Anthropology 2025 Paper I 50 marks Critically discuss

Q7

(a) How the study of variation in forms of marriage led to rethinking on the concepts of social reproduction, kinship and family? (20 marks) (b) What are the major theories proposed in support of the origin of food production? How the change in subsistence economy brought revolution during this period? (15 marks) (c) Critically discuss the centrality of the African continent in the narrative of human evolution. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) विवाह के रूपों में भिन्नता के अध्ययन ने सामाजिक प्रजनन, नातेदारी तथा परिवार की अवधारणा को कैसे प्रेरित किया ? (20 अंक) (b) खाद्य उत्पादन की उत्पत्ति के समर्थन में प्रस्तावित प्रमुख सिद्धांत क्या हैं ? इस अवधि के दौरान निर्वाह अर्थव्यवस्था में परिवर्तन ने किस प्रकार क्रांति ला दी थी ? (15 अंक) (c) मानव उद्विकास की गाथा में अफ्रीकी महाद्वीप की केंद्रीयता की आलोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Anthropology questions

Directive word: Critically discuss

This question asks you to critically 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 question demands critical discussion across three distinct domains: marriage/kinship theory, origins of agriculture, and African paleoanthropology. Allocate approximately 40% word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three clearly demarcated sections addressing each sub-part with internal critical analysis, and a unified conclusion synthesizing how anthropological theory evolves through empirical challenges.

Key points expected

For (a): Analysis of how same-sex marriages, polyandry (Toda, Jaunsari), and matriliny (Nayar, Khasi) challenged classical descent theory and led to Schneider's cultural critique of kinship as biology-based
For (a): Discussion of Strathern's 'After Nature' and Carsten's 'substance' theory showing how marriage variation forced rethinking of social reproduction beyond Euro-American nuclear family model
For (b): Evaluation of Boserup's population pressure theory, Sauerian 'domestication of environment' hypothesis, and Hayden's competitive feasting model regarding agricultural origins
For (b): Analysis of Neolithic Revolution impacts—sedentism, social stratification, health decline (Cohen-Armelagos), and emergence of surplus-based political complexity at sites like Mehrgarh
For (c): Critical assessment of 'Out of Africa' model (molecular evidence, fossil record at Omo-Kibish, Herto) versus multiregional continuity, addressing critiques of Eurocentric bias in paleoanthropology
For (c): Discussion of Saharan pump hypothesis, Rift Valley as evolutionary theater, and recent Moroccan Jebel Irhoud findings complicating strict East African centrality

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precise deployment of technical terms: for (a) distinguishes alliance vs. descent, nature vs. culture in kinship; for (b) correctly identifies domestication syndrome vs. cultivation; for (c) accurately dates key specimens (Omo I at 195 ka, Jebel Irhoud at 300 ka) and distinguishes anatomical from behavioral modernity	Generally correct concepts but conflates key distinctions—e.g., treats all unilineal systems as equivalent, confuses Neolithic with food production onset, or presents 'Out of Africa' as uncontested fact without acknowledging recent complexity	Fundamental errors: describes kinship as purely biological, equates food production with invention of agriculture as event rather than process, or claims human evolution exclusively East African ignoring North/West African evidence
Theoretical framing	20%	10	For (a) situates critique within Schneider-Carsten-Fortes debate; for (b) contrasts processual (Boserup) with possibilist (Sauer) approaches; for (c) evaluates replacement vs. assimilation models using Templeton's nested cladistic analysis; demonstrates awareness of how theoretical paradigms shift with new data	Names theorists correctly but treats theories as static positions rather than evolving debates; mentions 'Neolithic Revolution' without Childe's original formulation or subsequent critiques; presents 'Out of Africa' descriptively without theoretical discussion of why African origin was initially resisted	Missing theoretical framework entirely: lists marriage forms without connecting to kinship theory, describes agricultural tools without theoretical models of transition, or presents human evolution as fossil catalog without evolutionary theory
Ethnographic / Indian examples	20%	10	For (a) uses Nayar tali-tying, Toda fraternal polyandry, or Khasi matriliny to demonstrate how Indian ethnography destabilized Morgan-Maine evolutionism; for (b) cites Mehrgarh (Balochistan) as South Asian Neolithic center showing independent domestication; for (c) references Indian paleoanthropological contributions (Narmada hominin, Hathnora calvaria) to African-centric narratives	Generic examples without specificity: mentions 'tribes' without naming, refers to 'Indus Valley' for Neolithic without Mehrgarh specificity, or cites 'Rift Valley' without Kenyan vs. Ethiopian site distinctions; examples illustrate but don't critically advance argument	No Indian or ethnographic examples; or inappropriate examples (e.g., using Hindu marriage scriptures for part (a) rather than anthropological accounts of tribal variations, or confusing Harappan with Neolithic)
Comparative analysis	20%	10	For (a) compares how Leach (Malay) and Needham (Purum) used comparative method to dismantle universal kinship structures; for (b) contrasts multiple independent origins (Fertile Crescent, Yangtze, Mesoamerica, New Guinea) vs. diffusion models; for (c) weighs East African (Turkana Basin, Afar) against North African (Jebel Irhoud, Ifri n'Ammar) evidence; explicitly addresses how comparative method itself has been critiqued	Some comparison present but undertheorized: lists different marriage forms without systematic comparison, names regions of origin without comparing timing or mechanisms, or contrasts models without evaluating relative explanatory power	Purely descriptive treatment of each topic in isolation; no cross-cultural, cross-regional, or cross-theoretical comparison; fails to compare parts (a)-(c) thematically despite shared concern with anthropological theory revision
Conclusion & applied angle	20%	10	Synthesizes three sub-parts around theme of anthropological theory as historically contingent and empirically revisable; connects to contemporary relevance—marriage law debates in India, food security and origins research, decolonizing human origins narratives; proposes future research directions or policy implications without speculation	Separate conclusions for each part without integration; or generic conclusion about anthropology's importance; mentions contemporary relevance superficially (e.g., 'these issues matter today') without specific connection	No conclusion, or abrupt ending; conclusion merely summarizes points already made; or introduces entirely new unsubstantiated claims; no applied or forward-looking 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 →