Anthropology 2022 Paper I 50 marks Elaborate

Q2

(a) "Anthropology is the systematic, objective and holistic study of human kind in all times and places". Elaborate the argument. (20 marks) (b) Discuss different forms of primate social organisation. (15 marks) (c) Discuss with suitable examples the typo-technological problems in Indian palaeolithic industry with reference to environmental hypotheses. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "नृविज्ञान हर देश-काल में मानवजाति का व्यवस्थित, वस्तुनिष्ठ एवं समग्र अध्ययन है" । तर्क का विस्तार कीजिए । (20) (b) प्राइमेट सामाजिक संगठन के विभिन्न स्वरूपों की चर्चा कीजिए । (15) (c) पर्यावरणीय परिकल्पना के संदर्भ में उपयुक्त उदाहरणों के साथ भारतीय पुरापाषाण उद्योग में टाइपो-तकनीकी समस्याओं की चर्चा कीजिए । (15)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Anthropology questions

Directive word: Elaborate

This question asks you to elaborate. 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 'elaborate' in part (a) demands systematic expansion of the definition with supporting arguments, while parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss'—balanced treatment with examples. Allocate approximately 40% word/time to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction → three distinct sections for each sub-part with clear sub-headings → conclusion synthesizing anthropology's unique disciplinary position.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Systematic nature—scientific method, fieldwork, comparison with history/sociology; Objectivity—etic vs emic, reflexivity debates, Malinowski's contribution; Holism—four-field integration (biological, archaeological, linguistic, cultural); All times and places—diachronic and synchronic dimensions, salvage ethnography
  • Part (b): Solitary/orangutans; Monogamous/gibbons; Polyandrous/tamarins; Polygynous-one-male groups/hanuman langurs; Multi-male multi-female/bonnet macaques; Fission-fusion/chimpanzees; Factors: resource distribution, predation pressure, sexual selection
  • Part (c): Typo-technological problems—overlapping tool types (handaxe vs cleaver), raw material constraints (quartzite vs chert), functional vs morphological classification; Environmental hypotheses—Kenneth Oakley's climatic framework, Dennell's 'Out of Africa' critique, Soanian vs Acheulian distribution linked to Siwalik vs Deccan geology; Specific sites: Hunsgi-Baichbal valleys, Didwana, Belan valley sequence
  • Integration: How biological anthropology (b) and archaeology (c) exemplify the holistic definition in (a)
  • Critical stance: Limitations of the definition—postmodern critique of objectivity, decolonization challenges; problems with environmental determinism in Indian Palaeolithic studies

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise definitions for all three parts: anthropology's four-field structure with accurate attribution (Boas, Malinowski); primate social organization terminology (fission-fusion, polygynandry) with correct species associations; Palaeolithic typo-technology—correctly distinguishes biface, core, flake industries and identifies specific Indian assemblages (Acheulian, Soanian, Middle Palaeolithic)Broadly correct definitions but some conflation—e.g., confuses holistic with comprehensive, misidentifies primate social structures (calls chimpanzees monogamous), or conflates Soanian with Lower Palaeolithic without stratigraphic nuanceMajor conceptual errors—defines anthropology as only cultural/social, confuses primate ecology with social organization, or fundamentally misunderstands typo-technology as typology alone without technological dimension
Theoretical framing20%10Part (a): Explicit theoretical positioning—Boasian historical particularism vs Radcliffe-Brown's comparative method, contemporary postmodern and decolonial critiques; Part (b): Socioecological model (Sterck et al. 1997) linking ecology to social structure; Part (c): Dennell's dispersal model vs indigenous development (Movius line debate), Gamble's social brain hypothesis applied to Indian contextMentions some theorists (e.g., Malinowski for holism, Oakley for environment) but lacks systematic theoretical integration; describes primate social forms without explanatory framework; notes environmental influence without theoretical modelNo theoretical framework—purely descriptive across all parts; or misattributes theories (e.g., attributes fission-fusion to baboons rather than chimpanzees, confuses Movius with Oakley)
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10Part (a): Indian anthropological contributions—S.C. Roy's holistic tribal studies, M.N. Srinivas's village studies, Verrier Elwin's advocacy; Part (b): Indian primates—lion-tailed macaque social structure, Nilgiri langur polygyny, Hanuman langur infanticide (Hrdy's work in India); Part (c): Specific sites—Hunsgi-Baichbal (Paddayya), Didwana (Misra), Belan valley (Sharma), Riwat (Dennell), specific raw material constraints in Deccan Traps vs SiwaliksSome Indian examples but uneven—strong on Palaeolithic sites but weak on Indian primates, or vice versa; generic mention of 'tribes' for part (a) without specific anthropologists; mentions Soanian but not specific locationsNo Indian examples or inappropriate ones—uses only African/European Palaeolithic, New World primates, or Western anthropologists exclusively; or factual errors in site attribution
Comparative analysis20%10Part (a): Explicit comparison with sociology (synchronic vs diachronic), history (particular vs general), biology (human vs non-human); Part (b): Systematic comparison across primate social organizations—contrasting orangutan dispersal with chimpanzee bisexual bonds, ecological correlates; Part (c): Comparative typo-technology—Indian Acheulian vs African (Movius line), Soanian vs European Clactonian, environmental vs cultural explanations compared criticallySome comparison but implicit or underdeveloped—lists differences without analytical framework; contrasts two primate species without systematic variables; notes Indian Palaeolithic is different without explaining howNo comparative element—purely descriptive lists in all parts; or false comparisons (e.g., compares primate social organization with human kinship without theoretical justification)
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes all three parts: demonstrates how primate studies and Palaeolithic archaeology exemplify anthropology's holistic, systematic, and temporal-spatial scope; applied relevance—conservation biology for Indian primates, geoarchaeology and heritage management for Palaeolithic sites, anthropology's role in addressing contemporary challenges (climate change, tribal policy); critical reflection on definition's limitations and future of four-field approach in IndiaBrief summary of main points without true synthesis; generic statement about anthropology's importance; mentions conservation or heritage without specific Indian policy contextNo conclusion or purely repetitive; no applied dimension; or completely disconnected conclusion unrelated to question parts

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 2022 Paper I