,Morton'ssample had included 25 percent Iroquois and just a few Incas, hisaveragewouldhaverisensubstantially.Consequently,IcorrectedthisbiasasbestIcouldbyaveragingthemeanvaluesforalltribes
This revised value is still more than 3 cubic inches from theCaucasian average. Yet, when we examine Morton's procedure forcomputing the Caucasian mean, we uncover an astoundinginconsistency.Sincestatisticalreasoningislargelyaproductofthelastonehundredyears,ImighthaveexcusedMorton'serrorfortheIndianmean by arguing that he did not recognize the biases produced byunequal sizes among subsamples. But now we discover that heunderstood this bias perfectly well—for Morton calculated his highCaucasianmeanbyconsciouslyeliminatingsmall‐brainedHindusfromhissample.Hewrites(p.261):"Itisproper,however,tomentionthatbut3Hindoosareadmittedinthewholenumber,becausetheskullsofthese people are probably smaller than those of any other existingnation. For example, 17 Hindoo heads give a mean of but 75 cubicinches;andthethreereceivedintothetablearetakenatthataverage."Thus, Morton included a large subsample of small‐brained people(IncaPeruvians)topulldowntheIndianaverage,butexcludedjustas
manysmallCaucasianskullstoraisethemeanofhisowngroup.Sincehetellsuswhathedidsobaldly,wemustassumethatMortondidnotdeemhisprocedureimproper.ButbywhatrationaledidhekeepIncasandexcludeHindus,unless itweretheaprioriassumptionofa trulyhigher Caucasian mean? For one might then throw out the Hindusampleastrulyanomalous,butretaintheIncasample(withthesamemeanastheHindus,bytheway)asthelowerendofnormalityforitsdisadvantagedlargergroup.
I restored the Hindu skulls to Morton's sample, using the sameprocedure of equal weighting for all groups. Morton's Caucasiansample, by his reckoning, contains skulls f r om four subgroups, soHindusshouldcontributeone‐fourthofallskulls tothesample. IfwerestoreallseventeenofMorton'sHinduskulls,theyform26percentofthetotalsampleofsixty‐six.TheCaucasianmeannowdropsto84.45cubicinches,fornodifferenceworthmentioningbetweenIndiansandCaucasians. (Eskimos, despiteMorton's low opinion of them, yield amean of 86.8, hidden by amalgamationwith other subgroups in theMongolgrandmeanof83).SomuchforIndianinferiority.
ThecaseoftheEgyptiancatacombs:CraniaAegyptiaca
Morton'sfriendandfellowpolygenistGeorgeGliddonwasUnitedStatesconsulforthecityofCairo.HedispatchedtoPhiladelphiamorethan one hundred skulls from tombs of ancient Egypt, and Mortonresponded with his second major treatise, the Crania Aegyptiaca of1844. Morton had shown, or so he thought, that whites surpassedIndians in mental endowment. Now he would crown his story bydemonstrating that the discrepancy between whites and blacks waseven greater, and that this difference had been stable formore thanthreethousandyears.
Morton felt that he could identify both races and subgroupsamong races from features of the skull (most anthropologists todaywoulddeny that such assignments canbemadeunambiguously).HedividedhisCaucasianskullsintoPelasgics(Hellenes,orancientGreekforebears), Jews, and Egyptians—in that order, again confirmingAnglo‐Saxon preferences (Table 2.2). Non‐Caucasian skulls heidentified either as "negroid" (hybrids of Negro and Caucasian withmoreblackthanwhite)oraspureNegro.
Morton's subjective division of Caucasian skulls is clearlyunwarranted, for he simply assigned themost bulbous crania to hisfavored Pelasgic group and the most flattened to Egyptians; hementions no other criteria of subdivision. If we ignore his threefoldseparationandamalgamateallsixty‐fiveCaucasianskullsintoasinglesample, we obtain an average capacity of 82.15 cubic inches. (If wegiveMortonthebenefitofalldoubtandrankhisdubioussubsamplesequally—aswedidincomputingIndianandCaucasianmeansfortheCraniaAmericana—weobtainanaverageof83.3cubicinches.)
Either of these values still exceeds the negroid and Negroaverages substantially. Morton assumed that he had measured aninnate difference in intelligence. He never considered any otherproposalforthedisparityinaveragecranialcapacity—thoughanothersimpleandobviousexplanationlaybeforehim.
