From Types to Populations: a Century of Race, Physical Anthropology

From Types to Populations: A Century of Race, Physical Anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association Author(s): Rachel Caspari Source: American Anthropologist, Vol. 105, No. 1, Special Issue: Biological Anthropology: Historical Perspectives on Current Issues, Disciplinary Connections, and Future Directions (Mar., 2003), pp. 65-76 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567314 Accessed: 03-12-2015 05:35 UTC

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 Anthropological Association and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist. http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions RACHEL CASPARI

FromTypes to Populations:A Centuryof Race, PhysicalAnthropology, and the American AnthropologicalAssociation

ABSTRACT Inthe 1960s,U.S. physical anthropology underwent a period of introspection that marked a changefrom the old physical anthropologythat was largelyrace based to thenew physical anthropology, espoused by Washburn and others for over a decade, whichincorporated the evolutionary biology of the modern synthesis. What actually changed? What elements of the race concept have beenrejected, and what elements have persisted, influencing physical anthropology today? In this article, I examine both the scientific and socialinfluences on physicalanthropology that caused changes in the race concept, in particular the influence of the American AnthropologicalAssociation. The race concept is complicated but entails three attributes: essentialism, cladistic thinking, and biological determinism.These attributes have not all been discarded; while biological determinism and itssocial implications have been ques- tionedsince the inception of the field, essentialism and theconcomitant rendering of populations as cladespersists as a legacyof the raceconcept. [Keywords: race, essentialism, physical anthropology]

HE EVENTSSURROUNDING THE PUBLICATION of pologiststhat these biological subdivisionscorresponded T CarletonCoon's The Originof Races in 1962 reflect- to the social meaningsof race,a notion thatlinked physi- ed a major change in U.S. physicalanthropology. Coon cal and behavioralcharacteristics. This link between the suggestedthat five major racesof humansevolved in par- componentsof an essence providedthe basis forthe bio- allel fromHomo erectus at fivedifferent times and at differ- logicaldeterminism prevalent in the racialthinking of the ent rates. He furthersuggested that each racial lineage time.Throughout the 20th century,race also had an evo- crossedthe sapiens"threshold" at differenttimes in pre- lutionarycomponent. Races were effectively thought of as historyand impliedthat the lengthof timeeach had been clades. Differentessences were explained as a productof in the sapiensstate was correlatedwith the level of "cul- poorlyunderstood evolutionary processes, as exemplified turalachievement" of differentracial groups.Coon con- by Coon's notionof independently evolving racial lineages. tended that Causcasoids and Mongoloids crossed this The discourseCoon's book spawned contributedto thresholdconsiderably earlier than Africans (Negroids and currentswithin the fieldthat ultimatelyforced an end to Capoids) and Australians(Australoids), a claim thatclearly the old physical anthropologycentered mainly on the had social implications. raceconcept and helpedusher in the new physicalanthro- Race had held immenseimportance within the field pology,espoused by SherryWashburn, which had been of physicalanthropology during the time leading up to developingthroughout the 1950s. The new anthropology the publicationof Coon's work.At the emergenceof the was eclectic(incorporating various subjects from primates subdiscipline,race was the major theoreticalfoundation to genetics)and was an evolutionaryscience, whose popu- of anthropology;physical anthropology was virtuallysyn- lationalapproaches were incompatible with the essential- onymouswith the studyof race. In 1902, at the inception ism centralto the raceconcept. The Origin of Races brought of the AmericanAnthropological Association (AAA), most to a head the riftswithin physical anthropology as a disci- anthropologistsconsidered "race" to representthe way pline, the tensionsbetween the subdisciplinesof anthro- the human specieswas internallysubdivided. Essentialism pology,and discussionsabout the role of anthropologyin was implicitin thisidea; a racewas thoughtto representa the publicarena. naturalcategory with unique featuresthat defined the es- The AAA'sreaction to thebook was decisive.Washburn, sence of thatcategory.' It seemedobvious to manyanthro- then presidentof the association, delivereda scathing

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 105(1):65-76. COPYRIGHT ? 2003, AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICALASSOCIATION

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 66 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March 2003

addressdenouncing the book aroundthe timeof itspubli- thropologyas embodiedby the AAA.It is interestingthat cation at the AAAAnnual Meeting in Chicago on Novem- as earlyas 1894, a quartercentury prior to the emergence ber 16, 1962. The publishedversion (Washburn 1963) is of physicalanthropology as a truesubdiscipline, Boas be- much less harsh,focusing on the limiteduse of race as a gan to challengethe race concept. By the time physical valid object of studyand the lack of scientificsupport for anthropologyclearly emerged in the 1920s,Boas's follow- any claims of racial inferiority.Public denunciation of ers held some of the most powerfulpositions within U.S. Coon's ideas seemed necessary;segregationists were al- anthropologyand were a dominant voice in the AAA. readyusing them to bolstertheir arguments. There were a Therefore,the racial physicalanthropology that was re- varietyof responsesfrom the scientificcommunity. State- jected in the 1960s developedwithin a broaderanthropo- mentson racewere issued by both theAAA and theAmeri- logical contextthat had been grapplingwith the racecon- can Associationof PhysicalAnthropologists (AAPA). Sev- cept foryears; parts of thatcommunity already questioned eral edited volumes appeared throughoutthe 1960s race,and the AAAhad been involvedin strugglesover the critiquingthe race concept.In 1966, MargaretMead and issue of race betweenanthropology and governmentpoli- Theodosius Dobzhanskyorganized an AmericanAssocia- cies and funding,as well as strugglesbetween anthropol- tion forthe Advancementof Science (AAAS)symposium ogy and othersciences. The rejectionof race in the 1960s meantto deliverthe scientificvoice againsta popularra- was not so new; it was a partof the heritageof physicalan- cism based on "misinformation"and "evil myths"about thropologywithin U.S. anthropology. race.As embodied its by organizers,the symposiumrepre- This historysuggests that the race concepthas no re- sentedan alliance betweenBoasian cultural anthropology maining legacyin physicalanthropology. What actually and evolutionarybiology, including diverse perspectives changed?Is the race conceptreally dead? What elements fromwithin anthropology,genetics, ethnology, psychol- of the race conceptstill persist and influencephysical an- and With few most anthro- ogy, sociology. exceptions, thropologytoday? In thisarticle, I addressthese questions, had become to pologists opposed hereditarianclaims investigatingthem within the contextof the scientificand about race and and werenow intelligence, many skeptical social influenceson mainstreamphysical anthropology of the race itself.What became clear the mid- concept by thatwere a major forcein the evolutionof the race con- 1960s was that race was no a in longer unifyingconcept cept. I arguethat some elementsof the race conceptwere mainstream as it had ceased to physicalanthropology, just in factrejected, but thatothers remain, subtly influencing be a for as a whole since unifyingconcept anthropology ourviews of what we todayterm "populations." Boas's workon race a halfcentury earlier. In physicalanthropology,race was now a divisiveconcept. Although THE ATTRIBUTESOF THERACE CONCEPT Washburnhad publishedhis ideas about the new anthro- The race concept that was examined and rejectedby so pology earlier,this periodmarked a turningpoint in the many in the 1960s includesassumptions about the cause discipline,with greater institutional introspection on the and natureof geographic and otherkinds of variation. The race concept. Some have even arguedthat it markedthe historybehind these assumptionshas createthe demiseof therace concept. helped conceptthat we grapplewith today. forthe last Severalfactors influenced changing views about race Although 100 years the race concept has been about in withinphysical anthropology during this time. First,so- thought quasi-evolutionaryterms, its most fundamentalelements cial factorsprompted scientists to challengeassumptions are essentialism,clades, and determinism.These ofbiological determinism and intellectualinferiority asso- biological attributesare related,and all of them have in- ciated with the race concept.The Holocaustin the 1930s clearly formedthe theoriesabout human variationin and 1940s and the controversysurrounding school deseg- physical The race has theseat- regationin the early 1960s may have been the most im- anthropology. concept changed,yet tributesof race have not all While bio- portantexamples. Anothercomponent of social pressure changed together. determinism resultedfrom the relationshipbetween anthropology and logical and its social implicationshave been since the governmentalinterest in race and racialinequality, an in- questioned inceptionof the field,essentialism terestthat had promotedthe "racialization"of U.S. an- and the concomitantrendering of races as clades have thropologyin the firstplace. Second, the race concept it- been less amenableto change. selfwas challengedby the populationalprinciples espoused Essentialism in the modernsynthesis; evolutionary ideas were incom- patiblewith the essentialistfoundations of the race con- The races definedby the Westernrace conceptwere codi- cept,and alternativeviews of population and clines,based fiedby Linnaeus(1758) and by the definitive10th edition largelyon understandingsfrom population genetics, led of SystemaeNaturae, in whichhe describedfive subspecies many scholarsto considerrace an invalidtool forunder- of humans, listingfor each typeboth the morphological standingbiological variation. Finally, the evolution of U.S. and behavioralcharacteristics that were considered a part physicalanthropology, from its emergence as a subfieldto of the essence of the category.These wereimplicitly (and the presentday, has been influencedby its relationship explicitly)understood to be partof the intrinsicbiology of withthe restof anthropology-specifically,four-field an- the race. European prejudiceswere clearlyincorporated

