Morton's Ranking of Races by Cranial Capacity Author(s): Reviewed work(s): Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 200, No. 4341 (May 5, 1978), pp. 503-509 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1746562 . Accessed: 12/06/2012 22:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science.

http://www.jstor.org work with our own hands; we will speak our own minds" (4, 5). Morton's work was hailed as a jewel of American science. Jules Marcou re- marked that no zoologist except the great Cuvier had so influenced the thought of America's most illustrious Morton's Ranking of Races scientificimmigrant, (5, p. 102).On the occasion of Morton'sdeath, by Cranial Capacity the New York Tribune exclaimed that "probablyno scientific man in America enjoyed a higher reputation among Unconscious manipulationof data scholars throughoutthe world than Dr. may be a scientific norm. Morton" (5, p. 144). Mortondid not achieve his reputation by astute interpretationor ingenuity of Stephen Jay Gould speculation-American science had been plaguedby too high a ratio of theo- ry to data. He won fame because he had finally presented a large body of objec- Nineteenth-century intellectuals dis- would, once and for all, obtain adequate tive fact. He had labored to collect and coursed endlessly on the subject of hu- samples to measure the physical dif- measure, where others had merely spec- man racial differences; their works dis- ferences among races. He began his col- ulated. Oliver Wendell Holmes praised play an enormous excess of speculation lection in 1830(2); it exceeded 1000spec- him for "the severe and cautious charac- based on a paucity of information. In imens when he died in 1851. More than ter" of his work, and for providing"per- pre-DarwinianAmerica, polygenists ar- 600 were sufficientlycomplete for an ac- manent data for all future students of gued for a separate (and unequal) crea- curate account of cranial capacity-the ethnology" (6). Europe's greatest scien- tion of humanraces. Monogenists, plac- most importantphysical measure of all, tific celebrity, Baron Alexander von ing their faith in scripture,traced all hu- since Morton regarded it as a rough in- Humboldt, wrote to Morton in 1844: man diversity to an original Adam and dex of overall intelligence. (The general "Your work is equally remarkablefor Eve, and sought a scientific sanction for correlationof brain size and intelligence the profundity of its anatomical views, the numerical detail of the relations of organic conformation, and the absence Summary. Samuel George Morton,self-styled objective empiricist,amassed the of those poetical reveries which are the world'slargest pre-Darwiniancollection of humanskulls. He measured theircapacity myths of modern physiology" (7). and producedthe results anticipatedin an age when few Caucasians doubted their Morton's preference for data did not innate superiority:whites above Indians,blacks at the bottom. Mortonpublished all prevent him from holding opinions. He his rawdata, and it is shown here that his summarytables are based on a patchwork had a definiteposition and he defendedit of apparentlyunconscious finagling.When his data are properlyreinterpreted, all explicitly and often (8-11). As a promi- races have approximatelyequal capacities. Unconsciousor dimlyperceived finagling nent memberof the polygenist school, he is probablyendemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural believed that the majorhuman races had contexts, not automatons directedtoward external truth. been created separately as true species. He argued that blacks and Caucasians were as distinct in ancient Egypt as they black inferiority in a greater degenera- was not widely doubted in Morton's are today. Since humanity, following tion from primeval perfection. Few time.) Morton housed his collection- Moses, was not much more than 1000 Western scientists doubted the intrin- called "the American Golgotha" by his years older than Egypt (15), races did not sically higher status of their own white friends-at the Academy of NaturalSci- have enough time to differentiatefrom a race, but opinion differed on the poten- ences in ,where he served common stock; they must have been tial transience or innate permanence of as presidentfrom 1849 until his death. created as we find them today. To the black and Indian inferiority. Some ap- Morton's collection was widely hailed challenge that races interbreed freely proved slavery as the kindest status for as one of the wonders of the scientific and that sterilityin crossing is the proper lower races; others consideredblacks in- world. Louis Agassiz wrote home to his criterion of distinction, Morton replied ferior, but refused to justify slavery motherabout it (3): "Imaginea series of by invokingboth sides of the coin. Many thereby. "Whatever be their degree of 600 skulls, mostly Indian,of all the tribes true species hybridizeand the traditional talents," wrote ThomasJefferson (1), "it who now inhabit or formerly inhabited criterion must be revised (9, 10); off- is no measure of their rights." America. Nothing else like it exists else- springbetween some humanraces (Aus- where. This collection alone is worth a traloidsand Caucasoidsin particular)are journey to America." Mortonwrote at a both rare and deficient in fertility (11). Mortonthe Objectivist time when Americanscience was just be- But different need not mean unequal, ginningits transitionfrom a stepchild of and Mortonneeded a furthercriterion to Samuel George Morton, a prominent Europe to a vigorous enterprise worthy defend the traditionalranking. Here he Philadelphiaphysician, entered the me- of attentionand respect, even in the sci- turned to his skulls, focusing almost ex- lee, determinedto replace idle specula- entific centers of the Old World. Ameri- clusively on cranial capacity. tion with hard fact. He set out to amass ca, Emerson wrote, had "listened too The author is a professor of geology and a member the world's collection of to the muses of .... of the biology and history of science departments at largest skulls, long courtly Europe Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts representingall racialgroups (Fig. 1). He We will walk on our own feet; we will 02138. SCIENCE, VOL. 200, 5 MAY 1978 0036-8075/78/0505-0503$01.75/0Copyright ? 