Читать книгу Race, Language and Culture - Boas Franz - Страница 17

Table of Contents

The following is a brief summary of the principal results of a study of the anthropometric characteristics of immigrants and their descendants.

1. American-born descendants of immigrants differ in type from their foreign-born parents. The changes which occur among various European types are not all in the same direction. They develop in early childhood and persist throughout life.^[35]

Increase (+) or Decrease (-) of Measurements of Children of Immigrants

Born in the United States Compared with Those of

Immigrants Born in Europe (p. 56 Final Report)

Nationality and Sex	Length of Head mm.	Width of Head mm.	Cephalic Index	Width of Face mm.	Stature cm.	Weight
Bohemians:
Males	-0.7	-2.3	-1.0	-2.1	+2.9	170
Females	-0.6	-1.5	-0.6	-1.7	+2.2	180
Hebrews:
Males	+2.2	-1.8	-2.0	-1.1	+1.7	654
Females	+1.9	-2.0	-2.0	-1.3	+1.5	259
Sicilians:
Males	-2.4	+0.7	+1.3	-1.2	-0.1	188
Females	-3.0	+0.8	+1.8	-2.0	-0.5	144
Neapolitans:
Males	-0.9	+0.9	+0.9	-1.2	+0.6	248
Females	-1.7	+1.0	+1.4	-0.6	-1.8	126

2. The influence of American environment makes itself felt with increasing intensity, according to the time elapsed between the arrival of the mother and the birth of the child.^[36]

Fig. 1. Cephalic index of immigrants and their descendants.

The changes of the initial values for 0 years which are in the direction of the observed changes deserve attention.

Fig. 1 represents the average values of the cephalic index of the immigrants born in Europe and their descendants born in the United States according to the interval between immigration of mother and birth, respectively according to the age at the time of immigration.

The differences in cephalic index between parents and their own American-born children, born less than ten years after arrival of the mother, and of those born more than ten years after the arrival of the mother, are, -0.83 and -1.92 respectively.^[37] Their difference is, therefore, 1.09 with an error of about ±0.22, so that the significance of this difference is also quite probable.

Fig. 2. Changes of head measurements during period of growth.

3. The observations on intraracial heredity show an increased variability of children of dissimilar parents, which proves a regression of the children to either parental type, not a regression to the mid-parental type.^[38]

Difference between Cephalic Indices of Parents	Square of Variability of Children[3a]	Cases
0 - 2.9	6.8	1102
3 - 5.9	6.7	736
6 - 8.9	8.3	317
9	13.0	108

[3a]	The ± in the Final Report are in error.

It is apparent that the variability increases rapidly for the greater differences between parents.

4. The head measurements show the same acceleration of growth during the prepubertal period as has long been known for measurements of the bulk of the body, i.e., stature and weight^[39] (Fig. 2).

5. The average stature of children decreases with the size of the family^[40] (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Excess of stature over average

stature for families of various sizes.

Incidentally a number of problems were touched upon which are, however, of secondary importance in relation to the whole problem, and the investigation of which was necessary for the correct interpretation of the observations referred to before.

6. The comparison of immigrants and their descendants necessarily refers to groups which immigrated at different periods. For instance, 15-year-old American-born boys are children of parents who immigrated more than 15 years ago; while 15-year-old foreign-born boys are children of parents who immigrated less than 15 years ago. If, therefore, the constitution of the immigration representing a certain people changed, there would be an apparent change of type, which in reality would reflect only the differences in type of the immigrants of various periods. A comparison of individuals born in Europe in a certain year with American-born descendants of mothers who immigrated in the corresponding year showed that for each year the differences observed in the total series persist (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Cephalic index of individuals born in Europe who immigrated in certain years compared with that of American-born descendants of mothers who immigrated in the corresponding years.

