PNAS
Quote:
(...)
In this study, we conducted a modern statistical evaluation of Franz Boas' data (2) and attempted to replicate his findings of cranial plasticity under changing environmental conditions. Instead of the large plasticity component claimed by Boas and countless others who have cited his work, our analysis reveals high heritability in the family data and variation among the ethnic groups, which persists, in the American environment. Research on this topic has shown major influences of changing environmental conditions on human stature and body-fat patterning (25, 26), but the only studies capable of dealing with effects of these changing conditions on the cranium were published 50–90 years ago (1–3, 6). Uncritical acceptance of his findings has resulted in 90 years of misunderstanding about the magnitude of plasticity. Reanalysis of Boas' data not only fails to support his contention that cranial plasticity is a primary source of cranial variation but rather supports what morphologists and morphometricians have known for a long time: most of the variation is genetic variation.
(...)
Finally, we address the issue of why Boas published such seemingly erroneous conclusions. Although it might seem an insurmountable task to dissect Boas' motives or convictions for pursuing such a study, we can examine Boas' mindset as revealed in his publications from the time period. Some 10 years before the immigrant study, Boas was one of the most (if not the most) statistical and quantitatively oriented anthropologists, as seen in publications from the period predating the immigrant study (41–44). In the final report presented to congress, Boas' statistical fluency tends to disappear, perhaps in the face of such a large data set and the lack of proper statistical tests. For the period in which this study was published, the results were presented in a manner making the data look as convincing as possible. We also must consider the attitude of Boas toward the scientific racism of the day. Evidence of Boas' disdain for the often typological and racist ideas in anthropology have been reviewed previously (45) and are evident also in his later publications (46–48). Boas' motives for the immigrant study could have been entwined in his view that the racist and typological nature of early anthropology should end, and his argument for dramatic changes in head form would provide evidence sufficient to cull the typological thinking. We make no claim that Boas made deceptive or ill-contrived conclusions. In Fig. 1 it is evident that there are differences between American- and European-born samples. What we do claim is that when his data are subjected to a modern analysis, they do not support his statements about environmental influence on cranial form.
30 Jan 2017, 3:40 am
