Anthropology 2024 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Write short notes

Q1

Write notes on the following in about 150 words each: 10×5=50 (a) Attributes of culture (b) Harappan maritime trade (c) Critical perspective on avoidance and joking relationship (d) Lethal and sublethal genes (e) Hemoglobin in health and disease

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक पर लगभग 150 शब्दों में टिप्पणी लिखिए : 10×5=50 (a) संस्कृति की विशेषताएँ (b) हड़प्पाकालीन समुद्री व्यापार (c) परिहार एवं परिहास संबंधों पर समालोचनात्मक दृष्टिकोण (d) घातक और उपघातक जीन (e) स्वास्थ्य और बीमारी में हीमोग्लोबिन

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Anthropology questions

Directive word: Write short notes

This question asks you to write short notes. 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 'Write notes' demands concise, information-dense responses for each sub-part with approximately 30 words per mark. Allocate roughly 150 words × 10 marks = 1500 total words, distributed evenly at ~150 words per sub-part (10 marks each). Structure each note with a precise definition, 2-3 core attributes/mechanisms, and one illustrative example. Prioritize factual accuracy over elaboration; avoid narrative introductions. For (c) and (e), ensure critical/applied dimensions are addressed within the word limit.

Key points expected

(a) Attributes of culture: Define culture (Tylor/Malinowski); list 5-6 attributes (learned, shared, symbolic, integrated, adaptive, dynamic); cite Indian example (sacred cow complex, caste as cultural system).
(b) Harappan maritime trade: Identify ports (Lothal, Dholavira, Balakot); goods traded (carnelian beads, cotton textiles, timber); external contacts (Mesopotamia, Oman, Bahrain/Dilmun); evidence (dockyard at Lothal, Persian Gulf seals).
(c) Critical perspective on avoidance and joking relationships: Define both (Radcliffe-Brown's structural-functionalism); critique (power asymmetry in avoidance, ritualized aggression in joking); Indian cases (mother-in-law/son-in-law avoidance in South India; clan joking among Gonds/Bhilala).
(d) Lethal and sublethal genes: Define lethal (homozygous fatal, e.g., Tay-Sachs, sickle cell homozygous) vs. sublethal (reduced fitness, e.g., sickle cell trait heterozygote advantage); mention balanced polymorphism; Indian context (sickle cell in tribal populations of Central India).
(e) Hemoglobin in health and disease: Structure (HbA, HbF, HbA2); pathologies (thalassemia α/β, sickle cell, HbE); diagnostic significance (electrophoresis); public health relevance (high prevalence in Indian tribal and coastal populations, screening programs).

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	All five sub-parts demonstrate precise, error-free definitions: for (a) correctly distinguishes culture from society; (b) accurately identifies Lothal's dockyard and Mesopotamian trade routes; (c) correctly applies Radcliffe-Brown's structural analysis; (d) accurately distinguishes lethal (homozygous fatal) from sublethal (reduced fitness) with correct genetic ratios; (e) correctly identifies Hb variants and their structural basis.	Most definitions are correct but with minor errors: vague on culture's symbolic dimension; conflates Harappan internal/external trade; oversimplifies joking relationship as merely 'friendly'; confuses lethal and sublethal mechanisms; lists Hb types without structural explanation.	Multiple factual errors: defines culture as biological/inherited; misidentifies Harappan ports; describes avoidance/joking without structural basis; conflates dominant/recessive with lethal/sublethal; fundamental errors in hemoglobin structure or disease mechanism.
Theoretical framing	20%	10	Appropriate theoretical anchors for each sub-part: (a) cites Tylor, Kroeber, or Geertz; (b) references Shaffer's 'Indus Valley Tradition' or Possehl's trade models; (c) deploys Radcliffe-Brown's structural-functionalism with Gluckman's conflict perspective; (d) uses Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and heterozygote advantage; (e) applies molecular anthropology (Haldane's malaria hypothesis).	Recognizes some theoretical frameworks but inconsistently: mentions 'culture is learned' without theorist; describes trade descriptively; notes 'ritual' in relationships without theoretical depth; mentions 'natural selection' vaguely for genes; describes Hb diseases clinically without evolutionary framework.	Absent or incorrect theory: no anthropological theorists cited; purely descriptive trade account; no structural-functional basis for kinship terms; genetic concepts presented as isolated facts without population genetics framework; purely biomedical description without anthropological genetics.
Ethnographic / Indian examples	20%	10	Rich, specific Indian illustrations: (a) sacred cow complex (Harris/Marvin), Nuer segmentary opposition; (b) specific artifacts (Persian Gulf seals, Meluhha references in Mesopotamian texts); (c) South Indian avuncular avoidance, Gond clan joking partnerships; (d) sickle cell in Gond, Bhil, Pardhan populations; thalassemia in Sindhi, Gujarati, Bengali communities; (e) ICMR screening data, tribal health programs in Maharashtra/Chhattisgarh.	Generic or partially correct examples: 'Indian villages' for culture; 'pottery and beads' for trade; 'some tribes' for kinship; 'sickle cell exists in India' for genes; 'anemia is common' for hemoglobin without specific population data.	Absent, incorrect, or foreign examples dominate: uses only Western examples for culture; no Indian port names; no Indian kinship cases; no Indian genetic data; uses African or Mediterranean examples exclusively for hemoglobinopathies.
Comparative analysis	20%	10	Explicit comparisons within and across sub-parts: (a) contrasts material vs. ideational culture theories; (b) compares maritime vs. riverine/land trade routes; (c) contrasts avoidance (hierarchical, respect) vs. joking (equalitarian, licensed aggression) as complementary structural mechanisms; (d) compares complete lethality vs. sublethal fitness effects; (e) compares α vs. β thalassemia, or HbS vs. HbE geographic distributions in India.	Implicit comparisons only: lists attributes without contrasting theoretical positions; describes trade types separately; mentions both relationships without systematic contrast; notes both gene types without fitness comparison; lists diseases without comparative epidemiology.	No comparative element: treats each sub-part as isolated fact-list; no contrast between trade mechanisms, kinship structures, gene effects, or disease patterns; misses the analytical value of juxtaposition entirely.
Conclusion & applied angle	20%	10	Each sub-part closes with applied significance: (a) culture concept's relevance for understanding Indian pluralism/communal harmony; (b) Harappan trade models for understanding India's maritime heritage and Indian Ocean connectivity; (c) kinship analysis for understanding contemporary family tensions and conflict resolution; (d) genetic counseling and tribal health policy; (e) neonatal screening, prenatal diagnosis, and national thalassemia control program.	Weak or partial applied angles: generic 'culture is important' statements; 'trade was significant' without contemporary relevance; 'kinship studies help understand society'; 'genetic diseases need treatment'; 'Hb tests are useful' without public health specifics.	No applied dimension: abrupt endings with no synthesis; purely academic treatment; missing relevance to contemporary Indian society, policy, or anthropological practice; fails to demonstrate why these topics matter for civil services or governance.

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 →