Baumann 1

Anna Baumann
Alex Hill
Bio A 348
Dec 7, 2016

How The Human System of Classification Created by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach Perpetuated
Scientific Racism

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840) was a German naturalist, physician,

physiologist and anthropologist. He is credited as the Father of Physical Anthropology. His

mentor and teacher was Carolus Linnaeus. Linnaeus (1707-1778) is remembered as the Father

of Modern Taxonomy because he invented the system of binominal nomenclature that is still

used today. Both scientists came up with a system of classifying humans into different races, but

Linnaeus system was categorical in nature while Blumenbachs was more hierarchical.

Blumenbachs system of human classification perpetuated scientific racism and validated it as a

concept. Blumenbach was, in some ways, a very liberal thinker; yet the hierarchical structure of

his system was interpreted by others in a way that caused increased importance to be placed on

ethnocentric differences between peoples.

Linnaeus developed his system of classifying humans in his publication of Systema

Naturae. This description is from his 10th edition, published in 1758. He came up with three

species for the genus Homo; monstrous, ferus (wild mute, hairy four-footed men), and sapiens.

Within the species of Homo sapiens, he came up with the subcategories of Americanus,

Europaeus, Asiaticus, and Afer, named after regions of the world. He described Europaeus as

sanguine, muscular, acute and ruled by custom.1 This description is much more flattering than

those attributed to the other races. Asiaticus is described as pale, melancholy and stiff, ruled by

1
Carolus Linnaeus, Systema Naturae (Sweden: 10th ed. 1758, based on trans. by Stephen Jay
Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, rev and expanded ed. (New York: Norton, 1996), 404-5,
Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, Human Variations in Space and Time (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown,
1976), 25.
 Baumann 2

belief. Afer is ruled by caprice and is black and phlegmatic. Americanus is red, choleric, and

ruled by habit.2 These descriptions obviously shows Linnaeus racist and ethnocentric world

view, but the system itself is still set up categorically. Americanus is listed first, not Europaeus

and the system is focused on the geographical distribution of humankind; not perceived

biological differences between races. While Linnaeus was widely acclaimed in his own right, he

is most known for inventing binominal nomenclature. Linnaeus system of human classification

only perpetuated scientific racism insofar as it inspired Blumenbach to create his own system of

human classification.

Johan Blumenbach was Linnaeus contemporary but he differed from him in many ways.

He was a very liberal thinker considering the time in which he lived. He was against racial

discrimination against blacks and opposed slavery as well.3 His views on the scientific validity of

race are to be expected considering the time in which he lived. But he also did much to uplift

races other than his own. Blumenbach had a special library in his house devoted to only black

authors. He praised, the good disposition and faculties of our black brethren. While this

statement can be seen as patronizing, it is not contemptuous and his use of the word brethren

speaks to the unity he believed in between all races of humankind.4 In a time in which many

other scientists were arguing that the white race was of a completely different species than

others, Blumenbachs views were the exception and quite inclusive in nature.

Blumenbach speaks most on Whites compared to Blacks. With respect to African

Americans in particular, Blumenbach states that they do not appear to be inferior to other races

2
Ibid.
3
Sara Eigen and Mark Larrimore, The German Invention of Race (USA: State University of New
York, Albany, 2006), 45.
4
Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New York, London: WW Norton and Company,
1996).
 Baumann 3

of mankind. Though he said this, he also said that even the most perfect Negro, with regard to

color and facial characteristics, is still very different from other races.5 This alludes to his views

that, while mentally all humans were equally capable, physically, races differed. This belief of

his would ultimately lead to his hierarchically constructed system of human variation.

Blumenbachs system of human variation differed from Linnaeus in a few key ways.

Blumenbachs system can be seen as a heavily revised version of his teachers as he was very

much inspired by his teacher. The biggest change he made was that he added a 5th category, the

Malay, to his system, creating two intermediate groups. In doing so, he set up his system to

include degenerations away from the perfect human ideal, the original human type. He thought

the original human type were the inhabitants of the Mount Caucasus region in modern Georgia.

This was where he thought the first humans originated from. He came to this conclusion based

on his personal belief that the humans of this region were the most beautiful and the further away

you went, the less beautiful humanity became.6 This belief was, of course, highly arbitrary and

personal and did not reflect any true scientific reasoning when examined closely. His system can

be seen as a bit more scientific than Linnaeus because Blumenbach used cranial data to back up

his claims. This means, though he was very wrong in many ways, he did follow scientific

methods to a degree.

