Anthropology refers to the science of human beings that analyzes humanity in different concepts ranging from biological and evolutionary aspect to society and culture aspect that differentiate humans from other animals. As an academic discipline, anthropology exists as the intersection of science and the humanities. Because of its diversity, anthropology has been classified into five major specialized fields. The biology and evolution of humans have been classified as environmental psychology. The study of the social and cultural composition of human beings is classified as social and cultural anthropology or ethnology (anthropology of culture). The study of prehistoric cultures based on physical remains and past situations in contemporary cultures has been classified as archaeological anthropology. Linguistic anthropology (anthropology of language) includes the ability of humans to speak in different languages ​​by having articulated speech in communication. Finally, psychological anthropology emphasized the relationships between human persons, cultures, and the social structures of human beings. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The beliefs and customs of other cultures have fascinated adventurers, travelers and explorers throughout history. It is this fascination with understanding cultural diversity that has led to the growth of anthropology. However, anthropology in the second half of the 19th century, known as “armchair anthropology,” was very different from what we would recognize and find acceptable today, and was largely rejected by anthropologists in the early part of the 20th century. In this essay I will explore the rise of ethnographic fieldwork, particularly the response to “armchair anthropology.” To do this I will begin by examining early anthropologists and how they collected their data when not in the field, and comparing this to the work of some of the major founders of social anthropology and critics of armchair anthropology such as Bronislaw Malinowski (1884- 1942) and Alfred Cort Haddon (1855-1940). I will not include the theoretical influences behind early anthropologists such as functionalism, structuralism, and Marxist theories, as it is not necessary or relevant to explore the idea of ​​ethnographic fieldwork as a response to armchair anthropology. As I will argue, armchair anthropology, despite its limitations, was invaluable to later anthropologists through their innovative work rather than from theoretical influences. Armchair anthropology, as it would become known, was a reference to late 19th century scholars who arrived at the "anthropological" approach. conclusions without the need to carry out field research. That is, they did not travel to other countries to collect data for their ethnographic study. Some scholars of the time such as James George Frazer, Edward Burnett Tylor, and Lewis Henry Morgan were among the most important of the time. George Frazer (1854-1941) was writing articles for the Encyclopedia Britannica when he was introduced to Tylor's book, Primitive Culture (1871) and soon began compiling anthropological records. Frazer would become the first professor of "social anthropology" in Britain. His career would be influenced by his work on religion, myth and ritual, culminating in his book "The Golden Bough 1890", a study in comparative religion. He was one of the first to study religion as a social function that could be compared and contrasted, and has often been considered one of the founders of contemporary anthropology. Despite his achievements, Frazer received criticism forhaving added nothing original to the field as it was noted that almost all of Frazer's work came from other researchers, anthropologists, and missionaries with whom he corresponded regularly. He published many pieces based on the notes he had taken but rarely researched anything based on his data, essentially the quintessential armchair anthropologist. The American lawyer and anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881) was greatly influenced by social evolution. Morgan was particularly interested in "kinship" and the study of how societies and culture developed and would be known as a pioneer in his field through this work (White, 1948). He studied native peoples, especially the North American Indians and "Iroquois", the indigenous people who were removed from their lands after the Revolutionary War. He argued that human progress could be identified by progression in cultural evolution. In his most famous book, "Ancient Society", the progression of human progress ranged from savagery to barbarism to civilization, this is the subtitle of his book. Another supporter of cultural evolutionism was Edward Tylor (1832-1917) who also worked with data acquired from the study of indigenous populations and for his book that inspired Frazer, Primitive Culture. Culture was defined by Tylor as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, art, law, morals, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of a society” which is was partly influenced by Darwin's theory of biological evolution, offered an anthropological definition of culture and is still a key concept underlying cultural anthropology today. Tylor, like Morgan, never studied in the field and like Frazer, he relied on second-hand data from explorers and missionaries. One of the first to challenge armchair anthropology was