Editing Paul Broca (section)

==Anthropology==
Broca spent much time at his Anthropological Institute studying skulls and bones. It has been argued that he was attempting to use the measurements obtained by these studies as his main criteria for ranking racial groups in order of superiority. In that sense, Broca was a pioneer in the study of physical anthropology a part of which has been called 'scientific racism.' He advanced the science of cranial anthropometry by developing many new types of measuring instruments ([[Anthropometry|craniometers]]) and numerical indices.<ref name="memoir2">{{cite journal|year=1881|title=Memoir of Paul Broca|journal=The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland|volume=10|pages=242–261|jstor=2841526}}</ref> He published around 223 papers on general anthropology, physical anthropology, ethnology, and other branches of this field. He founded the ''[[Société d'Anthropologie de Paris]]'' in 1859, the ''Revue d'Anthropologie'' in 1872,

Broca first became acquainted with anthropology through the works of [[Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire]], [[Antoine Étienne Reynaud Augustin Serres]] and [[Jean Louis Armand de Quatrefages de Bréau]], and by the late 1850s it became his lifetime interest. Broca defined Anthropology as "the study of the human group, considered as whole."<ref>Schiller, 1979, p. 136</ref> Like other scientists, he rejected relying on religious texts, and looked for a scientific explanation of human origins.

In 1857, Broca was presented with a hybrid [[Leporidae|leporid]], a result of a cross species reproduction between a rabbit and hare. The crossbreeding was done for commercial rather than scientific reasons, as the resulting [[Hybrid (biology)|hybrids]] became very popular pets. Specific circumstances had to be set up in order for differently behaving species to reproduce and for their [[Hybrid (biology)|hybrid]] descendants to be able to reproduce between themselves. To Broca, the fact that different animals are able to intermix and create fertile offspring did not prove that they were of the same species.<ref>Shiller, 1979, pp. 129–131</ref>

In 1858, Broca presented these findings on leporids to the ''Société de Biologie.'' He believed that the key element of his work was its implication that physical differences between human races could be explained by them being different species with different origins rather than the single moment of creation. While [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' did not come out until the following year, the topic of human origin was already widely discussed in science, but still  capable of producing a negative response from the government. Because of that worry, [[Pierre François Olive Rayer|Pierre Rayer]] the president of the Société, along with other members with which Broca was on good relations, asked Broca to stop further discussion of the topic. Broca agreed, but was adamant for the discussion to continue, so in 1859 he formed the [[Society of Anthropology of Paris|Société d'Anthropologie]].<ref>Shiller, 1979, pp. 130–135</ref>

=== Racial groups and human species ===
As a proponent of [[polygenism]], Broca rejected the [[Monogenism|monogenistic]] approach that all humans have a common ancestor. Instead he viewed human racial groups as coming from different origins. Like most of the proponents on either side, he viewed each racial group as having a place on a 'barbarism' to 'civilization' progression. He saw European colonization of other territories as justified by its being an attempt to civilize the barbaric populations.{{Refn|Broca took into consideration works by multiple authors such as [[Arthur de Gobineau]], [[Robert Knox (surgeon)|Robert Knox]], [[Georges Pouchet]], [[Samuel George Morton]] and [[Herbert Spencer]]. Broca, 1964.|name=|group=n}} In his 1859 work ''On the Phenomenon of Hybridity in the Genus Homo'', he argued that it was reasonable to view humanity as composed of independent racial groups – such as [[Aboriginal Australians|Australian]], [[Caucasian race|Caucasian]], [[Mongoloid race|Mongolian]], [[Malay race|Malayan]], [[Negro|Ethiopian]], and [[Indigenous peoples of the Americas|American]]. He saw each racial group as its own species, connected to a geographic location. All together, these different species were part of the single [[Homo|genus homo]].<ref>Broca, 1864, p. 9</ref> Per the standard of the time, Broca would also refer to the Caucasian racial group as white, and to the Ethiopian racial group as [[Negro]]. In his writings, Broca's use of the word ''race'' was narrower than how it is used today. Broca considered Celts, Gauls, Greeks, Persians and Arabs to be distinct races that were part of the Caucasian racial group.<ref>Broca, 1864, pp. 16–17.</ref>{{Refn|Broca justified using geographic locations rather than skin color when classifying racial groups: "It has been shown that the American type alone includes red, brown, black, white and yellow races. There are brown races in the American, and even in the Caucasian type. All the black races do not belong to the Ethiopian type; and finally, the Malayo-Polynesian type comprises races of colours as various as those belonging to the American type. A classification founded on differences of colour would lead to numerous and serious errors." Broca, 1864, p. 9|group=n}} Races within each group had specific physical characteristics that distinguished them from other racial groups. Like his work in anatomy, Broca emphasized that his conclusions rested on empirical evidence, rather than ''[[A priori and a posteriori|a priori]]'' reasoning.<ref>Schiller, 1979, pp. 129–130</ref> He thought that the distinct geographic location of each racial group was one of the main problems with the monogenists argument for common ancestry:{{blockquote|There was even, no necessity to insist upon the difficulty, or greater geographical impossibility of the dispersion of so many races proceeding from a common origin, nor to remark that before the remote and the almost recent migrations of Europeans, each natural group of human races occupied upon our planet a region characterized by a special fauna; that no American animal was found either in Australia nor in the ancient continent, and where men of a new type were discovered, there were only found animals belonging to species, then to general, and sometimes to zoological orders, without analogues in other regions of the globe.<ref>Broca, 1864 pp. 63–64</ref>}} Broca also felt that there was not enough evidence for the theory that appearance of different races could be changed by the qualities of the environments that they lived in. Broca saw the physical characteristic of Jews being the same as those portrayed in the Egyptian paintings from the 2,500 b.c., even though, by 1850 A.D. that population had spread to different locations with vastly different environments. He pointed out that his opponents were unable to provide similar long-term comparisons.<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.5962/bhl.title.104409 | title=On the phenomena of hybridity in the genus homo | year=1864 | last1=Blake | first1=C. Carter | last2=Broca | first2=Paul | journal=The British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review | volume=34 | issue=68 | pages=421–422 | pmc=5181739 }}</ref>

