Anthropology 2024 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q2

(a) Discuss historical particularism as a critical development to the classical evolutionism. 20 marks (b) Describe the evidences of food production and domestication of animals with special reference to Mehrgarh. Throw light on its significance. 15 marks (c) Critically comment on the lifestyle diseases and their impact on human health. 15 marks

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) शास्त्रीय विकासवाद के आलोचनात्मक विकास के रूप में ऐतिहासिक विशिष्टतावाद पर चर्चा कीजिए। 20 अंक (b) मेहरगढ़ के विशेष संदर्भ में खाद्य उत्पादन और पशुओं को पालतू बनाने के साक्ष्यों का वर्णन कीजिए। इसके महत्व पर प्रकाश डालिए। 15 अंक (c) जीवन-शैली से जुड़ी बीमारियों और मानव स्वास्थ्य पर उनके प्रभाव पर आलोचनात्मक टिप्पणी कीजिए। 15 अंक

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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' for part (a) requires critical examination with arguments for and against, while parts (b) and (c) use 'describe' and 'critically comment' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction framing the three themes → systematic treatment of each sub-part with clear sub-headings → integrated conclusion linking historical particularism's emphasis on context to understanding both Mehrgarh's unique trajectory and modern lifestyle diseases as culturally embedded phenomena.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Historical particularism as Boas's critique of unilinear evolutionism—emphasis on diffusion, cultural relativism, and inductive fieldwork against Morgan/Tylor's comparative method and psychic unity
  • Part (a): Specific contributions—Boas's rejection of savagery-barbarism-civilization stages, Kroeber's superorganic, and the shift to historical reconstruction over evolutionary laws
  • Part (b): Mehrgarh evidence—wheat/barley cultivation, sheep/goat/cattle domestication, mud-brick structures, granaries, and craft specialization in Period I (7000-5500 BCE)
  • Part (b): Significance of Mehrgarh—indigenous development vs. diffusion from West Asia, precursor to Indus civilization, evidence of long-distance trade (lapis, turquoise)
  • Part (c): Lifestyle diseases—definition as non-communicable diseases (NCDs): diabetes, CVD, obesity, hypertension linked to sedentism, diet change, stress
  • Part (c): Critical anthropological perspective—Sahlins's 'original affluent society' contrast, epidemiological transition theory, structural violence and commodification of health
  • Integrated thread: How historical particularism's method informs understanding both Mehrgarh's unique developmental path and culturally-specific disease patterns in contemporary India

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines historical particularism's core tenets (Boas's four-field approach, anti-evolutionism) and distinguishes it from classical evolutionism; accurately identifies Mehrgarh's Period I-II material culture and correctly classifies lifestyle diseases with WHO/ICMR terminology; no conflation of Mehrgarh with mature Harappan phaseBasic understanding of Boas's critique but conflates historical particularism with diffusionism or misidentifies key figures; describes Mehrgarh finds generally but confuses chronology or species domesticated; lists lifestyle diseases without clear definition or misclassifies communicable diseases as NCDsConfuses historical particularism with neo-evolutionism or cultural ecology; fundamentally misrepresents Mehrgarh as part of Indus civilization proper; fails to define lifestyle diseases or includes infectious diseases like TB/malaria
Theoretical framing20%10For (a), situates Boas within German idealist tradition (Herder, Bastian) and contrasts with Morgan's materialism; for (c), deploys epidemiological transition theory (Omran), biosocial/biocultural approaches, or Singer's syndemics concept; demonstrates awareness of how theoretical frameworks shape interpretation across all three partsMentions Boas and Morgan but lacks theoretical depth on why their epistemologies differ; describes Mehrgarh findings with minimal theoretical framing; mentions 'westernization' or 'modernization' for lifestyle diseases without theoretical elaborationAbsent theoretical framework; treats all three parts as purely factual description without connecting to anthropological theory; no mention of cultural relativism, diffusion, or political economy of health
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10For (a): cites Boas's Kwakiutl potlatch studies or Kroeber's California ethnography; for (b): references Jarrige's excavations, specific Mehrgarh finds (female figurines, drilled teeth, cotton); for (c): uses ICMR-NCDIR data, NFHS-5 statistics, or specific Indian studies (Yajnik's thrifty phenotype hypothesis, diabetes in urban vs. rural India)Generic mention of 'American Indians' for Boas without specificity; describes Mehrgarh in general terms without citing excavators or specific artifacts; mentions diabetes/heart disease in India without data or regional variationNo ethnographic examples for (a); confuses Mehrgarh with Mohenjo-daro or Harappa; no Indian context for lifestyle diseases or uses exclusively Western examples (Pima Indians, Framingham study)
Comparative analysis20%10For (a): systematic comparison of evolutionary vs. particularist methods on multiple axes (time orientation, data source, generalization type); for (b): compares Mehrgarh with Jericho, Ali Kosh, or other Near Eastern Neolithic sites regarding independent vs. diffused domestication; for (c): compares NCD burden across India's epidemiological transition stages or urban-rural gradientsSome comparison between evolutionism and particularism but one-dimensional; mentions Mehrgarh's uniqueness without systematic cross-site comparison; notes urban-rural differences in disease without analytical depthNo comparative element; treats each part in isolation without relational analysis; fails to compare even when explicitly required by question structure
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes three parts through the thread of context-specificity: historical particularism's legacy in contemporary biocultural approaches, Mehrgarh demonstrating indigenous South Asian achievement, and lifestyle diseases requiring culturally-appropriate interventions (Ayushman Bharat, National Programme for Prevention of NCDs); forward-looking policy relevance without being prescriptiveSummarizes three parts separately without integration; generic conclusion on importance of anthropology; mentions public health for (c) without specific Indian policy referenceAbsent or abrupt conclusion; no attempt to connect three sub-parts; purely descriptive ending with no applied or synthetic dimension

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 2024 Paper I