Anthropology 2022 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q3

(a) Discuss how the rules of descent contradict the principles of residence in matrilineal society, mentioning suitable examples ? (20 marks) (b) Enumerate the evidence of animal domestication in Indian microlithic industry. (15 marks) (c) Should we still distinguish between 'classic' and 'progressive' Neanderthals ? Discuss the controversy surrounding Neanderthal's position in human evolution. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) उपयुक्त उदाहरणों का उल्लेख करते हुए, चर्चा करें कि वंश के नियम मातृवंशीय समाज में निवास के सिद्धांतों का खंडन कैसे करते हैं ? (20) (b) भारतीय सूक्ष्म पाषाण उद्योग में पशुपालन के साक्ष्यों का उल्लेख कीजिए । (15) (c) क्या हमें अभी भी 'उत्कृष्ट' और 'प्रगतिशील' प्रकार के नियंडरथल के बीच अंतर करना चाहिए ? मानव विकास में नियंडरथल के स्थान से संबंधित विवाद की विवेचना कीजिए । (15)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 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' demands a balanced, analytical treatment across all three sub-parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, then tackle each sub-part sequentially with clear internal headings, ensuring part (a) addresses the contradiction between descent and residence rules with ethnographic depth; part (b) systematically enumerates domestication evidence from Indian microlithic sites; and part (c) presents both sides of the Neanderthal classification controversy before a synthesizing conclusion.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Clear exposition of how matrilineal descent (tracing ancestry through female line) contradicts patrilocal/virilocal residence (husband moves to wife's group or wife moves to husband's group), creating structural tension
  • Part (a): Specific ethnographic examples—Nayars of Kerala (visiting husband system), Garos of Meghalaya (matrilineal descent with neolocal/virilocal residence shifts), or Khasis (matrilocal residence with matrilineal descent showing congruence as exception)
  • Part (b): Enumeration of domestication evidence—faunal remains (sheep, goat, cattle) from sites like Bagor, Langhnaj, Birbhanpur; microlithic tools as hunting/cutting implements transitioning to herding; seasonal settlement patterns indicating pastoralism
  • Part (b): Specific Indian sites and phases—Mesolithic-Microlithic transition, Adamgarh Hills, Bhimbetka, and the shift from hunting-gathering to food production in Vindhyan and Ganga plains
  • Part (c): Classic vs. progressive Neanderthal distinction—classic (Western Europe: La Chapelle-aux-Saints) vs. progressive (Southwest Asia: Shanidar, Amud) morphological and behavioral differences
  • Part (c): Contemporary controversy—genetic evidence (Neanderthal genome, interbreeding with Homo sapiens), chronological overlap, and whether distinctions represent clinal variation or separate populations; position in human evolution as sister group vs. ancestor

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines matrilineal descent, residence rules (matrilocal, patrilocal, neolocal, avunculocal), and their structural contradictions; accurately identifies microlithic tool types and domestication markers; correctly distinguishes classic vs. progressive Neanderthal morphological traits and understands current genetic evidence on Neanderthal-Homo sapiens relationshipBasic definitions provided but conflates descent with residence or confuses matrilocal with matrilineal; lists microlithic sites without clear domestication linkage; describes Neanderthals generically without grasping the classification debate or genetic evidenceFundamental confusion between descent and residence systems; misidentifies microlithic industry as Neolithic; conflates Neanderthals with Homo erectus or archaic Homo sapiens; no awareness of genetic studies
Theoretical framing20%10Applies structural-functionalist analysis (Radcliffe-Brown) or alliance theory (Lévi-Strauss) to explain descent-residence contradictions; uses culture-historical or processual frameworks for microlithic domestication; engages with cladistic vs. gradistic models in paleoanthropology and cites recent genomic studies (Green et al., Pääbo)Mentions theoretical frameworks superficially without application; describes domestication as linear progression without theoretical nuance; presents Neanderthal classification as settled science without engaging with debateNo theoretical framework; purely descriptive treatment; or misapplies theories (e.g., using unilineal evolution for microlithic domestication)
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10Rich, specific Indian ethnography for (a): Nayar tali-tying, Garo marriage customs, Khasi matriliny with residence patterns; for (b): precise site data from Bagor (Rajasthan), Langhnaj (Gujarat), Birbhanpur (West Bengal), Chopani-Mando; for (c): relevant Asian Neanderthal finds (Shanidar, Tabun, Amud) contextualizedGeneric or partially correct examples; mentions Indian tribes without specific residence-descent dynamics; lists microlithic sites without domestication evidence; limited to European Neanderthal examplesNon-Indian or invented examples; confuses microlithic with other industries; no specific site names; factual errors in ethnographic details
Comparative analysis20%10For (a): contrasts matrilineal-patrilocal with matrilineal-matrilocal systems showing variable resolutions of the contradiction; for (b): compares Indian microlithic domestication with Near Eastern Neolithic Revolution timing and pathways; for (c): weighs morphological against genetic evidence, compares regional Neanderthal variation, assesses replacement vs. assimilation modelsLimited comparison—mentions other societies or regions without systematic analysis; treats Indian evidence in isolation; presents one side of Neanderthal debate without balanceNo comparative element; treats each part as isolated fact-list; or makes false comparisons (e.g., equating microlithic with fully developed Neolithic)
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes across parts: notes how structural contradictions in kinship systems parallel tensions in evolutionary classification; reflects on how genetic evidence has transformed understanding of human ancestry; connects microlithic pastoralism to contemporary pastoral economies; offers nuanced position on whether classic/progressive distinction remains usefulSeparate conclusions for each part without synthesis; restates main points; tentative or absent stance on Neanderthal controversyNo conclusion; abrupt ending; or conclusion contradicts body; purely summary without analytical closure

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