Anthropology 2022 Paper II 50 marks Critically evaluate

Q3

(a) Make a critical appraisal of Megalithic tradition in India with special reference to North-East India. 20 (b) Assess the contributions of S. C. Dube in Indian village studies. 15 (c) Describe the methods adopted by Sir Herbert Hope Risley in classifying Indian populations. What are the criticisms against Risley's classification? 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) उत्तर-पूर्व भारत के विशेष संदर्भ में भारतीय महापाषाण परंपरा का आलोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन कीजिए। 20 (b) भारतीय ग्रामों के अध्ययन में एस० सी० दुबे के योगदान का मूल्यांकन कीजिए। 15 (c) सर हर्बर्ट होप रिजले द्वारा भारतीय जनसंख्या के वर्गीकरण में चयनित प्रविधियों का वर्णन कीजिए। रिजले के वर्गीकरण के विरुद्ध समालोचनाएँ क्या हैं? 15

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

Directive word: Critically evaluate

This question asks you to critically evaluate. 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

Begin with a brief introduction acknowledging the three distinct themes: material culture, village studies, and colonial ethnography. Allocate approximately 40% of content to part (a) on Megalithic tradition given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). For (a), critically appraise by examining both achievements and limitations of scholarship; for (b), assess Dube's specific methodological and theoretical innovations; for (c), describe Risley's anthropometric methods before evaluating colonial critiques. Conclude by synthesizing how these three strands represent evolving anthropological approaches to Indian society.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Define Megalithic tradition (menhirs, dolmens, cairn circles, stone circles) and distinguish between sepulchral and non-sepulchral types; emphasize Northeast India's unique living megalithic cultures (Khasi, Jaintia, Naga) versus peninsular India's archaeological remains
  • Part (a): Critically appraise dating problems, lack of iron association in some Northeastern cases, and debate between indigenous development versus diffusionist explanations; mention scholars like Gurdon, Hutton, and recent AMS dating challenges
  • Part (b): Assess Dube's contribution through 'Indian Village' (1955) and 'India's Changing Villages' (1958); highlight his focus on inter-village networks, planned change, and departure from isolated community studies
  • Part (b): Evaluate Dube's methodological shift from functionalism to applied anthropology, his work in Shamirpet, and critique of his 'sanskritization' framework and top-down development approach
  • Part (c): Describe Risley's anthropometric methods (nasal index, cephalic index) and use of photography; explain his racial typology (seven main types) and caste-race equation in 'The Tribes and Castes of Bengal' (1891)
  • Part (c): Critique Risley's scientific racism, circular reasoning (using caste status to define race), ignoring environmental plasticity; mention later critiques by Guha, Majumdar, and contemporary genetic studies refuting his typology

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines Megalithic types with correct archaeological terminology; accurately distinguishes Dube's specific contributions from other village studies pioneers; correctly identifies Risley's indices and their statistical application without conflating race and casteBasic definitions present but some confusion between types (e.g., dolmen vs cromlech) or oversimplifies Dube's methodology; describes Risley's work but misrepresents the scientific basis of his classificationFundamental errors such as treating all megaliths as burial sites, confusing Dube with other scholars like M.N. Srinivas, or presenting Risley's racial taxonomy as valid contemporary science
Theoretical framing20%10Demonstrates sophisticated engagement with diffusionist vs. indigenous development debates for megaliths; situates Dube within shift from British structural-functionalism to American cultural anthropology and planned change theory; critiques Risley through post-colonial and race theory lensesMentions theoretical contexts (e.g., notes Dube's functionalism) but lacks depth in connecting to broader anthropological theory; acknowledges colonial context for Risley without systematic theoretical critiqueAbsent or incorrect theoretical framing; treats all three parts as purely factual descriptions without any analytical framework or historical context of anthropological theory
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10Rich specificity: for (a) cites Khasi monoliths (Mawphlang, Nartiang), Naga platforms, and compares with Brahmagiri and Porkalam; for (b) references Shamirpet, Khanna study, and Dube's HYV experience; for (c) cites specific castes (Brahmin, Rajbanshi, Chamar) from Risley's Bengal dataSome examples present but limited geographic spread (e.g., only mentions South Indian megaliths for part a); general references to Dube's work without specific village names; vague mention of Risley's surveys without concrete illustrationsMinimal or no Indian examples; relies entirely on generic statements; incorrect examples (e.g., Harappan sites for megaliths) or anachronistic references
Comparative analysis20%10Systematic comparisons: Northeast vs. peninsular megalithic traditions (living vs. archaeological); Dube vs. Lewis, Redfield, and Srinivas on village studies; Risley vs. Risley's contemporaries (Crooke, Ibbetson) and later challengers (Guha, Karve, geneticists)Some comparative elements but underdeveloped; may compare megalithic regions superficially or mention Dube's uniqueness without systematic contrast; limited comparison of Risley with other colonial administratorsNo comparative dimension; treats each part in isolation; fails to draw connections between colonial ethnography and later village studies or between archaeological and anthropological approaches to material culture
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes three parts into coherent narrative about evolving anthropological knowledge production—from colonial racial classification to post-independence development anthropology to contemporary archaeological heritage management; suggests policy relevance for megalithic site preservation and critiques of applied anthropologyBrief summary of main points without genuine synthesis; generic conclusion about importance of anthropological studies; minimal or no applied dimensionAbsent or abrupt conclusion; no connection between parts; no applied or contemporary relevance; ends with mere restatement of question

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 II