6 Demonstration of Field methods in Biological Anthropology

Dr. Ajeet Jaiswal

Contents:

1. Introduction: Field work and fieldwork tradition in Anthropology

2. Field work in Physical/ Biological Anthropology

3.Anthropometry

4. Aims and Demonstration of Field method in Biological Anthropology

5.Arrangement of Sections

6. Need for Training

7. Field work – approach to local population

8. Specification of the Individual and the Group

8.1 Description of the population group and sample selected

8.2 Identification of the individual

8.3 Age Ascertainment

8.4 Selection of Sample Size

9. Division of Anthropometry

10. Anthropometric Instruments

Summary

Learning Objectives:

To understand

•  about the basic concept of Field work and fieldwork tradition in Anthropology;
•  to learn the basic idea of Field work in Physical/ Biological Anthropology; and
•  to elucidate the information related to division of Anthropometry and different Anthropometric Instruments in Physical/ Biological Anthropology.

1. Introduction: Field work and fieldwork tradition in Anthropology

Fieldwork more than anything else, characterizes the discipline of anthropology. It advocates face to face experience with its subjects. Gopal Saran (1983) puts it brilliantly by stating that, “this is due to the anthropologists desire to receive phenomenon through his own senses because of his great love of facts.” The concept of fieldwork in anthropology is different from the other social sciences. Anthropology would not be what it is today but for the insights fed into it by intensive field work. It was not however always so, “fieldwork was not what interested our founding fathers” (Beteille & Madan, 1975)

Anthropology in its earliest stages was mainly concerned with the study of primitive society. In the absence of any scientifically collected date by professionals the images of primitive man was determined by the descriptions of such narrators as travelers and hunters. “Hence there seems to have been a pendulum swing from extreme in speculation about primitive man. First he was a little more than an animal who lived in poverty, violence, and fear: then he was a gentle person who lived in plenty, peace and security. First he was lawless: then he was a slave to law and custom. First he was devoid of any religious feelings or beliefs, and then he was entirely dominated by the sacred and immersed in ritual. First he was an individualist who preyed on the weaker and held what he could: then he was a communist who held lands and goods in common. First he was sexually promiscuous: then he was a model of domestic virtue. First he was lethargic and incorrigibly lazy: then he was alert and industrious” (Evans-Pritchard, 1956). There were all sorts of distortions and contradictions; subjectivity was sometimes stretched to absurdity and fantasy.

Sixteenth century onwards saw a beginning of sober, factual and balanced accounts of native life. During the middle of the eighteenth century and the middle of the nineteenth century, knowledge of primitive peoples and societies was greatly increased, the European colonization of America, establishment of British rule in India and settlement of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa by European emigrants were largely responsible for this trend. The logical consequence of these developments was that the character of ethnographic of the of these regions began to change. It was no more hunters’ travelers’ tales now and these were detailed studies by missionaries and administrators who not only had better opportunities to observe but were intellectually more equipped to understand and rationalize many an exotic and strange ways and customs. Even at this point of time, with the sole exception of Morgan, all the notable anthropologists (and of course, researchers of allied disciplines too) were armchair scholars. They relied on the secondary data and secondary sources. Their main tool of data collection was questionnaire. For non-professionals as standardized format provided in notes and queries on anthropology first published by Royal Anthropological Institute in 1874 and Human Biology: A Guide to Field Methods published by Weiner, J. S. and Lourie, J. A. in 1981 (International Biological Programme, IBP No.9. Marylebone London NW.), was the most reliable guide for observing and recording the data through extensive use of interpreters, the towering professional anthropologists of this period (the earliest ones) such as Mclennan, Tylor, Maine and Frazer were content with producing important treaties based on secondary sources. The classic on religion The Golden Bough by Frazer was also based on the data collected through secondary sources.

By that time it became pretty clear to the ethnographers and anthropologists that if the study of anthropology was to move forward the researchers would have to go to their subjects and make their own observation and measurements. Evans Pritchard very rightly comments that it is indeed surprising that with the exception of Morgan’s study of the Iroquois, not a single anthropologist conducted field studies till and end of the nineteenth century. It is even more remarkable that it does not seem to have occurred to them that a writer on anthropological topics should at least have look, if only a glimpse, at one or two specimens of what he spent his life writing about. This was also the when scholars from natural sciences background started joining the discipline of anthropology. Bose was physicist and geographer Haddon a marine zoologist, Rivers a physiologist and Malinowski a physicist. These men had been taught that in science one tests hypothesis by one’s own observation. One does not rely on laymen to do it for one.

The Jessup North Pacific Expedition led by Franz Boas in 1897 and the Cambridge Expedition to the Torres Straits in 1898-99 comprising Haddon, Rivers, Seligman and others mark the beginning of formal anthropological fieldwork. Seligman remark that fieldwork was to anthropology what the blood of the martyrs was to church, indeed proved prophetic. From this time onward anthropology became a whole time professional study and field experience an essential part of anthropological study. Fieldwork almost completely eliminated speculation.