7. The differences between immigrants and their own European-born children are always less than those between them and their own American-born children and the differences agree in direction and value with those obtained from the general population. (Partial Report, pp. 44-50; Abstract, p. 47; Final Report, pp. 69-70, 117-128). Thus the cephalic index of American-born children of Hebrew immigrants is by 1.60 units lower than that of their European born children. For Sicilians it is 1.78 units higher than that of their European-born children. The following table gives the average differences between measurements of foreign-born immigrants and their own American-born descendants.

Measurements	Bohemians	Hebrews	Sicilians	Neapolitans
Weight of observations	416	515	338	367
Stature (mm.)	-5.60	-13.1	+2.60	-11.90
Length of head (mm.)	+0.74	-1.65	+2.91	+1.56
Width of head (mm.)	+1.31	+1.52	-1.05	-0.48
Cephalic index	+0.69	+1.60[7a]	-1.78	-0.97
Width of face (mm.)	+1.04	+2.10	+1.33	+1.55

[7a]	Erroneously in the Final Report p. 70, 1.50.

Fig. 5. Width of face of adult Bohemian males born in Europe who immigrated in certain years, compared with that of American-born descendants of mothers who immigrated in corresponding years.

8. The width of face of American-born children of immigrants is decidedly narrower than that of the foreign-born (Fig. 5). Furthermore there is a decided decline of those born a considerable length of time after the immigration of the mother, so that we get the impression of a cumulative effect of American city environment (Fig. 6). The phenomenon is complicated by the fact that the width of face of the immigrants themselves has been declining, in so far as those born in early years, beginning with 1880, show a wider face than later immigrants.^[41]

Fig. 6. Width of face of Bohemians and their descendants.

9. When the Hebrew boys are classified according to their pubescence in groups of about equal physiological development, as I, II, III (pre-pubescent, beginning pubescence, completed pubescence), the same differences persist (Fig. 7).^[42] This observation is important because it shows that the differences are not due to a retardation of development, for no appreciable differences have been found in the tempo of development of the two groups.

Fig. 7. Relation between stature and maturity for foreign-born and American-born boys.

10. Basing my inquiry on the assumption that the variations of hair color in any particular people follow the exponential law, I have shown that numerical values for pigmentation can be obtained.^[43] I have divided the whole series of pigmentation from black to ash-blond in 20 equidistant steps, excluding reds, 0 being black, 20 ash-blond, but not without pigment like the hair of albinos. In this manner the results given in the accompanying diagram showing the degree of darkening with increasing age were obtained (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Color of hair of foreign-born and American-born Hebrews, showing the increase of pigmentation with increasing age.

According to this table, in the rate the darkening amounts to nearly 5 units—one-fourth of the whole scale of colors. If the amount of darkening of females in the first two groups is less, we have to allow for the dyeing of hair, which is practised by many women, and also for the use of false hair by married Jewesses. For this reason I do not lay great stress upon the figures obtained from observations on adult females, except among the Italians. It would seem as though among them the hair of women averages a little lighter than that of men. This apparent difference may, however, be due to the lighter color of the tips of the long hair of women. The process of darkening progresses at least until the twenty-sixth year, if not longer. An attempt to calculate the annual amount of darkening for the Hebrews shows this very clearly. For dark-haired as well as for light-haired groups the darkening amounts to about 0.2 point a year.

It has been objected^[44] that the number of observations on which these results have been based are inadequate, but a comparison of the values of the observed differences and their errors proves that this criticism is not valid.^[45]

It might perhaps have been said that a psychological cause existed in the minds of the observers, which produced one personal equation for foreign-born and another for American-born. It is well known that an expected result may influence an observation. The study of the personal equations of the observers disproves this assumption. Besides this, the results among various types lie in different directions; the observers did not know what to expect; in many cases the statistical information was recorded by one observer, the measurements by another; and constant changes between foreign-born and American-born occurred in practice. All these make such a psychological explanation highly improbable. Here it must be considered as particularly important that the results agree with the previous observations by Ammon in Baden and Livi in Italy, which are, therefore corroborative evidence of the accuracy of the results.