==== Hybridity ====
Broca, influenced by previous work of [[Samuel George Morton]], used the concept of [[hybridity]] as his primary argument against monogenism, and that it was flawed to see all of humanity as a single species.<ref>Ashok, 2017, pp. 13–14</ref> Different racial groups' ability to reproduce with each was not sufficient to prove that idea.<ref>Broca, 1864, p. 64</ref> Under Broca's view on hybridity, the result of a reproduction between two different races could fall into four categories: 1) The resulting offspring are [[infertile]]; 2) Where the resulting offspring are infertile when they reproduce between themselves but are sometimes successful when they reproduce with the parent groups; 3) Known as [[paragenesis|paragenesic]], where the offspring's descendants are able reproduce within themselves and with parents, but the success of the reproduction lowers with every generation until it ends; and 4) Known as [[eugenics|eugenesic]], where a successful reproduction can continue indefinitely, between the intermix descendants and with the parent group.<ref>Broca, 1964, Glossorial Note</ref>

Looking at historical population figures, Broca concluded that the population of France was an example of a eugenesic mixed race, resulting from intermixing of [[Cimbri]], Celtic, Germanic and Northern races within the Caucasian group.<ref>Broca, 1964, Section II</ref> On the other hand, the thought that observations and population data from different regions of Africa, Southeast Asia, and North and South America, showed a significant decrease in physical and intellectual abilities of mixed groups when compared to the different races that they originated from. Concluding that intermixed descendants of different racial groups could only be Paragenesic.[[File:Stereograph Broca.png|thumb|259x259px|Stereograph designed by Paul Broca and manufactured by Mathieu]]{{blockquote|I am far from advancing these suppositions as demonstrated truths. I have studied and analysed all documents within my reach; but I cannot be responsible for facts not ascertained by myself, and which are too much in opposition to generally received opinions to be admitted without strict investigation... Until we obtain further particulars we can only reason upon the known facts; but these, it must be admitted, are so numerous and so authentic as to constitute if not a rigorous definitive demonstration, at least a strong presumption of the doctrines of polygenists.<ref>Broca, 1964, pp. 59–60</ref>}}
''On the Phenomenon of Hybridity'' was published the same year as Darwin's presentation of the theory of evolution in the ''On the Origin of Species''. At that time, Broca thought of each racial group was independently created by nature. He was against slavery and disturbed by extinction of native populations caused by colonization.<ref>Broca, 1864, p. 70</ref> Broca thought that monogenism was often used to justify such actions, when it was argued that, if all races were of a single origin then "the lower status of non-Caucasians" was caused by how their race acted following creation. He wrote: {{blockquote|The difference of origin by no means implicates the subordination of races. It, on the contrary, implicates the idea that each race of men has originated in a determined region, as it were, as the crown of the fauna of that region; and if it were permitted to guess at the intention of nature, we might be led to suppose that she has assigned a distinct inheritance to each race, because, despite of all that has been said of the cosmopolitism of man, the inviolability of the domain of certain races is determined by their climate.<ref>Broca, 1964, pp. 70–71.</ref>}}