Among the pioneer field researchers the man who did more than most others in defining the nature of field work was Rivers. He distinguished between intensive and survey work. Intensive empirical studies form the core of anthropological studies today. Rivers had himself engaged in both types of research, survey work in Melanesia and intensive fieldwork among the Toda tribe in India. However the early empirical research suffered from some weaknesses. The short time researchers spent among the people they studied, their ignorance of the subject’s language and their casual approach did not permit deep investigation. Radcliff Brown a student of Rivers and Haddon provided an important thrust to the anthropological fieldwork. His field work among the Andaman Islanders in India between 1906 to 1908 is considered to be the first genuinely intensive fieldwork in a primitive society to describe the social life of a people in “such a way as to bring out clearly what was significant in it for theories (Evans-Prichard). He lived among the Andaman Islanders intimately, learnt their language and collected the data through participant observation.

B. Malinowski, the great British anthropologist of Polish origin transformed the fieldwork in anthropology to such an extent that things could never be the same again. As Saran (1983) correctly remarks, “with the publication of Malinowski Argonauts of the Western Pacific amateur ethnography was totally eclipsed. The ethnographic fieldwork became a highly professionalized activity. It was no more data collection. It turned into deeper analysis of particular social structure and cultural patterns. He was a thorough fieldworker. He not only spent a longer period than any anthropologist before or after him in a single study of a primitive people but he was also the first anthropologist to conduct his whole research through the native language, it is he who proclaimed what may be called the philosophy of fieldwork and there is little that has been added to the principles of fieldwork given by Malinowski half a century ago. We certainly use more technical aids today, increasingly rely upon statistical tools but the essential definition of the nature of fieldwork remains substantially the same as Malinowski description of it (Beteille and Madan, (1975)) Among his other works the Sexual Life of Savages (1929) and Coral Gardens and Their Magic (1935) are regarded as classics in fieldwork. As already stated, Malinowski transformed the fieldwork into an art. Thus certain basic conditions have been laid down for a good field investigation.

Enumerating the attributes of a good field investigation E. Pritchard (1956) says that anthropologist must spend sufficient time on the study, he must throughout be in close contact with the people among whom he is working, he must communicate with them solely through their own language and he must study their entire culture and social life. The earlier professional fieldworkers were always in a great hurry. Their quick visits to native peoples sometimes lasted only a few days, and seldom more than a few weeks. Survey research of this kind can be useful preliminary to intensive studies but it is of little value for an understanding of social life. The position is very different today when one to three years are devoted to study of a single people. This permits observations to be made in every season of the year, the social life of the people to be recorded to the last detail and conclusion to be tested systematically.

However, even unlimited time for his research, the anthropologist will not produce a good account of the people he is studying unless he can put himself in a position which enables him to establish ties to intimacy with them, and to observe their daily activities from within and not form without, their community life. He must live, as far as possible, physically and morally as part of the community. He then not only sees and hears what goes on in the normal everyday life of the people as well as less common events such as ceremonies and legal cases, but by taking part in those activities in which he can appropriately engage, he learns through action as well as by ear and eye what goes around him. This is very unlike the situation in which records of native life were compiled by earlier anthropological fieldworkers and also by missionaries and administrators, who living out of the native community in mission stations or government posts, had mostly to rely on what a few there to change their way of life but as a humble learner of it. What is perhaps even more important for his work is the fact that he is all alone, cut off from the companionship of men of his own race and culture and is dependent on the natives around him for company, friendship and human understanding. It is evident that he can only establish this intimacy if he makes himself in some degree a member of their society and live, thinks and feels in their culture since only he and not they can make the necessary transference.

The essential requirements and conditions of a good filed work described in the preceding paragraph by another great field researcher Evans-Pritchard may be covered within the parameters of two terms –intensive field work and participant observation – so distinctive of anthropological studies. Unfortunately very few people have published their field experiences. The implication of this general neglect would seem to be that what matter are the results of fieldwork rather than the techniques that one might employ for data collection. So long as certain basic requirements of objective investigation have been met. This is a pity because the important of self analysis by the investigator becomes very valuable for himself and for others in the absence of standardization of fieldwork techniques (Beteille and Madan (1975). One way to meet this situation is obviously to try to standardize research techniques and to prepare formal guides to fieldwork. The argument is simple: anthropology as a biosocial science can hardly afford to be personal adventure: it has to be a collective endeavor united by shared understandings in respect of both purpose and methodology. Methods of biosocial research should be communicable to students in the classroom and replicable in the field.

The problem of subjectivity and objectivity should also be faced likewise. An emphasis on the freedom of the individual observer must not be allowed to become an excuse for lack of methodological rigor and a preoccupation with technical virtuosity should not be permitted to derive underground, as it were the role that the observer personality plays in what he observes the links that he forges between data and the kinds of structure that he prefers to fabricate make sense out of the multitude of observed roles and relationships. However, the study of human society would indeed become a dull affair if some magic formula could be devised which would enable the fieldworker not only to foresee all possible problems but to solve them in the ordinary course of his work. If our experiences in our own or in other societies were never a source of puzzlement or doubt there would hardly be any stimulus for research. It would be contrary to the spirit of scientific enquiry if we were to write up our research experiences as a series of success stories. The actual experiences of research are made up of failures as well as successes, of trials as well as joys. There are times when the surest procedure fails to produce results, and time when the obscure facts reveal their true significance, unasked as it were.