Other objections have been raised. Thus Fehlinger thinks that the individuals investigated are not of pure descent, but in part children of parents of mixed nationality. This is a misunderstanding of my work. His claim that measurements of stature and head form—which, he says, are exceedingly variable in almost all human types—lead more easily to errors than other measurements, I fail to understand.

Attempts have been made, either to deny that any changes occur, or to explain the observations as due to selection. The former attempt has been made by Sergi,^[46] who interprets the continued occurrence of long, medium and round heads in New York by claiming that they continue to exist but that the relative frequency of their occurrence has changed. I discuss the arbitrary character of this explanation on p. 73 of this book.

I turn to the question of the interpretation of my observations and repeat, first of all, my own conclusions. Starting from the observation that changes in the values of the averages occur at all ages, that these are found among individuals born almost immediately after the arrival of their mothers, and that they increase with the length of time elapsed between the arrival of the mother and the birth of the child, I have tried to investigate various causes that might bring about such a phenomenon. I have, as I believe, disproved the possibility that the difference between the two groups of American-born and foreign-born may be due to differences in their ancestry. This objection has been raised by Professor Sergi.^[47] As mentioned before, the comparison of parents and their own children, and the comparison between immigrants who came to America in one particular year and the descendants who came to America in the same year, seem to eliminate entirely this source of error, which has been considered by me in detail.

Less satisfactory is the attempted proof of the theory that the cradling of infants has no influence upon their head form. The fact remains that among the Hebrews there is a radical difference in the bedding and swathing of infants born abroad and of those born here. Against this fact may be adduced the other one that no such radical difference in the treatment of children exists among the Sicilians, and that, nevertheless, changes occur and that these are in a direction opposite to those observed among the Hebrews. Even more unfavorable to this theory are the changes in width of face among Bohemians which develop among immigrating children who are no longer subject to such mechanical influences. I consider a further investigation into the influences of the method of bedding children desirable.^[48]

It also occurred to me that illegitimate births of children whose fathers were Americans might bring about changes. I have disproved this assumption by proving that the degree of similarity between American-born children and their reputed fathers is as great as that between foreign-born children and their fathers (Abstract, p. 51; Final Report, pp. 154 et seq.). Besides this the social conditions of the Hebrew, Italian, and Bohemian colonies are not at all favorable to such an assumption. This point has been raised again by an anonymous English critic,^[49] without, however, referring to my discussion of the question and the answer given by me.

After disposing of these points which would give the phenomenon an accidental character, without deep biological significance, I have taken up the biological problem itself, and first of all have called attention to the parallel observations by Ammon and Livi and suggested that the changes observed by them as occurring between urban and rural populations may be due to the same causes as those observed in the descendants of immigrants. If this be true, then Ammon’s interpretation of the phenomenon as due to selection, and Livi’s as due to the more varied descent of urban populations, which makes them deviate from excessive values to more median values, must be revised.

I have also referred to the possibility that the breaking of the more or less inbred lines of small European villages after arrival of the people in America and the consequent change in the line of descent may be a cause producing changes in type.

Finally, I have pointed out that the changes can be accounted for by a process of selection only, if an excessively complicated adjustment of cause and effect in regard to the correlation of mortality and bodily form were assumed—so intricate that the theory would become improbable on account of its complexity.

It will, therefore, be seen that my position is that I find myself unable to give an explanation of the phenomena, and that all I try to do is to prove that certain explanations are impossible. I think this position is not surprising, since what happens here happens in every purely statistical investigation. The resultant figures are merely descriptions of facts which in most cases cannot be discovered by any other means. These observations, however, merely set us a biological problem that can be solved only by biological methods. No statistics will tell us what may be the disturbing elements in intra-uterine or later growth that result in changes of form. It may be that new statistical investigations in other types of environment may give us a grouping of these phenomena which suggests certain groups of causes, clues that can then be followed up by biological methods—it is certainly asking too much to expect the solution of this problem from one series of observations. I at least am more inclined to ask for further material from other sources than to force a solution that must be speculative.