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Caspari * Race:From Types to Populations 67 into Linnaean typologiesand taxonomiesintegral to the tificationfor "interracialcompetition" (Keith 1936), the naturalhistory tradition. From its very inception, the race basis forclaims of thebiological inferiority of socialclasses, conceptembodied both essentialismand biologicaldeter- and supportedunjust social institutions ranging from slavery minism. to various eugenic policies and the applied biology of In many cases thisessentialism (and the naturalhis- Nazism (Gasman 1971; Stein 1988; Wolpoffand Caspari torycontext to whichit applied) renderedthinking about 1997). racevery similar to thinkingabout biologicalspecies. This The assumptionof monophylyimplicit in treemeta- is exemplifiedin the polygenismso prevalentin the U.S. phorswas made explicitwith the generalconcensus that and Frenchschools of thoughtthat dominatedmuch of treebranches are clades,defined as monophyleticgroups. anthropologyfor the firsthalf of the 19th century(Brace A monophyleticgroup includes an ancestraltaxon and all 1982; Stanton1960; Stocking1968; Wolpoffand Caspari its descendents;clearly, races are not monophyleticand 1997). theirdepiction as clades is inappropriate.Yet treebranches Even afterthe widespreadacceptance of evolution are the underlyingrepresentation of race as a naturalcate- and manyelements of Darwiniantheory, a formof poly- gory,and of the evolutionaryrelationships between races. genismcontinued to thrivebecause evolutionaryscientists This constructionunderlies much of the thinkingpresent retained an essentialist(and racial) perspective.Taxo- throughoutthe historyof U.S. physicalanthropology. nomic categories,including subspecific ones, continuedto be conceptualizedas discretegroups, while the essencesof Biological Determinism the categorieswere explained as productsof separateevo- Biologicaldeterminism is implicitto the raceconcept, and lutionaryhistories. Races, like speciescategories, were de- it is this component that has been most ardentlyad- picted as brancheson an evolutionarytree, whose differ- dressedby the fieldbecause of its obvious social implica- ences could now be explainedthrough their independent tions. In the 1960s, biological determinismwas a focal evolution,at differentrates. pointof importantcurrent issues (in particular,school de- segregationin the South),and it was because thisattribute Clades: EvolutionaryEssentialism was at the centerof politicaldiscussions that many in the Conformingto the Darwiniannotion of the common de- anthropologicalcommunity of the 1960s foundit impor- scentof all species,tree models became appropriate models tantto address. fordiagramming the relationshipsbetween species. After Nineteenth-centuryanthropology embodied both a splittingfrom a common ancestor,two daughterspecies racial thinkingand evolutionismthat explained cultural are reproductivelyisolated by definitionand representdif- variation.At the Turn of the Century,virtually all social ferentbranches of a phylogeny.Therefore, intuitive essen- scientistswere evolutionists, holding the idea that primi- tialismand older treemetaphors did not impede under- tive races and theircultures represented stages in evolu- standingof evolutionaryprocesses at the species level, tionaryhistory or branchesof differentlengths on an evo- because the categoriesare discrete.However, the storyis lutionarytree. Different scholars tied biologyand culture quite differentbelow the specieslevel, because branching togetherin differentways: some were more deterministic cannot accuratelyreflect relationships between groups than others,some saw biology as influencingcultural thatexchange genes. change,others like Lewis HenryMorgan (1877, reprinted The essentialistlink between depictingvariation be- in 1964), forexample, thought culture affected biological tweenspecies and variationwithin the human specieswas changein the brain,in a Lamarckiansense. However,biol- nowhereclearer or more influentialthan in the worksof ogywas usuallyconsidered the determinantof culturaldif- ErnstHaeckel. Haeckel used evolutionarytrees both to de- ferences.Anthropology, as it was practicedthroughout scribethe place of humansin thenatural world and the re- much of the 19th century,was a singlebiocultural disci- lationshipsof human races within the human species. pline, withrace linkingthe components.Franz Boas sev- This had unfortunateimplications for understandings of eredthis connection for U.S. anthropology,and while not human variation.As Linnaean taxonomywas "evolution- all anthropologistsagreed with him, he and his followers ized" and relationshipsamong taxa expressedin termsof forceda kindof introspection-biological(racial) determi- evolutionarytrees, human races, like species, became nismof cultural differences could no longerbe acceptedas branches(or twigs)on the tree,each with its own defin- a blanketassumption in U.S. anthropology. able essence. This approach providedscientific explana- Biologicaldeterminism is not a necessarypart of racial tions for human differences;human groups were effec- typologiesand can be rejectedwithout the rejectionof the tivelyspecies on a smallerscale, whose differencescould raceconcept as a whole.Throughout the historyof the AAA, be accountedfor through independent evolution. many anthropologistsquestioned the validityof racial Throughoutthe 19th and 20th centuries,the use of determinationof culturalcapacities without completely re- phylogeniesto characterizehuman relationshipsin so- jectingthe race concept and its underlyingessentialism. ciopolitical spheres provided the conceptual underpin- Nevertheless,in general,the biologicaldeterminism of the ningsof Westernracial classifications. They providedjus- race conceptwas deeplyentrenched in anthropologyas a

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 68 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March 2003

