Q3
(a) Describe the distinctive features and distribution of Upper Palaeolithic of India. 20 (b) Examine the environmental and biocultural factors influencing the health of tribals of India. 15 (c) Highlight the significant contributions of B. S. Guha, Irawati Karve and S. R. K. Chopra to Indian Anthropology. 15
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) भारत में उच्च पुरापाषाण के विशिष्ट लक्षणों एवं विस्तार का वर्णन कीजिए। 20 (b) भारतीय जनजातियों के स्वास्थ्य को प्रभावित करने वाले पर्यावरणीय एवं जैव सांस्कृतिक कारकों का परीक्षण कीजिए। 15 (c) भारतीय मानवविज्ञान में बी० एस० गुहा, इरावती कर्वे तथा एस० आर० के० चोपड़ा के महत्त्वपूर्ण योगदान पर प्रकाश डालिए। 15
Directive word: Describe
This question asks you to describe. 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 descriptive coverage for (a), analytical examination for (b), and highlighting contributions for (c). Allocate approximately 40% word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, with ~30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief introduction acknowledging all three parts; detailed body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesizing insights on Indian anthropology's development and contemporary relevance.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Chronology (40,000-10,000 BP), blade and burin technology, cave art (Bhimbetka), distribution across Belan, Son, Narmada, Mahanadi valleys, and distinguishing from Middle Palaeolithic
- Part (a): Specific sites—Patne, Kurnool caves, Renigunta, and the emergence of microlithic transition; mention of organic tools and symbolic behavior
- Part (b): Environmental factors—forest degradation, water contamination, altitude sickness in Himalayan tribes, malaria in central Indian tribes; biocultural factors—dietary transitions, genetic predispositions (sickle cell in Gonds), traditional medicine knowledge erosion
- Part (b): Specific tribal examples—Jarawa health crises, Dongria Kondh nutrition studies, and the intersection of development-induced displacement with health outcomes
- Part (c): B.S. Guha—racial classification of Indian population (1935), founding of Anthropological Survey of India, skeletal studies at Mohenjodaro, Negrito element theory
- Part (c): Irawati Karve—Hindu society as mosaic of endogamous groups, kinship studies (Yuganta), regional anthropology, first woman anthropologist in India with fieldwork emphasis
- Part (c): S.R.K. Chopra—human cytogenetics, dermatoglyphics, population genetics of Indian tribes, establishing anthropology departments, training next generation of Indian anthropologists
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 22% | 11 | Demonstrates precise chronological understanding for (a): distinguishes Upper Palaeolithic from Mesolithic transition; for (b) accurately defines biocultural approach integrating environment and human biology; for (c) correctly attributes specific contributions without conflating the three scholars' work | Generally accurate chronology and concepts but some confusion between Upper and Middle Palaeolithic tools; biocultural factors mentioned separately without integration; contributions listed with minor errors in attribution or dating | Fundamental errors in periodization (e.g., confusing Upper Palaeolithic with Neolithic); conflates environmental and genetic factors; misattributes contributions (e.g., assigning Guha's racial work to Karve) or includes incorrect details |
| Theoretical framing | 18% | 9 | For (b), explicitly employs biocultural theoretical framework showing reciprocal environment-culture-biology relationships; for (c) contextualizes contributions within broader theoretical movements (e.g., Karve's structural-functionalism, Guha's physical anthropology tradition) | Implicit awareness of theoretical approaches without explicit naming; mentions health determinants or scholarly influences without systematic theoretical integration | Absent theoretical framing; treats health factors as isolated variables; presents scholars' work as disconnected facts without intellectual context or paradigm significance |
| Ethnographic / Indian examples | 22% | 11 | Rich site-specific detail: for (a) cites Bhimbetka rock art, Patne sequence, Kurnool evidence; for (b) names specific tribes (Onge, Birhor, Bhil) with documented health studies; for (c) references specific publications (Guha's 'Racial Elements,' Karve's 'Kinship Organization in India') | Mentions some sites and tribes but with generic descriptions; limited specific publication references; examples support points but lack precise detail | Vague or incorrect examples; uses non-Indian illustrations when Indian cases are required; omits specific sites, tribes, or publications entirely |
| Comparative analysis | 18% | 9 | For (a) compares Indian Upper Palaeolithic with European/African developments; for (b) contrasts health outcomes across different ecological zones (Himalayan vs. tropical vs. coastal tribes); for (c) compares the three scholars' methodological approaches and institutional legacies | Brief comparisons without sustained analysis; notes differences without explaining significance; limited cross-regional or cross-temporal comparison | No comparative element; treats each part in isolation; misses opportunities to compare regional variations in Palaeolithic culture or health determinants |
| Conclusion & applied angle | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes how understanding Upper Palaeolithic adaptations informs contemporary human biology; connects tribal health biocultural framework to current policy (Tribal Sub-Plan, PESA); evaluates how foundational scholars shaped contemporary Indian anthropology's applied orientation | Brief summary of main points without synthesis; generic statement on importance of study; limited forward-looking or applied dimension | Absent or abrupt conclusion; no connection to contemporary relevance; fails to integrate the three parts into coherent understanding of Indian anthropology's scope |
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 2025 Paper II
- Q1 Write short notes on the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) 'Soanian cultural' tradition (b) Caste domination, factionalism an…
- Q2 (a) Discuss the palaeoanthropological significance of Siwaliks of India giving its subdivisions, fossil primate fauna and major primate fos…
- Q3 (a) Describe the distinctive features and distribution of Upper Palaeolithic of India. 20 (b) Examine the environmental and biocultural fac…
- Q4 (a) What are the different types of caste mobility in India? Highlight the various factors responsible for it. 20 (b) Elucidate the role of…
- Q5 Write short notes on the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Impact of urbanization and industrialization on tribal communities…
- Q6 (a) "The village was not merely a place where people lived; it had a design in which were reflected the basic values of Indian civilization…
- Q7 (a) Identify the contemporary limitations in the process of tribal development. How can anthropological knowledge contribute in this proces…
- Q8 (a) Describe the nature of traditional socioeconomic interdependence among the Toda, Kota, Kurumba and Irula tribes of Nilgiri Hills. Highl…