This defines my position toward the criticisms of Gaston Backman^[50] and Giuseppe Sergi. The former claims that the explanations given by Ammon are adequate, and simply identifies my observations and his. He overlooks the all-important difference that I have compared parents and their own children, a method which introduces an entirely new point of view and practically disproves Ammon’s claim that these changes are due to natural selection. I have always considered Livi’s theory as the most plausible explanation of the European observations, and still think that it must be a strong contributory cause, although it is not applicable to our series and for this reason can no longer be considered as explaining the whole phenomenon. Backman’s views are, it seems, not in accord with the results of our inquiry. He states: “The causes underlying the alteration will then have to be sought in factors of selection that may be of the most divergent nature. When, nevertheless, Boas wants to maintain that he by his researches has proved the plasticity of human races, this conclusion seems to me to carry further than the facts in question will permit. It seems, on the contrary, to me to be quite plain that it is the change from country life to city life that has been the fact of real importance in the matter of the alterations which the descendants of the immigrants have undergone, and not the special American conditions. The point of weight must be sought in those conditions which the changes from country life to city life carry with them.” I have shown that selection is extremely unlikely to bring about the results observed. That the essential causes may be the city conditions is possible, but not proven. I have not ventured to claim that I have discovered these causes. Besides, what would it help us if we assign the phenomena to city life, since the manner of its influence is as obscure as that of any other causes? I may quote here from my “Abstract” (p. 52), which Mr. Backman reviews (also Final Report, p. 75). When speaking of the differences between urban and rural types, noted by Ammon and Livi, I say: “Our American observations show that there is also a direct influence at work” (in so far as the differences occur also between parents and their own children, in which case selection is highly improbable and mixture excluded). “Ammon’s observations are in accord with those on our American city-born central Europeans; Livi’s, with those on our American city-born Sicilians and Neapolitans. Parallel observations made in rural districts and in various climates in America, and others made in Europe, may solve the problem whether the changes that we have observed here are only those due to the change from rural life to urban life. From this point of view the slight changes among the Scotch are also most easily intelligible because among them there is no marked transition from one mode of life to another, most of those measured having been city-dwellers and skilled tradesmen in Scotland, and continuing the same life and occupations here.”

As long, then, as we do not know the causes of the observed changes, we must speak of a plasticity (as opposed to permanence) of types, including in the term changes brought about by any cause whatever—by selection, by changes of prenatal or postnatal growth, or by changes in the hereditary constitution, as Mr. Backman seems to do. In order to avoid the impression of defining a particular course I have used expressly the term “instability or plasticity of types” (Abstract, p. 53).

Professor R. S. Steinmetz^[51] suggests that the observed changes may be due to the elimination of degenerate types that develop under the unfavorable European conditions and are, therefore, a reversion to the better developed old types. I do not consider this likely, because the conditions under which the immigrants live are not favorable; but this suggestion is worth following up as one of the possible contributory causes.

It has also been suggested^[52] that the lowering of the head index may be due to the increase in stature which occurs in America. I have myself pointed out that the cephalic index tends to decrease with increasing stature, because the correlation between all anteroposterior measurements—in this case length of head and stature—is closer than the correlation between these and transversal measurements. This relation, however, occurs only in a group which has been treated as a statistical unit. As soon as the groups are classified from distinct social or racial points of view, it ceases. This question has been treated by E. Tschepourkowsky.^[53] It is clear that the same relation cannot be expected between stature and head measurements in a group which contains individuals of only one selected stature, as in a group in which all statures are increased owing to some cause that affects the whole group, and which may affect other measurements in peculiar ways. Furthermore, the absolute width of head of the Hebrews born in America decreases, the length of head increases. Among the Italians the reverse is the case.

