How “caucasoids” got such big crania and why they shrank: from Morton to Rushton.
In the 19th century measurements of cranial capacity by Morton and others supported a “Caucasoid > Mongoloid > Negroid” hierarchy of intelligence. This continued through most of the 20th century but was challenged by a nonhierarchical view originating with Boas. Beginning in the 1980s Rushton corr...
| Publicado en: | Current Anthropology Vol. 42; no. 1; pp. 69 - 86 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
University of Chicago Press
February 2001
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=513068973&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 513068973 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00113204 CUA jtl: Current Anthropology issn: 00113204 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: February 2001 vid: 42 iid: 1 pid: 415 pub: University of Chicago Press artinfo: ui: 513068973 10.1086/318434 ppf: 69 ppct: 17 formats: tig: atl: How “caucasoids” got such big crania and why they shrank: from Morton to Rushton. aug: au: Lieberman, Leonard su: Rushton, J. Philippe, 1943-2012 Racial differences History of anthropology Brain -- Size Intellect & genetics sug: subj: Racial differences History of anthropology Brain -- Size Intellect & genetics Rushton, J. Philippe, 1943-2012 keyword: Race differences ab: In the 19th century measurements of cranial capacity by Morton and others supported a “Caucasoid > Mongoloid > Negroid” hierarchy of intelligence. This continued through most of the 20th century but was challenged by a nonhierarchical view originating with Boas. Beginning in the 1980s Rushton correlated cranial and IQ measurements and presented a hierarchy with “Mongoloids” at the top. Each of these periods relates to its social context: the 19th-century hierarchy paralleled the height of European world domination; the nonhierarchy of the 20th century reflected world wars, worldwide depression, and the breakup of empires; the “Mongoloid > Caucasoid > Negroid” hierarchy followed the economic success of several Asian nations. Morton's cranial ranking was the result of his sampling error and his acceptance of the hierarchical thinking of his time. But how is it possible for Rushton to support the M > C > N ordering while using the data of several anthropologists who have rejected racial hierarchies on empirical grounds? The answer to this question involves a critique of Rushton's use of the race concept, his aggregation of diverse populations into three traditional races, his claim to explain differences in “cultural achievements” on the basis of variation in brain size, and a number of other problems. The study concludes by noting that the major consequences of these hierarchies is the apparent justification for the exploitation of those at the bottom. Copyright 2001 by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|