At Blumenbachs time, there were two main camps of thinking when it came to human

origins; Monogenists and Polygenists. Monogenists believed that there was one biblical origin

and that environmental variation caused the differences we see between races. Polygenists

5
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, Observations on the bodily conformations and mental
capacities of the Negroes, 2009, Philosophical Magazine Series 1, Vol. 3, Iss. 10,1799.
6
Peter J. Kitson and Debbie Lee, Slavery, Abolition, and Emancipation: Writings in the British
Romantic Period V. 8: Theories of Race (London: Pickering & Chatto, 1999), p. 200-213.
 Baumann 4

believed that there were multiple biblical origins and that god created different versions of man.7

Blumenbach, with his degenerative hypothesis, was clearly a monogenist. He did not, as was

common at the time, doubt that humans were created by God. Knowing the common views of the

time, it is easier to accept Blumenbachs claims as scientifically plausible in his context. It is also

important to note that some of the research we are conducting today will probably be considered

ludicrous is a few100 years because we are as ingrained into our culture today as Blumenbach

was into his culture then.

Blumenbach invented a system of degenerations away from the Caucasus ideal; with

every degeneration dragging humans further away from their most beautiful selves. By

degenerations he meant removed groups that have, through time, become separate from

Caucasians by space and characteristic. He believed that, from the Caucasus, humans spread out

first to America and then, from there, to Mongolia. Oppositely, he believed humans spread out

first to Malay (Southeast Asia) and then to Ethiopia.8 This makes the Malay and American

varieties intermediate groups between Caucasians and the Mongolians and Ethiopians. The

Mongolians and Ethiopians represent the groups furthest away from the original human ideal and

are, therefore, the ugliest. He was, of course, wrong about the way humanity spread out. Humans

started in Africa, not Europe, and humans also did not spread out first to America and then, from

there, to Asia. While this system seems absurd to us now, back then it was as good a theory as

any. This way of classifying humans set up a clear hierarchy of humanity, with Caucasians safely

at the top.

7
Alex Hill, Diversity in Understanding Diversity in our Biology, (Lecture, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington, Oct 13, 2016).
8
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, The Institutions of Physiology (London: Bensley, 1817) p. 96.
 Baumann 5

Blumenbach classified humankind into five varieties. The one he listed first is the

Caucasian variety. He defined Caucasians as white, with rosy cheeks, and brown hair. He

described their heads as subglobular, their faces oval and straight, foreheads smooth, noses

narrow and slightly hooked, mouths small and teeth placed perpendicular to each jaw. He also

described the chin as full and rounded and viewed these people as the most beautiful. He

included Europe, Eastern Asia, the Caspian Sea, Ganges, and Northern Africa in the Caucasian

variety.9 This description is quite flattering and portrays the Caucasian variety in a very positive

light.

Another variety Blumenbach created was the Mongolian Variety. He described them as

yellow, with black, stiff, scanty and straight hair. Their head was described as almost square,

with a broad, flat and depressed face, less distinct parts, a flat but broad glabella, a small nose,

globular cheeks, narrow eyelids, and less prominent chins.10 He also described them as apish,

which is, of course, much less flattering than the description afforded the Caucasians. Under this

category, Blumenbach included all Asians not in the Malay category, the Finnish population, the

Lapps, and the Esquimaux.11 The arbitrariness of his created system can be seen by which groups

he chose to put together, seemingly randomly and with much variation within themselves. We

know of their great variation today because of genetics, a tool Blumenbach did not have at his

disposal.

The Ethiopian variety was also created by Blumenbach. They were characterized as

having black and curly hair, being black skinned, with narrow heads, knotted, uneven foreheads,

malar bones protruding, prominent eyes, thick noses, wide jaws, a narrow alveolar ridge which is

9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
 Baumann 6

elongated in the front, puffy lips, a retreating chin, and bandy legs. This category included all

Africans but the North.12 While Blumenbach believed blacks were intelligent, this description is

very negative. It is also ironic that he grouped all Africans in one variety, when, nowadays, we

know the greatest amount of genetic variety between populations can be found in Africa.

Blumenbach also created the American variety. They were designated as Copper

coloured, with black, stiff, scanty and straight hair, with a short forehead, deep-set eyes, a bit of

an apish, prominent nose, a broad face, and distinct, prominent cheeks. This category included

all of America but the Esquimaux.13 It is a bit more positive than the Ethiopian and Mongolian

varieties, probably because it is classified as one of the intermediate groups, but the description

is still very unsympathetic when compared to the Caucasian variety.