1978AAAS 503 Morton published three major works Morton, the South's leading medical to prevent the exposure of a suspected on the cranial capacity of human races- journal wrote: "We of the South should truth is rare in science. When we do un- the Crania Americana of 1839, a large, consider him as our benefactor, for aid- cover a case, we excommunicate its per- beautifully illustrated volume on Indian ing most materially in giving to the petrator, smugly declare that science pu- skulls (12); the Crania Aegyptiaca of [sic] his true position as an inferior race" rifies itself, and get back to work. Such 1844, his study on skulls from Egyptian (16). cases rank high as gossip, but very low in tombs (13); and his summary of the en- telling us anything about the nature of tire Golgotha (623 skulls) in 1849 (14). normal, scientific activity. In fact, their Each of these works contained a sum- On Finagling Data hortatory value in the moralistic tradi- mary table. These tables were frequently tion permits us to avoid the issue; for we reprinted during the 19th century and be- No scientific falsehood is more diffi- can pose our objective ideal against the came a linchpin in anthropometric argu- cult to expunge than textbook dogma transgression and pretend that the vast ments about human racial differences. endlessly repeated in tabular epitome middle ground does not exist. However, Their supposedly objective hierarchies without the original data. Morton's ta- I suspect that unconscious or dimly per- support, in detail, every Teutonic and bles enjoyed this brand of immortality ceived finagling, doctoring, and massag- Anglo-Saxon expectation for the ranking and remained in the literature without se- ing are rampant, endemic, and unavoid- of races: whites on top, blacks on the rious challenge until the entire subject of able in a profession that awards status bottom, and Indians in between; among racial ranking by cranial capacity fell in- and power for clean and unambiguous Caucasians, Western Europeans on top, to disrepute. But Morton, the self-pro- discovery. This is the middle ground of Jews in the middle, and "Hindoos" on claimed objectivist, did supply one rare unappreciated bias and more conscious the bottom. and precious gift to later analysts: he manipulation in the interest of a "truth" The polygenist belief in a separate, published all his primary data with ex- passionately held but inadequately sup- created status for blacks and whites plicit statements on their genesis and ported. might have served as a primary defense manner of manipulation. We can learn Historians have occasionally studied for slavery in America; indeed, many po- exactly how he got from individual skulls this middle ground for insight into the lygenists (not including Morton) used to racial means. genesis of creativity and the social con- their theory to support the South's "pe- I have reanalyzed Morton's data and I straints on scientific activity. We know, culiar institution." But most apologists find that they are a patchwork of as- for example, that it has been occupied by for slavery did not care to pay the price sumption and finagling, controlled, prob- many of our greatest heroes. Newton that polygeny demanded for its excellent ably unconsciously, by his conventional fudged outrageously to support at least argument-a denial of scriptural author- a priori ranking (his folks on top, slaves three central statements that he could ity in the tale of Adam and Eve. After all, on the bottom). The discrediting of some not prove (18). Any text in genetics will scripture can be bent to support any po- tables from the 1830's scarcely packs the tell you that Mendel's F2 ratios are too sition, degeneration of blacks under the punch of exposing Sir Cyril Burt's ma- close to 3:1 to be believed. A kindly tra- curse of Ham in this case. Darwin and nipulation of data on IQ (17). I would re- dition, the Mendel's gardener hypothe- Appomattox soon relegated the polygen- gard this as a footnote to superannuated sis, attributes the finagling to a menial ic defense of slavery to oblivion, but history if it did not raise so clearly a who knew what the boss wanted. But I Morton's hard data on cranial capacity troubling issue that scientists usually can easily picture the good abbot him- survived as a cardinal input to any theo- sweep under the rug-and for good rea- self, walking down a row of peas, a bit ry of racial ranking. In its obituary for son. I suppose that truly deliberate fraud worried (in the absence of statistical knowledge) because his running tally stands at five tall plants too many, com- ing on a specimen, obviously tall but slightly below most of the others in stat- ure, and saying to himself, "this one is not quite clear, so I'll skip it." The point is this: unconscious finagling is probably a norm. We need not protect the great by fobbing off responsibility for it on a labo- ratory assistant. We measure greatness not by "honesty," but by insight. After all, Newton and Mendel were right. I do not want to sound flip. I do not condone or excuse finagling just because I regard much of it as intrinsic to scien- tific activity. I do share the scientist's faith that "correct" answers exist for most problems, and I believe that fudged data are paramount as impediments to solutions. I only raise what I regard as a pressing issue with two hopes for allevia- tion-first, that by acknowledging the existence of such a large middle ground, we may examine our own activity more Fig. 1. Skulls of Eskimos. [Lithography by John Collins; printed in Morton's Crania Americana closely; second, that we may cultivate, (12)] as Morton did, the habit of presenting 504 