At this point it would be important not to miss the mention of field investigation in one’s own culture and in other cultures. As the preceding pages reveal when the anthropologists, British as well as American initiated anthropology into the realm of biosocial research based on fieldwork they were concerned with studying primitive people whose life radically differed from their own. It was much later that they started studying their own societies and cultures. In India on the other hand, fieldwork for Indian anthropologist has largely meant that study of one’s own society. This was a unique situation not faced by anthropologists of British and United States. Further, the categorization of insider and outsider is also full of dilemmas. When a researcher brought up in North India goes to do filed work in a South India village, is an outsider or an insider/? Dozens of such situations may be perceived.

2. Field work in Physical/ Biological Anthropology

Whatever has been described in the preceding pages mainly concerns with fieldwork in biosocial anthropology and of course most of the anthropological field research is concerned with this branch of anthropology. However research in physical or biological anthropology also requires fulfillment of some of the condition laid down for social or cultural anthropology. Earlier physical anthropology research was mainly confined to the study of morphological criteria for racial classification.

Biological anthropologists study biological and physical features of cultures and societies by spending time observing, interacting and taking anthropometric measurements with members of those cultures, taking notes and gathering data to draw conclusions about their growth and development, health, nutrition, lifestyle, habits and beliefs etc. Historically, Biological anthropologists relied on observation and secondhand accounts, then extrapolated conclusions, often incorrect, based on lack of firsthand experience. Over time, Biological anthropologists began to abandon “armchair anthropology” in favor of physical study in the field, collecting their own information. Biological anthropologists conduct fieldwork using their own senses and tools to document experiences and research with other societies.

The present day physical anthropology (sometimes referred to as biological anthropology due to its widened horizon) involves extensive research in dental anthropology, population genetics, cytogenetic, molecular and biochemical genetics and host of other specialization. Some of these fields require detailed knowledge of the environment and kinship system of the human groups under study. All these require at least some of the methodological fineness and vigour demonstrated by biosocial anthropology. The physical anthropologists too are required to established rapport with their subjects and respondents and sometimes have to resort to participant observation technique to elicit required data.

Field work has been accepted as an indispensable rite de passage in the making of a modern anthropologist sometimes referred to as an act or feet of living with strangers. The anthropological approach, to sue Kluckhon’s term is that of “attached detachment”. Fieldwork is considered, in Koreber’s words, “an opportunity, a privilege and the professional catcher”. Levi-Strauss has the last word when he says that “indeed, the field research with which every anthropological career begins is the mother and wet-nurse of doubt, the philosophical attitude par excellence. This anthropological doubt does not only consist of knowing that one knows nothing, but of resolutely exposing what one thought one knew and indeed one’s very own ignorance to the buffetings and indeed one’s very own ignorance to most cherished ideas and habits by them to the highest degree.

3. Anthropometry

3.1 History of Science of Anthropometry

When White in 1794, basing his assertions upon the observation of both skeletons and living men, made the statement that the forearm of Negroes, in proportion to the upper arm, was longer than in white men, he inaugurated the science of Comparative Racial Anthropometry, and showed that there were constant differences in the bodily proportions of the various human races.

Differences of this sort seem to have been unrecognized before this, even by artists and sculptors, who, although from the time of the Egyptian and Assyrian carvings had elaborated and even emphasized the racial characters of face and head, had given no heed to differences in the other parts of the body. It is thus quite possible that the classic sculptors of Greece and Rome may have used indifferently as models their own people and their foreign slaves, which may serve to verify and explain the asserted Negroid proportions of the Apollo Belvidere ( Perhaps a Greek head on a negro body, as has often been asserted).

The assertion of White was an advance upon new ground, and although it was accompanied by neither detailed measurements, calculation of averages, or indices, it was yet of great value in the development of the subject. After this, however, the work rested for forty-four years, when Humphrey, in 1838, made careful measurements, not only of humerus and radius, but of femur and tibia also, in twenty-five skeletons of Negroes and the same number of those of white men. He compared each individual length with the total height of the skeleton from which it came, taken as 100, and thus obtained indices which could be directly compared. His results corroborated White regarding the long forearm (radius) of Negroes, and found a similar greater length in the lower leg (tibia) of the same race, as compared with the whites. He found, for example, that the average humerus in the two races bore practically the same proportion to the total height, 19.52% in Negroes and 19.54% in whites, while the figures for the radius, also expressed in a percentage of the total height, were respectively 15.16% and 14.15%. In the same way the figures for the femur were 27.40 and 27.51, a negligible difference, while those for the tibia were 23.23 and 22.15.

