Ethnographic Survey of India

Ethnographic Survey of India
Name	Ethnographic Survey of India
Formation	1901
Founder	Lord Curzon, Herbert Hope Risley
Type	Research project
Headquarters	Calcutta, British India
Region served	Indian subcontinent
Parent organisation	Imperial Gazetteer of India

Ethnographic Survey of India was a colonial-era research project initiated to document the peoples of the Indian subcontinent through systematic description of communities, castes, tribes, languages and customs. Launched under the aegis of administrators and scholars tied to the Viceroy of India's office, it operated alongside contemporaneous efforts such as the Imperial Gazetteer of India and the Census of India. The Survey produced extensive reports, photographs and specimen collections that informed later institutions like the Anthropological Survey of India and influenced debates in Calcutta and London.

History and Establishment

The Survey was established during the tenure of Lord Curzon and under the influence of census administrators including Herbert Hope Risley and collectors associated with the Decennial Census and the Census of India (1901). Its origins link to earlier projects such as the Art and Industries of India commissions and the compilation of the Imperial Gazetteer of India, and it drew on networks including the Asiatic Society of Bengal and scholars from University of Calcutta. Early patrons included figures connected to the India Office and the Royal Anthropological Institute, while field operatives often coordinated with local elites like the Prince of Wales's India entourage during visits. The establishment reflected debates at forums such as the Royal Society and among administrators who had served in the North-West Frontier Province and Bombay Presidency.

Organization and Structure

Administratively the Survey operated through provincial correspondents in the Bengal Presidency, Madras Presidency, Bombay Presidency, Assam Province and princely states such as Hyderabad State and Mysore Kingdom, liaising with collectors from the Indian Civil Service and scholars from King's College London and the University of Oxford. Leadership included figures linked to the India Office and committees convened at institutions like the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum. The internal divisions aligned with expertise represented by affiliates from the Royal Geographical Society, the School of Oriental and African Studies, and regional centres such as Lucknow University and the University of Bombay.

Methods and Fieldwork

Fieldwork combined techniques promoted by scholars associated with the Royal Anthropological Institute and practices used in the Census of India (1881), including participant observation by district officers, linguistic surveys referencing Sanskrit and Persian sources, and physical measurements influenced by methods debated at the International Congress of Anthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology. Teams used photographic studios in Calcutta and portable equipment employed in expeditions to Kashmir, Punjab, Assam, the Deccan Plateau and the Andaman Islands. Data collection involved collaboration with local administrators like Henry Walter Bellew and ethnographers trained at centres such as the School of Oriental Studies and guided by comparative frameworks emerging from writings in journals like the Journal of the Anthropological Institute.

Major Publications and Contributions

The Survey produced ethnographic monographs, regional reports and photographic albums that entered collections at the British Museum, the Victoria Memorial, and later the National Museum, New Delhi. Notable outputs influenced studies by scholars linked to the Anthropological Survey of India, and resonated with works such as the Imperial Gazetteer of India entries, while informing linguistic surveys akin to those by George Grierson. Its materials were cited in exhibitions at the British Empire Exhibition and in compendia used by academics at Oxford University Press, the Cambridge University Press and contributors associated with the Royal Asiatic Society.

Impact on Anthropology and Policy

Findings from the Survey fed into policy deliberations in forums like the India Office and influenced legislation debated in the British Parliament as well as administrative practice in provincial capitals like Calcutta and Bombay. Its classifications shaped subsequent institutional research at the Anthropological Survey of India and informed census categories used in later editions of the Census of India (1911) and Census of India (1921), while its collections were mobilized in cultural displays at the Victoria and Albert Museum and the British Museum.

Criticisms and Controversies

Critics associated with later scholars at SOAS University of London, the School of Oriental and African Studies and historians writing in journals linked to the Royal Anthropological Institute have argued that the Survey's typologies reflected biases present in administrative science promoted by figures like Herbert Hope Risley, and that its work contributed to stereotyping evident in colonial policy debates in the India Office and the British Parliament. Controversies centered on methods resembling those discussed at the International Congress of Anthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology, disputes with regional intellectuals from Bengal Renaissance circles, and contested provenance of collections later housed at the British Museum and the Victoria Memorial.

Category:Anthropology in British India