by The recently published publication of the review of the breed and history of the University of Edinburgh has drawn attention to its “skull room”: a collection of 1,500 human cranes that were procured in the 19th century for studying.
The craniometry, the examination of skull measurements, was widespread in medical faculties in Great Britain, Europe and the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Today the harmful and racist foundations of craniometry were discredited. It has long been proven that the size and shape of the head do not soak in individuals or in groups on mental and behavior -related features.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, however, thousands of skulls were collected to enable research and lessons in scientific racism. Edinburgh’s skull space is by no means unique.
In contrast to Phrenology, a popular theory that connected personality traits with bumps on the head, craniometry in the 19th century was widespread because it revolved around data acquisition and statistics.
Edinburgh’s skull space – with 1,500 articles – is not unique (pa wire)
Craniometists measure skulls and made the results averaged for various population groups. This data was used to classify people in races based on the size and shape of the head. Craniometric evidence was used to explain why some peoples were supposedly more civilized and further developed than others.
The enormous accumulation of data that was drawn from skulls appealed to Victorian scientists who believed in the objectivity of numbers. It helped to validate racist prejudices by pointing out that differences between the peoples were innate and organically determined.
Medical history
Studying the skull was of central importance for the development of the anthropology of the 19th century. Before the anthropology was taught at British universities, markers were examined for supposed racial differences by anatomists in order to identify tiny differences in skeletons. The study of the skull came into the curriculum of the university through medical faculties and in particular via anatomy departments.
For example, when Alexander Macalister was appointed professor of anatomy in Cambridge in 1884, some of his first lectures were “the racial types of human skull”.
The annual report by Macalister for 1892 in Cambridge University Reporter describes how he increased Cambridges harmful stocks from 55 to 1,402 samples. In 1899 he reported on the donation of more than 1,000 ancient Egyptian skulls by the archaeologist Flinder Petrie. Much of Macalister’s skull collection remains in the university’s Duckworth Laboratory, which was founded in 1945.
As the prestige of craniometric research increased, the institutions had to compete for skull collections in the course of the market. The statistical accuracy depended on the fact that large series of skulls were measured to create representative “types”. This led to an increased demand for human remains.
In 1880 the Royal College of Surgeons bought 1,539 skulls from the private collection of Joseph Barnard Davis. This was added to its existing cache of 1,018 skulls in order to create the largest craniological collection of Great Britain. This collection was largely destroyed in 1941 when the College building was bombarded during the Second World War. The remaining skulls are no longer held by the Royal College of Surgeons.
The Oxford University Museum for Natural History included Crania series in its anatomical exhibitions in the 19th century, as well as the Manchester University Medical Faculty (the medical faculty is no longer in the same place). This investment in skull ensured that racial researchers had enough material to study and use in their apprenticeship.
Catalogs of universities in the 19th and early 20th centuries show not only the size of their skull collections, but also the origin of individual specimens.
Historical trauma
Some medical faculties such as Edinburghs, the skull procured by the phenological companies in the century to improve their participations. Others, including Oxfords, used skulls that were excavated by archaeologists to carry out racist research into the country’s past. This research tried to pursue the movements of Celts, Normans, Saxony and Scandinavians on the British Isles.
Since craniologists wanted to capture the full extent of the racist variation, skulls from abroad were particularly valued. Medical graduates from the British universities formed to the colonies sent their old professors foreign bones.
In research for my upcoming book about Skull Collections, I found that Cambridge’s skull register contains a skull sent by a former student stationed in India. Despite the outrage of assembled mourners, he had picked it from a border square in Bombay. The brazen serious and colonial violence stood centrally for the international network, which brought in the skull rooms of the British universities.
The racist ideology, which stimulated the collection of skulls 150 years ago, was completely discredited. However, some anthropologists believe that these bones could still shed light on human origins, relationships and migrations.
But ethical factors now shape institutional politics towards human remains equally. The Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford decreased its notorious “shrunk heads” in 2020.
Universities and museums have increasingly confronted the historical injustices and the close -generation trauma, which is evident from the storage of human remains. Since the 1970s, indigenous groups from all over the world have started campaigns to trace the bones of their ancestors. Research institutions are increasingly responding to these inquiries.
In London, the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons no longer shows Charles Byrne’s skeleton, the so -called “Irish giants”. Byrne had expressly rejected the consent that his remains were dissected and assembled before his death in 1783.
The skulls at British universities are proof of a huge theft of human remains of almost every area of the earth. However, they have the potential to become powerful symbols of reconciliation when their discriminatory history is recognized and remedied by their return.
A spokesman for the Duckworth Laboratory of the University of Cambridge said: “Like many institutions in Great Britain, we have to do the legacies and unethical practice in the past to put together the collections in our care. Dedicated to stakeholders.
“This commitment is considered an essential part of a continuous, mutual exchange of knowledge, perspectives and cultural values. The aim is not only to take into account past inequalities, but also to enrich the past inequalities through a respective and equal partnership. In this sense, the Duckworth collection acts actively and the establishment of archives and documentation and the improvement of the attitude The improvement of the read and strengthening of the ducks and the strengthening of the ducks and the reinforcement of the community is characterized by a commitment to openness, inclusiveness and the need for permanent dialogue. “
Elise Smith is a Associate professor in the history of medicine at the University of Warwick, Great Britain. This article will be released from the conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read that Original article.
