eexlii Proceedings of the Asiatic Soc. of Bengal. {N.S., XVII. 
cultural history. It goes without saying that before we can 
properly systematize our facts and attempt to explain their 
scientific relation, we must possess as exhaustive a collection 
of such facts as possible. 
us, with our present superficial knowledge of the ethno- 
graphy of the different tribes and castes of India, neither the 
theory of the racial affinities of the different groups of the 
people of India put forward by Risley in his ** People of India’’ 
(Ist edition, 1908; 2nd edition, 1915) nor the later and perhaps - 
more plausible view of Mr. Rama Prasad Chanda set forth 
as the last word on the subject. Again, such knotty questions 
as the Brahui-Dravidian problem, the Mon-Khmer-Ho-Munda- 
Age men of India are yet as far from any approach towards 
definite solution as ever. Aud here, as in other matters, it is 
mainly to European scholars such as Kuhn, Schmidt, Grierson 
(Linguistic Survey of India), Risley ( People of India), Hold- 
ich (Gates of India), Logan ( Old Chipped Stones), and others 
that we owe such attempts at the solution of these problems 
as have been hitherto made. So far as Indian Anthropometry 
is concerned, if we except the work of one or two European 
scholars, it is to the labours of the Ethnographic Survey of 
India that we practically owe all the work hitherto done in 
this directiomp. But the measurements taken by the Survey 
v 
yet been sufficiently developed to be applied to the investigations 
of Physical Anthropology. 
for such investigation, we have unfortunately stood by in apa- 
thetic indolence, while all the while much valuable material 
for study has been fast disappearing. 
Throughout this paper I have laid particular stress on the 
neglect of anthropological research by educated Indians. If, 
work. As for us Indians notwithstanding our better advantages 