Sizesofbrainsarerelatedtothesizesofbodiesthatcarrythem:bigpeopletendtohavelargerbrainsthansmallpeople.Thisfactdoesnot imply that big people are smarter—any more than elephantsshould be judgedmore intelligent thanhumansbecause their brainsare larger. Appropriate corrections must be made for differences inbody size. Men tend to be larger than women; consequently, theirbrainsarebigger.Whencorrectionsforbodysizeareapplied,menandwomen have brains of approximately equal size. Morton not only
failed to correct for differences in sex or body size; he did not evenrecognize the relationship, though his data proclaimed it loud andclear.(IcanonlyconjecturethatMortonneverseparatedhisskullsbysex or stature—though his tables record these data—because hewantedsomuchtoreaddifferencesinbrainsizedirectlyasdifferencesinintelligence.)
Many of the Egyptian skulls came with mummified remains oftheir possessors (Fig. 2.6), and Morton could record their sexunambiguously. If we use Morton's own designations and computeseparate averages formales and females (as Morton never did), weobtainthefollowingremarkableresult.Meancapacityfortwenty‐fourmale Caucasian skulls is 86.5 cubic inches; twenty‐two female skullsaverage77.2(theremainingnineteenskullscouldnotbeidentifiedbysex).Ofthesixnegroidskulls,Mortonidentifiedtwoasfemale(at71and77cubic inches)andcouldnotallocatetheother four(at77,77,87, and 88).2 If we make the reasonable conjecture that the twosmallerskulls(77and77)arefemale,andthetwolargermale(87and88), we obtain a male negroid average of 87.5, slightly above theCaucasianmalemean of 86.5, and a female negroid average of 75.5,slightlybelowtheCaucasianvalueof77.2.Theapparentdifferenceof4cubicinchesbetweenMorton'sCaucasianandnegroidsamplesmayonlyrecordthefactthatabouthalfhisCaucasiansampleismale,whileonly one‐third the negroid sample may be male. (The apparentdifferenceismagnifiedbyMorton'sincorrectroundingofthenegroidaveragedownto79ratherthanupto80.Asweshallseeagain,allofMorton'sminornumericalerrors favorhisprejudices.)Differences inaverage brain size betweenCaucasians andnegroids in theEgyptian
f brain anusdiscusses inaverthered Ml‐brainedconsoledstadores)Morton
tionsof th
in statureurprisedafemale.
capacityssessment
nd bodysionof thragebrainorton cod Incas hd himself).Again,tpresentshevariou
e due toto learn
of Indiantofbodyst
also resoheCraniansizeamnsiderablhad builtf with thetheanswes subjectus tribes,
sex, not vthat the
n groupstature
olves a qAmerica
mongIndialy, for het such ane fact oferlaybefotive dataand Ipr
variationsinglepu
question lna:Whatanpeoplee could nn elaboratheir raporehim,ba on bodresent the
n inure
leftt ises?notatepidbutdilyese
assessments along with average brain sizes in Table 2.4. Thecorrelationofbrainandbodysizeisaffirmedwithoutexception.Thelow Hindu mean among Caucasians also records a difference instature,notanothercaseofdumbIndians.
Thecaseoftheshiftingblackmean
In the Crania Americana, Morton cited 78 cubic inches as theaverage cranial capacity for blacks. Five years later, in the CraniaAegyptiaca, he appended the following footnote to his table ofmeasurements:"Ihaveinmypossession79craniaofNegroesborninAfrica . . . .Of thewholenumber, 58 are adult . . . andgive85 cubicinchesfortheaveragesizeofthebrain"(1844,p.113).
Since Morton had changed his method of measurement frommustard seed to lead shot between 1839 and 1844, I suspected thisalteration as a cause for the rising blackmean. Fortunately, Mortonremeasuredmostofhis skullspersonally, andhis various cataloguespresent tabulations of the same skulls by both seed and shot (seeGould,1978,fordetails).
Iassumedthatmeasuresbyseedwouldbelower.Seedsarelightandvariable insize,evenaftersieving.Hence, theydonotpackwell.Byvigorousshakingorpressingofthethumbattheforamenmagnum(theholeatthebaseofaskull),seedscanbemadetosettle,providingroomformore.Measuresbyseedwereveryvariable;Mortonreporteddifferencesofseveralcubicinchesforrecalibrationsofthesameskull.He eventually became discouraged, fired his assistants, and redid allhis measurements personally, with lead shot. Recalibrations nevervaried by more than a cubic inch, and we may accept Morton'sjudgment that measures by shot were objective, accurate, andrepeatable—while earlier measures by seed were highly subjectiveanderratic.
