ANTHROPOLOGY can well be defined as the study, or science of study, of Man in time and space.

The
definition has two components viz. the time and the space. In time, anthropology deals with the evolution
of man while ‘in space’ refers to the variation at a particular moment of time.

FROM the definition it becomes obvious that anything that refers to, forms, affects or results from man
should form the subject matter of anthropology. If so, everything under the sky present, past or future
should be covered by the scope of the subject. All human beings, plant and animal life, environments,
academic disciplines and everything one can think of are embraced into one term called anthropology.
Yet, if a discipline and its scope is unlimited, it may lead to ambiguity.

AS SAID above, anthropology deals with evolution and variation in man. We must also add that we
emphasize on two aspects of man, namely, biological and social- cultural. Therefore, anthropology should
be aptly defined as “the study of biological as well as social-cultural evolution and variation. We study
biological evolution through various theories and processes (micro and micro).

Biological variation is studied through the study of race, genetics, human physical growth and
development, human adaptability etc. We study social cultural variation of all human societies while
social-cultural evolution of material culture is studied.

FROM the definition it becomes clear that there should be only two subdisciplines of anthropology,
namely biological anthropology and social-cultural anthropology. All other so called disciplines of
anthropology are either the branch of a discipline or are the result of the combination of both the
subdisciplines.

IN MANY text books, Prehistoric Archaeology has been stated as a separate subdiscipline in which we
study prehistoric cultures and social formation. As the study of prehistoric cultures is a part of the study
of evolution of culture, it should be studied with socialcultural anthropology and not as a separate
subdiscipline. In Linguistic Anthropology, the important questions are : what was the need of language?
What structural changes in throat resulted in the development of language? What was the selective
advantage to those who developed language compared to those who did not? All these pertain to
biological aspects of man and hence must be studied in biological anthropology. Besides, as language is
the vehicle of culture, it is an integral part of social-cultural anthropology too. We can take up another
example of ecological anthropology. In socialcultural anthropology we study it as cultural ecology in
which we try to understand the impact of ecology on culture. In biological anthropology we call it human
adaptability in which we study the impact of various natural stresses on human body. Here, ecological
anthropology has two different meanings in two different subdisciplines of anthropology.

HOWEVER, in various departments of anthropology in India, the number of branches of anthropology

given in the syllabus is different and therefore, we here study anthropology in terms of four
subdisciplines, namely : Biological Anthropology, Social-cultural Anthropology, Prehistoric Archaeology
Anthropological Linguistics. (These subdivisions are also present in American Anthropology)

1.PHYSICAL (BIOLOGICAL) ANTHROPOLOGY

HVDCECAN2023
PHYSICAL Anthropology should correctly be termed Biological Anthropology, for it deals not only with
physical (morphological) man but also the genetic; the letter is supplementing and gradually replacing the
former.

THE branch deals with biological evolution of, and variation in, man or to be more correct man and his
relations (i.e. order Primates) to seek the answer to:

(a) What has been the sequence of events in the course of evolution;
(b) The factors and mechanism of this course and
(c) The nature of ongoing changes in the species.

Paleo-anthropology (Paleo-ancient or old; paleo-anthropology is thus, the study of early man, and his
relations, with particular reference to fossil evidence) therefore, forms an important part of physical
anthropology that also includes the study of human physical growth and development, dermatoglyphics,
population genetics, biochemical and cytogenetic, anatomy (particularly osteology) of man and
comparative osteology of man and apes etc.

The study of races (or the anxiety for finding out pure race) on basis of morphological criteria has taken a
back seat after the revelation that pure races do not exist today came to physical anthropologists.

THE beginning of physical anthropology was, very random. In late 18th century, scientists became
curious about physical differences among humans that laid the foundations for the study of race.
(Subsequently, Retzius developed cephalic index for identification of an individual's race that was the
foremost step in the development of the discipline of Statistics).

The study of race (in terms of racism) got a boost through colonial powers as each of them wanted to
prove itself a superior race, Subsequently, in 1850s, fossils of some ancestors of man (Dryopithecus and
Neanderthal man) were discovered that prompted the interest in human biological evolution. In 1871,
Charles Darwin in his book ‘Descent of Man’, opined that man must have evolved from apes and
thereafter started the study of monkeys, apes and man i.e. primates. The subject that emerged from these
discoveries and researches, known as physical anthropology centered on these major topics with the
objective of attempting answers to the basic enquiries of man about himself; like who we are? Where are
we from? Why are we different from each other? What will happen to us in future? Etc.