Professor Sergi criticizes my views from the standpoint that he considers sudden changes in germ plasm in new surroundings impossible and tries to reduce the phenomenon entirely to one of varying composition of the series, that is, if we follow out his ideas, to a differing fertility or mortality of component types of the immigrants. If his remarks, as it may seem, should indicate that he considers brachycephalic, mesocephalic, and dolichocephalic individuals as distinct types, the criticisms made before hold for his view also. His is an attempt to explain the phenomena by natural selection, the success of which, as said before, I consider as extremely doubtful. The particular form in which it is presented by Professor Sergi is based on his method of analyzing the somatological types constituting a people. I cannot consider this method as fruitful, since the analysis which he demands is impossible. If we establish a number of arbitrary types it is always possible to analyze a series of observations accordingly, but this analysis does not prove the correctness of our subjective classification and the existence of the selected forms as types, but is due merely to the fact that the distribution of observations can be made according to any fitting theory; but the correctness or incorrectness of the theory can be proved only in exceptional cases.

The greater the number of types that are to be segregated, the more arbitrary becomes the method, and almost any analysis according to a sufficient number of types can be made. There are, of course, distributions that demand an analysis—like von Luschan’s bi-modal curves of Asia Minor, or my own for width of face of half-blood Indians, and others—but there must be strong internal evidence of a compound character, and even then the analysis will be arbitrary if the component types are not known. This is perfectly evident if we realize that each type must be defined by at least three constants—average, variability, and relative frequency—so that for two component elements five constants must be determined (one value of the relative frequencies being determined by the relative frequency of the constituent series), for three component elements eight, etc. The greater the number of constants to be determined, the better can the theoretical and observed series be made to coincide, regardless of the correctness of the theory which is expressed by the constants.

I conclude from this that the claim that the change must be explained by a different composition of the series of American-born is inadmissible, because it is an entirely arbitrary solution of the problem.

I repeat that I have no solution to offer, that I have only stated the results of my observations and considered the plausibilities of various explanations that suggest themselves, none of which were found satisfactory. Let us await further evidence before committing ourselves to theories that cannot be proven.

Finally, a few words on the opinion that has been expressed or implied, that our observations destroy the whole value of anthropometry, in particular that the study of the cephalic index has been shown to have no importance. It seems to me, on the contrary, that our investigations, like many other previous ones, have merely demonstrated that results of great value can be obtained by anthropometrical studies, and that the anthropometric method is a most important means of elucidating the early history of mankind and the effect of social and geographical environment upon man. The problem presented by the geographical distribution of head forms—for instance, of the cephalic index—has not been solved by our inquiry. All we have shown is that head forms may undergo certain changes in course of time, without change of descent. It seems to my mind that every result obtained by the use of anthropometric methods should strengthen our confidence in the possibility of putting them to good use for the advancement of anthropological science.

In regard to the question of the effect of cradling I have made a study of Armenians living in New York.^[54] One of the most striking characteristics of the Armenian head form is the flatness of the occiput. Von Luschan and others consider this one of the principal characteristics of the type, while Chantre^[55] assumed that the flatness was due to deformation.

Inquiries among the Armenians living in New York showed that according to their own opinion the plan-occipital form of the head is due to the position of the child in the cradle. Formerly the child was placed on a large diaper reaching up to the shoulders and covered thickly with a white clay found in the mountains. The diaper was pulled up between the legs and both ends folded firmly from right and left over the body. Another cloth was placed over the diaper and folded so as to press the arms firmly against the body. Then the child was placed on its back in the cradle. The pillow was often filled with wool. The child was kept permanently in this position. Immediately after birth the midwife pressed the head of the new-born infant so as to give it a round shape and compressed the nose from both sides. It does not seem probable that these manipulations had a permanent effect.

The question whether artificial deformation affects the form of the head can be solved only by comparing the head forms of individuals cradled in the old fashion with those who were not swaddled. The Armenians living in America do not swaddle their children. In the cities of the Orient, particularly among Armenians who are in close relation to missions, the custom is also disappearing, so that among the younger generation its influence is probably less than among the older Armenians.