Lastly, Blumenbach came up with the Malay category. This is the new variety he

invented solely by himself, without inspiration from Linnaeus. It is also his second intermediate

group which he needed to set up his system of degenerations. He described them as tawny

coloured, with black, soft, curly, thick, and plentiful hair. They were described as having

moderately narrowed heads, with swollen foreheads, full, wide noses, large mouths and

prominent upper jaws. This category included Pacific Ocean inhabitants, for example people

from the Mariannes, the Philippines, Molucca, and the Sunda Islands.14 While more attractive

than most, as fitting with the previous trend, Caucasians still come out clearly on top.

Blumenbach used cranial studies to back up his claims about the differences between

mans races. Blumenbach worked with the small sample size of 82 skulls to divide up mankind.15

12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
David Hurst Thomas, Kennewick Man, Archaeology, And the Battle for Native American
Identity (US: Basic Books, Perseus Book group, 2001), Ch. 4.
 Baumann 7

While his cranial studies were quite arbitrary and do not justify his system of human variation,

he was right about some things. Braccacephalic heads are larger and broader and often found in

cold climates of the globe.16 Blumenbach described the Caucasians, who live in colder regions,

as having subglobular (round) heads and oval faces. Dolichocephalic heads, on the other side, are

smaller and narrower and appear at higher frequencies in hotter climates.17 And, going along

with this, we can see that Blumenbach described the Ethiopian variety as having a narrow head

that is compressed as the sides. Mezocephalic skulls are somewhere in the middle of the other

two.18 Blumenbach states that the Malay variety had only slightly narrowed heads and that the

American variety had a short forehead. Blumenbach got the general trend correct, but such a

trend could not actually be used to support the sort of claims he made. Not all Mongolian skulls a

square, as he claimed, and not all Malay skulls are slightly narrowed. He took the trends he saw

and over-exaggerated them to fit into a system that made sense in the time in which he lived. In

short, he largely saw in his data what he wanted/expected to see.

The second reason why Blumenbach placed the Caucasus region at the top on his system

of human classification was his belief about environmental influence on changing skin colours.

He reasoned that it was easier to change from having white skin to dark, and not vice versa.

Therefore, he concluded that the light, white form of humanity must be the original and that the

environment, through degenerations, darkened the skin of some humans as they moved to new

areas. By assuming this, he went far beyond conclusions that he could have come up with given

16
Alex Hill, The Visible Phenotype, (Lecture, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington,
Nov 1, 2016).
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
 Baumann 8

his available data.19 Modern research has shown that his views were wrong and that the first non-

hairy humans had dark skin.20 While no one would expect an 18th century scientist to know facts

we ourselves have just discovered, it was wrong of him to speculate beyond the scope of his data

and include it in his books like fact.

Two of the most important images of Blumenbachs MD thesis were his III and IV plates

depicting the different skull shapes of humans. He described the skull of a Georgian female as

very symmetrical and beautiful, exposing his bias. The Ethiopian female from Guineas skull is

simply described as elongated and that of a Reindeer Tungus is described as dilated outward.

Even the malar bones of the Georgian female are described as beautiful.21 It is amazing that such

subjective words were ever allowed to be published in scholarly writings, no matter the time

period or biases.

The way Blumenbach thought about intelligence and the way he thought about beauty

and race contradict themselves greatly. He may have struggled to try and reconcile his own

beliefs with those that were widespread in society at the time. Blumenbach himself noted that

environment can alter skull shape, yet he still placed so much emphasis and importance on the

perceived shape differences between the races he invented.22 His writings on intelligence suggest

that he not only believed in the unity of the human race but in the equality of its races.

Blumenbach even wrote about the beauty of African Americans in some documents, which

19
Raj Bhopal, Bruce and John Usher, The Beautiful Skull and Blumenbachs Errors: The Birth
of the Scientific Concept of Race, The BMJ 2007; 335: 1308, accessed Dec 2, 2016,
http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7633/1308.
20 Alex Hill, Pigmentation, (Lecture, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, Oct 13,

2016).
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
 Baumann 9

completely contradicts the system he created.23 It is possible that Blumenbachs views on

humanity simply changed as he aged, but the evidence leans more towards inconsistency in his

views.