THE subject was aptly called Physical Anthropology as we studied only morphology of Primates; Races
too were studied morphologically. CHANGES in physical anthropology started with the beginning of
20th century. ABO blood group system was discovered by Landsteiner in 1900 itself. Though Mendel
gave first laws of genetics in the previous century, these were literally forgotten and rediscovered in 1901.
The first mathematical explanation, in the form of Hardy-Weinberg principle was given in 1908.
Cytology, Cytogenetic and Biochemistry came into being in the second decade of the century. The first
population genetic survey, involving ABO w groups, was presented by Mourant in 1927 and Synthetic
Theory of evolution was propounded by neo-Darwinians in 1930s. ALL these developments brought a sea
of changes in the subject matter and scope of physical anthropology. Genetic studies gradually started
replacing morphological (physical) studies. Other changes, directly or indirectly were influenced by this
trend. For example, there started the studies involving interaction between heredity and environment.
There also started studies to know the interaction between genetics, behavior and culture- something that

HVDCECAN2023
evolved as social biology in future. Scope of the subject changed from mere speculation to application for
mankind. ALL the above changes took place in the first half of 20th century but were not known widely.

As, after the World War II developed the international, interdisciplinary approach, these changes became
more visible and widespread. All these changes in the subjectmatter and scope of physical anthropology
were given a generic name by Washburn (1951) an anthropologist from US - New Physical
Anthropology. HOWEVER, after World War II, when UN came into being and within UN, UNESCO,
the latter was given the task of studying race scientifically and in totality.

A team of scientists, lead by famous anthropologist Ashley Montagu, took up the task. The observations
of this team resulted in the release of two 'UNESCO's Statement on Race' which, besides other things
stated that 'pure races do not exist among human beings'; “there are no harmful effects of inter-racial
marriages; but most importantly, races do not differ significantly with respect to their capacities and
capabilities" thus scientifically rejecting racism. After completing this research, Ashley Montagu
authored a book, Race : Man's Most Dangerous Myth.

After such observations, the interest of anthropologists in racial studies kept on decreasing and ultimately
we stopped studying race. Today, we even don't use the term race. The populations previously termed
races are now called ethnic groups or mendelian populations.

THE question now arises, should we continue calling the subject New Physical Anthropology? The
question is relevant first because what Washburn called New has become integral part of the subject
matter and there is nothing new in it. Second, it is no more physical. Realising the expansion of this sub
discipline, we use a much wider term: Biological Anthropology.

IN RECENT decades, physical anthropology has advanced much further, particularly in interdisciplinary
approach. For example, molecular biology can reveal the genetic distance between other Homo species
and modern man. But it can only be authenticated through fossil evidence. COMPLETE knowledge of
physical anthropology requires basic clarity of concepts of some paramedical, biological and social
sciences including anatomy and physiology, biochemistry, geology, ecology, psychology etc.

2.Social-Cultural Anthropology & Ethnology

SOCIAL-cultural anthropology studies social-cultural evolution and variation. Culture can be material as
well as non-material. Nonmaterial culture leaves no evidences and therefore we cannot study its origin
and evolution scientifically. The evolution of material culture can be studied in terms of prehistoric
archaeology, historic archaeology and ethnic archaeology. Social-cultural variation is studied in terms of
material culture, institutions etc.

SOCIAL anthropology became separate from ethnology more than a century ago. Ethnology, after
Radcliffe Brown, is the Study of “Peoples". People or ethnic groups, differ from and resemble one
another in social character, language and in culture. The ethnologist compares and classifies peoples on
the bases of these similarities, and differences, so that he has to deal with racial, linguistic and cultural
classifications. Further, he seeks to discover, by various methods, something about migrations,
interactions and development of the people in the past. An ethnologist should obviously have sound
knowledge of physical anthropology, linguistics and social anthropology. FOR Radcliffe Brown again,
social anthropology deals with “the general theoretical study of social institutions, law, religion, political

HVDCECAN2023
and economic organisation etc. All these systems are studied by the students of other social sciences too
but the latter usually conform themselves to case studies while a social anthropologist strives for the
general rules that govern such institutions. In other words "Social anthropology deals with characteristics
of all social systems".

Social anthropology as a subject is quite close to psychology and shares many common elements with
economics, political science, history and law, It is, however, closest to sociology, so much so that many
anthropologists and sociologists refuse to acknowledge any difference in subject matter of the two, while
some others, if they have their say, shall like to call social anthropology by the name of comparative
sociology. It cannot be denied that the two have come extremely close in the recent past and whatever
differences between them exist today are of quantitative nature only. Participant observation, an exclusive
domain of social anthropological field research is gaining rapport with the sociologists. Study of tribal
societies, hitherto an exclusive privilege of social anthropologists (who today don't hesitate to involve
themselves in the study of modern, civilized peoples), has become a fascinating field of research in
sociology.