==== Craniometry ====
[[File:Color of Skin after G Gerland.jpg|thumb|Map of Color of Skin: Figures indicate tint in Broca's scale]]
Broca is known for making contributions towards [[History of anthropometry|anthropometry]]&mdash;the scientific approach to measurements of human physical features. He developed numerous instruments and data points that were the basis of current methods of medical and archeological [[craniometry]]. Specifically, cranial points like [[glabella]] and [[External occipital protuberance|inion]] and instruments like craniograph and stereograph.<ref>{{Cite book|title=History of Physical Anthropology, an Encyclopedia Volume 1|last=Spencer|first=Frank|publisher=Taylor and Francis|year=1997|pages=87}}</ref> Unlike Morton, who believed that a subject's brain size was the main indicator of intelligence, Broca thought that there were other factors that were more important. These included [[Prognathism|prognathic]] facial angles, with closer to right angles indicating higher intelligence, and the [[cephalic index]] relationship between the brain's length and width, that was directly proportional with intelligence, with the most intelligent European group being 'long headed', while the least intelligent Negro group being 'short headed'.<ref name=":1">Ashok, 2017, p. 32</ref> He thought that the most important aspect, was the relative size between the frontal and rear areas of the brain, with Caucasians having a larger frontal area than Negroes.<ref name=":1" /> Broca eventually came to the conclusion that larger skulls were not associated with higher intelligence, but still believed brain size was important in some aspects such as social progress, material security, and education.<ref>(This Week in the History of Psychology: Stanley Finger on the trailblazing neurologist, Paul Broca, and his patient, "Tan." [Audio blog interview].</ref>{{Refn|As of 2016, several meta-studies have shown, that in humans, there is a weak correlation between brain size and general intelligence, with results ranging from 9 to 15 percent.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Koch|first=Christof|title=Does Brain Size Matter?|journal=Scientific American Mind|language=en|volume=27|issue=1|pages=22–25|doi=10.1038/scientificamericanmind0116-22|year=2015}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|date=1 September 2017|title=Brain volume and intelligence: The moderating role of intelligence measurement quality|journal=Intelligence|language=en|volume=64|pages=18–29|doi=10.1016/j.intell.2017.06.004|issn=0160-2896|author=Gignac Gilles E., Bates Timothy C.|hdl=20.500.11820/a61135a7-6389-4f5c-9a4e-24403ba7e873|s2cid=84839916 |url=https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/39346142/GignacBatesI2017BrainVolumeAndIntelligence2.pdf|hdl-access=free}}</ref>|name=|group=n}} He compared [[Brain size|cranial capacity]] of different types of Parisian skulls. In doing so he found that the average oldest Parisian skull was smaller than a modern, wealthier Parisian skull and that both were bigger than the average skull from a poor Parisian's grave.{{Refn|In that study, Broca's primary purpose was to compare brain sizes and shapes of Basque and French populations, and participated in digging up 60 skulls from Basque graves while vacationing in Pyrenees.<ref>Schiller, 1979, pp. 149–50</ref>|group=n}} Aside from his approaches to craniometry, Broca made other contributions to anthropometry, such as developing field work scales and measuring techniques for classifying eye, skin, and hair color, designed to resist water and sunlight damage.<ref>Schiller, 1979, pp. 163–64.</ref>

=== Evolution ===
In 1861 Broca published ''On the Phenomenon of Hybridity'' two years after Darwin's ''On the Origin of Species'' was published. Broca accepted evolution as one of the main elements of a broader explanation for diversification of species: "I am one of those who do not think that Charles Darwin has discovered the true agents of organic evolution; on the other hand I am not one of those who fail to recognize the greatness of his work ... Vital competition ... is a law; the resultant selection is a fact; individual variation, another fact."<ref>Schiller, 1979, p. 225</ref>

He came to reject polygenism as applied to humans, conceding that all races were of single origin. In 1866, after the discovery of a chinless and protruded [[Neanderthal]] jaw, he wrote: "I have already had occasion to state that I am not a Darwinist ... Yet I do not hesitate ... to call this the first link in the chain which, according to the Darwinists, extends from man to ape..."<ref>Shiller, 1979, p. 222</ref> He saw some differences between groups of animals as too distinct to be explained through evolution from a single source:{{blockquote|There is no reason for limiting to a single spot and single moment the spontaneous evolution of matter ... To me it seems most likely that centers of organization appeared in very different places and at very different periods ... This polygenic transformism is what I would be inclined to accept ... My objection against Darwinism would be invalid if it conceded that organized beings have an undetermined but considerable number of distinct origins and if structural analogies were no longer considered sufficient proof for common parentage.<ref>Schiller, 1979, p. 226</ref>}} Even on a narrower level Broca saw evolution as insufficient explanation for the presence of some traits:{{blockquote|Apply Darwin's thinking to the genus [[Bornean orangutan|Orang (''Satyrus)'']] ... He alone, of all the primates, has no nail on his big toe. Why? ... The Darwinists will answer that one day a certain Pithecus was born without a big toe nail, and his descendants have perpetuated this variety ... Let us call this ape ... ''Prosatyrus I'', as it behooves the founder of a dynasty ... While, according to the law of immediate heredity, some of his offspring were like their other ancestors in having a nail on every toe, one or more were deprived of the first nail like their father ... Thanks to natural selection, this character finally became constant ... But I do not see ... how this negative characteristic ... might give him advantage in the struggle for existence.<ref>Schiller, 1979, p. 232</ref>}}Ultimately, Broca believed that there had to be a process that ran parallel to evolution, to fully explain the origins of, and divergences, between different species.<ref>Shiller, 1979, pp. 231–32.</ref>