Ithencalculatedthediscrepanciesbetweenseedandshotbyrace.Shot,as Isuspected,alwaysyieldedhighervalues thanseed.For111Indian skulls, measured by both criteria, shot exceeds seed by anaverage of 2.2 cubic inches. Data are not as reliable for blacks andCaucasiansbecauseMortondidnotspecifyindividualskullsfortheseracesintheCraniaAmericana(measuredbyseed).ForCaucasians,19identifiableskullsyieldanaveragediscrepancyofonly1.8cubicinchesforshotoverseed.Yet18Africanskulls,remeasuredfromthesamplereportedinCraniaAmericana,produceameanbyshotof83.44cubicinches, a rise of 5.4 cubic inches from the 1839 average by seed. Inotherwords,themore"inferior"aracebyMorton'sapriorijudgment,thegreaterthediscrepancybetweenasubjectivemeasurement,easilyand unconsciously fudged, and an objective measure unaffected bypriorprejudice.Thediscrepancyforblacks,Indians,andCaucasiansis5.4,2.2,and1.8cubicinches,respectively.
Plausible scenarios are easy to construct.Morton,measuring byseed,picksupathreateninglylargeblackskull,fillsitlightlyandgivesit a few desultory shakes. Next, he takes a distressingly smallCaucasian skull, shakes hard, and pushes mightily at the foramenmagnum with his thumb. It is easily done, without consciousmotivation;expectationisapowerfulguidetoaction.
Table2.5CorrectedvaluesforMorton'sfinaltabulation
PEOPLE CRANIALCAPACITY(in3)
Mongolians 87
ModernCaucasians 87
NativeAmericans 86
Malays 85
AncientCaucasians 84
Africans 83
Thefinaltabulationof1849
Morton's burgeoning collection included 623 skulls when hepresentedhis final tabulation in1849—anoverwhelmingaffirmationoftherankingthateveryAnglo‐Saxonexpected.
TheCaucasiansubsamplessufferfromerrorsanddistortions.TheGermanmean,reportedat90inthesummary,is88.4fromindividualskullslistedinthecatalogue;thecorrectAnglo‐Americanaverageis89(89.14),not90.ThehighEnglishmeanof96iscorrect,butthesmallsample is entirely male.3 If we follow our procedure of computingaveragesamongsubsamples,thesixmodernCaucasian"families"yielda mean of 87 cubic inches.4 The ancient Caucasian average for two
3 To demonstrate again how large differences based on stature can be, I report theseadditionaldata,recoveredfromMorton'stabulations,butnevercalculatedorrecognizedby him: 1) For Inca Peruvians, fifty‐three male skulls average 77.5; sixty‐one femaleskulls,72.1.2)ForGermans,ninemaleskullsaverage92.2;eightfemales,84.3.4 Myoriginalreport(Gould,1978)incorrectlylistedthemodernCaucasianmeanas85.3.The reason for this error is embarrassing, but instructive, for it illustrates, at myexpense,thecardinalprincipleofthisbook:thesocialembeddednessofscienceandthe
subsamplesis84cubicinches(Table2.5).
SixChineseskullsprovideMortonwithaMongolianmeanof82,but this low value records two cases of selective amnesia: First,Morton excluded the latest Chinese specimen (skull number 1336 at98cubic inches), though itmusthavebeen inhiscollectionwhenhepublishedhissummarybecauseheincludesmanyPeruvianskullswithhigher numbers. Secondly, althoughMorton deplored the absence ofEskimosfromhiscollection(1849,p.iv),hedidnotmentionthethreeEskimo skulls that he had measured for Crania Americana. (Thesebelonged tohis friendGeorgeCombeanddonot appear inMorton'sfinalcatalogue.)
Mortonneverremeasuredtheseskullswithshot,but ifweapplytheIndiancorrectionof2.2cubicinchestotheirseedaverageof86.8we obtain a mean of 89. These two samples (Chinese with number1336added,andEskimoconservativelycorrected)yieldaMongolianaverageof87cubicinches.
By 1849 Morton's Indian mean had plummeted to 79. But thisfigure is invalid for the same reason as before, though nowintensified—inequality of numbers among subsamples. Small‐headed(and small‐statured) Peruvians provided 23 percent of the 1839sample,buttheirfrequencyhadrisentonearlyhalf(155of338skulls)by1849.Ifweuseourpreviouscriterionandcomputetheaverageof
frequentgraftingofexpectationuponsupposedobjectivity.Line7inTable2.3liststherangeofSemiticskullsas84to98cubicinchesforMorton'ssampleof3.However,myoriginal paper cited a mean of 80—an obvious impossibility if the smallest skullmeasures 84. I wasworking from a Xerox ofMorton's original chart, and his correctvalueof89issmudgedtolooklikean80onmycopy.Nonetheless,therangeof84to98is clearly indicated right alongside, and I never saw the inconsistency—presumablybecause a low value of 80 fit my hopes for a depressed Caucasian mean. The 80therefore "felt" right and I never checked it. I am grateful to Dr. Irving Klotz ofNorthwesternUniversityforpointingoutthiserrortome.