SCIENCE, VOL. 200 candidly all our information and proce- Table 1. Morton's summarytable of cranial ton himself began to worry. He had hired dure, so that others can assess what we, capacity by race (14, p. 260). assistants to measure the Indian crania in our blindness, cannot. But more gen- Internalcapacity (in3) (21), but, distressed by errors and incon- eral acknowledgment of the middle sistencies, he later took to making all Race N , Small- must come first. I that Mean Larg- measurements himself with lead ground suggest est est (14) some social scientists study the per- shot. vasive jokes, often self-directed, that sci- Caucasian 52 87 109 75 Morton's Indian mean of 82 in3 is a 10 83 93 69 entists tell about finagling, and that oth- Mongolian straight, ungrouped average of all skulls, Malay 18 81 89 64 ers devise the most rigidly anonymous American 147 82 100 60 representing Indian peoples from north- questionnaires. Ethiopian 29 78 94 65 ern Canada to South America (Table 1). In any case, since contemporary ex- As a first observation of note, it is incor- amples may be too threatening to inspire rect. He divides all Indians into two a general acknowledgment of the phe- groups, the "Toltecans" from Mexico nomenon, I present Morton on cranial when Morton had to describe one Cauca- and South America, and the "Barbarous capacity-an excellent example because sian tribe as "a mere horde of rapacious Tribes," largely from the United States the case is so distant and the controlling banditti," he quickly added: "Their mor- and Canada. He gives a sample size of a priori so clear. al perceptions, under the influence of an 147 (it should be 144 because three skulls equitable government, would no doubt were too incomplete for a measure of to- assume a much more favorable aspect" tal capacity), 57 Toltecan and 87 Bar- CraniaAmericana (12, p. 19). barous. However, he reports for the Turning to the central measures of cra- whole the Barbarous mean of 82.4 in3 "The benevolent mind," Morton con- nial capacity, Morton's method is sus- (rounded off in Table 1). Including the cluded, "may regret the inaptitude of the pect from the start for two reasons. Toltecan mean of 76.8 in3 and using his Indian for civilization," but objective First, he did not distinguish male from method of ungrouped averaging, the true data had established it nonetheless, and female skulls. Since the mean sexual dif- grand mean is 80.2 in3. (This elementary sentimentality must yield to fact: "The ference, due entirely to stature, is sub- error permitted Morton to retain the con- structure of his mind appears to be dif- stantial (as we will learn from Morton's ventional scale of being with whites on ferent from that of the white man, nor own data on Egyptian mummies), this top, Indians in the middle, and blacks on can the two harmonize in their social re- failure is important-especially since the bottom.) lations except on the most limited scale" many small subsamples contain skulls of As a primary reason for rejecting Mor- (12, p. 82). Morton had measured the ca- one sex only. Second, he measured ca- ton's ungrouped mean, I note wide- pacity of 144 Indian skulls (19), calcu- pacity by filling the skull with white mus- spread statistical inhomogeneity among lated a mean of 82 cubic inches, 5 below tard seed, sieved to reduce variation in his subsamples for various Indian peo- the Caucasian average, and appended a grain size. But the seeds, by Morton's ples (Table 2). For example, t = 8.47 at table of phrenological measurements in- own later admission (21), were too light 39 degrees of freedom, P < .001, for a dicating a deficiency of "higher" mental and still too variable in size to pack well, comparison between Inca Peruvians power among Indians (20). and the variation for remeasurements of (N = 33, x 74.36) and Seminole-Mus- Morton began the Crania Americana the same skull ranged to 4 in3. (Later, kogees (N 8, x = 88.28). (Of course, with a dissertation on racial essences Morton switched to lead shot 1/8 in. in we cannot fault Morton for ignoring a that discredits any claim to unbiased, diameter "of the size called BB," and re- statistical procedure invented by Mr. dispassionate inquiry about the nature duced the variation among measures of Gosset of Guinness Breweries during and meaning of human differences. The the same skull to less than 1 in3.) Such an this century. But I will show that Morton concept of "objective" knowledge is so uncertainty will increase the variance, was well aware of problems posed by in- culturally bound that Morton's support- but it need not alter the mean for a series homogeneities among subsamples; in ers must have read these comments as of skulls. It does, however, provide a fact, they constitute the basis of his fi- evident truth, not Caucasian prejudice. wide berth for the influence of uncon- nagling.) It is intriguing that Morton of- For example, he wrote (12, p. 54): scious bias. Indeed, we know that Mor- ten reported Caucasian means by sub- "Greenland esquimaux ... are crafty, sensual, ungrateful, obstinate and un- and feeling, much of their affection for Table 2. Means for Indiansubsamples with more than four skulls. their children may be traced to purely Meanfor selfish motives. They devour the most Mean measuredsame skulls disgusting aliments uncooked and un- People (Morton's N measured N cleaned. ... Their mental faculties from characterization) with seed* Nitsed (in') 3.~~with shott infancy to old age, present a continued (in3) childhood.... In selfishness gluttony, Peruvians 74.4 33 76.6 33 and ingratitude, they are perhaps un- Mexicans 80.2 13 82.5 9 equalled by any other nation of people." Seminole-Muskogee 88.3 8 93.5 6 The "Hottentots," he wrote (12, p. 90), WesternLenap6 84.3 15 87.3 9 are "the nearest to the NorthernAlgonquin-Lenap6 88.8 4 91.3 4 approximation Natick 79.7 9 <4 lower animals. .... Their complexion is Osage 84.3 6 86.3 6 a yellowish brown, compared by travel- Iroquois 91.5 4 <4 lers to the peculiar hue of Europeans in OhioCaves 84.9 9 87.6 5 the last stage of jaundice. .... The wom- Mounds 81.7 9 83.2 6 Mean 83.8 86.0 en are represented as even more repul- sive in appearance than the men." Yet, *FromCrania Americana (12). tFrom final catalog of 1849(34). 