But by this time other anthropologists had become interested in racial differences in bodily proportion, and under the critical scrutiny of Broca this subject received still more careful treatment. He pointed out the fact that a total height obtained from an articulated skeleton depended too much upon the preparatory who put the bones together, and hence disregarded this uncertain measurement in favor of one involving the length of a single long bone, or of two combined. He thus substituted for Humphrey’s standard, now the length of the femur, now that of the radius, or again the combined lengths of humerus and radius or femur and tibia, with each of which, in turn, with a value of 100, the lengths of the other long arm and leg bones was compared.

The next great advance in treating the general subject of racial anthropometry was the realization of the fact that many of the bones could be measured practically as well in the living subject by ascertaining the precise location of their termini by palpation; also that certain integumental landmark, not associated with the skeleton, such as the umbilicus and the nipples, were of considerable value in the study of proportions. This line of work, the anthropometry of the living subject, developed naturally in the field, as osteometry had developed in the museum, and was the direct result of the series of great scientific voyages, like those of the Novara and the Challenger, characteristic of the last third of the nineteenth century. Naturally in the development of physical ethnology the facial features had long received much attention, and had become the subject of careful measurements, with averages and indices, and the extension of this work to the rest of the body naturally followed.

During this epoch, in 1882, to be precise, a young anthropologist, M. Alphonse Bertillon, noticing the individual character of bodily measurements, saw in them important data for the solution of the many difficulties which, up to this time, confronted the judicial arm of the French Government, that of establishing the individual identity of criminals, and inaugurated the famous system of “Bertillonage,” based upon eleven easily taken measurements, a system that has now for many years yielded the most satisfactory results, and is still in general us, although now being rapidly replaced by the Finger-print System of Galton and Henry (Wilder and Wentworth, 1918).

The investigators of this period began by measuring the distances between landmarks directly, that is, the lengths of the long bones from end to end, as had been previously done with the shorter distances of the head and face, but it was soon seen that if the subject were standing erect, with heels together, in military position, it was necessary only to ascertain the distance from the floor of each terminus, and obtain the various required lengths by subtraction of one height from another, thus sparing time to both subject and operator in the work of measuring, at best a tedious process. This was naturally possible only when arms and legs were held “straight,” i.e., perpendicular to the floor, so that it is always necessary for the subject to stand as erect as he can. Aside from limb measurements, the same subtraction methods may be conveniently used in ascertaining the difference in level between any two landmarks, whether median or lateral; thus, between nipples and umbilicus, or between the incisural notch in the front of the neck and the iliac crest. The distance thus ascertained is that between the two horizontal planes passing through the landmarks in question, and thus all measurements made in this way may be regarded as projections, or the point where horizontal planes passing through the points measured strike an imaginary line erected vertically, perpendicular to the floor.

Thus by the opening of the new century anthropometry had already become an important branch of anthropology, expressed in extensive and rapidly increasing literature. Individual investigators, however, differed widely, not only in the measurements employed, and in their relative value, but in the manner in which these measurements were taken and the instruments used, so that there could be little or no trustworthy comparison between the results of different investigators. The science was thus ready for its next phase of development, the standardizing of the measurements. This was first attempted in the case of the skull, as craniometry had received the most attention and its measurements

were thus the most in need of standardizing, and came as the result of the International Congress of Anthropologists meeting in Monaco during April, 1906. The proposal for this came from the Committee of the Congress, MM. Hamy, Papillault, and Verneau, and the work was done by a special committee appointed for the purpose, MM. Giuffrida-Ruggeri et al., The proposals presented by the Committee (38 for the skull, and 19 for the living head and face) were ratified by the Congress, and have thus become the set of standard skull measurements, to be followed, so far as possible, by anthropometrists everywhere.

A second standardization, that of measurements of the living body, excluding the head, resulted in much the same way, from proposals at the International Congress of 1912, which met at Geneva, Switzerland, in September of that year.

The Committee consisted of 23 members. The increased interest in anthropometry is shown in the larger size of the Committee as compared with that of 1906, and the spread of this interest to other countries is indicated by the inclusion in it of representatives from England, Russia, Switzerland, Spain, Hungary, and the United States (Hrdlicka and MacCurdy). There were 49 separate measurements proposed by the Committee, and these were, as in the previous case, unanimously voted by the Congress.

The anthropometry of the bones of the skeleton, aside from the skull, has not as yet become subject to International Agreement, and is thus still in the stage of craniometry just previous to 1906, that is, detailed measurements have been worked out for the separate bones by different investigators, but the work needs yet to be standardized and those measurements selected which are generally considered essential.

If we accept the pioneer work of Turner, who published his work on the skeletons collected by the Challenger Expedition in 1886, the detailed osteometry of the separate bones has been the work of the Twentieth Century. The femur, naturally the first bone to receive special attention, was first adequately measured, according to modern methods, by Lehmann-Nitsche in 1895, who included also some details of the tibia; but the first thorough osteometric treatment of ulna and radius was delayed until 1906, when it was presented by Fischer in a paper which may well serve as a model for similar work. The pelvic girdle, with details of the ossa coxae (ossa innominata), was well worked out in 1900 by Koganei and Osawa, but for the completion of the bones of this immediate region the world waited until Radlauer’s work on the sacrum in 1908.

