Anthropology 2021 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q2

(a) What are the physical and cultural characteristics of Homo erectus? Discuss its phylogenetic status. (20 marks) (b) Elucidate the concept of "thick description" of Clifford Geertz with a suitable example. (15 marks) (c) Describe the features of early farming cultures and Neolithic of the Near East. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) होमो इरेक्टस की शारीरिक और सांस्कृतिक विशेषताएँ क्या हैं ? इसकी फाइलोजेनेटिक स्थिति की विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) एक उपयुक्त उदाहरण के साथ क्लिफोर्ड गीर्ट्ज के "थोस विवरण" की अवधारणा को स्पष्ट कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) प्रारंभिक कृषि संस्कृतियों और निकट पूर्व के नवपाषाण काल की विशेषताओं का वर्णन कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Anthropology questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'discuss' for part (a) requires balanced exposition and critical engagement; parts (b) and (c) use 'elucidate' and 'describe' respectively, demanding clear explanation and systematic coverage. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with ~30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction → systematic treatment of each sub-part with clear demarcation → synthesizing conclusion connecting evolutionary, interpretive, and archaeological dimensions of anthropology.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Physical characteristics of Homo erectus—cranial capacity (900-1100 cc), low vault, sagittal keel, occipital torus, prognathism, reduced dentition, postcranial adaptations for efficient bipedalism and endurance running
  • Part (a): Cultural characteristics—Acheulian tool industry (bifacial handaxes), controlled use of fire, possible hunting/scavenging, earliest evidence of home bases/shelters, geographic dispersal out of Africa (Dmanisi, Java, Zhoukoudian)
  • Part (a): Phylogenetic status—debate between single species hypothesis vs. regional continuity; relationship to H. ergaster, H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis; role as ancestor to H. sapiens or side branch; cladistic vs. gradistic perspectives
  • Part (b): Thick description—Geertz's interpretive anthropology, distinction between thin description (mere behavior) and thick description (layered meaning), concept of culture as 'webs of significance', semiotic approach, emic perspective
  • Part (b): Suitable example—Geertz's own Balinese cockfight analysis, or alternative like Evans-Pritchard's Nuer cattle symbolism, demonstrating how surface action encodes deeper social tensions, status hierarchies, and cosmological meanings
  • Part (c): Early farming (Neolithic) features—domestication of wheat, barley, legumes; shift from foraging to cultivation; sedentism and village settlement; storage facilities; ground stone tools; pottery development; social complexity and ritual elaboration
  • Part (c): Near East specificity—Fertile Crescent geography, Pre-Pottery Neolithic A/B (PPNA/PPNA) phases, key sites (Jericho, Çatalhöyük, 'Ain Ghazal), climatic context of Younger Dryas, demographic pressure theories vs. oasis/coevolutionary models

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness22%11Precise anatomical terminology for H. erectus (sagittal keel, supraorbital torus, nuchal torus); accurate distinction between H. erectus sensu stricto and H. ergaster; correct dating and geographic distribution; accurate exposition of Geertz's epistemological position distinguishing interpretation from explanation; correct identification of PPNA/PPNB phases and Near Eastern crop domestication sequenceGenerally correct identification of major features but with minor anatomical inaccuracies, conflation of H. erectus with archaic Homo, oversimplified view of thick description as 'detailed description' without semiotic depth, or generic treatment of Neolithic without regional specificityConfusion of H. erectus with Australopithecus or H. habilis; misidentification of Oldowan as Acheulian; fundamental misunderstanding of thick description as mere ethnographic detail; conflation of Near Eastern Neolithic with other centers of origin; significant factual errors in dating or site identification
Theoretical framing20%10For (a), engages with cladistic vs. anagenetic models, discusses 'Out of Africa' vs. multiregional implications, cites Rightmire or Wood on taxonomic debates; for (b), locates Geertz within interpretive turn, contrasts with positivist anthropology, references hermeneutic tradition; for (c), evaluates Braidwood's 'hilly flanks' vs. Binford's 'edge hypothesis' vs. Hayden's competitive feasting modelMentions taxonomic debates without theoretical depth; describes Geertz's method without contextualizing in broader anthropological theory; lists Neolithic theories without comparative evaluation or clear positioningAbsent theoretical framework; treats all content as factual description without conceptual organization; no awareness of scholarly debates or competing explanatory models across any sub-part
Ethnographic / Indian examples16%8For (a), cites Narmada hominid or Hathnora calvarium in phylogenetic discussion; for (b), applies thick description to Indian ethnography—Srinivas's 'Dominant Caste', Dumont's hierarchy, or contemporary example like cricket as social text; for (c), draws parallel with Mehrgarh as comparable early farming site, noting convergent developments in South Asian NeolithicBrief mention of Indian paleoanthropological finds without integration; generic or forced application of thick description to Indian context without analytical depth; superficial comparison between Near East and Indian NeolithicNo Indian examples or connections attempted; entirely Eurocentric/African focus despite clear opportunities for South Asian anthropological engagement in all three sub-parts
Comparative analysis22%11For (a), compares African vs. Asian H. erectus populations, evaluates Dmanisi material; for (b), contrasts thick description with Malinowski's functionalism, Radcliffe-Brown's structuralism, or Gluckman's extended case method; for (c), compares Near Eastern Neolithic with Chinese, Mesoamerican, or African centers of domestication; draws synthetic connections between biological evolution, cultural interpretation, and agricultural transformation as anthropological concernsSome comparative elements within sub-parts but treated separately without cross-cutting synthesis; comparisons remain descriptive rather than analyticalNo comparative dimension; each sub-part treated in isolation without internal contrasts or broader anthropological integration; missed opportunities for linking evolutionary and cultural anthropology
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes three sub-parts into coherent statement on anthropology's scope—biological, interpretive, archaeological; reflects on contemporary relevance: human adaptability, meaning-making in multicultural societies, food security and agricultural origins; demonstrates how different anthropological subfields inform each other; ends with forward-looking observation on integrative anthropologyBrief summary of main points without genuine synthesis; generic concluding statement about anthropology's importance; no explicit integration across sub-partsAbsent or abrupt conclusion; mere restatement of question; no applied or reflective dimension; ends with last sub-part without any closing integration

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Anthropology 2021 Paper I