SOCIAL anthropology in turn, is loosely divided into a number of more specialized subject areas,
although the exact number and labels would be a matter of debate among scholars in the field. These are
defined partly by subject areas: 'Legal Anthropology" "Economic Anthropology", "Political
Anthropology" etc., and partly by kinds of theoretical focus: "Psychological Anthropology" "Symbolic
Anthropology", "Cognitive Anthropology" etc.

SOCIAL-cultural anthropology had comparatively systematic beginning. Starting with classical

evolutionism, it has evolved a lot through 'historical particularism', "diffusionism', 'functionalism'
'structure-functionalism', 'culture-personality school', 'cultural ecology', 'neo-evolutionism', ,
structuralism', 'new ethnography', 'symbolism' etc). SOCIAL-cultural anthropology has become dominant
among all the social sciences and even for our day-today life. According to Angela Cheater, anthropology
has become too important to be left to anthropologists alone.

3. Prehistoric Archaeology

PREHISTORIC archaeology, one way is the ethnology of early man where the inferences are deduced
through the remains of early man and the material left, man-made structures and even the faeces, For
dating his field discoveries, an archaeologist needs the help of geology and geophysics. He should have
sound knowledge of biological anthropology, geography, ethnology and cultural Anthropology.
PREHISTORY has been quite popular (with professional and amateur alike) in later part of past and the
present century for it is during this period that most of the early man's history has been conjunctured
through large scale excavations in Africa (courtesy Leakey et. al) and evidence along with the fossil finds
has generated much curiosity and interest in early man and his works. THE word 'prehistory' was first
used by a Frenchman Tournal but it came into practice only in 1865 after the publication of Lubbock's
Prehistoric Times. It also started the use of terms “Paleolithic and Neolithic " in the study of prehistory.
THOUGH the anxiety about the antecedents of man is as old as man himself, the prehistoric archaeology,
in its true sense, started only in 1797 when a farmer John Frere sent some tools (that we know today as
Acheulian) found 12 feet below the earth surface, to the Society of Antiquaries in London. The subject,
however, found popular favour only in the last decades of 19th century when large scale excavations
started in many parts of the world.

HVDCECAN2023
TILL about 1960s, the prehistoric archaeologists were mainly concerned with describing the artifacts, or
material remains of prehistoric sites along with the techniques used by them. They also compared their
finds, in frequency and quality, with those of the neighboring sites. In "new archaeology”, however, the
interest has shifted from traditional aspects to the understanding of social formation and cultural
processes as also the 'rate and direction of cultural change? THE new generation of archaeologists is
different; they refuse to be content to describe and classify the remains of the past and reconstruct detailed
regional sequences. They are determined to see past ways of life in environment as 'systems', to theorise
about processes of cultural change, to seek to reconstruct social life and even thought worlds, as well as
material leavings.

SUCH archeologists begin with severe disadvantages, since the evidence is usually meager and hard to
interpret. Besides, the nature of evidence one has to work with inevitably leads to concentration on the
material side, rather than the ideational side. These archaeologists are, therefore, very likely to use
deductive strategies to explore non-material facets of a past way of life. For example, given what we
know about "primitive" religions or kinship, systems, one asks, what kind of clues might such systems in
the past have left, and where might a detective, best look for them? In this manner, by using theories to
guide the search for evidence, archaeologists can test the theories; and the sites studied become, by their
nature, pieces in a wider puzzle. IN RECENT years, prehistorians have many powerful instruments of
frontline technology, to aid detective work. Still, compared to the evidence available to the social
anthropologists doing fieldwork, archaeological evidence is inevitably limited, partial and one-sided.
However, as archaeologists have become theorists concerned with cultural dynamics, they too enjoy
certain advantages. In contrast to social anthropologists, whose theories have tended to be tuneless, to
portray small-scale societies as if they have been in stable equilibrium, and to focus on structure, rather
than process -, archaeologists can see long range continuities, processes covering a long time period. Due
to this advantage of having the evidence of tune, archaeologists can more easily answer questions of
sequence and process.

LATELY, a new trend that can be seen is that, social anthropologists and archaeologists have begun to
work together, to gain advantages of both perspectives by exchanging insight.

4. Anthropological Linguistics

ANTHROPOLOGICAL linguistics focuses on (mainly unwritten) languages of non-western peoples. It

puts to test theories of language based mainly on European languages, and examines languages in the full
range of social and cultural settings.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL linguistics, after the development of the subject of linguistics, has become more
associated with the latter. Systematic study of the evolution and variation in language (i.e. anthropological
linguistics) is much different from the study of a particular language.