The modern treatment of the vertebral column, a difficult problem for the osteometrist, was delayed until 1912, when it received competent treatment by Hasebe. The skeleton of hand and foot may be treated as a whole; or certain significant bones, especially those of carpus and tarsus may be considered by themselves. Thus, for the foot skeleton as a whole, there is the paper of Volkov in 1905, and that of M. and Mme. Adachi of the same year; while for separate foot bones those of Sewell (1904- 1906) on the talus, of Manners-Smith on cuboid and naviculare (1907), and of Reicher on the calcaneus (1913) may serve as examples. It may thus be said that, at the outbreak of the European War, in 1914, the field of osteometry had just been covered as far as the first blocking out of essential measurements for the separate bones, but that no attempt has been made to establish a general agreement or to insure universality in usage; still less has there been a sufficient number of studies based upon the bones of the separate human races to form the basis for much comparison. It is at this point that we may trust the work will be resumed at the expiration of the Great War.

The employment of angular measurements, now an important part of anthropometry, especially in the case of the bones, has had a course of development closely similar to that of the linear measurements above reviewed. The first angle employed was the famous “Facial Angle” of Petras Camper, described in a posthumous work of this author, bearing the date of 1780. This angle was drawn upon the lateral aspect (profile) of skulls and living heads indifferently, and was that formed between a line passing through the base of the nose and the auditory meatus, and one roughly tangential to the profile. Camper found this angle to average 70 in Negroes, 80 in Europeans, 90 in classical Greek statues delineating mortals, and 100 in certain of their representations of gods.

On the other hand the apes, monkeys, and lower mammals gave angles less than 70, in a decreasing series, so that this facial angle was roughly a measure of the height of the forehead and hence indicative of the general intelligence.

As with linear measurements, the Mid-Nineteenth Century, largely under the leadership of Paul Broca, brought into use other angles, for the most part those of the skull, while at the present times important angular measurements have been established for many other bones.

Aside from single angles some anthropometrists make use of triangles, quadrilaterals, and even higher polygons, mainly in connection with mathematically drawn projections of bones upon a plane surface. With the living body, in spite of the fact that the first angle used, that of Camper, found here its main application, there are now few, if any, angles in common anthropometric use, although certain ones mainly those associated with the arm, leg, or foot, have a pathological or orthopedic significance.

No International Congress has as yet attempted to establish or define any prescribed angles for either the bones or the living body, and the matter rests at present, as was the case with linear measurements prior to 1906, with the individual investigators; certain obvious angles are commonly employed, and with considerable uniformity in definition, while others are devised by individual authors and used in bringing out relationships the value of which has not as yet been thoroughly tested.

A distinct advantage of an angle over a linear measurement lies in the fact that angles may be compared directly in individuals of different size, and need no index; possible disadvantages are found in the uncertainty of fixing the lines which describe them, and in the difficulty of reading them accurately.

Concerning the actual value of anthropometric measurements, of whatever sort, and the extent to which measurement may be profitably carried, both opinion and practice differ widely. As in other forms of biometrics, where mathematics plays an important part in the investigation of a primarily biological problem, certain investigators are bound to be more interested in the mathematical than in the biological side, and there is always danger that, in their hands, the latter cause may suffer, and the work be viewed as a mathematical problem, in which the goal is reached when the new relations involved are expressed in the form of formulae and tables. Others, on the other hand, view Physical Anthropology as wholly morphological, and place their reliance upon forms and form-comparisons as revealed to the eye, being very wary about expressing any character in a mathematical form.

As an example of the mathematical extreme, of an anthropometrist in whose hands the whole subject becomes an endless series of measurements, we may take the Hungarian investigator, Dr. Aurel von Torok, who, in his extensive text-book of Craniometry (Grundziige einer systematischen Kraniometrie, Stuttgart, 1890) enumerates for the skull alone no fewer than 5371 linear measurements and projections, together with a proportionate number of indices, and many hundreds of angles, triangles, polygons, etc. To him the goal of the anthropometrist appears to be in part to make so complete a mathematical mensuration of a given skull that it could be faithfully reproduced if destroyed, but in great part also to seek every possible way in which such an object may be measured. Is it any wonder that to him the complete and satisfactory measurement of a single skull is a sufficient subject for a Doctor’s thesis?

Quite the opposite view is that of the veteran Roman anthropologist, Giuseppe Sergi, who urges the study of varying shapes by the method usually employed by the zoologist and anatomist, that is, mainly by the eye. In commenting, for instance, upon the sorting out of European head types by the length-breadth indices of the cranium, a very obvious and elementary sort of anthropometry, he asks how many species of lark we should get if the ornithologist should attempt to separate them by the ingenious method of measuring the total length from tip of beak to tail and divide this by the wing-spread. He counsels the application of what he calls the “zoological” rather than the anthropometric method to the study of racial skulls, and thinks that one should learn to distinguish them by characters that one can perceive without measurement.

