Not quite. Let's see if I can restate. Suppose that evolutionary theory is correct that intelligence is an evolved trait. Then we would obviously expect to find a genetic component to intelligence, and at the same time we would expect some environmental factor that results in selection for intelligence.
The studies referred to above show that there are genetically discernable, geographically concentrated "sub-populations." This is what I was referring to when I used the word "race." The quotes were intended to emphasize I was using the term only as a convenience, but the studies do note a correlation between these populations and "racial" ethnic identifications.
Anyway, this geographic-genetic differentiation is precisely what one would expect from evolution, as the environmental factors are obviously different in the Gobi desert than for equatorial Africa.
The next step is this: is it possible that one set of environmental factors would select more strongly for intelligence than another? Certainly it's possible -- it is, in fact, the working theory for how human intelligence evolved.
The final step is obvious: is it possible that a population from, say, Asia might have selected for intelligence differently from one in equatorial Africa? Sure -- if it takes different skills to stay alive in one place than another, then the more "difficult" place might well select more strongly for intelligence than for, say, speed and endurance.
In "Mismeasure of Man," Gould basically took to task various historical attempts to measure intelligence. This is fine as far as it goes, but it does not justify his later conclusion the there is no difference.
I think on that last point, it's probably not possible for a researcher to conduct, much less publish, meaningful research on racial intelligence differences -- any study that did find a difference would be hailed on one side, and condemned by the other, primarily for political reasons. It's the same political dynamic that makes it extraordinarily difficult to find trustworthy data on the life expectancy of homosexual males.
It's always tempting, of course, to look at the progress of civilization in various locations, and make inferences that way. For example, it appears that equatorial Africa has tended to be a brutal sh!thole for as long as history can record, whereas China boasts a long line of civilization "firsts." Is that meaningful? I don't know, but it may well be suggestive.
Finally, there's the problem of defining "intelligence." It's a complex thing, and different sorts of "human brainpower" might be selected-for in different situations. Here we might be able to borrow from the world of dog-breeding, where certain types of personalities and mental traits can be, and are, selected for. Thus we see the affable and laid-back (except for chasing balls) golden retriever; the obsessive herding instincts of a border collie; and the protectiveness and intelligence of a German Shepherd. Regardless of what the "intelligence measure" really is, we do know that certain breeds tend to be more mentally suitable for certain tasks than others.
That's actually the almost the entire problem. Likewise, one mustn't confuse intelligence with learning. I would guess (based on pretty good evidence) that the ancient Egyptians were every bit as intelligent as we are today, but they just didn't know as much (not counting what we have forgotten.)