major assumptionof racial studies,and in Europe,racial cus of most of the 15 Ph.D.s Harvardproduced between anthropologywas a major componentof anthropological 1894-1919. Yet,many of these students also trainedunder thought. Boas in ethnology,linguistics, and physicalanthropology (Cole 1999). Boas was instrumentalin the trainingof Har- U.S. PHYSICALANTHROPOLOGY IN THECONTEXT OF vard studentssuch as Roland Dixon (who was laterto be- THEAAA come an influenceon EarnestHooton's racialthinking) as In the UnitedStates, ironically, given the influenceof the well as his own famousdescendents from Columbia. By earlier"American School," race had become somewhat 1926, Boas's students(or sympathizers)would head every in the less importantthan in Europeananthropology. Because of majordepartment country(Stocking 1968). its emergencewithin (or in some cases beside) the broader It is sometimesforgotten that Boas was a practicing in his anthropologicaltradition embodied after 1902 by the physicalanthropologist early career,probably the one students AAA,physical anthropology always represented more of a only training in the UnitedStates at theTurn strugglebetween racial (i.e., those who focusedon race) of the Century.In 1894, Paul Topinard(the preeminent French of his and studentof and nonracialelements--or should I say "less-racial"ele- anthropologist time, Broca) wrote that Boas was "the the I ments,because the race conceptreally underlay all think- man, anthropologist, wishedfor in the UnitedStates" ing about human variation.To some extent,the new (Stocking1968:166). Boas receivedhis Ph.D. in in 1881 but that physicalanthropology espoused by Washburnrepresented physics by time had become a untrainedin a realliancewith the Boasian partsof anthropologythat geographer.Previously he from Bastianin had questionedthe assumptionsof the race conceptsince anthropology, soughtguidance Adolph the 1890s. ethnologyand Rudolph Virchowin physicalanthropology beforeleaving Berlin for Baffin Island. Boas much ad- Boas miredVirchow, who trainedhim in anthropometrics(Cole 1999; Stocking1968). LikeVirchow, Boas was interestedin The of race in U.S. story anthropology(including physical physiologicalprocesses and never became a Darwinian anthropology)cannot be discussedwithout the reviewing (i.e., selectionist),although he did recognizecommon de- role of Boas and the AAA.This has been treated a by large scentand humanevolutionary relationships to the natural numberof Boas scholars name a few:Cole Stock- (to 1999; world.Like many others of his time,Boas had Lamarckian 1968; Williams1996), and I outlinethese ing onlybriefly ideas (see Wolpoffand Caspari 1997: ch. 8) and neverun- here to underscorethe and relationships professional po- derstoodselection. He acceptedthe viewof manyGerman liticaltensions as it affectingphysical anthropology emerged scientiststhat selectioncould only effectsmall as a changes subdiscipline. (Kinkerlitzchen,as Franz Weidenreichcalled them), not Until the 1920s, there were no U.S. really degrees large ones. Moreover,and, perhaps, more importantly, awardedin what would be considered specifically "physi- Boas consideredVirchow's most significantlegacy to be cal race and racial anthropology."Nevertheless, assump- the organizationof the fieldin Germany,and, later,Boas tionsstill an if rolein anthro- played important, secondary, consciouslysought to be a similarfigure in U.S. anthropol- The fieldfocused on Native American pology. ethnology ogy(Stocking 1968). and and archaeology was descriptive;therefore, even while In the UnitedStates, Boas continuedto make contri- race have been considereda cause of culturalvari- may butionsto physicalanthropology, which he recognized,as it was not The ation, emphasized. pre-Darwinianpolygenist did everyoneat the time,as racial studies.However, in- AmericanSchool of Samuel Morton had no and al- students, steadof acceptingthe assumptionsof the race concept,he the Louis though polygenistzoologist Agassiz produced treatedthem as objectsof inquiry.He wound up rejecting FredrickWard who had a fundamentalinfluence Putnam, biological determinismrather early in the game, and, on the of in the United development anthropology States, later,his work questioned the validityof human types, Putnam'sinterest was archaeology,not race. thus challengingthe essentialismat the core of the race As anthropologyemerged as a professionat the Turn concept.However, he neverreally relinquished essentialist of the Century,a commitmentto NativeAmerican studies notions of major races-broad geographicentities-even and the idea of professionalization(i.e., trainingin anthro- as he questionedthe validityof human typesfor smaller pologyrather than relateddisciplines, or worse,none at all) racial categories,such as variousnationalities (e.g., "Nor- was what held the earlyassociation together, in spite of dics" or "Alpines"). earlydivisions between the "Washingtonians"and "Boas- His strongestcontributions to physicalanthropology ians" along this very line (Stocking1968). Boas was re- werestatistical, which he appliedto studiesof metrichuman sponsiblefor the four-fieldtraining of many earlyPh.D.s variation. He was veryinterested in the new biometrics in U.S. anthropology,even those fromoutside his home being advancedby FrancisGalton and KarlPearson, with institution(Columbia). Unlike the European model for whom he corresponded,and he developedhis own meth- anthropology,Boas thought training in anthropology ods of analysisas well. A major outcomeof these studies should includeall subdisciplines,as did his own research. was his appreciationof the importanceof variation, which At Harvard,Putnam concentratedon archeology,the fo- he used laterto critiquethe idea of racialtypes. This can

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Caspari * Race: FromTypes to Populations 69 be juxtaposedwith Hooton's use of Pearson'sbiometrics strictimmigration. In a studyof over 18,000 immigrants, yearslater, which he used less criticallyto delineateracial he found changes in head formthat underminedthe types.Hooton influencedthe developmentof a race-based dogma of the stabilityof racialtypes and the Europeanfo- physicalanthropology in the UnitedStates; Boas and his cus on head shape as a major indicatorof race. He could legacycontributed to itsdemise. not explain the causes of change,although he considered By the time Boas came to Columbia in 1896, he was themin some way "environmental"and, as an empiricist, deeply concerned with questions of race and had re- arguedthat what was importantwas the documentation searched of problems variationand change. He was al- of the changeitself. Through his workon racialquestions, readydeveloping his ideas of relativism,sparked by his Boas challengedboth biologicaldeterminism and the na- 1884 to Baffin expedition Island,and by then had largely ture of racial categories,two criticalcomponents of the the idea that race determined rejected culturalachieve- race concept.These challengeswere a centralpart of an- ment.As as he early 1894, explicitlyrejected racial deter- thropologicalthinking in the U.S. beforeHooton started minismof culture:"Historical events to appear have been producingPh.D.s in physicalanthropology. much more potent in leading races to civilizationthan theirfaculty, and it followsthat achievements of racesdo "Racializing" PhysicalAnthropology not warrantus to assume that one race is more highly Both governmentaland privateforces promoted the ren- giftedthan another"(Boas 1894:303). aissance of the "scienceof race" in U.S. anthropologydur- He thoughtphysical anthropology was importantin ing WorldWar I, runningcounter to the traditionsdevel- understandinghistorical relationships among peoples,but oping in muchof U.S. anthropology.However, there were even acceptingraces as "real," he recognizedthe impor- also tensions between Boasians and other, at the time, tanceof environmentand historyas influenceson human smallerfactions of the AAAwho were sympatheticto the biologyand behavior.Boas was interestedin growthand anthropologistsassociated with Washingtoninstitutions developmentas a criticalpart of physicalanthropology, (Stocking1968). It mustbe rememberedthat until Hooton especiallythe conditions(environmental and hereditary startedproducing Ph.D.s at Harvardin 1925, therewas no affectson growth)that influenced the modificationof in- specifictraining in physical in the United heritedform. Prior to movingto Columbiain 1896, he in- anthropology States.Only six U.S. Ph.D.s in physical had itiateda studyof Worcesterschoolchildren in which he anthropology been awarded to 1925-five of these fromHarvard, statisticallydemonstrated the problems with inferring prior trained in other Ales HrdliEka, longitudinal informationfrom cross-sectionalstudies by specialists disciplines. the founderof American Journal in (and, thus,advocated forlongitudinal studies in growth) ofPhysical Anthropology 1918, and AAPAin had no studentsin his and emphasizedfor the firsttime the importanceof vari- 1928, position at the NationalMuseum of Natural ation in temposof growth.Thus, beforethe Turn of the History. the second decade of the 20th Century,he was lookingat human variationin nonracial During century,many scholarswho claimed to ways,more interestedin the impact of the environment representphysical anthropology were from other (includingculture) on biologythan the affectof biology actually eugenicists disciplines (that claimed scientific to and some (race)on culture. superiority anthropology), were in the U.S. scientific structure. Boas investigatedAmerican Indian racialissues for the verypowerful political BritishAssociation for the Advancementof Science. He These includedmembers of the Galton Society,which was dedicatedto the of racial such as the looked for relationshipsbetween heredityand environ- study anthropology, FairfieldOsborn of mentunderlying physical differences between reservation paleontologistHenry (then president and nonreservation-dwellingIndians of the NorthPacific the AmericanMuseum of NaturalHistory), and the biolo- Coast. He also looked at problemsof racial admixturein gistsRaymond Pearl and JohnC. Merriman(head of the "half-blood"Indians, rejecting polygenist assumptions of NationalResearch Council [NRC]).Many in the anthropo- reducedfertility in racialhybrids. In these "mixed"popu- logical communitysaw them as a threat;they were racial lations,he also examinedvariation in cranialproportions, deterministswith a political agenda, and the Boasian- includingfacial breadths-wherehe noted the distribu- dominatedAAA did not acceptthem as anthropologists. tionwas bimodaland not normal.In theseand otherstud- Therewas clearlya need forphysical anthropologists ies, averagesdid not representthe "type."He laterunder- trainedwithin anthropology. This dearthbecame veryap- mined the conceptof "type,"questioning its meaning:If parentwhen the NationalResearch Council sought to form averagesdid not representthe "type,"what did? Whatwas an anthropologycommittee, which was to deal withphysi- of interestwas the distributionof traits,not the conforma- cal anthropologyand eugenics.Aside fromHrdlieka and tion to typesor the creationof new,intermediate types in Boas, therewere few physical anthropologists recognized the case of interbreedingthat was criticalto the race con- by the AAAto serve(Stocking 1968). Madison Grantand cept. His mostfamous work regarding race was performed Charles Davenport,ardent racistsand eugenicists,foun- between 1908-10 on head shape in U.S. immigrants, ders of the Galton Societywith strongpolitical agendas funded (somewhat ironically)by the U.S. Immigration and tiesto Washington,served on the originalcommittee. Commission,which was seekinga scientificbasis to re- Whilethe AAArefused to recognizeGrant or Davenportas