There is much contradiction amongst scientists of whether or not Blumenbach was a

racist. He came up with the term race, replacing his earlier use of the term variety.24 The more

modern view portrays the system as one purely based on beauty. Stephen Jay Gould, a 20th

century evolutionary biologist and palaeontologist, held this view. He called Blumenbach one of

the least racist thinkers of his day, but he also stated that he shifted the way Westerners

perceived race.25 However, other translations of his Latin thesis could bring one to different

conclusions. While some translations focus on his exaltation of Georgian beauty, others focus

more on his views on symmetry, formation of the face, and stature.26 It will always be unclear

just what Blumenbachs views were exactly, he is too separated by time and history to

conclusively say anything about his contradicting views of race.

While Blumenbach invented the word Caucasian and used it to refer to one of his

varieties of mankind, the term was also used by Goettingen philosopher Christoph Meiners

(1747-1810). Meiners had his own views on humanity and race. Meiners thought Germans

originated from the ancient Greeks and used ethnographic literature to rank people according to

physical beauty. He designated two races; handsome and ugly.27 These races show Meiners

23
Ibid.
24 Robert Bernasconi and Tommy L. Lott, The Idea of Race (USA: Hackett Publishing
Company, 2000) p. ix.
25
Stephen Jay Gould, The Geometer of Race, Discover, November 1994.
26
Early 19th Century Versus Modern Interpretations of Blumenbach, The Six Good Dead
White Men, June 29, 2013, Accessed Dec 2, 2016, http://michael1988.com/?m=201306.
27
Nell Irvin Painter, Collective Degradation: Slavery and the Construction of Race, Fifth
Annual Gilder Lehrman Center International Conference at Yale University, Nov 7-8, 2003,
http://glc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/events/race/Painter.pdf.
 Baumann 10

biases even more bluntly than Blumenbachs system did. Blumenbach was also influenced by

Meiners. He may have used language of beauty and racial purity because of that influence.

Meiners was a fellow professor at the University of Goettingen. While Blumenbach at least tried

to be scientific by using cranial measurement, Meiners based his theories solely off of travel

literature.28 They differed in many ways of thinking, yet Blumenbach may have been inspired to

base his system of human classification on the concept of beauty because of Meiners.

Meiners differed from Blumenbach clearly in his views on the intellectual capabilities of

different races. Meiners believed certain peoples were inferior to others, and that this justified

institutions like slavery. Initially, Meiners split up the world into only two races, the Tartar-

Caucasian race and the Mongolian race. The Tartar-Caucasian race was light-skinned, beautiful

and rich in virtues. The Mongolians were dark skinned, had no virtue, and were weak in body

and spirit. Later Meiners split up the European race into different categories of goodness, with

Germans coming out on top.29 Meiners was clearly racist and not a liberal thinker. His ideas were

so outlandish and his methods so crude that, even in the time, many doubted him. Blumenbach

was one of the few who criticized him openly.30 Yet Meiners still influenced Blumenbachs

system of human classification. While Blumenbach probably did not mean to perpetuate

ethnocentrism and scientific racism to the extent that he did, Meiners clearly meant to spread the

view of German/white dominance; putting everyone else below this.

Blumenbachs system helped validate scientific racism as a concept and would, in the far

future, lead to events such as eugenics. Even though Blumenbachs views on other races were

very favourable compared to those of many of his contemporaries, his hierarchical system of

28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid.
 Baumann 11

human classification still caused a lot of damage. The generations of scientists that came after

Blumenbach used his system as inspiration for their owns, and they misconstrued it to apply to

not only physical attributes of different races, but mental ones as well. Future intellectuals would

turn further and further away from physical classifications with room for overlap, and more and

more towards mental classifications that were immutable. In the late 18th century, at the same

time as Blumenbach, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a philosopher, sought to classify people by

behaviour and culture as well as genetics. He suggested 4 races, with only the European race

being capable of improvement and all the others being permanently inferior because of the

conditions in which they exist.31 By the 19th century, the idea that you could use skull shapes to

determine personality characteristics was rampant.32 Samuel Morton (1799-1851) wrote a book

that stated that some racial groups where biologically fickle or revolting, like the Mongol-

Tartars.33 This book was later used by slave owners as scientific evidence that what they were

doing was morally right.34 After Charles Darwin (1809-1882) released his theory of evolution,

proponents of Social Darwinism, for example Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), would misconstrue

Darwins principles, and use them in the areas of politics and economics to promote white

supremacy, just as it happened with Blumenbachs system of classification.