“As a zoologist can recognize the character of an animal species or variety belonging to any region of the globe or any period of time, so also should an anthropologist if he follows the same method of investigating the morphological characters of the skull.” (Sergi, 1961). It seems plain that somewhere in the wide range between these two extremes there is the legitimate place for a rational anthropometry, an anthropometry that employs mathematical methods in the definite expression of morphological relationships, and devises various methods of measurement to bring out differences already perceptible to the eye of the trained observer. As the most prominent exponent of this form of the science, whose goal is ever the detailed observation and comparison of the various representatives of man and man’s allies at present and in the past, and who employs the technique of anthropometry most successfully in the pursuit of this goal, we have the great anthropologist of the University of Strassburg, the late Gustav Schwalbe, and the beginning anthropometrist can do no better than study any of the classical papers produced by this man during the last twenty years of his life (1896-1916) in order to gain a clear idea of the great service of measurements as a handmaid to morphology. In the field of comparative human evolution, in the comparison of modern human types with the various prehistoric forms, he has used the data gained from indices and angles to the best advantage, and during this investigation, endeavoring constantly to bring out real morphological differences, has established certain measurements which now rank among the most important and universally employed of anthropometric data.

Aside from Schwalbe, who was very conservative in his use of measurements, there is a large school of anthropologists of moderate ideas, who seek to describe the bones of representatives of the various races, and their bodies as well, by making a reasonable number of measurements, and at present in the special measurements selected there is in general a close agreement. Actual conditions may be represented by a comparison of the work of several of the leading investigators in regard to craniometry, or the application of measurements to the description of the skull. In 1906 Frederic, an associate of Schwalbe, described certain individual skulls by the help of 53 separate data, of which 26 are linear measurements; 17, indices; 5, angles; and 3, girths. Adachi, in 1904, in a paper specially devoted to the examination of the orbital region of Japanese skulls, employs 56 separate data, of which the greater number refer to the orbit proper. E. Fischer (1913) presents in his laboratory outlines, for skull mensuration, which he furnishes to his students, a list of 77 separate data, 43 of which are linear measurements, 3 are angles, 8 are girths, and 22 are indices; and Schlaginhaufen uses for the same purpose 82, for the most part identical with the former. Even Torok (1895), with his extreme views regarding possible craniometrical measures, is yet willing to print a list of what he calls the “most important” data, which he considers sufficient for purposes of general description, and which include only 26 linear measures, 8 indices, 3 girths, and a few other data, 39 in all. Duckworth, (1910) employs in a descriptive paper on Sardinian crania no more than 11 measurements and 5 indices, although he recommends in practical laboratory work (1904) 15 linear measurements, 7 indices, 3 angles, and the cranial capacity. Finally in the year 1906, obtained the unanimous approval of the International Anthropological Congress, comprises 38 separate data; viz., 32 linear measurements, 3 arcs, 1 angle, and the cranial capacity.

A real danger that besets the anthropometrist along the mathematical side, and one to which a student may be naturally brought by seeking to be accurate, is the temptation to treat with too great respect the actual figures obtained from the individual measurements, to regard the decimal places as of equal importance in all cases, and to feel that a series of measurements carried out to the third place, for instance, is much more accurate and reliable than one carried out only a single place beyond the point. As a matter of fact, the accuracy of a result depends essentially upon the method of taking the measurement, and here not only must the personal equation, as involved in the operator, be taken into consideration, but also the condition of the material measured, for where the decimal places used go beyond the error of two consecutive measurements, there is absolutely no value in carrying them out. If, as an illustration, we find that in a certain skull measurement, the results obtained by different operators, or by the same operator at different times, do not agree with each other to within 0.5 mm., it is simply time lost to attempt to carry out the individual measurements beyond one decimal place. Especially in the case of measurements of the living, where the operator has to consider, not only his own degree of accuracy, but also the slight involuntary changes of position of the subject, there are certain of the longer measurements where one cannot hope to be accurate within a whole centimeter, and where attention to differences of 2-3 millimeters would be of no possible avail.

4. Aims and Demonstration of Field method in Biological Anthropology

The aim of the demonstration of field method in biological anthropology is to provide, in a form suitable for use in the field, instruction on the whole range of methods required for the fulfillment of human biological studies on a comparative basis.

Certain of these methods can be used to carry out the rapid surveys on growth, physique, and genetic constitution. They are also appropriate for the pursuit of intensive multidisciplinary investigations. Finally, procedures are laid down whereby the requisite background information about the group, simple, and subject under study may be obtained. This concerns in particular the full identification of the group, sample, and subject, medical and nutritional status, socio-demographic characteristics and analysis of habitual activity patterns, and a description of the environment.