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 70 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March 2003

anthropologists,there remained enormous pressure on an- formationstage and then a tertiarystage--in each stage, thropologyto "racialize," both from the government, hybridraces formed from the preexistingones. Thus,they which had become increasinglyinterested in restricting argued,pure racesexisted and persistedinto the present, immigrationon racial grounds,and fromthe eugenicin- but secondaryand tertiaryraces formedmore recentlyin terestscontrolling other major fundingsources. Members human evolutionthrough hybridization. Hooton's views of the Galton Societyincluded the heads of institutions were still essentialist;he believed in "pure" races,but he that had been (or potentiallycould be) importantsources realizedthat a fewracial typescould not account forreal of anthropologicalfunding. By the 1920s, fundingin- observablevariation. creasedfor studies of race and racialpsychology. U.S. an- Hooton's thinkingabout race had all the attributesof thropologistsresponded to this fundingincrease and to the race concept;he was an essentialist,he explainedthe criticismsthat they neglected biology and the racial essencewith evolutionary branches, and he was a biologi- makeupof the U.S. by expressingmore interest in physical cal deterministas is clearlyshown in his eugenicwriting anthropology.Ironically, several of Boas's students(e.g., (Hooton 1937, 1939; Wolpoffand Caspari 1997). Given Mead, Herskovitz,Klineberg) were fundedby NRC fellow- this, Hooton's views on racismcould appear paradoxical ships in the biological sciences forwork that supported (Wolpoffand Caspari 1997). While he believed in races, the culturalbasis forracial differences,and Boas himself and even in "racial character,"he was more active than exploitedthese sourcesfor his own workon race. Other most membersof the academic communityin antiracist studentsof Boas, such as AlfredE. Kroeber(and Roland activities,entering into a relationshipwith Boas that Dixon), as well as more conservativenon-Boasian ele- Barkantermed "the frustratedantiracist campaign of an ments of the anthropologicalcommunity, also became odd anthropologicalcouple" (1988:182). Aftermany at- moreinterested in physicalanthropology, placing the race temptsto mobilize the academic communityagainst ra- Boas turnedto who sent concept and eugenicsat the focus of the emergingnew cism, Hooton, a statementhe had physicalanthropology. authored to seven leading U.S. physicalanthropologists outlininghis view on the stateof scientificknowledge of Hooton race differences.Among other things, he concludedthat a correlationbetween featuresand mental EarnestHooton was one of the mostinfluential in physical ability figures had not been demonstratedand that there was insuffi- physicalanthropology (Giles 1999). He was a at professor cient scientificevidence to ranksto Harvardfrom 1913 until his death in 1954 and was re- assign evolutionary races. Only Hrdli6kawould sign it. In 1936, Hooton then sponsible fortraining virtually an entireacademic field, published his own "Plain Statementabout Race" in Sci- spawningseveral generations of studentswhen fewother ence,speaking against the racismunderlying Nazism. In universitiesoffered physical anthropology as partof their 1940, as Hooton realizedthe futilityof attemptsto organ- curricula.Hooton's Ph.D. (in 1911 fromWisconsin) was in ize even the AAPAagainst racism, his studentWilliam W. classics.He had littlebackground in anthropology,and it Howells asked him what could be done. He replied:"Not took some time to his offthe but get program ground, only has the horsebeen stolen,but the barnhas also been in 1926, a floodof Ph.D.s in starting physicalanthropol- burnt"(Barkan 1988:203). ogy emergedfrom Harvard. Within a few years,physical It is hardto overestimatethe importanceof Hooton to anthropologywas a major of U.S. and part anthropology, U.S. physicalanthropology. Hooton's thinking on racewas this was reflectedin AAA and the membership develop- adoptedby some of his students,rejected by others,but in mentof the AAPA. eithercase, it stronglyinfluenced subsequent generations Race studiescame to be the focusof Hooton's career, of scholarsbecause it limitedtheir understanding of differ- but he formedhis ideas about race and anthro- physical ent ways of interpretingintergroup relationships. Even in afterhe came to Harvard.His workwas pology general studentssuch as Howells,who largelyrejected Hooton's and like as an "evolu- typological manifested, Haeckel's, polygenism,inherited essentialist views (Caspari and Wolpoff tionarypolygenism" (Wolpoff and Caspari1997). Hooton's 1996; Wolpoffand Caspari 1997). For instance,Howells Harvardcolleague, Dixon, influencedhis views on race; was so conditionedby polygenicmodels that he did not Hooton's 1931 classificationis verysimilar to Dixon's 1923 interpretFranz Weidenreich'spolycentric model of hu- classification. man evolutionas a network,as it was originallypresented The polygenismof Hooton and Dixon was compli- (Weidenreich1946). Followingan initialexchange in the cated, groundedin the beliefin once-pureraces that had AmericanAnthropologist (AA) (Howells 1942; Weidenreich separateevolutionary histories. Like many other scientists 1940), Howells describedWeidenreich's ideas as a poly- with fundamentallypolygenist ideas, they understood genic tree (the "candelabra").Even afterdiagrams of the thatpresent human variation could not be accommodated trellisappeared (Weidenreich1946, 1947), Howells con- withina fewracial types.Hooton thoughtthat the com- tinued to depictit as a candelabrain numeroussecondary plexity of human variation could be accounted for sourcesand textbooksthroughout his career(e.g., Howells throughinterbreeding between once-pureprimary racial 1959,1993). It may be thatHowells was in partreacting to the groupsthat relatively recently underwent a secondaryrace polygenismof R. RugglesGates, a racistplant geneticist