one of the founders of modern British anthropology Alfred Cort Haddon (1910), argued that armchair observation lacked critical reflection and relied on unreliable sources for its information and work on the field was the safest method for collecting data on different populations. For Haddon the anthropologist could only produce accurate accounts by traveling to places and observing indigenous peoples firsthand. He was not alone, and in the early decades of the 20th century other anthropologists argued the same about armchair studies. The most iconic figure within the British community who promulgated fieldwork as the cornerstone of the discipline's practices was Bronislaw Malinowski. During the First World War the Polish Malinowski was interned as an enemy alien in Australia and as he could not return to Europe he ended up residing in the Trobriand Islands for two years, and it was also while living among the islanders that Malinowski recognized the importance of fieldwork. In the introduction to his book "Argonauts of the Western Pacific" (1922), he argued that it was important for researchers interested in human diversity to discuss the methods used in the field when collecting ethnographic materials. Only by outlining these rigorous practices in detail would researchers be able to demonstrate the scientific standards of the discipline. As with Haddon, Malinowski also argued that it was essential for anthropologists to elevate the scientific criteria by which they collected, analyzed, and represented their data. In essence, the Trobriand Islands would become Malinowski's laboratory where he would develop his research program and transform the observation practices of all future anthropological researchers. Malinowski's persuasive rhetoric convinced many anthropologists to prioritize field studies over other methods of observation, andin the early part of the 20th century practitioners identified fieldwork as a necessary component of anthropological research. This period in anthropology has since been canonized as the founding years of the modern discipline. In response to armchair anthropology, younger generations of naturalists, such as Haddon, began to challenge the techniques used by older generations. Haddon was initially trained in zoology and soon became an authority on anthropology after participating in an expedition to the Torres Strait in 1898. The expedition was also canonized as a key moment for the discipline by members of the British anthropological community, who studied indigenous people while directly between them. It was because of this experience of spending a long period of time among the islanders in their natural environment that Haddon became openly critical of early Victorian armchair anthropology for their lack of time spent in the field. They therefore had limited opportunities to collect substantial data, and this criticism was reflected in many of Haddon's books and reviews. “Because the researchers traveled over such a large area and often spent only a limited time in the places they visited, the original observations must be regarded more as the nature of a survey than as a detailed study.” He also wrote that scientists with no direct experience in the field were simply “retailing second-hand goods over the counter.” Haddon clearly felt that armchair anthropology was very out of date and unreliable. Haddon was not the only one to attack the practices of the “armchair anthropologist,” as antiquated as his contemporaries WH Rivers and CH Reid were equally concerned about anthropological methodologies. Coincidentally, at the time of Haddon and others, at the beginning of the 20th century, changes were developing within British academia. In particular, the funding has offered many disciplines a great opportunity to develop new research techniques. Academic institutions were now recognizing the importance of funding the careers of scholars. As noted by Henrika Kuklick in her book The Savage Within, “university reformers have set out to professionalize scholarship by determining that the advancement of knowledge requires that individuals be able to pursue lifelong gainful careers by developing their skills specialists just like independent professionals did." One of the first to benefit from this economic recovery in the institutional funding of the time was Malinowski who through his expedition to the Trobriand Islands where he became best known for the use of participant observation which is the basis of all the modern ethnography we see today . However, like Haddon and others, he too was outspoken about what they perceived as unreliable analysis used by armchair anthropologists. As Kuklick explained: "As natural history specialties became differentiated, their practitioners determined that naturalists needed to break their long-standing habit of relying on theories articulated by armchair scholars, that scientists could not make credible analyses. unless they had themselves collected the data on which their generalizations were based." rested". A strong sense of the need to move away from the old data collection techniques used by the older generation of armchair scholars, towards new, more credible analyzes such as ethnographic fieldwork. Barabar Tedlock in his article, The Emergence of Narrative Ethnography 1991, wrote extensively about fieldwork practices. Particularly in ethnography, he wrote: “Observation..