5 MAY 1978 505 samples, which permitted him to assert Table 3. Cranialcapacity of Indiangroups or- and body size is affirmed without ex- dered stat- the superiority of Teutons and Anglo- by Morton's assessment of body ception. We have no reason to attribute ure. I have some in- Saxons. But he never broke down the In- amalgamated subsamples Morton's cranial differences sub- to Morton'slarger tribal groups. Hence some among dian mean, even though he acknowl- groups that are not in Table 2 appear here. samples to anything other than variation edged a separate origin for several of the Mortondid not include ColumbiaRiver Flat- in average body size. Indian peoples (9, p. 40). Thus, the fact heads in his mean because the craniaare dis- torted to tribalcustoms for that some Indian subsamples (Iroquois at according shaping the head. Morton states, however, that flat- 91.5 in3, N = the Crania 4) exceeded mean for tening distorts proportionsbut does not alter Aegyptiaca Americans of Anglo-Saxon stock re- the mean capacity. mained hidden in his raw data. Morton's of mummified remains (Morton Stature Cranial study never calculated the Indian led him to the conclusion that subsample and capacity N gratifying means at all; I have recovered them from group (in3) the wonders of ancient Egypt had been his data.) designed by Caucasians. Blacks were Morton's low mean of 80.2 in3 reflects Large present, as distinct from whites at the Seminole-Muskogee 88.3 8 the accident of grossly unequal sample Chippewayand 88.8 4 dawn of human history as they are sizes. Inca Peruvians, with the smallest relatedgroups today-a powerful argument for separate mean capacity (x = 74.36) are most Dacotaand Osage 84.4 7 creation. "Negroes," Morton writes, abundantly represented (N = 33, or 23 Middle "were numerous in Egypt, but their so- percent of the total sample). To weight Mexicans 80.2 13 cial position in ancient times was the 8 Morton's I Menominee 80.5 same that it now is, that of servants and subsamples equally, comput- Mounds 81.7 9 ed the mean of means for all ten sub- slaves" (13, p. 158). with more than four skulls Small Morton the inter- samples (22). ColumbiaRiver Flatheads 78.8 10 appended following (Identification of subsamples comes Peruvians 74.4 33 esting footnote to his summarized table from Morton's own tribal descriptions.) of cranial capacity (13, p. 113): "I have The mean capacity is 83.79 in3 (Table 2). in my possession 79 crania of Negroes This still leaves a large space between born in Africa. ... Of the whole num- the Indian and Caucasian means. But we have 17 Hindu skulls in a total sample of ber, 58 are adult, or 16 years of age, and note that Morton's Caucasian sample of 66, or 26 percent of the total. The Cauca- upwards, and give 85 cubic inches for the 52 purposely excludes 14 Hindu skulls sian mean is now 84.45 in3 (average of average size of the brain. The largest for an interesting reason, openly stated 52 x 87 reported by Morton and 14 x 75 head measures 99 cubic inches; the (12, p. 261): "It is proper, however, to for the added Hindus). Thus, from a smallest but 65. The latter, which is that mention that but 3 Hindoos are admitted great disparity between 80.2 in3 for In- of a middle-aged woman, is the smallest in the whole number, because the skulls dians and 87 in3 for Caucasians, we re- adult head that has hitherto come under of these people are probably smaller than calculate a fairest estimate of 83.79 in3 my notice." I have two comments on those of any other existing nation. For for Indians and 84.45 in3 for Caucasians, this. example, 17 Hindoo heads give a mean or no difference worth mentioning. (Es- 1) An addition of 29 skulls to the 1839 of but 75 cubic inches; and the three re- kimos, despite Morton's low opinion of sample of 29 raised the mean by 6 in3 to a ceived into the table are taken at that av- them, give a mean of 86.8 in3, hidden by value above the properly readjusted erage." Thus, Morton was well aware amalgamation with other subgroups in Caucasian mean of 84.45 in3 and not far that the sizes of subsamples can strongly the Mongol grand mean.) below Morton's own value of 87 in3. and unfairly affect a mean-yet he in- We are still left with large differences Surely something funny is going on here. cluded a large subsample of the smallest among subgroups of both Indians and If the 1839 mean of 78 in3 is correct (see heads to pull down the Indian mean, and Caucasians (although a similar range of Table 1), then the average capacity of the excuded just as many small Caucasian subgroup means for both). Why are Inca new skulls must be 92 in3 to raise the heads to raise the mean of his own Peruvians low and Seminoles high, a fact grand mean to 85 in3. group. Since he tells us what he did so that bothered Morton considerably when I suspect instead the change in method explicitly, I must assume that he deemed he considered the splendors of the Inca from mustard seeds to lead shot; the his procedure proper. But by what ratio- empire-although he consoled himself lighter mustard seeds did not pack well, nale-unless it was the a priori assump- with the ease and rapidity of their defeat leaving empty space in a "filled" cra- tion of a truly higher Caucasian mean? by the conquistadors. From allometric nium and giving a systematically lower For then one might throw out the Hindu studies, we know that body stature is the capacity than that obtained with shot. sample as truly anomalous, but keep an primary determinant of differences in Fortunately, we can test for differences Inca subsample (with the same mean) as brain size among human groups, sexes, because Morton personally remeasured the lower end of normality for its dis- or races (23). Since Hindus are by far