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Caspari * Race: FromTypes to Populations 71 who derivedsupport from both Hooton and Coon, thinking populationalprocesses, a focuson variationwithin popu- Weidenreichshared these views (Gates 1944; Wolpoffand lations,or on the fluidityof populations (Wolpoffand Caspari1997). But Weidenreich (1946) specificallydisavowed Caspari 1997). The new physicalanthropology came to be Gates'spolygenism, and the candelabraHowells described viewedas the studyof human evolution,not the descrip- was actuallymore like Hooton's model, and not Weiden- tion of human types. Some, like FrederickHulse, ad- reich's."Tree-thinking" permeated physical anthropology; dressedthis by lookingat racesas evolutionaryepisodes, likeHowell's depiction of Weidenreich's trellis, most scholars viewingraces as largelyephemeral, caused by evolutionary saw the "candelabra"as a reasonablesimplification (perhaps processes.Washburn sought to developa new physicalan- an oversimplification)of a trellis,but one thatrepresented thropologywithout race, groundedin evolutionarybiol- thesame processes. Depictions of gene flowwere ignored-a ogy and the populationalthinking of the synthesis.Only legacyof the race concept. threeyears afterthe Princetonsymposium that marked Nevertheless,although very influential, Hooton's brand the "official"birth of the modern synthesis,Washburn of race sciencedid not permeatephysical anthropology in and Dobzhanskyorganized the famous15th Annual Cold the UnitedStates for long. It was neverthe overwhelrhing SpringHarbor Symposium that clarified the evolutionary traditionthat it had been in Europe, and his students, programof the new physicalanthropology. In additionto only a single generationlater, were responsiblefor the a focus on human evolution and prehistory,the new that disavowed the new physical anthropology impor- physical anthropologyespoused ways that biology was tance of race. Washburn,the most well-knownamong relevantto studiesof the human condition-that biology these,actively rejected the racialthinking of his mentor;it and culturecould be interrelatedwithout determinism. A that Washburn'sfirst was at Colum- is not surprising job newgeneration of physical anthropologists studied "popula- bia, wherehe joined those predominantlyinfluenced by tions"instead of "races,"or studiedthe distributionof in- the Boasians,including Ashley Montagu. dividualtraits in clinal studies(Brace 1964). While few of his studentsshared Hooton's eugenic Ironically,Hooton himselfcontributed to the chang- of themcontinued his focuson race and hu- fervor,many ing focusof physicalanthropology through his skillsas an man at least fora while. such as variation, Some, Stanley educatorand his respectfor his students(Giles 1999). As and focusedon of race definition, Garn Coon, problems HarryShapiro points out in Hooton's obituaryin the AA, the numberof different and of race forma- races, problems Hooton encourageddiversity of thoughtin his students. tion (e.g., Brues1972; Coon et al. 1950; Garn 1957, 1962). He did not want to establisha "school" and "never at- These researchersand otherscontributed to discus- many temptedto establishintellectual ascendancy over his stu- sions about the numberof races-some hun- recognized dents" (1954:1082). He encourageddissenting opinions, dreds,some a few.Authors such as Coon et al. (1950) only tellingShapiro: "You know, none of my studentshave it was just a matterof resolution:Microraces suggested been yes men. ... ThankGod!" (Shapiro1954:1082). Hoo- could be defined a numberof traitsand by larger repre- ton's studentsremained diverse, as theyestablished physi- sentedsubdivisions of broad major raceswhose constitu- cal anthropologyin universitiesand museumsaround the ents uniquely shareda smallernumber of traits.Some of country.Some maintainedthe polygenismand racial ap- thesestudies implied the arbitrarynature of racialclassifi- proachesof their advisor, while others were responsible, at cation.Coon et al. (1950) wroteon the potentialadaptive least in part,for what has been consideredthe demise of significanceof racialtraits. Harry Shapiro (1939) and Fred the raceconcept. Hulse (1962), also studentsof Hooton and interestedin questioningthe stabilityof racialtraits, demonstrated dra- matic in morphologicalchanges first-generationJapanese THEDEMISE OF THE RACECONCEPT? immigrantsin Hawaii,similar to Boas's conclusionsearlier such as WilliamShel- in the 20th century.Some students, Public Science don in his famoussomatotype studies, retained Hooton's biological determinism(and in Sheldon's case expanded The verypublic rejection of raceby manyanthropologists on it); others,such as Coon, inheritedHooton's poly- in the 1960s was one of a numberof responses,beginning genism;still others, such as Washburn,rejected Hooton's in the 1930s,by the scientificcommunity to racismin the emphasis on race, turninginstead to the evolutionary largersociety. Furthermore, thinking about the race con- ideas underlyingthe modernsynthesis as the foundation cept itselfhad evolvedwith the developmentof the mod- of the new physicalanthropology. ern synthesisin biology,and the applicationof its princi- With the modern synthesisof the 1940s, Hooton's ples to human variation and evolution (not only by studentsalso facedthe need to bringevolutionary theory anthropologistsbut also by the architectsof the synthesis into theirstudies. They did this in differentways. Coon itself).Indeed, several of its architects,especially Ernst was a typologistwho never incorporatedpopulational Mayr (1982, 1991) and Dobzhansky(1944, 1962, 1963) thinkinginto his perspective;however, he considered saw the populationalthinking of the synthesisand emerg- himselfan evolutionist,largely through his interestin ad- ing understandingsof populationgenetics to be influential aptation. He did not extend this to an understandingof weapons in a warwaged by scienceagainst public racism.

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 72 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March 2003

However,the reactionsparked by Coon's publicationof subdisciplinesof anthropologyagainst each other,claim- TheOrigin of Races was also a responseto Coon's tacitalli- ing that "scientific"anthropologists (like Coon) rejected ance withracists seeking to influencepublic policy(Jack- the dismissalof race and that theyhad evidenceof racial son 2001). inequalitythat made blacks undeservingof full citizen- Some anthropologists,as well as otherscientists, had ship. These writingshad wide circulation;they were pub- been activein antiracismcampaigns since the early1930s. lishedin newspapersthroughout the South,and therewas The abuses of biologyand anthropologythat were at the even a "PutnamLetters Committee" dedicated to raising root of the eugenics movementand Nazi biopolicy pro- funds to publish the letters in Northernnewspapers, pelled at leasta fewbiologists, anthropologists, and evolu- where they appeared as paid advertisementsand were tionistswith a sense of responsibilityto presentscientific used as mass mailingsof segregationistpropaganda. More- argumentsthat would underminethis "scientific"racism. over, Race and Reasonwas even requiredreading in the This is when Boas and Hooton formedtheir fruitless coali- Louisiana public schools (Jackson2001)--evidence of its tion to generatesupport for an antiracistcampaign within prominencein the South. U.S. academia. The Britishevolutionary biologist J. B. S. Attacksfrom Putnam and otherracists like Henry Gar- Haldane spoke out against racism at the 1934 London rett(1961) and Wesley George (1962) promptedresolu- Meetingof the InternationalCongress of Anthropological tions on race fromboth the AAAin November1961 and and EthnologicalSciences (ICAES), warning his audience the AAPAin 1962. Froma pressrelease on the 60th An- againstthe abuse of sciencein supportof race theories.In nual Meetingof the AAA,Gordon Willey,then president 1935, respondingto risingracism in Europe,Julian Huxley of the AAA,called fora resolutionin responseto "publica- and AlfredHaddon publishedWe Europeans,an important tionson race and racialdifferences as a basis forsocial and antiracisttract. In additionto underminingbiological de- politicalaction" that used "the name 'anthropology'and terminismand assumptions of racial inferiority,they 'anthropologicalscience' in a way we believe to be false questionedthe veryexistence of race and suggestedthat and misrepresentativeof our professionby personswho ethnicgroup replace the termrace, a harbingerof Ashley are not recognizedby the AmericanAnthropological Asso- Montagu's 1942 Man's MostDangerous Myth and his 1950 ciation as professionalanthropologists" (Jackson 2001: UNESCO statementon race. 263). The resolutionpassed unanimously. Montagu,who receivedhis Ph.D. withBoas at Colum- A fewmonths later, the AAPApassed a resolutionin- bia afterstudying anatomy with G. Elliot Smithin Lon- troducedby Stanley Garn that specificallycondemned don, was theU.S. physicalanthropologist at the forefront Race and Reasonand the misuse of science withinit. Fol- of the public antiracismcampaign after the war. He lowingthe resolution,Coon resignedfrom the presidency authorednumerous popular articles and books,as well as of the AAPA,claiming the resolutionwas inappropriate the firstUNESCO statementon race,which was verycon- and thatscientists should keep out of the integrationissue troversialbecause of his claim that races were a "myth," (Coon 1981), even though Coon was veryactive behind not because of his denunciationof notions of differences the scenesof the segregationistcause throughhis associa- in racialcapacities for achievement. tionwith Putnam and others(Jackson 2001). In the 1960s,an even largergroup of scientistssought Some of the authoritysegregationists cited also came to underminethe scientificracism used to supportoppo- fromeugenicists whose work (by the 1960s withoutthe nents of the civil rightsmovement. This reactionwas es- eugenicslabel) continuedto be fundedby WycliffeDraper, peciallystrong in the anthropologicalcommunity. Once founder of the Pioneer fund, and other like-minded again, as in the days of Madison Grantand othertimes sources,which today continues to fundresearch meant to throughoutits history,the AAAfound itself pitted against demonstratehuman inequality.This line of research,and groups seeking to influencepublic racial policy in the its financial foundation,represents a thread running name of science.Carleton Putnam and othersdirectly at- throughoutthe historyof U.S. anthropology(Lieberman tackedthe AAAas a left-wingconspiracy that deliberately 2001) thata fewanthropologists have embraced,but that concealed the "truth"about race. Coon was squarelyin the communityat largehas consistentlyrepudiated since the middle of all this (Jackson2001), contra the mostly earlyin the historyof the AAA.Just as the AAArefused to self-generated(Coon 1981) depictionsof him as a purely recognizeDavenport and Grantas anthropologistsin spite objective scientistwhose work was misused by others of theirinfluence at the time,both the AAAand the AAPA withouthis approval (Shipman 1994). As the civil rights have continuedto deny anthropologicalidentity to their movement became strongerand the Supreme Court intellectualdescendents. Like theirpredecessors, these de- passed desegregationlaws (activelyresisted in the South), scendents also claim they are estrangedfrom the field Coon subtlyparticipated in movementsmeant to under- because of the left-wing,political correctness of anthro- mine Boasian interpretationsof race. Coon was sympa- pologists.They use such political claims to deflectcriti- theticto the segregationistcause. cismof theirwork (Relethford 2001). Nevertheless,articles Pamphletsand books such as Race and Reason(1962) "demonstrating"racial inequality continue to be pro- by CarletonPutnam (Coon's cousin) used Coon as scien- duced and fundedby incarnationsof the same founda- tificauthority. These publicationsconsciously pitted the tionsthat supported similar work throughout the century.

