Q6
(a) What is acclimatization? Discuss adaptive responses to high altitude and cold climate. (20 marks) (b) How are the cases of disputed paternity solved? Discuss the recent techniques. (15 marks) (c) Critically evaluate Lewis Morgan's classification of family. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) पर्यनुकूलन क्या है ? अधिक ऊँचाई और ठंडी जलवायु के लिए अनुकूली प्रतिक्रियाओं पर चर्चा कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) विवादित पितृत्व के मामलों को कैसे सुलझाया जाता है ? हाल की तकनीकों पर चर्चा कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) लुईस मॉर्गन के परिवार के वर्गीकरण का समालोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन कीजिए । (15 अंक)
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' requires comprehensive treatment with critical elaboration. For part (a) (20 marks, ~40% time/words), define acclimatization and detail physiological adaptations to hypoxia and thermoregulation in cold; for (b) (15 marks, ~30%), explain traditional methods (serological, anthropometric) and modern DNA profiling techniques; for (c) (15 marks, ~30%), critically evaluate Morgan's evolutionary scheme from consanguine to monogamous family, noting Malinowski's and Radcliffe-Brown's critiques. Structure: brief integrated introduction, three distinct sections with sub-headings, conclusion linking adaptation studies to contemporary kinship challenges.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Definition of acclimatization vs. genetic adaptation; physiological responses to high altitude—hypoxic ventilatory response, polycythemia, increased 2,3-DPG, capillary density; cold adaptation—vasoconstriction, brown adipose tissue, Bergmann's and Allen's rules with Indian examples (Ladakhi, Gaddi, Brokpa)
- Part (a): Developmental and genetic components of high-altitude adaptation; mention of Andean vs. Tibetan patterns; Indian studies from Himalayan populations (Sikkim, Lahaul-Spiti)
- Part (b): Traditional methods for disputed paternity—ABO blood grouping, MN system, serum protein polymorphisms; limitations and exclusion probability
- Part (b): Modern techniques—DNA fingerprinting (Alec Jeffreys), STR analysis, SNP typing, Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA testing; Paternity Index and Combined Paternity Index calculations; legal admissibility under Indian Evidence Act
- Part (c): Morgan's stages: consanguine, punaluan, syndyasmian, patriarchal, monogamous; connection to savagery-barbarism-civilization scheme
- Part (c): Critical evaluation: Malinowski's critique of evolutionary speculation based on survivals; Radcliffe-Brown's functionalist criticism; Rivers' kinship studies; contemporary consensus on diversity of family forms rejecting unilineal evolution
- Part (c): Morgan's lasting contribution—classificatory vs. descriptive terminology; influence on Engels and Marx; relevance to understanding kinship terminology systems
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precisely distinguishes acclimatization from genetic adaptation in (a); accurately describes DNA markers, PCR methodology and statistical interpretation in (b); correctly identifies Morgan's six-stage sequence and his ethnographic sources (Iroquois, Seneca) in (c). No confusion between physiological adaptation and genetic adaptation. | Basic definitions correct but conflates acclimatization with adaptation; describes DNA testing superficially without technical details; knows Morgan's stages but misorders or misattributes sources. | Fundamental errors—treats acclimatization as permanent genetic change; confuses blood grouping with DNA testing; attributes Morgan's scheme to wrong theorist or invents non-existent stages. |
| Theoretical framing | 20% | 10 | For (a), integrates Baker's homeostasis theory and Hanna's stress-response models; for (b), explains population genetics foundations (Hardy-Weinberg, mutation rates); for (c), situates Morgan within 19th-century unilineal evolution, contrasts with Boas's historical particularism and structural-functionalism, cites Engels' Origin of the Family. | Mentions relevant theories by name without elaboration; some connection between Morgan and Marxism noted; basic understanding of scientific basis for paternity testing. | No theoretical context; treats all three parts as purely factual; missing any reference to evolutionary theory, population genetics, or kinship theory development. |
| Ethnographic / Indian examples | 20% | 10 | For (a): cites Indian Anthropological Survey studies on Ladakhi, Gaddi, Brokpa, or Sherpa adaptations; for (b): references Indian paternity testing cases, DNA profiling in forensic laboratories (CDFD Hyderabad); for (c): applies Morgan's framework to Indian kinship (Dravidian terminology) or cites D.N. Majumdar's critique. | Generic Himalayan references without specific tribes; mentions DNA testing in India without case specifics; Indian kinship mentioned but not linked to Morgan's scheme. | No Indian examples; only Euro-American cases for paternity; completely ignores applicability of Morgan's framework to Indian kinship systems. |
| Comparative analysis | 20% | 10 | For (a): compares Andean vs. Tibetan high-altitude adaptations; for (b): contrasts traditional serological methods with DNA profiling on accuracy, cost, time; for (c): systematically compares Morgan with Bachofen, McLennan, Maine, and later critics (Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, Murdock); evaluates what survives in contemporary kinship studies. | Some comparison attempted but superficial; notes DNA is 'better' without systematic comparison; mentions one critic of Morgan without elaboration. | No comparative dimension; treats each topic in isolation; fails to contrast methods or theoretical positions; no evaluation of Morgan against alternatives. |
| Conclusion & applied angle | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes across parts: connects biological adaptation studies to kinship's social adaptation; discusses applied relevance—high-altitude physiology for Indian military (Siachen), DNA testing for legal reform and NRC/CAA contexts, Morgan's legacy for understanding changing family structures in contemporary India; forward-looking closing. | Brief summary of main points; some applied mention but generic; no synthesis across the three parts. | No conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive close; no applied or contemporary relevance mentioned; misses opportunity to integrate biological and social anthropology. |
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
- Q1 Write notes on the following in about 150 words each: (a) Animism and Deep Ecology (10 marks) (b) Marriage Regulations and Alliance Theory…
- Q2 (a) What are the physical and cultural characteristics of Homo erectus? Discuss its phylogenetic status. (20 marks) (b) Elucidate the conce…
- Q3 (a) How do political organisations of simple societies establish power, authority and legitimacy? (20 marks) (b) Explain the genetic mechan…
- Q4 (a) Elaborate the scope of anthropology and elucidate its uniqueness in the field of other social sciences. (20 marks) (b) Mention the majo…
- Q5 Write notes on the following in about 150 words each: (a) Human adolescent growth spurt (10 marks) (b) The losses and gains of erect postur…
- Q6 (a) What is acclimatization? Discuss adaptive responses to high altitude and cold climate. (20 marks) (b) How are the cases of disputed pat…
- Q7 (a) Critically evaluate different types of social stratifications with suitable examples. (20 marks) (b) Discuss the bio-social determinant…
- Q8 (a) Discuss various tools of data collection in conducting anthropological research. (20 marks) (b) Discuss the physiological and evolution…