the all his skulls with shot and recorded the advantaged larger group. smallest of Morton's Caucasian peoples, values in his final catalog (24). For 111 We, in any case, must follow our pro- we may expect a similar correlation for Indian skulls, 92 give higher values for cedure of weighting all subsamples Indians. Morton gives no hard data on shot than for seed. The average increase equally. The Caucasian sample repre- stature, but his descriptions of some per skull (for all 111 skulls) is 2.2 in3. sents four of the "families" that Morton tribes do permit a rough division into Unfortunately, Morton did not specify included in the group. We cannot recon- small, medium, and large (I merely re- African and Caucasian skulls individ- struct the family means, since most peat Morton's assessment to show that ually in his 1839 monograph; moreover, skulls are labeled as "Europeans, nation he might have seen the correlation him- he borrowed some skulls from friends not ascertained," but we can at least en- self, had he been looking for it; I do not and included data from other sources in sure that Hindu skulls constitute one- vouch for its accuracy.) Table 3 presents computing the black and white means. fourth of the total. If we restore the 14 this division for all groups with more These skulls were never remeasured Hindu heads that Morton excluded, we than four skulls. The correlation of brain with shot. Still, we can make some infer- 506 SCIENCE, VOL. 200 ences about systematic bias in the origi- Table 4. Cranial capacities for skulls from two female skulls give only 77.23 in3 nal measurements with seed (I will as- Egyptiantombs (13, p. 113). (s, = 6.38; range, 68 to 90 in3), for a dif- sume, as Morton contends, that mea- Mean ference of more than 9 in3. Turning to the surements with shot were objective and People capacity N six skulls, Morton identified two invariably repeatable to within 1 in3). (in3) as female (71 and 77 in3). He was unable Morton remeasured 18 of 29 African Caucasian to determine sex for the other four (77, skulls from Crania Americana. With Pelasgic 88 21 77, 87, and 88 in3). In his final catalog of shot, they give a mean of 83.44 in3, or an Semitic 82 5 1849, Morton guessed at the sex (and rise of 5.4 in3 from the 1839 Egyptian 80 39 to within 5 for all his average 79 6 age, years) nearly 78 in3. Is this difference between Negroid crania. Here he the crania mea- mean of Negro 73 1 specified African and Indian corrections (5.4 ver- suring 77, 87, and 88 in3 as male and the sus 2.2 in3) an artifact of the incomplete other 77-in3 skull as female-for a male African sample, or does it indicate a sys- mean of 84.0 and a female mean of 75.0 tematic undermeasurement of black sians represents a false, typological in3, or 2.5 and 2.2 in3 lower than Cauca- skulls with the subjective method of breakdown of continuous variability sian means by sex. But suppose that the mustard seeds? (I have presented other (with ethnographically incorrect assign- two 77 in3 skulls are female, and the 87 evidence of finagling to place blacks be- ments as well). It should be ignored and and 88 in3 male (this hypothesis is just as low Indians.) I strongly suspect a sys- the samples amalgamated to give a Cau- likely since clean skulls cannot be identi- tematic bias for undermeasurement of casian mean of 82.15 in3 [N = 65, stan- fied unambiguously by sex, as Morton black skulls. If the actual rise for all 29 dard distribution (s,) = 7.76], well be- realized when he declined to specify in skulls were, as for Indians, 2.2 in3, then low the modern black mean. If we give his original work). Then the male Ne- the 11 remaining African skulls would Morton the benefit of the doubt anyway, groid mean would be 87.5 in3, slightly have a mean capacity with shot of 74.90 and rank his three subsamples equally, above the Caucasian male mean, while in3, or 3.1 below the grand mean with we get a mean of 83.3 in3 [(88 + the female Negroid mean of 75.5 in3 seeds. Only 8 of 77 African skulls in 82 + 80)/3]. Still, this exceeds substan- would be slightly below the Caucasian. Morton's final catalog have capacities tially the Negroid and Negro means. The apparent difference of 4 in3 between below 74.9 in3. But if we put Morton's subjective divi- grand means for and Cauca- The data for Caucasian corrections are sions aside, and separate Caucasians in- sians would only reflect the fact that more ambiguous since only 19 of Mor- to male and female (sexual determina- about half the Caucasian sample is male, ton's 49 European skulls were remea- tions could be made on many of these while only one-third of the Negroid sured to appear in his final catalog. Re- mummified remains), we obtain the fol- sample may be male. (The apparent dif- moving the 3 Hindu skulls (since we can- lowing remarkable result. For 24 skulls, ference is magnified by Morton's incor- not tell which ones he chose) from the identified by Morton as male, x = 86.46 rect rounding of the Negroid mean down 1839 sample of 52 Caucasians, the mean (Sx = 6.61; range, 76 to 97 in3). Twenty- to 79 rather than up to 80 in3. As we will' for the remaining 49 is 87.73 in3. Nine- teen non-Hindu Caucasian skulls remea- sured with shot give 89.53 in3, for an av- Table 5. Morton'sfinal summaryof cranialcapacity by race (34). erage correction of only 1.8 in3 as a best Cranialcapacity (in3) estimate. The order of increasing correc- Races and Families N tion for the switch from a subjective to Largest Smallest Mean Mean an objective method matches the ex- Modern Caucasian bias of desired underestimation: Group pected Teutonic Family white, Indian, black. Germans 18 114 70 90 2) Morton reported falsely that the English 5 105 91 96 92 smallest black skull was the smallest Anglo-Americans 7 97 82 90 10 94 75 84 among all people that he had ever seen PelasgicFamily CelticFamily 6 97 78 87 (25). But three Inca Peruvian skulls are IndostanicFamily 32 91 67 80 recorded as 60, 62, and 64 in3 in Crania SemiticFamily 3 98 84 80 