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Caspari * Race: FromTypes to Populations 73

Public attentiontherefore fostered introspection and thinkinghe developed helped bringabout the demise of discussion about the validityof race withinphysical an- the race concept,as essentialismis the antithesisto Dar- thropology;questions about the intellectualcapacities of winian approachesto variation.By emphasizingintraspe- differentracial groupswere addressed,as were questions cificevolutionary processes, populational thinking focuses of the "reality"of race. Some individualsrejected at least on variationand the fluiditybetween populations-on all some elementsof the raceconcept. However, this repudia- the processesthat reduce or increasevariation within and tion of the typeconcept was more directlyinfluenced by betweenpopulations. An emphasis on gene flowand its evolutionarybiology; because of evolutionaryand genetic relationshipto otherevolutionary forces affecting the dis- influences,the newergeneration of physicalanthropolo- tributionof differenttraits across populations is what gists grew up thinkingabout human variationin ways populationalthinking is all about, and it underminedthe thatwere not (at leastexplicitly) racial. race concept. The approach is very differentfrom that used to understandphyletic evolution, the focusof many Genetics,Populations, and Clines evolutionaryscientists, and when populationsare studied withtheories The need to confrontpublic misrepresentations of science and methodsappropriate for phyletic analy- thatwere actively used in the 1960s fosteredalliances be- ses, the workis no longerpopulational, but essentialist. When tween various elements that had foughtracism before these two verydifferent evolutionary domains are with some that had not-the architectsof the modern confusedwith one another,populations are treatedmuch as racesonce synthesis,"mainstream" anthropologists as represented were,and the workdoes not representpopu- lational by the AAA,and physicalanthropologists as represented thinking. by the AAPA.The 1966 AAASMead-Dobzhansky sympo- Therefore,despite the shift in focus fromrace to sium representedthis alliance, as did a numberof volumes populationas a unit of study,populational thinking does not on the studyof race producedat the time(e.g., Mead et al. necessarilygo hand-in-handwith the studyof populations. 1968; Montagu 1964) thatbrought together work from a Many 20th-centuryanthropologists, whether study- or varietyof disciplines.One way of attackingracism was ing genes (Boyd 1950) morphology,conceived of population as (and is) througha focus on the inadequacy of the race just another term for race. They thought of as conceptfor explaining human variation.Studies of clines, populations breedingpopulations, isolated from other Some the geographicdistribution of individualmorphological groups. recognizedthis implicitly,some explicitly. "the to race and genetic traits,were introducedand population re- Garn wrote, contemporaryapproach stems from placed race as a focus of study.This was by no means population genetics,where a race is viewed as a neithermore nor less" He purelypolitical; it was a consequenceof the evolutionary breedingpopulation, (1962:6). identifiedsmall "local races"like the "Bushmen"of approachof the new physicalanthropology. South Africaas moreor less isolated As C. LoringBrace pointed out in 1964, races,and breedingpopulations (Garn In of Washburn's even populations,are inadequate forthe studyof human 1962). spite (1963) admonition that racesor were variation.Instead, he advocated forthe studyof individ- populations open systems,populations were nevertheless as closed. theexist- ual traits-thestudy of their distribution and the selection conceptualized Therefore, ence of was ifthe that causes theirvariation. The studyof clines came to re- types implicit,even scientificfocus was on their As and Van Ger- place race as a focus of analysis for many researchers. adaptations. Armelagos,Carlson, studiesin skeletal FrankLivingstone, in his 1962 articleon the nonexistence ven (1982) pointedout, many biology and continuedto methodsto of human races,eloquently lays out why race or any sub- genetics employtypological ends: the and delineationof specifictaxonomy is misleading: typological recognition populations.Their conclusion in 1982 was that whetherusing Thecauses of intraspecific biological variation are differ- skeletalor genetictraits, many studiesof populationsare from variationand to the ent thoseof interspecific apply justas typologicalas studiesof race. termsubspecies to anypart of such variation is notonly In of the of some arbitraryorimpossible but tends to obscurethe explana- spite typologicalapproach genetic tionof that variation. [1962:279] studies,genetics had a stronginfluence on the changing race concept, especially the population geneticsof the He was a strongproponent of nonracialclinal studies,ar- modern synthesis.Population geneticiststhrough the guing,"there are no races,only clines" (Livingstone1962: yearshave providedcompelling evidence for human unity. 279). In 1972, when RichardC. Lewontinmade famousthe esti- Others,however (e.g., Brues 1972), accepted the im- mates of much more variationwithin than betweenhu- portanceof clines but arguedthat the biology of groups man groups,he was showingwhat populationgeneticists themselveswas also a valid targetof inquiry.With the like Dobzhanskyhad suspectedand said all along. While populational thinkingof the modern synthesis,which Dobzhanskyargued that races were not a "myth,"and formedthe basis of Washburn'snew physicalanthropol- that there were biological differencesbetween popula- ogy,populations replaced race as the unit of study.What tions,he arguedfor their fluidity and forthe conceptof did this mean? How did the studyof populationsdiffer isolation by distance. More recently,Alan Templeton,a fromrace? Mayr himselfsuggests that the populational geneticistwith anthropologicaltraining writing in the

