Risley presented these ideas in authoritative fori such as theJournal of the
Anthropological Instituteof Great Britain and Ireland and the International
Congress of Orientalists (ibid. 117, 120). His inXuence endured, as he largely
set the agenda for research in theWeld of race and language for many decades.
Subsequent debates took his work as a point of departure, from the 1918
History of Aryan Rule in Indiaby Ernest BinWeld Havell (1861–1934), 5 to the
racial classiWcation proposed by John Henry Hutton in theCensus of India,
1931, and more recent publications (ibid. 131–51).
Not only in India did race become a major area of enquiry. In other parts of
Asia the interest in prehistoric remains by physical anthropologists also
existed although it started later. In Indochina, for example, theWrst skulls
analysed were those found in Pho Binh Gia and dated to the Neolithic, which
had been discovered by Henri Mansuy and analysed in 1909 by the Professor
of Anthropology at the Museum of Natural History of Paris, Rene ́Verneau
(1852–1938). Both archaeologists and anthropologists became fascinated
with crania and other body parts, which were meticulously collected, meas-
ured, and photographed (Stocking 1991; Zimmerman 2001). The conjunc-
tion between physical anthropology and archaeology also became apparent at
exhibitions. The use of body casts representing racial types displayed along
with plaster copies of ancient monuments seen in the Colonial and Indian
Exhibition organized in 1886 was not an exception (Barringer & Flynn 1997:
23). A similar connection between ethnology, racial types (physical anthro-
pology) and archaeology took place in the exhibition organized in Madrid in
1887 on the eve of a conXict with Germany over the ownership of the Caroline
Islands in the Philippines (they wereWnally sold to Germany in 1899). Living
displays were accompanied by archaeological remains, human bones and
collections of fossils (Sa ́nchez Go ́mez 1987: 168). This type of exhibits became
common in Europe and North America at the time. Humans were displayed
either as casts or represented with natives brought for the occasion, and
examples are found from colonies all over the world (Coombes 1994; Hamil-
ton 1998; MacMaster 2001: 74–8; Pagani 1997: 38).
5 In 1918, at the end of the First World War, Havell publishedThe History of Aryan Rule in
India, in which he stated that Indian loyalty to the Empire during the war was related to their
recognition ‘that the present Aryan rulers of India... are generally animated by that same love of
justice and fair play, the same high principles of conduct and respect for humanitarian laws,
which guided the ancient Aryan statesmen and law-givers in their relations with the Indian
masses’ (in Chakrabarti 1997: 147). The author argued that the people of India accepted Aryan
domination [i.e. British domination] as the greatest of divine blessings. British rule was
legitimated on the basis of its Aryan character (1997: 231).
300 Colonial Archaeology