5. Arrangement of Sections

Demonstration of Field method in Biological Anthropology can be arranged in following sections

• An Introduction: which includes a brief general description and rationale of the procedure, a list of the observations to be made and most important, a note on desirable sample sizes and composition.
• Technique. This part includes detailed instructions for carrying out any tests required relative to the observations to be made. In this part details of Equipment and its availability are also included as necessary, but no attempt has been made to provide exhaustive lists of instruments.
• The Data Collecting Sheet. This is as form to be filled in for each individual studied, giving minimal personal details and all the essential data obtained by means of the procedure. Full specification of the group and the individual is provided for in the Basic Identification Sheet. A few of the Data Sheets (those relating to growth, morphology and work capacity) are in the form of coded Performa suitable for computer processing and tabulation. These forms are also to be used as primary data collecting sheets in the field. The great majority of the Data Sheet however is presented in a form suitable for recording in the field, but for computer use transfer and encoding of the data would be necessary.

6. Need for Training

Trained personnel are required to carry out this all the measurements. The methods, even where these are described in great detail demand a thorough acquaintance with their underlying principles, as well as the technical details and use of the instruments. Even the simple techniques such as those of anthropometry and anthroposophy, cannot give reliable results unless the observer has practiced the methods thoroughly and has an appreciation of the inherent errors and limitations of the techniques. Facilities for training in all the requisite techniques certainly exist although it is appreciated that to take advantage of these may in some cases be difficult on financial grounds.

7. Field work – approach to local population

The detailed formulation for research and its execution is naturally the responsibility of the team concerned, and they will undertake the necessary discussions with those countries whose cooperation in a particular region is desirable. Wherever possible, a preliminary visit should be planned so that proper arrangements can be made with the authorities concerned (administrative, customs, etc) and a full explanation of the aims and conduct of the local authorities concerned. Their full cooperation must in all cases be ensured. In this connection, research team in the field will be under special obligations to maintain a high ethical approach to the local population. Permission to test subject on the field should be sought not only from individuals and administrative leaders, but also from community and tribal leaders. The presence of a team of investigator should ensure that the local inhabitants benefit not only in the long term from the research carried out, but at the time of the investigation also in the form of medical, dental, and other services, which the team should be well qualified to render.

8. Specification of the Individual and the Group

1. Description of the population group and sample selected

For each technique related to data collection during biological anthropological field work, sufficient information is to be recorded to make possible the clear identification of both the subject of the examination and the population group to which he belongs. In general, this minimal information comprises the following particulars: name, subject number, age, sex, ethnic and tribal origin (or nationality) and place and Date of examination.

In addition to this minimal record and for the purposes of the many different objectives of any multidisciplinary study, it is clearly essential that a special effort be made to obtain as complete identification as possible of the community and all the subjects involved in the study. This detailed specification of the group and the individual would in some investigation be done naturally as part of the course of the demographic analysis. In all case however it seems highly desirable to record these particulars in the basic identification sheets.

2. Identification of the individual

The key data for subsequent recognition of the subject comprise the subjects name, family and group affinities as well as his age and sex. In many pre-literate groups, language difficulties will make this a problem. There are therefore many occasions when additional measures should be taken to ensure reliable re-identification. The following suggestions may be considered.

• Marking the subjectA useful method is to write the subjects serial number with silver nitrate on the fingernail. In some census-taking a rubber numbering stamp has been used. Silver nitrate has the advantage of remaining legible for several weeks.
• Photographs A camera makes it possible to produce photographs at the first examination of the subject. (In some cases subjects can be promised that when they for subsequent examination they will be given their photograph.)
• Fingerprints Where these are taken as part of an investigation, they can naturally be used for re-identification of the subjects.
• Distinguishing features The medical examination of a subject and anthroposcopic examination gives an opportunity of recording features that may be useful for subsequent re-identification.
• OthersSome investigation provides the subject with a metal stamped number plate worn as a necklace or bracelet. This method is by no means reliable since subjects may these, or even interchange them.

3. Age Ascertainment

Where the chronological age is known this should be recorded as the decimal age. Many persons living in the developing regions of the tropics, however are ignorant of their exact age, or occasionally may employ a system of age classification different from the western method. The reason for this is that precise age may have little significance unless it has a recognised social value e.g. in relation to legal responsibility admission to school pension rights, etc.

Among some peoples, functional or physiological age groups are recognized, e.g. ‘big enough to be able to here goats’, or ‘capable of carrying a younger sibling’, or ‘marriageable’.

For adults all that may be possible is to consider the two sexes in broad age groups young adults, adults, old adults. However, differentiation may sometimes be difficult in groups where the scalp hair is shaved, where there is no middle aged obesity and where facial wrinkles are less prominent against a darker complexion or conversely where women age rapidly with continuous child bearing and too much work. A long term local calendar of important events may have to be constructed, based on events in the preceding years, including agricultural, climatic and political occurrences, as well as natural or manmade disaster. Jelliffe (WHO Monograph 53, 1966) cites an example constructed by Tukei for the age assessment of Banganda children. However, such a calendar takes weeks to prepare and pretest in the field while it use in survey circumstances is laborious, time consuming and often least satisfactory with the unsophisticated communities for which it is intended. Also these calendars will plainly have to be specific for different communities.

More exact age assessment is desirable in the anthropometry of young children. When dealing with infants and pre-school children ages should, if possible be known to the nearest month. For school children, assessment of ages to the nearest three months should be attempted.