Americana. Remeasured with lead shot, Nilotic Family 17 96 66 80 four skulls of this original series are Ancient Caucasian Group smaller: 58, 62, 62, and 63 in3 (26). Five PelasgicFamily 18 97 74 88 additional Peruvian skulls measure less Nilotic Family 55 96 68 80 than 65 in3 in Morton's final catalog (27). Mongolian Group Again, I cannot get inside his ample ChineseFamily 6 91 70 82 head, but I suspect an a priori desire to Malay Group keep blacks at the bottom as an MalayanFamily 20 97 68 86 85 impetus 84 to amnesia. PolynesianFamily 3 82 83 The summary table of ancient skulls American Group Toltecan from the tombs Family Egyptian (Table 4) con- Peruvians 155 101 58 75 firms every Western European's desire. Mexicans 22 92 67 79 79 Among Caucasians, Pelasgics (Hellenes, BarbarousTribes 161 104 70 84 or ancient Greek forebears) exceed Jews Negro Group and Egyptians. Negroids (mulattoes with Native AfricanFamily 62 99 65 83 more Negro than Caucasian features) are American-bornNegroes 12 89 73 82 next, and blacks are last. HottentotFamily 3 83 68 75 pure Australians 8 83 63 75 Morton's subdivision among Cauca- 5 MAY 1978 507 see again, all of Morton's minor numeri- Table 6. Correctedvalues for Morton's final their absolute superiority in the high cal errors favor his a priori biases.) Thus, tabulation. mean of their subsample, I note that sev- the entire case for a lower Negroid mean Cranial eral unreported subsample means for In- rests on the dubious identification of a People capacity dian peoples are equally high and that all single skull as male-and the difference (in3) Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon means are of 2 to /2 in3 is insignificant in any case. Native Americans 86 biased or miscalculated. In any case, dif- The large mean difference between Mongolians 85 ferences for subsamples within larger sexes also affirms the primary correla- ModernCaucasians 85 groups seem to rest on variations in body tion of brain size with stature. Most Malays 85 size alone. AncientCaucasians 84 readers will have correctly divined by Africans 83 now that the single pure Negro skull is a female. In summary, Egyptian evidence Conclusion does not support a difference in cranial capacity between blacks and Cauca- ton excludes the latest Chinese addition Morton's finagling can be ordered in a sians. Both groups are below the average to his catalog (No. 1336 at 98 in3), al- few general categories: of modern African blacks. though he must have had the skull when 1) Favorable inconsistencies and he published his summary because many shifting criteria. As a favorite tool for ad- Peruvian skulls with higher numbers are justment, Morton chose to include or de- Final Summary of 1849 included. The Chinese mean of all seven lete large subsamples in order to match specimens is 84.14 in3. Second, although grand means with a priori expectations. Morton's burgeoning collection in- Morton deplores the absence of Eskimos He included Inca Peruvians to reduce cluded 623 skulls when he presented his from his own collection (24, p. 12), he the Indian mean and excluded Hindus to final tabulation in 1849. Morton mused does not mention the three Eskimo raise the Caucasian mean. In 1849, he with pride on the largest set of such data skulls measured in Crania Americana. declined to calculate a Caucasian mean ever compiled-"a novel and important (These belonged to his friend George at all because he claimed (falsely) that contribution to Ethnological science," Combe and do not appear in Morton's subsamples with small crania dominated he proclaimed (14, p. 221). catalog.) Morton never remeasured his total collection. He also chose to Again, Morton presented the Cauca- these skulls with shot, but their mustard present or not to calculate subsample sian distribution by "family," from Ger- seed average of 86.8 in3 may have been means in striking accord with desired re- manic to Hindu (Table 5). He cited the several cubic inches too low. These two sults. He presented them for Caucasians problems posed by unequal subsample subsamples give a conservative Mongo- to demonstrate the superiority of Teu- sizes (conveniently ignored for Indians) lian grand mean of 85 in3. tons and Anglo-Saxons, but never calcu- in refusing to calculate a Caucasian Morton's Indian mean had plummeted lated them for Indian subsamples with grand mean: "No mean has been taken to 79 in3. But, again, this low value only equally high values. of the collectively, be- records an increasing inequality of sub- There are many other examples of cause of the very great preponderance of sample size. Small-headed (and small- shifting criteria among Morton's smaller Hindu, Egyptian and Fellah skulls over statured) Peruvians had formed 23 per- works. In 1848, for example, he comput- those of Germanic, Pelasgic and Celtic cent of the 1839 sample; they now made ed a Shoshonee Indian mean of 76 in3 for families" (14, p. 223). First, his state- up nearly half the total sample (155 of a sample of three female skulls. He cared ment about a "very great preponder- 338 skulls). Using the previous criterion, little for Shoshonees and used the low ance" is false. Among modern Cauca- I took all subsamples with more than mean to discredit them further-even sians, N = 46 for Germanics, Pelasgics, four skulls (29), recomputed the means though he had praised Inca Peruvians and Celtics, while N = 49 for Caucasian for skulls remeasured with shot (Table with their even lower means (for a families with smaller crania. If we 2), and caluclated an Indian mean of 86.0 sample including males as well). Of the amalgamate the modern crania with the in3 (the seed-to-shot correction of 2.2 in3 Shoshonees, he wrote (31): ancient Egyptian ones, N = 64 for fami- matches exactly the recalibration based Heads of such small and ill-balanced lies with larger crania and 104 for smaller on all individuals). capacity could have belongedto sav- six modern sub- must Morton's Australoid proportions, only crania. If we weigh the We drop ages; and it is interestingto observe such re- samples equally, the mean of subsample family from the Negro mean because he markableaccordance between the cranialde- means gives a modern Caucasian aver- wanted to assess the status of African velopments, and mental and moral faculties. we could nowherefind humanity in a age of 85.3 in3. The ancient Caucasian blacks, and we no longer accept a close Perhaps more debased form than among these very mean for two families is 84.0 between the two grand relationship groups Shoshonees, for they possess the vices with- in3. (dark skin is a convergent feature). We out the redeemingqualities of the surrounding Finally, all three means for Teutonic should also drop the sample of Indian tribes; and even their cruelty is not that is and Anglo-Saxon groups are incorrect or three. They are very small in stature, and combinedwith courage..... A head in all its must be almost biased in Morton's favor. The German all three crania are female (30). Native defective proportions inevitably associated with low and brutal in and American-born blacks should be mean, reported at 90 in3 the summary, propensities, and correspondingdegradation is 88.4 in3 from individual skulls listed in amalgamated to a single sample with a of mind. the final catalog; the Anglo-American mean capacity between 82 and 83 in3, but mean of 90 in3 is really 89.14 in3. The closer to 83. 2) Procedural omissions that seem ob- high English mean of 96 in3 is correct, Thus, we correct Morton's conven- vious to us. Morton was convinced be- but the sample is entirely male (28). tional "chain of being' to the following fore he began that differences in cranial Morton cites 82 in3 for the Mongolian remarkable account (Table 6). There are capacity reflected innate mental ability. mean, based on a sample of six Chinese no differences to speak of among Mor- Once he finagled the "right" result, he skulls. This low value reflects two ex- ton's races; all have means between 83 regarded his work as complete. He did amples of selective amnesia. First, Mor- and 86 in3. If Western Europeans sought not consider alternative hypotheses, al- 508 SCIENCE, VOL. 200 though his own data stared him in the along preestablished lines. Yet Morton tiquity of the earth, and was, himself, a distin- guished early Americanpaleontologist (he de- face. Thus, he arbitrarily divided a con- was widely hailed as the objectivist of his scribed,for example,the fossils collectedduring tinuous of Caucasian variabili- the man who would rescue Ameri- the Lewis and Clark expedition). He accepted spectrum age, the Mosaic date for humancreation because no ty into "higher" and "lower" sub- can science from the mire of unsup- fossil evidencethen existed for earlierhominids. but never of 16. R. W. Gibbs writingin the CharlestonMedical samples, thought computing ported speculation. Journal;quoted in Stanton(5, p. 144). means by sex, even though his Egyptian I regard Morton's saga as an admit- 17. N. Wade, Science 194, 916 (1976). 18. R. S. Westfall,ibid. 179, 751 (1973). mummies provided this information ob- tedly egregious example of a common 19. Table 1 incorrectlylists a sample size of 147. jectively. And he never recognized the problem in scientific work. Without a Threeof these skulls were incompleteand could not be measuredfor cranialcapacity. correlation between brain size and body priori preferences, we would scarcely be 20. Mortongave cautious supportto the doctrines stature, although his own data displayed human; and good science, as Darwin of phrenology,but he did not practice the art himself, and made little use of it in his works. it so clearly-variation among Indian noted so often (33), collects data to test His assistant made the phrenologicalmeasure- peoples, Hottentots versus taller blacks, ideas. Science has the ments on his Indian skulls, and Morton ap- long recognized pended to his Crania Americana an essay on males versus females. tyranny of prior preference, and has con- phrenologyby his friend GeorgeCombe. 21. S. G. Morton, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1, 7 Average differences between the sexes structed safeguards in requirements of (1841). are particularly striking. I already re- uniform procedure and replication of ex- 22. I chose four skullsas a minimumsubsample size in orderto give a probabilitynear 5 percentthat corded 9 in3 for Egyptian Caucasians. periments. Gross flouting of procedure the groupwould representa singlesex only (uni- For Morton's largest sample of Inca Pe- and conscious fraud may often be detect- sexual groupsare a primarysource of misinfor- mationin Morton'stables). If (as may well not ruvians (32), males average 77.5 in3 ed, but unconscious finagling by sincere be the case) Morton's skulls had an equal = while females 72.13 seekers of chanceof beingmale or female, then only 1 in 16 (N 53), average objectivity may be refractory. samples of four skulls would form a unisexual in3 (N = 61). For Germans, males aver- The culprit in this tale is a naive belief group. Two groups that seem to have sample 92.2 in3 (N = in3 sizes largerthan four in Morton'stables are ex- age 9), females 84.25 that pure objectivity can be attained by cluded here: Morton cites capacities for five (N = 8). Moreover, Morton included human beings rooted in cultural tradi- Cherokee skulls, but his final catalog (24) in- dicates that two of these skulls representsmall several unisexual groups in his final ta- tions of shared belief-and a consequent childrenand should not have been includedby bles, all to his advantage. His highest failure of self-examination. Morton's own stated criteria. I also eliminate ColumbiaRiver "Flatheads."These skullswere mean, for Englishmen, is based on an all- One may argue that lying with statis- artificiallydistorted, and Morton himself ex- male his for cluded them from his calculationof the Indian group; lowest, Hottentots, tics is easier than fudging an experiment mean. on an all-female sample. and that a direct intersection with con- 23. H. J. Jerison, Evolution of the Brain and In- Two obvious errors seem for telligence (Academic Press, New York, 1973); 3) Slips. temporary politics makes a more pas- S. J. Gould, Contrib. Primatol. 5, 244 (1975); P. hard to explain unless their conformity sionate a priori, but I think that most sci- V. Tobias, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 32, 3 (1970); H. Pakkenbergand J. Voigt, Acta Anat. 56, 297 with expected results (both demoted entists pursue their private battles with (1964). blacks) provided so much satisfaction as much ardor and as much at stake. I 24. S. G. Morton, Catalogue of Skulls of Man and the Inferior Animals (Merrihew and Thompson, that Morton never thought of checking propose no cure for the problem of fi- Philadelphia,1849). himself. Most curiously, after 200 pages I write this article 25. This was no momentaryslip, for he repeatedthe nagling; indeed, claimseveral times in other publications;for ex- of minute documentation, he reported to argue that it is not a disease. The ample, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 2, 64 (1844). his Indian 26. Numbers76, 497, 498, and 688 from Morton's mean incorrectly, as falling only palliations I know are vigilance final catalog (24). The skulls figuredin Crania between blacks and whites, rather than and scrutiny. Aegyptiaca begin with number795 in the final at par with blacks. He stated catalog. repeatedly Referencesand Notes 27. Numbers1418, 1419, 1424, 1461,and 1464. that two black crania had the smallest ca- 28. I am reasonablycertain that Mortonand I are 1. Letter to H. Gregoire, 1809; quoted in T. F. using the same skulls since the numberstally pacities among all his skulls, even Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in Ameri- perfectly. I exclude skulls listed as "idiot" be- though several Inca crania were smaller ca (Schocken, New York, 1965), p. 52. cause Morton reports that he did so as well. I 2. Morton did no fieldwork himself. He collected include skulls marked "lunatic" because Mor- by his own tabulated measure. his skulls by extensive and impassioned corre- ton does not mention their exclusion and be- 4) Convenient omissions. Morton ex- spondence. The dangers to which many col- cause their inclusion makes the samplenumber leagues submitted themselves in collecting In- tally perfectly with Morton's. In any case, the cluded a large Chinese skull and an Eski- dian skulls serve as a mark of Morton's reputa- skulls of lunatics are not, on average, smaller mo in the 1849 tabulation of tion. than their group means. My Anglo-American subsample 3. Cited in E. C. Agassiz, Louis Agassiz: His Life sample corisists of the following skulls from Mongolian capacity, thus reducing the and Correspondence (Boston, 1886), vol. 2, pp. Morton'sfinal catalog: 7, 14, 24, 45, 552, 899, 409-429. and 1108. My Germansample includes 37, 58, grand mean below the Caucasian aver- 4. From an address of 1847; quoted in Stanton (5, 434, 706, 1060, 1062to 1066, 1187to 1190, 1192, age. p. 84). 1193, 1247, and 1249. 5. W. Stanton, The Leopard's Spots: Scientific At- 29. There are numerousinconsistencies in number- 5) Miscalculations. All miscalcula- titudes Towards Race in America (Univ. of Chi- ing between the CraniaAmericana and the final tions that I have detected are in Mor- cago Press, Chicago, 1960), p. 84. catalogof 1849.In addition,Morton used sever- 6. Letter to Morton, 27 November 1849; cited in al skulls that he did not own in CraniaAmeri- ton's favor. He rounded a Negroid Egyp- Stanton (5, note 4, p. 96). cana. These do not appear in the final catalog. tian mean down to 79 in3, than 7. Letter of 17 January 1844; reprinted in C. D. Hence, sample sizes for skulls in the 1849cata- rather Meigs, A Memoir of Samuel George Morton, log that were also measuredwith seed in 1839 correctly up to 80 in3. He cited means of M.D. (Collins, Philadelphia, 1851), p. 48. are reducedfrom Morton's 1839tabulation (see 8. S. G. Morton, Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 9, 93 Table 2). 90 in3 for Germans and Anglo-Saxons, (1844); Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 5, 81 (1850). 30. Numbers1107, 1244, and 13,51of the finalcata- but the correct values are 88 and 89 9. , Am. J. Sci. 3, 39 (1847). log (24). 10. , ibid., p. 203. 31. S. G. Morton, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 4, 75 in3. 11. _ , Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 5, 173 (1848). Yet, through all this juggling, I find no (1851). 32. I emphasizethat I do not assert the validity of 12. S. G. Morton, Crania Americana or, A Com- Morton's sexual identifications.(I think that indication of fraud or conscious manipu- parative View of the Skulls of Various Aborigi- Mortonguessed from the relative size and gra- lation. Morton made no to cover nal Nations of North and South America (Rem- cility of the skull in several cases.) I reportthese attempt ington, Philadelphia, 1839). differences merely to point out that Morton his tracks, and I must assume that he re- 13. ___ , Crania Aegyptiaca: Observations on could have discovered and evaluated this Egyptian , Derived from Anatomy, enormousinfluence of sex (as he determinedit) mained unaware of their existence. He History, and the Monuments, originally pub- if he had ever chosen to make calculationson explained everything he did, and pub- lished in (8). this basis. 14. ., "Observations on the size of the brain in 33. The most famous statement is in his letter to H. lished all his raw data. All I discern is an various races and families of man," Proc. Acad. Fawcett, 18 September 1861: "How odd it is a priori conviction of racial ranking so Nat. Sci. Phila. 4, 221 (1849). that anyone should not see that all observation 15. Morton was not an antiscientific biblical idola- must be for or against some view if it is to be of powerful that it directed his tabulations ter. He accepted geological evidence for the an- any service."

5 MAY 1978 509