For the Negro average, we should drop Morton's australoidsbecause hewanted to assess the status of African blacks andwe nolongeracceptacloserelationshipbetweenthetwogroups—darkskinevolved more than once among human groups. I also drop theHottentot sampleof 3.All skulls are female, andHottentots are verysmall instature.NativeandAmerican‐bornblacks,amalgamated toasinglesample,yieldanaveragevaluebetween82and83,butcloserto83.
Inshort,mycorrectionofMorton'sconventionalrankingrevealsno significant differences among races forMorton's owndata (Table2.5).Allgroupsrankbetween83and87cubicinches,andCaucasiansshare the pinnacle. If western Europeans choose to seek theirsuperiority in high averages for their subsamples (Germanics andAnglo‐Saxons in the Caucasian tabulations), I point out that severalIndiansubsamplesareequallyhigh (thoughMortonamalgamatedallNorth American Indians and never reported averages by subgroup),and that all Teutonic and Anglo‐Saxon averages are eithermiscalculatedorbiasedinMorton'stable.
1. Favorable inconsistencies and shifting criteria: Morton oftenchose to includeordelete large subsamples inorder tomatchgroupaverages with prior expectations. He included Inca Peruvians todecreasetheIndianaverage,butdeletedHindustoraisetheCaucasianmean. He also chose to present or not to calculate the averages ofsubsamples in striking accord with desired results. He madecalculationsforCaucasianstodemonstratethesuperiorityofTeutons
and Anglo‐Saxons, but never presented data for Indian subsampleswithequallyhighaverages.
2. Subjectivity directed toward prior prejudice: Morton'smeasureswithseedweresufficientlyimprecisetopermitawiderangeofinfluencebysubjectivebias;latermeasureswithshot,ontheotherhand,wererepeatable,andpresumablyobjective. Inskullsmeasuredby bothmethods, values for shot always exceed values for the light,poorly packing seed. But degrees of discrepancy match a prioriassumptions: an average of 5.4, 2.2, and 1.8 cubic inches for blacks,Indians,andwhites,respectively.Inotherwords,blacksfaredpoorestandwhitesbestwhentheresultscouldbebiasedtowardanexpectedresult.
3. Procedural omissions that seem obvious to us: Morton wasconvinced that variation in skull size recorded differential, innatemental ability.Henever consideredalternatehypotheses, thoughhisowndataalmostcriedoutforadifferentinterpretation.Mortonnevercomputedmeansbysexorstature,evenwhenherecordedthesedatain his tabulations—as for Egyptianmummies. Had he computed theeffect of stature, he would presumably have recognized that itexplained all important differences in brain size among his groups.NegroidsyieldedaloweraveragethanCaucasiansamonghisEgyptianskulls because the negroid sample probably contained a higherpercentage of smaller‐statured females, not because blacks areinnatelystupider.TheIncasthatheincludedintheIndiansampleandthe Hindus that he excluded from the Caucasian sample bothpossessed small brains as a consequence of small body size.Mortonusedanall‐femalesampleofthreeHottentotstosupportthestupidityof blacks, and an all‐male sample of Englishmen to assert thesuperiorityofwhites.
4.Miscalculations and convenient omissions: Allmiscalculations
andomissionsthatIhavedetectedareinMorton'sfavor.Heroundedthe negroid Egyptian average down to 79, rather than up to 80. Hecited averages of 90 for Germans and Anglo‐Saxons, but the correctvaluesare88and89.HeexcludedalargeChineseskullandanEskimosubsample from his final tabulation formongoloids, thus depressingtheiraveragebelowtheCaucasianvalue.
Yetthroughallthisjuggling,Idetectnosignoffraudorconsciousmanipulation.MortonmadenoattempttocoverhistracksandImustpresume thathewasunawarehehad left them.He explainedall hisprocedures and published all his raw data. All I can discern is an aprioriconvictionaboutracialrankingsopowerful that itdirectedhistabulationsalongpreestablished lines.YetMortonwaswidelyhailedas the objectivist of his age, the man who would rescue Americansciencefromthemireofunsupportedspeculation.5