In field survey circumstances age assessment in young children may be attempted in various ways. Documentary evidence may though rarely be forthcoming including birth certificates, horoscopes and baptismal certificates. Careful must be encouraged to bring these vital papers at the time of examination.

The skeletal age from hand and wrist X-rays should be taken whenever the facilities are available. When the exact chronological age is known, the skeletal age assigned to the X-rays will give valuable information about the relative rates of growth both between individuals in a given study and between studies in different countries. A small X-rays machine is quite suitable for this purpose. Sometimes, the mother may not know the child’s age, but may be able to recite the month of birth and occasionally the day as well. If this so the mother will often recall details of the youngest child only not those of the older siblings. If dates are known, they should be recorded as given and the ages calculated later. The presence of older or younger siblings or a pregnant mother may provide further useful information in guiding age assessment of the individual child, although in some groups it is difficult for the observer in a prevalence survey to discover whether the children do in fact belongs to the particular women.

In some communities, the period of the year in which the child was born can be recognised by the name given, e.g. born during millet harvesting or as belonging to a certain ritual age set: or there may be a local lunar calendar thus it may be possible to obtain information in relation to Muslim lunar months.

As approximate supporting evidence or as an alternative method the child deciduous dental eruption should be noted. However, times of dental eruption can vary greatly in normal children, and further work is needed to establish local standards, because some presumed genetic difference in tooth eruption timing have been noted in different part of the world. The eruption of the permanent dentition should also be recorded, but the significance must be interpreted cautiously in view of the individual variation.

4. Selection of Sample Size

a. For a single population

An intelligent choice of the sample size for a particular survey involves many considerations among which are the number and types of parameters to be estimated, the cost per sampling unit, and the resources in manpower and funds available. Patently these particulars will vary from survey to survey however a rough framework can be constructed within which general and responsible decisions with respect to sample size can be made. Some simple numeric guidelines should be followed to approximate sample sizes. Following points must kept in mind while selecting the sample size

• (1) Sampling should be simple, random and without replacement
• (2) The population sampled should be infinitely large and
• (3) The sample size in each instance should be to provide a confidence interval of half range d with probability 0.05.

Two cases are mostly considered, namely the estimation of a proportion and the estimation of the mean of a normally distributed variable.

b. For Comparison of two population

The standard procedure for deciding the appropriate sam0ple size to obtained a given chance of discrimination between the means of two normal populations is set out in Biometrika (table for staticians – Cambridge University Press, 1954) where the comparison is between two proportions for the two populations, the procedure to be followed is described in most statistical textbooks.

9. Division of Anthropometry

Anthropometry can be sub-divided into the following sections..

1. Osteometry: Measurement of skeleton.
   1. Craniometry: Measurement of skull.
   2. Odontometry: Measurement of teeth.
   3. Measurements of post-cranial skeleton.
2. Somatometry: Measurement of the body i.e. the outermost measurements of the living or dead body.
   1. Measurement of the total and post cephalic body.
   2. Cephalometry: Measurement of the skull

10. Anthropometric Instruments

The instruments employed in anthropometry may be grouped according to form and use, as follows:

1. Instruments for measurement

• Linear measurement calipers craniometer pelvimeter slide compass anthropometer rod compass osteometric board
• Girths and arcs tape-measures
• Angles goniometer (stationary) goniometer (for attachment) special types of goniometer
• Torsion (shaft of long bones) parallelograph
• Volumetric instruments
• Scales for recording weight

2. Instruments for holding and orienting skulls and other bones

• simple types of craniophore
• cubic craniophore of Martin
• osteophores
• combined craniophore and
• osteophore of Wetzel

3. Instruments for drawing and delineating

• dioptograph of Lucae
• perigraph of Lissauer
•  diagraph of Martin
• stereograph of Broca

Summary

Fieldwork characterizes the discipline of anthropology. It advocates face to face experience with its subjects. Anthropology in its earliest stages was mainly concerned with the study of primitive society but now it is concerned with different fields like development, health, nutrition, lifestyle, culture and beliefs, etc. and not leaving behind the conventional areas of research. Seligman remarked that fieldwork was to anthropology what the blood of the martyrs was to church, indeed proved prophetic. From this time onward anthropology became a whole time professional study and field experience an essential part of anthropological study. The use of more technical aids today, increasingly rely upon statistical tools but the essential definition of the nature of fieldwork remains substantially the same as Malinowski’s description. It is necessary for an anthropologist to spend sufficient time on the study, he must throughout be in close contact with the people among whom he is working, he must communicate with them solely through their own language and he must study their entire culture and social life.

The essential requirements and conditions of a good fieldwork may be covered within the parameters of two terms – intensive field work and participant observation – so distinctive of anthropological studies. Methods of biosocial research should be communicable to students in the classroom and replicable in the field. physical anthropology research was mainly confined to the study of morphological criteria for racial classification. Biological anthropologists conduct fieldwork using their own senses and tools to document experiences and research with other societies. Fieldwork has been accepted as an indispensable rite de passage in the making of a modern anthropologist sometimes referred to as an act or feet of living with strangers.