In order to settle this question I measured a fairly adequate number of Armenians, partly born in Asia, partly in the United States or in western Europe. These measurements show a considerable difference between the two groups. Those born in the United States and western Europe have longer heads than those born in Asia. The length of head of those born in America exceeds by 6 mm. that of those born in Asia, while the width of head is 4 mm. less.

[34]

The following is the substance of “Changes in the Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants” American Anthropologist, N.S., vol. 14, no. 3 (1912); and “Veränderungen der Körperform der Nachkommen von Einwanderern in Amerika” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, vol. 45, Heft 1 (1913). These papers contain a summary of the results of an investigation of the anthropometric characteristics of immigrants and their descendants, a work entrusted to me by the United States Immigration Commission. It is written as a reply to various criticisms of the results of the inquiry. A partial report was asked for by the Commission and submitted to Congress on December 16, 1909, and published about March, 1910. It was stated in the report (p. 6) that the investigation was not complete. An abstract of the complete report was submitted to Congress on December 3, 1910, and issued on March 17, 1911. The final report was presented on December 5, 1910, by the Secretary of the Commission, submitted to Congress on June 8, 1911, printed in September, 1911, and issued in May, 1912. It was reprinted and published by the Columbia University Press in New York in 1912.

[35]	Partial Report, pp. 7-16; Abstract, pp. 11-28; Final Report, pp. 55-56, and tables, pp. 10-55.

[36]	Partial Report, pp. 17-22; Abstract, pp. 29-37; Final Report, pp. 57-64; 99-115.

[37]	Recalculated from Table 47, p. 127, Final Report.

[38]	Abstract, pp. 54-55; Final Report, pp. 76-78, 153-154 in regard to the cephalic index.

[39]	Abstract, pp. 55-57; Final Report, pp. 78-79, 137-151.

[40]

Partial Report, p. 28; Abstract, p. 57; Final Report, pp. 79-80, 161-166. It may be remarked here that this accounts for the apparent higher stature of first-born children because the low values of late-born children occur only in large families while first-born occur in all families. See “The Growth of First-Born Children,” Science, N.S., vol. 1 (1895), p. 402.

[41]	Franz Boas, “Studies in Growth III,” Human Biology, vol. 7 (1935), pp. 313 et seq.

[42]	Partial Report, pp. 25-28; Abstract, pp. 38-43; Final Report, pp. 129 et seq.

[43]	Final Report, pp. 93-98.

[44]	Hans Fehlinger, Politisch-anthropologische Revue, vol. 10, no. 8 (Nov. 1911), pp. 416-418; Giuseppe Sergi, “Il preteso mutamento nelle forme fisiche dei discendenti degl’ immigrati in America,” Rivista Italiana di Sociologia, vol. 16 (1912), pp. 16-24.

[45]	See Final Report, p. 56; Abstract, p. 28.

[46]	Loc. cit.; also C. Toldt, Korrespondenz-Blatt der deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, vol. 43 (1912), p. 78.

[47]	Loc. cit., largely reprinted by Radosavljevich in Science (May 24, 1912), pp. 821-824.

[48]	See p. 74.

[49]	Edinburgh Review, vol. 215 (1912), p. 374.

[50]	γmer (1911), pp. 184-186.

[51]	“Het nieuwe Menschenras in Amerika,” Nederl. Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, (1911), pp. 342-352.

[52]	Elias Auerbach, Archiv für Rassen-und Gesellschafts-Biologie, vol. 9 (1912), p. 608; Schiff, Korrespondenz-Blatt der deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, vol. 43 (1912), p. 94.

[53]	Biometrika, vol. 4 (1905-6), pp. 286-312.

[54]	“Bemerkungen über die Anthropometrie der Armenier,” Zeitschrift für Ethnology, vol. 56 (1924). Berlin, p. 74.

[55]	Ernest Chantre, “Mission scientifique en Transcaucasie, Asie Mineur et Syrie,” Archives du Musée d’histoire naturelle de Lyon, vol. 6 (Lyon, 1895), p. 50.