Boas's changes in bodily form: The immigrant study, cranial plasticity, and Boas's physical anthropology

Clarence C. Gravlee*, H. Russell Bernard, William R. Leonard

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

36 Scopus citations

Abstract

In two recent articles, we and another set of researchers independently reanalyzed data from Franz Boas's classic study of immigrants and their descendants. Whereas we confirm Boas's overarching conclusion regarding the plasticity of cranial form, Corey Sparks and Richard Jantz argue that Boas was incorrect. Here we attempt to reconcile these apparently incompatible conclusions. We first address methodological differences between our reanalyses and suggest that (1) Sparks and Jantz posed a different set of questions than we did, and (2) their results are largely consistent with our own. We then discuss our differing understandings of Boas's original argument and of the concept of cranial plasticity. In particular, we argue that Sparks and Jantz attribute to Boas a position he explicitly rejected. When we clarify Boas's position and place the immigrant study in historical context, Sparks and Jantz's renalysis supports our conclusion that, on the whole, Boas got it right.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)326-332
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Anthropologist
Volume105
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2003

Keywords

  • Anthropometry
  • Franz Boas
  • Heritability
  • Immigrant study
  • Plasticity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anthropology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Boas's changes in bodily form: The immigrant study, cranial plasticity, and Boas's physical anthropology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this