Blumenbach, along with Linnaeus, Meiners, and scientists that came after him, developed

the ideas that would eventually turn into scientific racism. He was an enlightenment-era

31
Andrea Elyse Messer, Scientific racisms long history mandates caution, Penn State News,
Feb 14, 2014, Accessed Dec 2, 2016,
http://news.psu.edu/story/304151/2014/02/14/research/scientific-racisms-long-history-mandates-
caution.
32
Annalee Newitz, The 9 Most Influential Works of Scientific Racism, Ranked, io9, 2014,
http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-9-most-influential-works-of-scientific-racism-rank-1575543279.
33
Samuel George Morton, Crania Americana (Philadelphia: J. Dobson, 1839), p. 41.
34
Annalee Newitz, The 9 Most Influential Works of Scientific Racism, Ranked, io9, 2014,
http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-9-most-influential-works-of-scientific-racism-rank-1575543279.
 Baumann 12

intellectual that spoke of the intelligence and mental capacities of negroes favourably. He created

a system of human classification based arbitrarily on beauty and classified humans hierarchically

with Caucasians at the top. He may have done this because of Meiners influence. Independent

of his personal views and motives, Blumenbachs system inspired future scientists and

intellectuals to back up racist worldviews with scientific racism. His research led to the

perpetuation of ethnocentrism into the future.

 Baumann 13

Works Cited

Bernasconi, Robert, and Lott, Tommy L. The Idea of Race. USA: Hackett Publishing

Company, 2000.

Bhopal, Raj, Usher, Bruce and John. The Beautiful Skull and Blumenbachs Errors: The

Birth of the Scientific Concept of Race. The BMJ 2007; 335: 1308. accessed Dec 2,

2016. http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7633/1308.

Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich. Observations on the bodily conformations and mental

capacities of the Negroes. 2009. Philosophical Magazine Series 1. Vol. 3. Iss. 10,1799.

Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich. The Institutions of Physiology. London: Bensley, 1817.

Early 19th Century Versus Modern Interpretations of Blumenbach. The Six Good Dead White

Men. June 29, 2013. Accessed Dec 2, 2016. http://michael1988.com/?m=201306.

Eigen, Sara Eigen, Larrimore, Mark. The German Invention of Race. USA: State University of

New York, Albany, 2006.

Gould, Stephen Jay. The Geometer of Race. Discover. November 1994.

Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. New York, London: WW Norton and Company,

1996.

Hill, Alex. Diversity in Understanding Diversity in our Biology. Lecture at the University of

Washington, Seattle, Washington on Oct 13, 2016.

Hill, Alex. Pigmentation. Lecture at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington on

Oct 13, 2016.

Hill, Alex. The Visible Phenotype. Lecture at the University of Washington, Seattle,

Washington on Oct 13, 2016.

Kitson, Peter J., Lee, Debbie. Slavery, Abolition, and Emancipation: Writings in the British
 Baumann 14

Romantic Period V. 8: Theories of Race. London: Pickering & Chatto, 1999.

Linnaeus, Carolus Linnaeus. Systema Naturae. Sweden: 10th ed. 1758. based on trans. by

Stephen Jay Gould. The Mismeasure of Man. rev and expanded ed. New York: Norton,

1996. Kenneth A.R. Kennedy. Human Variations in Space and Time. Dubuque, Iowa:

Wm. C. Brown, 1976.

Messer, Andrea Elyse. Scientific racisms long history mandates caution. Penn State News.

Feb 14, 2014. Accessed Dec 2, 2016.

http://news.psu.edu/story/304151/2014/02/14/research/scientific-racisms-long-

history-mandates-caution.

Morton, Samuel George. Crania Americana. Philadelphia: J. Dobson, 1839.

Newitz, Annalee. The 9 Most Influential Works of Scientific Racism, Ranked. io9. 2014.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-9-most-influential-works-of-scientific-racism-rank-

1575543279.

Painter, Nell Irvin. Collective Degradation: Slavery and the Construction of Race. Fifth

Annual Gilder Lehrman Center International Conference at Yale University. Nov 7-8,

2003. http://glc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/events/race/Painter.pdf.

Thomas, David Hurst. Kennewick Man, Archaeology, And the Battle for Native American

Identity. US: Basic Books, Perseus Book group, 2001.