Undoubtedly Chinnery was introduced to what might be seen as a nascent anthropological method of colonial governance by Hubert Murray; in the hands of Murray it was a way of gaining a cultural and social understanding of indigenous peoples and thus enabling not only peaceful occupation of new territory but also the ‘uplift’ of Papuan people. Murray argued in 1912 that when certain customs are forbidden, a substitute ritual is needed to ‘fill the void’: when, for example, a ‘native who learns for the first time’ that he cannot engage in head-hunting, never collect any more heads and never fight again, he is ‘likely to feel a void in his existence, for his chief occupations will be gone, and unless something is given to him which will fill the void he and his descendants will suffer’.[17] It is only later, in 1916, when Murray was negotiating for the appointment of a government anthropologist that we gain a sense of the importance of anthropology to Murray in the governance of indigenous peoples.[18]
Chinnery was convinced that anthropology was central to good governance in the colonies. He commented to the ANZAAS conference in 1955 that during his
service as a native administration official in Papua and New Guinea between 1909 and 1938, I found it easier, after training in anthropology and scientific methods of enquiry, to study the beliefs and practices of the people, to win and retain their confidence, and to help them through their problems, and changes due to Government, Mission and Industrial influences … It should not be forgotten that hasty ill-advised European pressures disrupting land ownership and usages, and forcing changes in marriage systems, religious beliefs and practices, social and other observances, before people were ready to absorb them, together with irritating racial discrimination, especially in employment, have contributed largely to nativistic outbreaks damaging European and Natives alike, and holding up progress in other non-self governing Territories.[19]
The primary influence on Chinnery’s anthropology and its method was Alfred Cort Haddon and W.H.R. Rivers. There is little doubt, however, that his enthusiasm for what might be now termed applied anthropology was supported by Haddon, after Rivers’ death in 1922. Chinnery acknowledged the importance of Rivers for his thinking and development as anthropologist, first in his 1919 paper, ‘The Application of Anthropological Methods to Tribal Development in New Guinea’, and again in his 1932 ANZAAS presentation, ‘Applied Anthropology in New Guinea’. But Haddon and Rivers were not the only influence on Chinnery. It was through Wilfred Beaver, a field officer at Mambare, that Chinnery became acquainted with Haddon; Beaver also encouraged Chinnery to develop his ethnography.[20] (Beaver was described as a ‘man of patience and sympathy [dealing] with … the obtuseness of Papuans’.)[21] Haddon, probably the most influential anthropologist of the time, engaged in correspondence with a number of colonial field officers and missionaries, including Beaver. This correspondence ranged over many matters but was mainly Haddon seeking specific information about customs of indigenous people. He had for example an intense interest in the prow designs of canoes.[22]
Murray developed his ideas about anthropology from discussions with anthropologists such as Seligmann and Haddon in the early years of his administration, yet he made little effort to have his officers trained in anthropology, preferring to choose field officers on the basis of character. When he did appoint a trained anthropologist to the position of assistant government anthropologist it was not his intention that the incumbent train field officers in anthropology. Chinnery, in contrast, once he was appointed Government Anthropologist in New Guinea, was eager to gain the support of the Administrator in training field officers. Chinnery supported the establishment of a chair of anthropology at the University of Sydney, as did Haddon, and planned to send field officers to undertake the course proposed by Radcliffe-Brown.[23] So did Murray, at least for a while, although he was ambivalent about the value of such a course.[24]
A Resident Magistrate was expected to undertake patrols, carry out exploration work, establish and maintain good relations with the indigenous people, and oversee modifications to their way of life and their interaction with representatives of civilisation—missionaries, traders, gold miners, and government officials. The government set about to change household and village hygiene and health, remove those customs offensive to Australian sensibilities, and introduce the rule of law.[25] Chinnery explained to the ANZAAS conference held in August 1932 that the field official
[f]ound himself called upon to build houses, roads and bridges; to treat tropical diseases, to control epidemics, and attempt surgical relief; to make and record geographical discoveries, to pacify and control savage tribes of cannibals and head-hunters; to arrest, try and incarcerate law breakers; to perform routine departmental duties.[26]
In 1915, the year he and Wilf Beaver published a paper on the initiation ceremonies of Hunjara, the people of the Yodda Valley at the head of the Kumusi River, Chinnery was slowly grasping the nature of anthropology. As a result of this paper, a story circulated that Chinnery had been initiated. Chinnery had observed parts of the initiation ceremonies, as it was stated that ‘Mr Chinnery had seen the proceedings and was to a certain degree initiated himself into the Hunjara’.[27] His formal introduction to recording aspects of indigenous life occurred in 1911, when his superior officer, Resident Magistrate Oelrichs, advised him to record ‘any curiosities, any peculiarities about a person or a whole tribe’. The usefulness of drawings to record information about their way of life was stressed. This was the extent of any training he was to receive in the field. Beaver therefore was critical in Chinnery’s development as an observer of native customs. Beaver had formed a relationship with Haddon some years earlier and in 1920 a book on Beaver’s ethnography—that is, his experiences as government field officer—was published.[28]
Chinnery’s early reports were used in the report of the Resident Magistrate.[29] In later years, Chinnery’s reports were included under his own name. He collaborated with Beaver in compiling several vocabularies,[30] and it was accepted at the time that genealogical information could be adduced through such collections.[31] During his time in Papua Chinnery produced over 20 ethnographic and geographic publications, some appearing in British journals.[32]
We can infer that Chinnery’s method of recording data followed Beaver’s and Haddon’s advice. His association with them helped him to acquire a structure in which to present his ethnographic data. In his initial correspondence with Chinnery, Haddon advised him to read Notes and Queries, especially the 1912 edition which stressed the importance of using, where possible, ‘native terminology’ when asking question in the field as this minimised misunderstanding between informants and investigator. The value of information freely provided was also stressed, as this was less likely to be contrived than information actively sought after. [33]