K. Pearson to W.M.F. Petrie, 12th Aug. 1895.- External URL
- Correspondence Details
-
Sent From (Definite): Karl PearsonSent To (Definite): Sir William Matthew Flinders PetrieDate: 12 Aug 1895
- Current Holder(s)
-
Holder (Definite): Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UCL.
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Sent fromKarl Pearson
12 Aug 1895
Description:
‘Dear Professor Petrie,
I hasten to correct my statement of yesterday based on a rough calculation only. The following is the result of this morning’s work:
Cephalic Index
... [calculations for different sets of graves] ...
The probable error of the S.D. being .288 about, there is no doubt that the race in both sets of graves is identical. The constants are indeed in remarkable agreement. Putting all the male crania together we have
... [calculations for ‘New Race’, Mook’s collection]...
Hence it is on the basis of this one measurement exceedingly improbable that the two races are the same.
Mook’s Egyptians(?) are a much more variable race than your Libyans(?). Indeed while both are dolic[h]ocephalic your Libyans(?) possess variability to a degree which places them very low in the scale.
For example I have worked out among other races the following for variability in cephalic index...
... [list ranking skull measurements of different ‘races’ by ‘order of variability’ and ‘order of cephalic index’]...
This list shows your Libyans very near the bottom in both cases. I do not lay much stress on positions of ancient British, Gauls, Scandinavians and Swiss (Pile[?]-dwellers) as I have only been able to get the measurements of very few skulls, but the general result seems a fairly close relationship to the Egyptians & a singularly low place on a scale which appears to correspond somewhat to the scale of civilization of modern races i.e. German near the top & Aino near the bottom. However I must not trouble you more about the matter, only I wanted to correct my too definite statement of yesterday.
Yours very truly,
Karl Pearson.’
-
Sent toSir William Matthew Flinders Petrie
12 Aug 1895
Description:
‘Dear Professor Petrie,
I hasten to correct my statement of yesterday based on a rough calculation only. The following is the result of this morning’s work:
Cephalic Index
... [calculations for different sets of graves] ...
The probable error of the S.D. being .288 about, there is no doubt that the race in both sets of graves is identical. The constants are indeed in remarkable agreement. Putting all the male crania together we have
... [calculations for ‘New Race’, Mook’s collection]...
Hence it is on the basis of this one measurement exceedingly improbable that the two races are the same.
Mook’s Egyptians(?) are a much more variable race than your Libyans(?). Indeed while both are dolic[h]ocephalic your Libyans(?) possess variability to a degree which places them very low in the scale.
For example I have worked out among other races the following for variability in cephalic index...
... [list ranking skull measurements of different ‘races’ by ‘order of variability’ and ‘order of cephalic index’]...
This list shows your Libyans very near the bottom in both cases. I do not lay much stress on positions of ancient British, Gauls, Scandinavians and Swiss (Pile[?]-dwellers) as I have only been able to get the measurements of very few skulls, but the general result seems a fairly close relationship to the Egyptians & a singularly low place on a scale which appears to correspond somewhat to the scale of civilization of modern races i.e. German near the top & Aino near the bottom. However I must not trouble you more about the matter, only I wanted to correct my too definite statement of yesterday.
Yours very truly,
Karl Pearson.’
-
