The study of human diversity in the first half of the 19th century has traditionally been categorized as a type of armchair-based natural history. If we are to take seriously this characterization of the discipline it requires further unpacking. Armchair anthropology was not a passive pursuit, with minimal analytical reflection that simply synthesized the materials of other writers. Nor was it detached from the activities of informants who were collecting and recording data in the field. Practitioners in the 19th century (...) were highly attuned to the problems associated with their research techniques and continually sought to transform their methodologies. The history of British anthropological research is one of gradual change and the adoption of new observational techniques into its methodologies. This article looks at the history of 19th-century British anthropology and examines in detail the observational practices of its researchers. In doing so it aims to answer the question: What is armchair anthropology? (shrink)

During the 1860s the sciences relating to human diversity were undergoing significant intellectual and methodological changes. The older generation of practitioners including James Cowles Prichard, Thomas Hodgkin and John Crawfurd were slowly passing away. Recognising that there was an opportunity to take a leading role in reforming the study of human variation, two competing intellectual camps vied for control of the nascent discipline; anthropologists led by James Hunt, and ethnologists led by Thomas Huxley. Taking their observational practices and vocational strategies (...) as its starting point, this paper seeks to expand our understanding of the debates surrounding British race studies during the 1860s. In doing so, this paper takes seriously Hunt and Huxley's self-descriptions as scientific reformers. Both of these figures promoted strategies for transforming the sciences relating to human diversity. Each believed they were strengthening anthropology and ethnology's best aspects and dispensing with their weakest. Moreover, their training in natural history, anatomy and physiology can be seen to have influenced their observational practices when it came to identifying and classifying human varieties. (shrink)

This paper examines the complex observational techniques of British anthropologists during the nineteenth century. In particular, using Galton’s initial work with anthropometric and composite photography in the late 1870s as a case study, it argues that nineteenth-century anthropological armchair studies were extremely sophisticated and that researchers were highly attuned to the problems associated with their methodologies. These nineteenth-century practitioners were not simply anthologising the materials of others; rather they were developing specialised methods for producing their own evidence and drawing conclusions. (...) Moreover, Galton’s use of photographic processes is instructive because it highlights one of the ways in which researchers interested in human diversity attempted to add further scientific credibility to their arguments by utilising the most cutting-edge technologies available during the period. (shrink)

Data on farming systems in Petén, Guatemala, were used to develop an agricultural intensity index. The index can be used to assign an intensity “score” to a given farming system based on the array of practices used by the farmer, each practice’s contribution to production intensity, and the scale at which these practices are used. The scores assigned to 118 farmers in three study areas in Petén were analyzed through analysis of variance (ANOVA) to identify the factors that account for (...) the variation in intensity levels, as measured through the index. The analyses reveal that the factors influencing agricultural intensity in Petén vary greatly from one study area to the next. This is due to differences in livelihood opportunities and strategies that, in turn, affect how agriculture fits into the local economy and how and why intensification is pursued. Variation in intensity levels can best be understood by considering the factors at the household and sub-regional scales that influence (a) whether farmers feel a need to intensify, (b) whether they see some benefit in doing so, and (c) whether they have the resources required to intensify production through particular strategies. Close attention must be paid to these factors by conservation and development organizations seeking to influence land use patterns and conserve forest in Petén. (shrink)