- Paul Wolff Mitchell
Dept. of Anthropology
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Postbus 15509
1001 NA Amsterdam
Netherlands
- Anthropology, History of Science, Race and Racism, History of Anthropology, History of Archaeology and Anthropology, Samuel George Morton, and 14 moreJohann Friedrich Blumenbach, History of Museums, Collecting and Collections, Indigenous or Aboriginal Studies, Repatriation of Indigenous Human Remains, Repatriation, History of Anatomy, Ancient DNA Research, Bioethics, Necropolitics, Human Remains and Ethics, Human Remains (Anthropology), Death, and Phrenologyedit
Research Interests: German History, Race and Racism, History of Science, History of Anthropology, Race and Ethnicity, and 11 moreHistory of Slavery, Physical Anthropology, History of Anatomy, Anti-Racism, Phrenology, History of Physical Anthropology in Germany, Biases, Stephen Jay Gould, Samuel George Morton, History of Physical Anthropology, and Race and Racism in Germany
Research Interests: Biological Anthropology, Race and Racism, History of Science, History of Anthropology, History of Slavery, and 12 moreOsteology, Racism, Physical Anthropology, History of Anatomy, History of Race, Cognitive Bias, Anti-Racism, Objectivity, American Anthropology and Archaeology, History of Comparative Anatomy, Samuel George Morton, and Scientific Racism
The discovery of nearly 180-year-old cranial measurements in the archives of 19th century American physician and naturalist Samuel George Morton can address a lingering debate, begun in the late 20th century by paleontologist and... more
The discovery of nearly 180-year-old cranial measurements in the archives of 19th century American physician and naturalist Samuel George Morton can address a lingering debate, begun in the late 20th century by paleontologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould, about the unconscious bias alleged in Morton's comparative data of brain size in human racial groups. Analysis of Morton's lost data and the records of his studies does not support Gould's arguments about Morton's biased data collection. However, historical contextualiza-tion of Morton with his scientific peers, especially German anatomist Friedrich Tiedemann, suggests that, while Morton's data may have been unbiased, his cranial race science was not. Tiedemann and Morton independently produced similar data about human brain size in different racial groups but analyzed and interpreted their nearly equivalent results in dramatically different ways: Tiedemann using them to argue for equality and the abolition of slavery, and Morton using them to entrench racial divisions and hierarchy. These differences draw attention to the epistemic limitations of data and the pervasive role of bias within the broader historical, social, and cultural context of science.
Research Interests: Anthropology, Biological Anthropology, Philosophy of Science, Race and Racism, History of Science, and 14 moreHistory of Anthropology, Museum Anthropology, Osteology, History of Biology, Physical Anthropology, History of Anatomy, Human Remains (Anthropology), History of Race, Cognitive Bias, Anti-Racism, History of Comparative Anatomy, Samuel George Morton, Bioarchaeology, Biological Anthropology, Archaeology, and Scientific Racism
The concern of this chapter is objectivity and bias in race science, a definition of which may be the systematic study and comparison of human variation as organized into distinct demographic units, bounded by shared physical and genetic... more
The concern of this chapter is objectivity and bias in race science, a definition of which may be the systematic study and comparison of human variation as organized into distinct demographic units, bounded by shared physical and genetic traits. There is often not much, if any, sunlight between race science and scientific racism, although the latter necessarily involves the denigration or elevation of some races in relation to others. At different points during the last few centuries, scientific racism was an important ideological organ of, for example, the Atlantic slave trade, colonialism, and the long legacy of racial discrimination in the United States and beyond. Below, drawing on new
findings from his private correspondence and published works, we argue for a reinterpretation of the role of bias in the works of prominent race scientist Samuel George Morton (1799–1851). In particular, by contrasting Morton with the anti–race supremacist anatomist Friedrich Tiedemann (1781–1861), we show how bias has been consciously hidden in one of the foundational works of race science. More generally, we observe, supported by many other scholars, that scientific racism is neither dead nor dormant, but is today at work. Indeed, whether openly or not, many domains of contemporary science either tacitly rely on assumptions of fundamental racial difference, or misconstrue recent
research in population genetics to reconstitute race as a biologically valid category, despite decades of research showing its invalidity.
findings from his private correspondence and published works, we argue for a reinterpretation of the role of bias in the works of prominent race scientist Samuel George Morton (1799–1851). In particular, by contrasting Morton with the anti–race supremacist anatomist Friedrich Tiedemann (1781–1861), we show how bias has been consciously hidden in one of the foundational works of race science. More generally, we observe, supported by many other scholars, that scientific racism is neither dead nor dormant, but is today at work. Indeed, whether openly or not, many domains of contemporary science either tacitly rely on assumptions of fundamental racial difference, or misconstrue recent
research in population genetics to reconstitute race as a biologically valid category, despite decades of research showing its invalidity.