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 74 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March 2003 pages of AA, looked at race froma geneticsperspective, and physical anthropologistsno longer supportthe no- showingthat subspeciesdo not existin humans and em- tion that races are subspecies.The importanceof gene phasizingthat tree models do not adequatelydescribe hu- flowand the fluidityof the species is recognizedeven by man populationrelationships (Templeton 1998). forensicanthropologists whose continueduse of typologi- However,tree models have continued to thrive.As cal and raciallycharged termsmakes them appear less discussedearlier, the polygenictree was such a powerful populationalthan theyoften really are. However,in spite metaphorin the thinkingof the 1940s and 1950s that of the rejectionof races as subspecies,and a reluctanceto Weidenreich'snetwork was originallyinterpreted as a tree. use the term race,populations are oftenthought of in This historicbackground continues to influenceevolu- much the same way that races were in the earlierlitera- tionarythinking about humanpopulations today. ture. Essentialismcontinues to influence conceptions Relationshipsbetween populationsare still oftende- about human groups,and thisis exemplifiedby the use of picted as branches on a tree,therefore implying inter- treesas metaphorsfor human populationrelationships in populationaldifferences are due to reproductiveisolation studiesof morphologicaland genetichuman variation. In- fromother groups.The magnitudeof that differenceor traspecificclades are an enduringlegacy of racial anthro- the extentof the relationshipis sometimessaid to reflect pologyand continueto informour thinkingabout popu- the length of time since the populations diverged.Al- lations.The raceconcept may be rejectedby anthropology, thoughthis is appropriatefor species (which cannot inter- but its underlyingracial thinkingpersists. Physical anthro- breed),and may even somewhataccurately depict inter- pologistsno longerstudy races. Populations are now stud- group relationships in species with marked genetic ied, but not all approachesto the studyof populationsare distinctionsbetween groups, branching models do not de- populational. scribehuman relationships.Ironically, the geneticlitera- tureis fullof such representations.Trees are commonheu- RACHELCASPARI Departmentof Anthropology, University of risticdevices used to variationof depict geneticsystems. Michigan,Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1382 While treescan be valid forrepresentation at this level, theyfail to accuratelypredict population relationsif the NOTES are assumedto reflectthe gene divergences relationships Acknowledgments.I would like to thankJim Calcagno for inviting betweenpopulations. Worldwide analysis of differentge- me to participatein thissymposium and inspiringme to think netic shows that theyhave different of aboutrace and physical anthropology in the context of the AAA. I systems patterns also the commentsof variation-that their treeshave different of appreciate helpful JimCalcagno, Katarzyna is, patterns Kaszycka,and an anonymousreviewer. I especially thank Fran branchingand coalescence.In the same samples,systems Mascia-Leesand the editorial staff of the AA for their excellent sug- like mtDNAhave shallow coalescencetimes, while others gestionsand support. 1. raceis a of It like beta-globinand HLA have much deeperones (Hawks Ultimately, taxonomy people. categorizespeople basedon socialfactors, even when those factors are believed to et al. Because of the historiesof 2000). recombination, represent"natural categories." Because all taxonomiesdepend on genes even withinthe same individualare different.Each essentializing,essentialism is a criticalcomponent of racial think- some that is a ofthe hu- gene tree is differentbecause gene historiesare not di- ing.Today, argue essentializing product manmind, suggesting racial thinking may have a psychological rectlylinked togetherin population histories(Harding component.According to thisview, humans create taxonomies of 2000; Hawkset al. 2000; Relethford1998). Yet,in muchof thebiological, social, and physicalworld in similarways, cross- 1990, Hirschfeld Thesetax- the geneticliterature, a treederived from a singlegenetic culturally(Atran 1994; 1996,1998). onomiesare knowledge structures that allow inferences tobe made systemis assumedto representthe historyof populations. (beyondthe informationgiven) about constituentcategories. Somecategories are more inferentially rich than others, allowing CONCLUSION stereotypesto form without empirical basis. These categories have beentermed "natural kinds," because they are believed to be part How did the race conceptchange in the 1960s? What ele- ofthe natural world-"real," not human constructions. "Naturalkinds" are different mech- mentswere altered? Can we reallycelebrate its demise?Of producedthrough cognitive anismsthat are specific to particulardomains (based on different the threeattributes of race discussed,biological determi- mentalmodules). "Natural kinds" that reflect the biological world nism,or racial determinismof such traitsas intelligence, have been termed"living kinds." People learn "living kinds" different thanthose used to learn has been most addressedsince the of through cognitiveprocesses actively beginnings about inanimatethings or the processesthat relate to them. the AAA,and despitemisgivings on the partof some cul- Hirschfeld(1996, 1998) and others have argued that, in addition to turalanthropologists, the physicalanthropology commu- a cognitivedomain that governs "living kinds," humans have a domainthat to learn"human kinds" it Withthe of evolution- separate allowsthem easily nitylargely rejects today. growth andthe complete set of traits that make up the essence of a particular ary psychologyand behavioralecology, there may be a kind.These "human kinds" are social categories that are particularly resurgenceof emphasison the biological basis of behav- importantto a culture;they are thought by members of that cul- tureto be intrinsicto a person'sidentity. Just as biologicalcatego- ioral traits,but, forthe mostpart, these studiesrecognize riescarry information about the essenceof a species(or a dog the differencebetween evolutionary foundations and bio- breed),"human kinds" carry information about the essence of a logicaldeterminism. typeof person-whatthey are supposed to looklike, think like, andact like. The fact that many members of a categorydo notcon- The link between biological determinismand racial formto the stereotypedoes notdispel the stereotype."Human determinismdepends on races being naturalcategories, kinds"are groups whose members are believed to sharesome funda-

