Conclusion
The total material dealt with in the paper is not large, and that small series are being used to represent very large populations. It is also less valuable than it should be owing to differences in methods of measurement, and some uncertainty as to whether data collected by different observers are truly comparable even in cases where they followed the same technique. It seems to be safe to assume that certain of Risley’s measurements can still be used with profit, and that his means are not affected very markedly owing to the fact that the subjects were selected. Above all the number of characters used is not sufficient to give reliable estimates of racial affinity. Recognising these limitations it appears to be adequately demonstrated that four distinct ethnic groups are represented by the series considered,viz.,
-
(a)
Saoras (possibly allied to Oraons and others).
-
(b)
Hos, Mundas and Bhumij (Austric-speaking).
-
(c)
Kayasthas and Brahmins.
-
(d)
Khasis.
These four appear to be quite distinct, but it is extremely probable that there are transitional types between some pairs of them, and data for these will be required in order to reveal their ethnic relationships.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
o|
Races of Man, by A. C. Haddon.
Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal, by Col. Dalton. M represents Metre.mm ,, millimetre.
Volume on Ethnographic Appendices to theCensus of India, 1901. The first number in a bracket indicates the number of series, the second, the number of individuals in all the series taken together. The North Indian averages were worked out by Prof. P. C. Mahalanobis.
Census of India, 1931, Vol.1, Pt. III (Ethnographical).
Prof. R. A. Fisher, in his article on “The Coefficient of Racial Likeness and the Future of Craniometry,”J.R.A.I., 1936, while admitting that skulls possess a real though slight advantage over living heads in the accuracy with which they can be measured, points out that this advantage is very unimportant, “since the variation produced by fleshy tissues are small compared with the metrical differences between individuals, with the consequence that the average of any measurement taken on the living, from a sample of fifty or a hundred has practically the same precision as that of the corresponding measurement of the skulls”. The vagueness of some of the landmarks in cephalometry, for instance, and the scope for pressure in the measurement of certain somatic characters make anthropometry less reliable than craniometry and examples are not lacking when two investigators taking measurements on two samples of the same population, following the same technique, have come to very different results.
The Hos of Seraikhela, by A. N. Chatterjee and T. C. Das. Calcutta University Press.
Article on “A contribution to the Physical Anthropology of the Swat and Hunza Valleys based on Records collected by Sir Aurel Stein,” Foot Note, Page 40,J. R.A.I, 1936.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Communicated by Prof. Birbal Sahni,d.sc., sc.d., f.g.s., f.r.a.s.b., f.r.s.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Majumdar, D.N. The relationships of the Austric-speaking tribes of India, with special reference to the measurements of Hos and Saoras. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 7, 1–21 (1938). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03051090
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03051090