Evolutionary 19:222–226 (2010)

ISSUES

Why Were the First Anthropologists Creationists?

JONATHAN MARKS

Anthropologists in every generation have been tarred as creationists by radical ing evolution: ‘‘It is not that I think Darwinians. In only the very first generation of scholarly anthropology, however, the evidence of that doctrine insuffi- does the charge really stick; that is, in the founding tradition of liberal German cient, but that I doubt whether it is humanistic anthropology from about 1860–1890. This paper explores the ideas the business of a teacher to plunge that may have motivated their rejection of evolution. the young mind into difficult prob- lems concerning the origin of the existing condition of things. I am dis- was arguably the Liberal party, a political reformer4 posed to think that the brief period of preeminent scientist in nine- and pacifist,5 who was personally school-life would be better spent in teenth-century Germany. Although challenged to a by no less than obtaining an acquaintance with na- 6,7 he made fundamental contributions . He pioneered ture, as it is; in fact, in laying a firm to the development of , the study of the social conditions foundation for the further knowledge anthropometry, human adaptability, that cause disease. He argued on which is needed for the critical exami- and epidemiology, his memory in behalf of the rights of Jews in an nation of the dogmas, whether scien- physical anthropology is generally increasingly anti-Semitic social envi- tific or anti-scientific, which are pre- 8,9 reduced to a single act: rejecting the ronment. When he understood the sented to the adult mind.’’17 earliest fossil evidence of human evo- fossils as being, to some extent, path- Indeed, Virchow gave the second lution, in the forms of ‘‘ ological specimens, he was speaking Huxley Lecture in 1898, and his con- Man’’ and ‘‘.’’1–3 as a founder of that medical spe- 10,11 tempt for Haeckel was matched only In a dualistic framework that pits cialty. Moreover, his pioneering by his enthusiasm for Huxley. Far evolutionism against creationism – measurements of German schoolchil- from repudiating Huxley, Virchow abstracted from time, , and dren began quantitatively to disen- observed that Man’s Place in nuance – one is tempted to see tangle the concepts of ‘‘nation,’’ 12–14 ‘‘stepped boldly across the border- Virchow as a closed-minded repre- ‘‘race,’’ and ‘‘type.’’ Indeed, for line which tradition and dogma had sentative of the old ways, an intel- ‘‘modern physical anthropology’’ drawn between man and beast.’’18 (according to his obituary in Sci- lectual conservative refusing to ‘‘Whatever opinion one may hold as ence) ‘‘no one has done more to accept the truths of de- to the origin of mankind,’’ he added, shape, guide and foster it than spite their obvious validity. In short, ‘‘the conviction as to the fundamen- Rudolf Virchow.’’15 Yet, in 1877, he as an old fool, precisely as he was tal correspondence of human organi- had declared in a scientific meeting portrayed by , the zation with that of animals is at in Munich: ‘‘We cannot teach, we can- leading spokesman for German Dar- present universally accepted.’’18 not designate it as a revelation of sci- winism. To judge Virchow as a hard- ence, that man descends from the ape And yet Virchow was neither a headed, backward-looking creation- or from any other animal. We can but conservative nor a dummy. He was a ist, then, seems more than a bit designate this as a problem, may it prominent and activist leader of the seem ever so probable, and may it lie harsh. Surely there was more to his ever so near.’’16 rejection of the fossil evidence of What an odd position to take! Evo- human ancestry than stupidity, intel- Jonathan Marks is Professor of Anthro- lution is apparently so dangerous that lectual conservatism, or religiosity. pology at the University of North Caro- lina at Charlotte, and the author of Why I we need to shield our children from Am Not a Scientist (University of Califor- it, regardless of its empirical validity? nia Press, 2009) and The Alternative Introduction to : Virchow’s comments were intended, Where Anthropology Meets Biology and understood, as a direct challenge Virchow was not alone in his rejec- (Oxford University Press, in press). to the leading German evolutionist, tion of . He was Ernst Haeckel. Even Thomas Huxley joined most prominently by Adolf walked a fine line here, seeming, in Bastian, with whom he was a co- VC 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc. his preface to an English translation founder of the Society for DOI 10.1002/evan.20280 Published online in Wiley Online Library of Haeckel’s response, to agree with Anthropology, Ethnology, and Pre- (wileyonlinelibrary.com). Virchow’s ambivalence toward teach- history in the decade following The ISSUES Why Were the First Anthropologists Creationists? 223

Origin of Species.19 Bastian’s opposi- winism and was bigger than Darwin- like one another than like any other tion to evolution was widely ism: How was the human species kind of animal. Obviously we do not known,20,21 but also hard to explain. constituted and, consequently, how wish to project modern values on (In this early period of anthropologi- was the scholarly, scientific study of these premodern thinkers, but there cal thought, the relationships human diversity to proceed? is a basic point at the of the between historical and biological The answer seemed to lie with a matter. Can there be a rigorous processes were only beginning to be methodological principle of Adolf study of the human species or is the formalized. Bastian had a different Bastian’s, ‘‘the psychic unity of man- human species itself an illusion? dispute with the geographer Frie- kind.’’ This is where the literature in More specifically, a bleeding-heart drich Ratzel over the nature of cul- English pretty much dries up, but it illusion, since the Ethnological Soci- tural ‘‘evolution.’’) is basically a foundational moment ety, with Thomas Huxley as its last Andre Gingrich frames it in terms for anthropology.27 president, had begun a generation of political abstractions: ‘‘It seems Adolf Bastian was concerned with earlier as an anti-slavery and aborigi- that the reasons for the antievolu- founding a science of ethnology, the nal protection society with strong tionist orientation of German anthro- comparative study of human social roots in the religious and moral pology, so closely connected to state behavior.28 He traveled widely, estab- dimension of human diversity. Their and crown, were distributed among lished diverse and extensive collec- opponents, the ‘‘anthropologicals,’’ three factors: Protestant pietism tions, and was the highly respected commonly prided themselves on tended to reject an anticreationist director of the Ethnological Mu- their polygenist irreligiosity, but also theory of the origin of species and of seum, as well as a notoriously turgid adopted the morally unpopular posi- humanity; Prussian nationalism dis- and opaque writer29,30 whose works tion on slavery. (England had out- played deep skepticism toward a new were never translated into English, lawed slavery while Darwin was on theory from rival Britain; and impe- apparently mercifully.31 Fundamen- the Beagle.) A significant implication rial hegemony provoked profound tal to his program, however, was the of the new evolutionary theory for distrust of a theory that largely unity of the human species.32 Victorian England was that it gave inspired Marx and Engels, the lead- Thomas Huxley was similarly com- the morally respectable and theologi- ing thinkers of the German labor mitted to the proposition of the unity cally conservative position of mono- movement....’’22 Presumably, how- of the human species. This was one genism (unity of humanity, back to ever, those same social forces would of the tenets of the Ethnological So- Adam) a firmer footing in the science have influenced the many admirers ciety of London, founded in England that had previously been the strong of Ernst Haeckel as well. in the 1840s; its opposite was point of (an ancient Andrew Zimmerman suggests a adopted by the Anthropological Soci- earth, possibly populated by pre-Ada- more formal philosophical basis, ety of London when it splintered off mites). The human species would rooted in the contemporary assump- in 1863. Huxley, as President of the remain a single natural unit; how- tion that historical reconstruction is Ethnological Society in 1870, over- ever, the common ancestor was no invariably inferential, and that the saw the reconciliation of the two longer Biblical Adam, but rather a domain of the scientific ought to be rival scientific associations, under sort of chimpanzee.36,37 reserved for synchronic, experimen- the name of ‘‘Anthropological,’’ but tal studies.23 Even tried holding the formal views of the older THE MISSING LINK to understand at least Virchow’s Ethnological Society.33,34 Like Hux- anti-Darwinism by ascribing to ley, the Darwinians generally aligned In Germany, of course, the politics Virchow a belief in the ontological themselves with the monogenist ‘‘eth- were somewhat different. The chief primacy of cells over organisms, and nologicals’’ as opposed to the poly- spokesman for Darwinism in Ger- a consequent reluctance to accept genist ‘‘anthropologicals,’’ who many was Ernst Haeckel. His popu- the mutability of species until the tended to oppose Darwinism with lar works sold well in English trans- mutability of cells had been fully the same vehemence with which they lation. In any language, however, the worked out.15 opposed the unity of the human spe- Darwinians, in trying to link their The rejection of evolution by the cies.35 European readers to the apes genea- first generation of anthropologists Adolf Bastian’s principle of the logically, faced a formidable prob- may have a simpler explanation, ‘‘psychic unity of mankind’’ is essen- lem: the absence of a fossil record however. Rudolf Virchow and tially what permitted the study of documenting that transition. Unlike Thomas Huxley were intellectual ethnology to exist. If other kinds of Huxley, Haeckel grappled explicitly leaders in their respective countries, people are different orders of beings, with this problem, and solved it on a significantly contested point, then no true communication is ulti- clearly for his readers, notably in his namely the unity of the human spe- mately possible between them. The popular 1868 synthesis, The Natural cies. On the other side, as it were, only way that a sound science of eth- History of Creation. ‘‘We as yet know there were also powerful biologists, nology could be established is by of no fossil remains of the hypotheti- among them, notably, supposing that all people are indeed cal primaeval man .... But consider- in America24 and Paul Broca in fundamentally similar biologically, ing the extraordinary resemblance France.25,26 This issue cross-cut Dar- the same kinds of beings, and more between the lowest woolly-haired 224 Marks ISSUES

climbing on trees and eating fruits; they do not know of fire, and use stones and clubs as weapons, just like the higher apes.... They have barely risen above the lowest stage of transition from man-like apes to ape- like men, a stage which the progeni- tors of the higher human species had already passed through thousands of years ago.’’41 The relation to the apes was, of course, crucial to Haeckel, and in order to establish continuity with them he would casually sacri- fice the unity of the human species. ‘‘[T]he mental differences between the lowest men and the animals are less than those between the lowest and the highest men.’’41:366 One does not have to put modern ideas of cultural relativism into the heads of these early anthropologists, only the ambition to establish a rig- orous basis for the practice of eth- nology, in which different groups of Figure 1. Frontispiece and title page of the first German edition of Haeckel’s Natural people are fundamentally compara- History of Creation (1868), courtesy of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, ble with one another. Regardless of Berlin. whether it could be established that this point actually motivated these scholars against Haeckel’s views, it is men, and the highest man-like apes, was omitted from the English trans- nevertheless true that they did which still exist at the present day, it lation and from subsequent editions, oppose Haeckel’s views, that Haeck- requires but a slight stretch of the ‘‘but its impact had certainly been el’s views did fundamentally under- imagination to conceive an interme- felt within the intellectual commu- mine their intellectual program by diate form connecting the two, and nity and beyond’’40 (Fig. 2). implicitly denying the psychic unity to see in it an approximate likeness Most significantly, Haeckel’s posi- of mankind. The reasons for their to the supposed primaeval men, or tioning of the peoples of the world as rejection of evolution remain ape-like men.38 That is to say, we do connecting Europeans to apes implied unclear.42 Virchow’s objections in his not really need a fossil record to that they were not completely evolved. 1877 address were specifically about document the transition from ape to It meant that there could be no psy- the political implications of evolution man because the nonwhite races chic unity of mankind because the (leading apparently to socialism) and form the links that connect Euro- members of mankind were not all its unproven nature. These, however, peans to the apes. equally human. Consequently, ethnol- can hardly be taken at face value, Of course the intermediacy of the ogy itself would be impossible, for especially in light of Virchow’s nonwhite races was not original with there would be no basis for compari- denial of any ‘‘wish to disparage the Haeckel, nor even with the Darwin- son; comparing different people great services rendered by Mr. Dar- ians. Cuvier,39 for example, a half- would be comparing apples and win to the advancement of biological century earlier, likened ‘‘la race oranges, and not really different from science, of which no one has ne`gre’’ to apes in his treatise on The humans studying monkeys. expressed more admiration than [I Animal Kingdom. Haeckel was simply Indeed, ethnology would be only have].’’16:vi adopting a familiar image and using quantitatively different from prima- I suggest that the rejection of it to his rhetorical advantage. The tology, since Haeckel believed that evolution by the first generation of artwork he drew for the frontispiece there were twelve species of people, German anthropologists was, at of his book certainly left little to the and that they lay at various distances least in part, the rejection of the imagination (Fig. 1). After com- away from the apes. ‘‘Some of the particular version of evolution that plaints from other scientists like wildest tribes in southern Asia and was being promoted. That version , Haeckel redrew and eastern ,’’ he explained, ‘‘have undermined the unity of the human expanded the figure for the second no trace whatever of the first founda- species, as well as the project of German edition two years later and tions of all human civilization, of studying our species rigorously, inserted it into the text, rather than family life, and marriage. They live both of which were more important using it as a frontispiece. The figure together in herds, like apes, generally to them than whether our ancestors ISSUES Why Were the First Anthropologists Creationists? 225

Figure 2. Haeckel’s figures XIII and XIV from the second German edition of Natural History of Creation (1870), public domain. were monkeys. Haeckel was explic- States, Franz Boas. Boas’ training lay choose between the ‘‘evolution’’ of itly calling for a rival intellectual in a strain of liberal German intellec- the eugenicists (geneticist Charles evolutionary project, involving the tualism in the late nineteenth century Davenport, paleontologist Henry ‘‘important and fruitful reform of that placed a higher value on the com- Fairfield Osborn, and physical Anthropology. From this new theory mon natures of all peoples than on anthropologist Earnest Hooton) or of man there will be developed a their descent from apes. When forced be tarred as soft on creationism. new philosophy, not like most of to choose between them, these schol- Although they are rarely discussed the airy systems of metaphysical ars chose the methodological ‘‘psychic together, the history of the study of speculation hitherto prevalent, but unity of mankind’’ over a speculative human origins is intimately connected one founded upon the solid ground simian ancestry. with the study of human variation.44,45 of Comparative Zoology.’’38:367 A generation later, reviewing the The generational continuity is also The anthropological alternative to history of anthropology, Franz Boas significant, given the occasional sugges- Haeckel’s ‘‘solid ground’’ would ulti- noted in the impact of Darwinism ‘‘a tion that Boas’ anthropology was some- mately entail the elaboration of a rela- strong tendency to combine with the how a reflection of his Jewish ancestry tivist science of the human species in historical aspect a subjective valua- rather than his academic training.46 which all human groups are equally tion of the various phases of devel- Boasian anthropology emerged from a human and equally ‘‘cultural,’’ repre- opment... [thus Darwinism] late nineteenth-century liberal human- senting variations on the single theme assumed in many cases an ill-con- istic tradition in Germany,47 the nature of surviving and reproducing as parts cealed teleological tinge.’’ The ‘‘pre- and very existence of which was of Homo sapiens. Of course, this mature theories of evolution ... had eclipsed and eventually lost. would be entirely compatible with a to be revised again and again, as the geologically recent common ancestry slow progress of empirical knowl- CONCLUSIONS with the apes. It would be the anthro- edge of the data of evolution proved pology established by the prote´ge´of their fallacy.’’43 Just a few years later, If my interpretation is valid, there Bastian and Virchow in the United Boas himself would be forced to also would be a significant caution- 226 Marks ISSUES ary tale for the contemporary schol- 6 Anonymous. 1902. Prof. Virchow is dead. Fa- ries’’ in Wilhelmine Germany. In: Stocking GM, mous scientist’s long illness ended yesterday. editor. Volksgeist as method and ethic: essays arly community: The acceptance or He was born in 1821 – German papers say he on Boasian ethnography and the German an- rejection of ‘‘evolution’’ may have was the world’s greatest medical reformer. The thropological tradition. Madison: University of rather more to do with the particu- New York Times, 6 Sept. Wisconsin Press, p 79–154. 7 lar representation of evolution being Anonymous. 1902. Virchow’s office in science. 28 Haddon AC. 1910. History of anthropology. , 6 Sept. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. offered, its rigor and its implica- 8 Anonymous. 1880. Pleas for German Jews. 29 Hartland ES. 1896. Elementary ideas of tions, than it does with the general City preachers protest against the persecution. mankind. Nature 53:291–292. intelligence of the target audience. The New York Times, 20 Dec. 30 Brinton DG. 1898. The ‘‘folk-mind.’’ Science 9 That, in turn, would imply a greater Efron JM. 1994. Defenders of the race: Jewish 7:826–827. doctors and race science in fin-de-sie`cle 31 Lowie R. 1937. The history of ethnological measure of responsibility on the part Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press. theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 10 of the scientific community toward R. T. H. 1902. Rudolph Ludwig Karl 32 Ko¨ pping K. 1983. Adolf Bastian and the psy- the public, the responsibility to dif- Virchow. Nature 66:551–552. chic unity of mankind. St. Lucia: University of 11 ferentiate among the various invoca- Anonymous. 1891. Rudolf Virchow and his Queensland Press. countrymen. Nature 44:585–586. 33 Cunningham D. 1908. Anthropology in the tions of Darwinism so that the pub- 12 Virchow R. 1886. Virchow on acclimatiza- eighteenth century. J R Anthropol Inst Great lic knows what it is accepting or tion. Science 7:169–170. Britain Ireland 38:10–35. rejecting, and that invocations of 13 Anonymous. 1886. Blondes and brunettes 34 Smith GE. 1935. The place of Thomas evolution are not all equally credible. in Germany. Science 7:129-130. Henry Huxley in anthropology. J R Anthropol 14 Manias C. 2009. The Race prussienne contro- Inst Great Britain Ireland 65:199–204. That is to say, it is the responsibility versy: scientific internationalism and the 35 Stocking GW. 1971. What’s in a name? The of the scientific community to nation. Isis 100:733–757. origins of the Royal Anthropological Institute explain that it is possible to reject 15 Boas F. 1902. Rudolf Virchow’s anthropolog- (1837–71). Man 6:369–390. the of Philippe Rushton or ical work. Science 16:441–445. 36 Livingstone D. 2008. Adam’s ancestors: race, 16 Virchow R. 1877. The liberty of science in religion, and the politics of human origins. Bal- James Watson, the evolutionary psy- the modern state. Nature 17:111–113, italics in timore: Johns Hopkins University Press. chology of Steven Pinker, or the fa- original. An alternative translation was sepa- 37 Desmond A, Moore J. 2009. Darwin’s sacred naticism of Richard Dawkins, and rately published: ‘‘WE CANNOT TEACH, WE cause: how a hatred of slavery shaped Darwin’s CANNOT PRONOUNCE IT TO BE A CON- views on human evolution. New York: yet not be a creationist. QUEST OF SCIENCE, THAT MAN DESCENDS Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Had that option been available to FROM THE APE OR FROM ANY OTHER ANI- 38 Haeckel E. 1876. The history of creation: or Virchow and Bastian – the opportu- MAL. We can only indicate it as an hypothesis, how- the development of the earth and its inhabi- ever probable it may seem, and however obvious a tants by the action of natural causes, V. 2 nity to reject the dehumanizing evo- solution it may appear.’’ Virchow, R. 1878. The free- (translated by E. R. Lankester). New York: D. lutionary speculations of Ernst dom of science in the modern state. London: John Appleton, p. 326. A later edition modified this Murray, p. 63, capitals in original. Haeckel, the leading spokesman for sentence to end: ‘‘. . .and their whole mode of 17 Huxley TH. 1879. Prefatory note to Freedom life shows much more resemblance to that of German Darwinism – they might in science and teaching by Ernst Haeckel. New wild hordes of apes than to any civilized human well have been more inclined to York: D. Appleton, p. xvii. community.’’ Haeckel E. 1892. The History of accept the fossil evidence of human 18 Virchow R. 1898. Recent advances in sci- Creation: Or the Development of the Earth and ence, and their bearing on and sur- its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes evolution. gery. Nature 58:554–556. (translated by E. R. Lankester). 4th ed., v. 2. 19 Berliner Gesellschaft fu¨ r Anthropologie, Eth- London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Tru¨ bner, p. 490. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS nologie und Urgeschichte. It is worth noting 39 Cuvier, G. 1817. Le Regne Animal, vol 1. that since ‘‘anthropologie’’ denoted ‘‘physical Paris: Deterville. For their helpful comments, I am anthropology,’’ this named the equivalent of 40 Richards R. 2008. The tragic sense of life: grateful to John David Smith, Vero- three of the ‘‘four fields of anthropology.’’ Ernst Haeckel and the struggle over evolution- 20 Penny H, Bunzl M, editors. 2003. Worldly pro- ary thought. Chicago: University Of Chicago nika Lipphardt, Karen Strier, John vincialism: German anthropology in the age of Press, p. 227. Fleagle, Peta Ann Katz, and anony- empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 41 Haeckel E. 1982. The history of creation: or mous reviewers. I thank the Max 21 Penny HG. 2008. Traditions in the German the development of the earth and its inhabi- language. In: Kuklick H, editor. A new history of tants by the action of natural causes (translated Planck Institute for the History of anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, p 79–94. by E. R. Lankester). 4th ed., v. 2. London: Science for support during my stay 22 Gingrich A. 2005. Prelude and overture: from Kegan Paul, Trench, Tru¨ bner, p. 490. there as a Visiting Research Fellow. early travelogues to German enlightenment. In: 42 Elam C. 1878. Haeckel and Virchow: The Barth F, Gingrich A, Parkin R, Silverman S, edi- evolution controversy in Germany. Contempo- tor. One discipline, four ways: British, German, rary Review 33:540–569. REFERENCES French, and . Chicago: 43 Boas F. 1904. The history of anthropology. University of Chicago Press. p. 87. Science 20:513–524. 1 Shipman P. 2001. The man who found the 23 Zimmerman A. 2001. Anthropology and 44 Wolpoff M, Caspari R. 1997. Race missing link: Euge`ne Dubois and his lifelong antihumanism in imperial Germany. Chicago: and human evolution. New York: Simon and quest to prove Darwin right. New York: Simon University of Chicago Press. Schuster. and Schuster. 24 Lurie E. 1954. Louis Agassiz and the races 45 Derricourt R. 2010. Raymond Dart and the 2 DeLisle, RG. 2007. Debating humankind’s of man. Isis 45:227–242. danger of mentors. Antiquity 84:230–235. place in nature 1860–2000. Upper Saddle River, 25 Broca P. 1864. On the phenomena of hybrid- 46 Sarich V, Miele, F. 2004. Race: The reality of NJ: Pentice-Hall. ity in the genus Homo. London: Longman, human differences. New York: Westview. 3 Gundling T. 2005. First in line. New Haven: Green, Longman, & Roberts. 47 Smith JD. 2009. ‘‘I would like to study Yale University Press. 26 Brace CL. 1982. The roots of the race con- some problems of heredity’’: Felix von 4 Anonymous. 1897. Authors at home III. cept in American physical anthropology. In: Luschan’s trip to America, 1914–1915. In: Rudolf Virchow at Berlin. The New York Times, Spencer F, editor. A history of American physi- Ruggendorfer P, Szemethy HD, editors. 20 Nov. cal anthropology, 1930–1980. New York: Aca- Vienna: Bo¨ hlau. p. 141–163. 5 Anonymous. 1887. Bismarck’s hard struggle. demic Press. p 11–30. American socialists helping their brethren. Prof. 27 Massin B. 1996. From Virchow to Fischer: Virchow speaks. The New York Times, 16 Feb. physical anthropology and ‘‘modern race theo- VC 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.