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Caspari * Race: FromTypes to Populations 75 mentalessence. Because classifications of "humankinds" are con- Dobzhansky,Theodosius sideredfundamental reflections of identity, they may have greater 1944 On Speciesand Racesof Living and Fossil Man. American social meaningthan othercategories that do not reflectthe es- Journalof Physical Anthropology 2:251-265. senceof a person.In U.S. society,presumed geographic origin and 1962 MankindEvolving: The Evolution of the Human Species. phenotypicfeatures, widely considered the constituentcompo- NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press. nentsof race,are consideredto be moreintrinsic to identitythan 1963 PossibilityThat Homo sapiens Evolved Independently 5 othercategories like occupation or religion.Therefore, in Western TimesIs VanishinglySmall. Current Anthropology 4:360-366. society,and globallyto some extentbecause of culturalintercon- Garn,Stanley M. nection,Western dominance, and the legacies of colonialism, 1957 Raceand Evolution. American Anthropologist 59:218-224. "race" is a "human kind"and, therefore,has a psychologicaldi- 1962 HumanRaces. Rev. edition. Springfield, IL:C. C. Thomas. mensionsince it is based on thesame cognitive domain. According Garrett,Henry E. to this reasoning,we may be psychologicallydisposed to racial 1961 TheEqualitarian Dogma. Perspectives in Biologyand Medi- thinking.This suggests,as Hirschfeld(1996) has said, thatracial cine4:480-484. thinkingand the raceconcept are not one and the same;the race Gasman,Daniel conceptmay be a productof "mentation,"but racialthinking is 1971 TheScientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwin- culturaland psychological. ismin Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League. New York: Elsevier. Gates,R. Ruggles REFERENCESCITED 1944 Phylogenyand Classificationof Hominids and Anthropoids. Armelagos,George J., David S. Carlson,and DennisP. Van Gerven AmericanJournalofPhysical Anthropology 2:279-292. 1982 TheTheoretical Foundations and Development of Skeletal George,Wesley C. Biology.In Historyof American Physical Anthropology 1962 TheBiology of the Race Problem. Washington, DC: National 1930-1980.Frank Spencer, ed. Pp.305-328. London: Academic PutnamLetters Committee. Press. Giles,Eugene Atran,Scott 1999 Hooton,Earnest Albert.In American National Biography, 1990 CognitiveFoundation of Natural History. New York: Cam- vol. 11.Pp. 147-149.John A. Garaty and Mark C. Carnes,eds. bridgeUniversity Press. NewYork: Oxford University Press. 1994 CoreDomains vs. Scientific Theories: Evidence from Sys- Haeckel,Ernst tematicsand Itza-MayaFolk Biology. In Mapping the Mind. L. 1905 TheWonders of Life. New York: Harper. Hirschfeldand S. Gelman,eds. Pp. 316-340. Cambridge: Cam- Harding,Rosalind M. bridgeUniversity Press. 2000 Diversity,Not Divergence. Genetic History of Modern Hu- Barkan,Elazar mans.8th CEPH Annual Conference, Faculte de MedicineLari- 1988 Scientists Nazi 1933-1939.In Mobilizing against Racism, boisiereSaint-Louis, Paris, May, 24-26, 2000. Trends in Genetics Bones,Bodies, Behavior. Essays on BiologicalAnthropology. G. 16:381. W. ed. 180-205.Madison: ofWiscon- StockingJr., Pp. University Hawks,John, Keith Hunley, Sang-Hee Lee, and MilfordH. Wolpoff sinPress. 2000 Bottlenecksand Pleistocene Human Evolution. Molecular Bi- Franz Boas, ologyand Evolution 17:2-22. 1894 HumanFaculty as Determinedby Race. Proceedings of the Hirschfeld,Lawrence A. AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science 1996 Racein the Making: Cognition, Culture and the Childs Con- 43:301-327. structionof Human Kinds. MA:MIT Press. 1974 The ofAmerican 1883-1911:A Cambridge, Shaping Anthropology, 1998 Natural Race,Essence and Taxonomies of Hu- FranzBoas Reader. New York: Basic Books. Assumptions: manKinds. Social Research 65(2):331-350. Boyd,William Clouser Lawrence and SusanA. eds. the Hirschfeld, A., Gelman, 1950 Geneticsand Racesof Man. Boston: Little, Brown. 1994 theMind: Domain in and C. Mapping SpecificityCognition Brace, Loring Culture.New York: of Press. 1964 ANonracial towardsthe ofHu- UniversityCambridge Approach Understanding Hooton,Earnest A. manDiversity. InThe Concept of Race. M. F.Ashley Montagu, ed. 1931 Upfrom the Ape. New York: MacMillan. Pp. 103-152.New York: Free Press. 1936 PlainStatements about Race. Science 83:511-513. 1982 The Rootsof the Race in In Concept PhysicalAnthropology. 1937 Apes,Men, and Morons. New York: G. P. Putnam. A Historyof American Physical Anthropology 1930-1980. Frank 1939 ofMan. New York: G. P. Putnam. 11-29. Twilight Spencer,ed. Pp. London:Academic Press. Howells,William W. Brues,Alice 1942 FossilMan and the Origin of Races. American Anthropolo- 1972 Modelsof Clines and Races. American Journal of Physical An- 44:182-193. 37:389-399. gist thropology 1959 Mankindin theMaking. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday. Caspari,Rachel, and MilfordH. Wolpoff 1993 Here.The ofHuman Evolution. 1996 Coon andWeidenreich. Human Evolution 11:203. Getting Story Washington, Cole, DC: CompassPress. Douglas Hulse,Frederick S. 1999 FranzBoas: The Early Years, 1858-1906. Seattle: University of Press. 1962 Raceas an EvolutionaryEpisode. American Anthropologist Washington 64:929-945. Coon, CarletonS. and AlfredC. Haddon 1939 TheRaces of Europe. New York: MacMillan. Huxley,Julian S., 1950 HumanRaces in Relationto Environment and Culture, with 1935 We Europeans:A Survey of "Racial" Problems. London: SpecialReference tothe Influence of Culture upon Genetic JonathanCape. Changesin Human Evolution. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium Jackson,John P., Jr. 2001 "In Unacademical":The ofCarleton S. on QuantitativeBiology 15:247-258. Ways Reception 1962 TheOrigin of Races. New York: Knopf. Coon'sThe Origin ofRaces. Journal of the History of Biology 1965 TheLiving Races of Man. New York: Knopf. 34:247-285. 1981 Adventuresand Discoveries.The Autobiography ofCarleton Keith,Arthur S. Coon. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1936 Historyfrom Caves. A New Theory of the Origin of Modem Coon, C. S., S. M. Garn,and J. B. Birdsell Racesof Mankind. London: British Speleological Association Pub- 1950 Races:A Studyof the Problems of Race Formation in Man. lication. Springfield,IL: C. C. Thomas. Lewontin,Richard C. Dixon,Roland B. 1972 TheApportionment ofHuman Diversity. Evolutionary Biol- 1923 TheRacial History of Man. New York: Scribner. ogy6:381-398.

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 76 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March 2003

Lieberman,Leonard 2001 Commenton Lieberman,L. How"Caucasoids" Got Such Big 2001 How"Caucasoids" Got Such Big Heads and WhyThey Headsand Why They Shrank: From Morton to Rushton.Current Shrank:From Morton to Rushton.Current Anthropology Anthropology42:84-85. 42:69-95. Shapiro,H. L. Linnaeus,Carolus 1939 Migrationand Environment.New York: Oxford University 1758 SystemaeNaturae. 10th edition. Stockholm: Laurentii Salvii. Press. Livingstone,F. B. 1954 EarnestAlbert Hooton, 1887-1954. American Anthropolo- 1962 On theNon-Existence of Human Races. Current Anthropol- gist56:1081-1084. Pat ogy3:279-381. Shipman, Ernst 1994 TheEvolution of Racism: Human Differences and the Use Mayr, andAbuse of Science. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1982 TheGrowth of Evolution,and BiologicalThought: Diversity, W. Inheritance. MA: Pressof Harvard Univer- Stanton, Cambridge, Belknap 1960 TheLeopard's ScientificAttitudes toward Race in Press. Spots: sity America1815-59. Chicago: University of Press. 1991 One CharlesDarwin and Chicago LongArgument: theGenesis of Stein,GeorgeJ. ModernEvolutionary Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- 1988 BiologicalScience and theRoots of Nazism. American Scien- sityPress. tist76:50-58. Mead,Margaret, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ethel Tobach, and Stocking,George W., Jr. RobertE. Light,eds. 1968 Race,Culture, and Evolution:Essays on theHistory of An- 1968 Scienceand theConcept of Race. New York: Columbia Uni- thropology.New York: Free Press. AlanR. versityPress. Templeton, 1998 HumanRaces: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective. Montagu,Ashley American 100:632-650. 1942 Man'sMost Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. New York: Anthropologist SherwoodL. Columbia Press. Washburn, University 1963 The ofRace. American 65:521-532. ed. Study Anthropologist Montagu,Ashley, Weidenreich,Franz 1964 TheConcept of Race. New York: Free Press. 1940 SomeProblems Dealing with Ancient Man. American An- Morgan,Lewis Henry thropologist42(3):375-383. AncientSociety. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 1964[1877] 1946 Apes,Giants, and Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Press. 1947 Factsand the ofHomo Carleton SpeculationsConcerning Origin sapi- Putnam, ens.American Anthropologist 49:187-203. 1962 Raceand Reason:A YankeeView. Washington, DC: Public Williams,Vernon J., Jr. AffairsPress. 1996 RethinkingRace: Franz Boas and His Contemporaries. Lex- Relethford,J.H. ington:University Press of Kentucky. 1998 Geneticsof Modem Human Origins and Diversity.Annual Wolpoff,M. H., and R. Caspari Reviewof Anthropology 27:1-23. 1997 Raceand HumanEvolution. New York: Simon and Schuster.

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions