Anthropology

ANTHROPOLOGY (from the Greek anthropos—man and logos—doctrine), the natural history of man, the doctrine of man's place in the animal kingdom, of the peculiarities of his physical structure and his breeds (races), and of the phenomena of variability of his type. Considering man as a zoological being, A. nevertheless cannot be defined as one of the branches of zoology (by analogy, e.g., with ornithology, ichthyology, etc.). On the one hand, the breeds of man represent in a zoological sense a much closer group than orders or even genera of one family—the physical differences between people are comparatively small and relative. On the other hand, A., striving to give a complete natural-historical doctrine of man and devoting much space to questions of comparative anatomy and phylogeny of man, embryological and paleontological data, and the study of heredity and environmental influence, is a complex of several departments of biological sciences studying man and united by the unity and peculiarities of method and objective setting. Unlike the science close to it in subject—descriptive anatomy of man, which is a normative science, i.e., studies the structure of man in general, his norm—A., as a typological science, does not know a single norm of man's structure, but operates with multiple norms, each corresponding to a special type—racial, age, sexual, socio-cultural, etc. History of anthropology.—A. as an independent discipline could develop only after science had been enriched with fundamental facts relating to anatomy, general biology, and ethnography. Therefore, until the 18th century, the history of A. to a large extent coincides with the history of the sciences mentioned above, although already in classical antiquity the foundations were laid for the development of knowledge on the natural history of man. In Aristotle (4th century B.C.) in his "History of Animals" the concept of man's belonging to the animal world according to his physical organization is formulated, and a complete consideration of the peculiarities of man's structure as a zoological being is given. In Hippocrates we find the first description of physical differences within the human race. In the treatise "On Airs, Waters, and Places" he describes the types of inhabitants of various climatic zones, plains and mountainous regions of the world known in his era; the grassy steppes of Scythia produce stocky, stout people with dark hair, mountainous areas—tall, sturdy people, etc. Here found expression the idea of the powerful influence of external conditions on physical peculiarities and the transmission of acquired properties by inheritance (although in the same author one can also find a different opinion on this question). In the works of Herodotus (5th century B.C.) there is a description of the external appearance and way of life of the main tribes known to the ancient world. For the further development of A., the works of Galen, the Roman physician and anatomist who lived in the 2nd century and by his dissections of monkeys laid the foundation for precise descriptive anatomy of man, were of great importance. In the new period of European history, besides the revival of interest in the works of ancient thinkers, two circumstances were essential for the development of A.: 1) the beginning of the era of overseas voyages, which acquainted European scientists with the tribes of America, southern Africa, and further Asia and gave the first attempts at classification of human races (Bernier, 1684); 2) the significant progress in anatomy after it became possible to perform autopsies on human corpses (16th century—Vesalius). Many valuable anthropological observations were made by Leonardo da Vinci, Dürer. However, the establishment of A. as a science belongs only to the 18th century. The work of E. Tyson "Orang-Outang, sive Homo Sylvestris: or, the Anatomy of a Pygmie compared with that of a Monkey, an Ape, and a Man" clearly marked the beginning of comparative anatomy of man. In 1735 Linnaeus's monumental work "Systema Naturae" appeared; here man is already assigned a quite definite place in the animal system. Linnaeus distinguished the order of primates, or higher mammals, in which, along with bats, lemurs, monkeys, he distinguished the family "Homo", consisting of the genera "wise man" (Homo sapiens), or "proper man" and "forest or cave man", uniting the orangutan and chimpanzee, already known at that time. Linnaeus also tried to give a further subdivision of the genus "Homo sapiens", describing the American, African, Asian, and European varieties, and along with them the groups "wild man" and "monstrous (anomalous) man". Linnaeus's contemporary Buffon, in his multi-volume "General and Natural History of Animals", refusing the systematic application of Linnaean terms "species, genus" and giving consecutive descriptions of different animal groups, established that they are connected by numerous imperceptible transitions. He allowed the variability of species and the origin of some forms from others and was the first to apply the term "race" to man (previously the term "race" designated only the breeds of domestic animals). The 18th century enriched A with concrete knowledge about the variation of man's structure, the bringing of which into a complete scientific system is the merit of Blumenbach. His work "On the Natural Varieties of Mankind" is the foundation of all subsequent A. In it, the position of man among other animals is characterized, and the separate breeds of man are considered as varieties of one species, the formation of which is analogous to the formation of breeds of domestic animals; a systematic analysis of anthropological variations is also given (color of coverings, form of hair, stature, proportions of body, etc.). Noting the physiological factors of formation of these variations under the influence of peculiarities of climate, nutrition, etc., Blumenbach, however, occupies an extremely cautious position on the question of the inheritance of acquired properties. The last part describes the five varieties of the human race distinguished by Blumenbach—Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay, with their detailed subdivisions. Another classical work of Blumenbach was the description of his collection of human race skulls, which for a long time served as the foundation of racial craniology. The beginning of the 19th century was marked in A. by a discussion on the question of the single or multiple origin of human races from animal forms, and at the same time by a dispute about the essence of racial peculiarities and the significance of natural differences and external influences. The discussion acquired a far from scientific character, since polygeny was used without any theoretical basis for the slaveholding theories of European colonizers and American planters. Nevertheless, both authors left behind more or less extensive and systematic treatises on A. and enriched it with a number of new facts relating to separate human tribes. Comparative-anatomical data were supplemented by Cuvier, É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. For the general theoretical illumination of the problem of human evolution, the works of Lamarck were of great importance. Of all the branches of A., craniology (Morton, Van der Hoeven, Retzius) developed most in the first half of the 19th century. At that time the term A. itself also received wide circulation, but it was used in a different sense than at present. In Aristotle and in the 16th century (Hundt) this term referred to the science of the psychological properties of man, later in German philosophers (Kant and others)—to different branches of philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, etc. The French encyclopedists understood by A. the whole complex of sciences about man. Only Broca finally gave A. the meaning of a synonym for the natural history of man, indeed in a broad sense, including ethnography. In his theoretical works Broca proceeded from the doctrine of Darwin, which had an enormous influence on the further development of A. Broca opened a new era in the science of man, reworking almost all areas of A., in particular, its methods. He put into the foundation of the measurement and description of variations of man's structure a certain plan covering all essential properties, precisely developed the techniques, instrumentation, nomenclature, methods of processing the collected data. His "Instructions in Anthropology" and "Instructions in Craniometry" are the foundation of modern anthropological methodology. In 1859 Broca founded the "Paris Anthropological Society", various publications of which contributed to the final establishment of A. as a science. He also founded the free "Anthropological School"; later at it was formed a special "Anthropological Laboratory".—One of Broca's collaborators was Topinard, to whom belongs the monumental work "Elements of General Anthropology" (1885).—The second half of the 19th century was marked by the creation of the doctrine of fossil man. Until that time the opinion prevailed that man appeared only in the modern geological epoch. Already in the middle of the 19th century Boucher de Perth discovered in the deposits of the glacial period flints with traces of their processing by man, but only gradually did the conviction strengthen that they really represent stone tools prepared by man living simultaneously with extinct animals in the glacial period. The study of fossil man and his activity took shape as a special branch of A.—paleoanthropology (see).

The successor and continuator of Broca in the Parisian anthropological school was Manouvrier, author of research on the relative weight of the brain, on the peculiarities of bone structure, on body proportions, on growth, on fossil and ancient skulls, and many other topics. In the field of the study of human races as a whole, the works of Deniker should be noted, who in his book 'Human Races' provided an indispensable summary of all positive knowledge on this question available at the beginning of the 20th century. Among other French anthropologists, Lapouge should be mentioned, one of the founders of 'Social anthropology,' who studied the anthropological peculiarities of various social classes. Sigot began the anthropological study of human constitution. Among English anthropologists, the collaborator of Darwin, Huxley, should be named, who developed the comparative anatomy of man and gave an original classification of human races. At the beginning of the 20th century, in London, a special school was founded by Pearson—the 'biometric'—consisting in the application of strictly statistical methods to the study of types and deepening the understanding of the essence of variations. Pearson's school had a great influence on anthropology and genetics. In Germany, A. was developed in the second half of the 19th century by a large number of anatomical institutes and special museums. Among major workers in the field of A., E. Haeckel, Weisbach, Ranke, R. Virchow, founder of the Berlin Anthropological Society and editor of its publications, author of numerous anthropological works, Fritsch, Waldeyer, Stieda, von Luschan, and Schwalbe should be named. The recently deceased R. Martin, to a large extent, supplemented, clarified, and improved Broca's methodology. R. Martin's treatise 'Textbook of Anthropology in Systematic Presentation' is at present the main and most authoritative guide to A. Notable contemporary German anthropologists (Mollison, Schlaginhaufen, E. Fischer), and to a certain extent all contemporary anthropologists, are direct or indirect students of Martin. A number of major researchers and authoritative workers in the field of A. can be named in other European countries. In recent years, anthropological societies and departments have been founded in non-European countries (Japan, Korea, Australia, etc.). In the U.S.A. after the war between the Northern and Southern states, extensive anthropometric research by Gould appeared, which for a long time remained classical; similar research on American soldiers was also conducted after the World War. In the study of African races, much has been done by Boas, Hrdlicka; in genetics, by Davenport; in comparative morphology, by Wilder. In Russia, A. began to develop, if we do not count the works of 18th-century travelers, who gave some information on the physical type of the peoples of Siberia and Turkestan, only in the middle of the 19th century, with the entry into the Academy of Sciences of the famous naturalist E. Baer, who wrote several works on A. and contributed to the enrichment of the anatomical museum with anthropological collections. However, Baer's efforts in Petersburg remained without successors for a long time. The real beginning of A., as a science, in Russia should be considered the founding in Moscow, on the initiative of Professor of Zoology A. P. Bogdanov, of the Anthropological Department of the Society of Lovers of Natural Science, Anthropology, and Ethnography (1869). Bogdanov translated Broca's instructions into Russian and published the auxiliary tables compiled by Broca for anthropological calculations, which for a long time were the only ones in Europe, united in the Society a number of scientists interested in A., began the printing of anthropological works, prepared and conducted the 'Anthropological Exhibition,' the collections of which, donated to Moscow University, laid the foundation for the organization of the Anthropological Museum. Bogdanov began the study of the ancient population of Moscow and published a number of works on its type. He secured funds for the establishment of a department of A. at Moscow University and a candidate was selected to fill it. This was D. N. Anuchin, who enriched A. in general and Russian science in particular with a number of first-class works, including a work on anomalies of the skull and on variations in stature. Anuchin significantly expanded the Anthropological Museum, turning it into one of the largest institutions of its kind. Under his leadership, the work of anthropological study of the peoples of Russia began to develop successfully, and its results formed an impressive series of publications of the Anthropological Department, in which almost all the main tribes of European and Asian Russia were described, as well as a number of general anthropological works appeared. To a greater or lesser extent connected with the Anthropological Department, in the 80s and 90s, a number of anthropological studies on anatomy and anthropometry appeared. Among them, the works of Professor Zernov, the hygienist Professor Erisman, who gave at that time a model study of the physical development of workers, Dr. Dementiev on the same subject, and others should be mentioned. In Petersburg, Professor of Anatomy Tarenetzky founded the Anthropological Society at the Military Medical Academy; he gave a number of craniological works on different tribes of Russia. Several volumes of the society's works with the works of a whole number of persons were published. In the 90s, at the St. Petersburg University, classes in A. were conducted by Professor Petri, author of a number of anthropological works and a textbook of A. Since 1888, the 'Anthropological Society at St. Petersburg University' was opened, which published a number of publications and developed significant activity under the leadership first of Professor Maliev, then of F. K. Volkov, a known researcher of Ukrainian A. and ethnography. In many provincial cities, anthropological research was also conducted—in Tomsk by Chugunov, in Kazan by Maliev, in Dorpat by Stieda (before his transfer to Konigsberg), whose students presented a number of valuable anthropological dissertations. Methods. Three kinds of anthropological methods can be distinguished: 1) methods of obtaining objects to be studied, 2) methods of establishing the anthropological properties of the collected objects, 3) methods of processing the collected data. Individual objects may represent an independent interest for the anthropologist (i.e., not as part of a whole) only in exceptional conditions (fossil bones, some little-known anomalies, very rare or, conversely, very typical combinations of traits). Usually, A., as a typological science, deals with a group of homogeneous objects. Depending on the kind of studied features—age, tribal, professional, etc.—the group must be the same in age (of course, also in sex), tribe, profession, territory, etc. The mixing of different types into one group is impermissible, and the number of objects in the group and their very division into groups must vary depending on the property being studied. Objects to be studied are equally living people and cadaveric material—both whole corpses and their separate parts, skulls and other bones, brains, internal organs, muscles, coverings—skin, hair, etc. They acquire anthropological significance insofar as they belong to a certain territorial, age, tribal, etc. type and form a more or less numerous group allowing to establish this type. To study collectives of living individuals, the researcher must, depending on the tasks and working conditions, turn to this or that medical institution, schools, factories, military units, etc. The main sources for obtaining dead material are excavations of ancient burials or abandoned cemeteries. To provide material representing scientific value, the excavation, packing, and transportation of the material must be carried out thoughtfully. Another source is the collection of material and the preparation of corpses in morgues, dissection halls, etc. Some samples, for example, hair samples, can be collected from living individuals; in this case, appropriate methods of preparation, mounting, preservation, and museum storage should be applied. In many cases, for anthropological study, not the objects themselves but their reproductions in the form of photographs, casts, or masks-impressions serve. Anthropological photography has recently been acquiring ever greater importance and requires special study. The properties to be established are determined by the nature of the object and the tasks of its study. The methods of establishing properties in general form consist of 1) visual assessment, 2) determination by comparison with models, 3) measurement; an auxiliary method is 4) graphic reproduction. Modern A. bases each of these methods on a number of principles aimed at ensuring the comparability of the obtained results (see Anthropometry). The methods of processing anthropological material at present are based on the principles of variation statistics (see). Division of anthropology. According to Bunak, the most advisable division of A. is into: 1) zoological A.

(Broca), containing comparative anatomy of individual primate groups, comparative embryology, and paleoanthropology (comparative anatomy of fossil forms in connection with paleoethnology or the doctrine of fossil primitive culture); 2) comparative morphology of man—the general study of variations of individual organs and the organism as a whole within the human type and depending on different factors—sex, age, tribe, place of residence, profession, etc.—i.e., typology of man, or what Martin calls special anthropology, and what modern French scientists call morphological anthropology; 3) descriptive anthropology or the systematics of human races; 4) biology of man, studying the variability and evolution of the human species, the interaction of environment and heredity (acclimatization, miscegenation, selection of types, etc.); 5) functional anthropology (of French authors), including comparative physiology and psychology of human types, and 6) applied anthropology. The principal problems of anthropology. In zoological anthropology it is now firmly established that man and the great anthropoid apes constitute one rather close systematic group—the suborder. As for the relationship of this group to the primates, the structure of the teeth (tubercles of the molars), the placenta, and partly the skull bring it to a certain degree closer to the broad-nosed monkeys, while a number of other characteristics bring it closer to the dog-like monkeys. There is no single opinion on the relative closeness of these groups. The totality of embryological and paleontological data convinces us that the ancestors of man, at a certain stage, possessed quadrupedal gait, more strongly developed relief of the skull, etc. The views of Klaatsch and other authors, who derived man from primitive jumping bipedal forms, have not found wide acceptance. - There is also no single opinion regarding the epoch and place of origin of man, or the relationship of known fossil types to modern ones. One of the principal problems of typological morphology of man consists of the laws of growth (see). In the systematics of human races (see), the view of Giuffrida-Rugieri now predominates, according to which human races, during the period of initial differentiation, differed from each other as separate species of one genus, but, due to the crossing of all, even distant, types, lost their clear distinctness and turned into varieties. Thus, varieties represent, in essence, species that have somewhat lost their characteristics, and their totality, i.e., all modern races as a whole, represents what is called in systematics a collective species (species collectiva). From the common root of the human species, differentiation proceeded in several different directions, and different groups stopped at different stages of this special evolution. Completed, most specialized types (varieties), according to Stratz—archimorphic types, are usually taken as 3 or 4: African, Asian, European; some admit also an American type, while others consider it not a special type, but as a less specialized part of the Asian, i.e., metamorphic type, and partly—mixed. The initial stages of differentiation—proto-morphic groups—are now preserved only in the form of remnants (paleoraces or proraces). They belong to earlier formations and were displaced by later meta-morphic and archimorphic races. Such a scheme is accepted by most modern anthropologists, however, not by all. In any case, it requires concretization with more thorough study of many primitive peoples. To this day there is no unanimous opinion as to whether the Bushmen can be considered the most ancient population of Africa, whether the so-called pygmies of Africa and Asia are of one type, what relation they have to the primitive wavy-haired peoples of Indonesia. Much is also unclear in the anthropology of Europe; for some races it is generally accepted that they have a common origin with the population of North Africa (Eurafricans); probably the participation of another type—Eurasian—in the composition of the European population, but to this day there is no single opinion regarding the relationships of many European varieties. In the anthropology of the Slavic population of the Russian plain, the relationship of modern types to the most ancient population presents a major problem. - In recent times, the question of the miscegenation of human races has again been hotly debated. The opinion about the unfavorable influence of mixed-race origin is strongly defended by some scientists and disputed by others. The possible unfavorable influence of miscegenation as such, in the study of hybrids of distant races, is difficult to separate from the shortcomings created by lesser ability to acclimatize. In this characteristic, human types differ essentially. - The significance of natural selection (selective factors in child and adult mortality, selection of types by profession, etc.) constitutes another, also insufficiently resolved problem, posed in its entirety by Pearson. Physiological anthropology is still only in its infancy. Dynamometric and spirometric research needs considerable improvement of instrumentation and so far gives only rather general characteristics of groups. With respect to many properties, approaches to the identification of types are only just being outlined. - In recent years, great progress has been made in the study of blood, particularly agglutinins, which can be regarded as a manifestation of one of the important functional properties. If the question of the racial significance of this characteristic has not yet been fully resolved, the characteristic type differences in this characteristic have already been firmly established. The problems of physiological anthropology are connected with morphological ones (see Constitution). Applied significance of anthropology. A number of methods and theories developed in theoretical anthropology have already found practical application. In therapeutic and preventive diagnosis, in pedology, for determining the type of constitution and for accounting for the physical development of various groups, anthropometric measurements are widely used (see Anthropometry). They should probably also form the basis for determining patterns for the factory production of mass consumer goods (footwear, headgear, clothing). This method was widely applied during the last war in America (as well as in the USSR for military uniforms). The need for anthropological control over the development of children in schools and their physical education curriculum requires the conscious application of anthropology, which has led in America to the creation of special departments of pedological anthropology. The developing practice of professional selection inevitably must include a number of anthropological determinations of the suitability of an individual for one or another type of work. Here various properties are important—height, build and constitution, body proportions, physical strength, and a number of special characteristics in individual professions. In forensic and police practice, anthropological characteristics have long been used to establish identity, such as the determination of tactile patterns of fingers, etc. The organization of family studies can successfully develop only on the basis of theoretical anthropology. This is connected with a number of questions of miscegenation, acclimatization, migration, etc. There can be no doubt that anthropological science is destined to play a major practical role in the highly organized society of the future, but even at present, besides its great educational significance, it directly and indirectly contributes to the solution of many current practical problems. Even Virchow considered anthropology the basis of scientific medicine and asserted that a scientifically thinking physician must be an anthropologist. To the same extent this can be said of the educator and many other practical workers. The organization of the study of anthropology. As a comparatively young science, anthropology occupies in higher and secondary schools a position not equivalent to other natural sciences. Special departments of anthropology exist by no means in all universities; there are 4 in Germany, 3 in England, 2 each in Switzerland and Spain, and one each in Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, Portugal, and the Netherlands. Only in Italy and Poland do special departments of anthropology exist in almost all universities. They also exist in non-European countries, in the U.S.S.R.—in many universities. In France and Belgium there are no special anthropological departments, but in the Anthropological School and at the Museum of Natural History very serious and systematic teaching is carried on, and physicians, administrative and military agents, missionaries, and many other persons seconded by the government to the colonies usually study the corresponding disciplines. Despite the relatively small number of special departments, teaching of anthropology, in whole or in part, is nevertheless carried on in most university towns of Europe in the form of associate or private associate courses, seminars, etc., most often at departments of anatomy, sometimes at departments of geography, zoology, biology, geology, or even at medical faculties at various clinics. All special departments and many other institutions are centers of more or less intensive anthropological scientific work, as evidenced by the constantly growing bibliography of special anthropological publications emanating not only from special but also from allied scientific institutes, especially anatomical, biological, and others.

Museums, both specialized and general, also play an essential role as research institutions, many of which contain the most valuable anthropological collections. Among them, wide renown in this field is held by: in London - Royal College of surgeons, in Paris, Brussels, Vienna - Anthropological departments of natural history museums, in Berlin and Hamburg - museums of ethnography, in Munich, Prague, Rome, Florence, Bologna - museums at anthropological institutes, in Washington at the Smithsonian Institute. There are also special research institutes for Anthropology (not teaching) in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, etc. Anthropological scientific societies exist in all countries, in many even several. Almost all of them publish special publications. The main periodical publications listed in the following list, of course, by no means exhaust all anthropological publications, let alone general and special biological and medical journals where anthropological works appear. In 1920, the International Anthropological Institute was founded, with branches in most European countries, and a Central Bureau in Paris. The institute convenes congresses every 3 years. In the USSR, special anthropological departments exist at the following four universities: in Moscow (1st MSU), Leningrad, Tashkent, and Vladivostok. In Kazan, Irkutsk, and Kharkov there are departments of anthropology and ethnography (or geography). In addition, teaching of anthropology, usually partial, is conducted at many specialized higher educational institutions - institutes of physical culture, pedagogical and medical institutes or faculties, at the latter in departments of anatomy or social hygiene. The question of introducing a thorough course of Anthropology into the medical education curriculum has not yet been resolved. There are also special research anthropological institutes in Moscow (at 1st MSU), Kharkov (research department), in Kyiv - at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. Research work is also conducted in museums and scientific anthropological societies. The main anthropological museums: of Moscow University, occupying one of the first places among European institutions of this kind, and the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences. Anthropological collections in smaller sizes also exist in many other museums, central and local, which also conduct research work and publish anthropological works in their publications. The main scientific societies: the Anthropological Department of the Society of Natural Science Lovers, Anthropology and Ethnography in Moscow, the Medico-Anthropological Society in Leningrad, a similar society in Rostov-on-Don. Lit.: The latest anthropological literature is concentrated in the following periodicals: "Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland", "Man", "Publications of Galton Eugenic Laboratory", "Biometrica" (English publications). French publications: "Revue anthropologique", "Bulletins de la Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris", "L'Anthropologie". In German: "Archiv fur Anthropologie", "Zeitschrift fur Morphologie und Anthropologie", "Anthropologischer Anzeiger", "Archiv fur Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie", "Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien", "Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie", "Prehistorische Zeitschrift". In Italy: "Atti della Societa di Antropologia di Roma", "Archivio per Antropologia ed Etnologia". In Poland: "Kosmos", "Serya antropologiczna naukowego Towarzystwa imienia Kopernika" (Lwow). In the USA: "Journal of Physical Anthropology", "American Anthropologist", "Publications of the Eugenic Record Office". In the USSR: "Russian Anthropological Journal". In the listed publications, a significant part of recent anthropological publications can be found, and in the form of abstracts, reviews or at least references and bibliographies, almost all anthropological works are mentioned. The main comprehensive and general treatises on Anthropology follow: Birner, Races and Peoples of the Earth, Moscow, 1914; Bushan, The Science of Man (very popular); Martin R., "Lehrbuch der Anthropologie in systematischer Darstellung", 1914 (second edition is being prepared); Frassetto F., "Elementi di Antropologia", v. I-II, Bologna, 1909-11; Duckworth, "Morphology and Anthropology", Cambridge, 1911; Verworn, Der fossile Mensch, 1919; Boule M., Les hommes fossiles, Paris, 1920; Deniker J., Les races et les peuples de la terre, 1922 (there is a Russian translation); Keane, Ethnology, 1921; Bauer-Fischer-Lenz, Erblichkeitslehre und Rassenhygiene, 1922.