The origin of Anthropological Linguistics was the result of the metaphysical writings of 17th, 18th
century philosophers but the real breakthrough came with Tylor’s Researches into the Early History of
Mankind (1865) whereby the author advocated for an empirical and scientific basis for the study of
language. He mainly focused on the relation of language to thought, the nature of the capacity for

HVDCECAN2023
language, gesture language of deafmutes and its relevance for the origin of language, the probable
processes that might have been involved in the evolution of language, invention and development of
writing, the relation between symbols and their respective objects, language as an instrument in the
development of culture. In a nutshell, he prepared the blueprint for the subject matter of anthropological
linguistics and the direction of research to follow.

IN THE late 19th century the common questions (regarding the language) that engulfed the minds of
researchers related to the origin of language, historical and comparative linguistics, the IndoEuropeans,
significance of differences in language, the development of science of phonetics and the languages of the
'primitive' peoples. Since then, however, many changes in this sub discipline of Anthropology have
taken place with increasing role of biological and cultural factors in the study of language.

OF ALL the branches of anthropology social anthropology (called cultural anthropology in the
Continent) has probably grown most systematically. Biological (Physical) anthropology has only in the
last few decades advanced beyond the anthropometrics and blood grouping. Archaeological and paleo-
anthropological researches owe their progress to chance factor (It took the legendry LSB Leakey more
than 17 years to get a meaningful fossil from the Olduvai Gorge in Africa). Social anthropology,
through various schools of thought (e.g. diffusionist, evolutionist, structuralist, functionalist etc.), has
reached the most advanced stage of development.

SPECIAL interests of anthropologists have today helped in the interdisciplinary approach to various
aspects of life. In Anthropology of Sports, for example, they have to work along with medical doctors and
nutritionists; Anthropology of Law has brought the fields of anthropology and that of legal and criminal
justice closer than ever. Through Medical Anthropology, the interest in healing processes of simple
societies has increased. Anthropologists, ethnologists, geneticists, biologists etc. have been brought
together by social biology. Cultural Ecology has resulted in interdisciplinary studies by anthropologists,
geographers and botanists, etc. etc. In short, anthropology has cut through the narrow boundaries of
different disciplines to unite them into a more meaningful network of knowledge for human society.

BECAUSE of the extending horizons of anthropology, an anthropologist has to specialize in any of the
branches of the "anthropology has remained" united in its interest in discipline. Yet, Anthropology has
remained united in its interest in human beings as total organisms and in its comparative approach to the
understanding of human species.

ANTHROPOLOGY basically is a science that aims at solving or unfolding the curiosity about Man.
What is man, where we came from, where are we going, why people differ etc. are some of the questions
asked about man. These questions have also been viewed (though differently) in various disciplines of
sociology, psychology, political science, human biology, history, economics and philosophy and even in
literature. Yet Anthropological approaches and perspectives remain totally distinctive. Anthropology has
an orientation, a set of research styles and methods that give it a distinguished position within social
sciences. This anthropological orientation is deeply humanistic, is concerned with meanings rather than
measurements, with the texture of everyday life in communities rather than formal abstractions.
Anthropology is different and more exhaustive than all others on a number of other accounts also.

FIRSTLY, anthropology is not limited to human beings with some particular characteristics or/of some
particular area, group, race, religion etc. or of people of the past or only of the present. Human societies

HVDCECAN2023
of present and past or living anywhere form the integral part of anthropological subject matter.
Traditionally, anthropologists have been concerned more with the simple, preliterate and pre-industrial
societies of the third world. Now, however, the situation has changed and modern, western societies also
are being studied (Urban Anthropology). Secondly, the holistic approach in anthropology makes its
position unique. It encompasses social, economic, political, ritual, physical and genetic etc. aspects with
their interaction. Biological and cultural dimensions of human evolution, for example, can not be studied
in isolation because one has definite bearings on the other. For the purpose, therefore, the services of
physical and cultural anthropology, as also of prehistoric archaeology will be required. Today, because of
the extending dimensions of the discipline, however, the anthropologists tend to specialize in any one of
the branches of anthropology.

BECAUSE of their fascination for the pre-literate, pre-industrial, simple societies, anthropologists are
generally branded with being the scientists of the 'primitive' (The term 'primitive' that referred to
uncivilized, barbarian societies, in vogue till thirties of last century, has now been replaced by 'simple'
societies) who had their own reasons to be preoccupied with such societies.

Firstly, it is a common belief that such societies represent some past stage of modern civilized societies
(called 'Cultural Survivals' by evolutionists) so that their study can represent the ready made progress
made by modern societies (which may or may not be true). Secondly, these simple societies represent the
wide spectrum of variation present in the human society today. If they are not studied soon they may
(because of their increasing contacts with civilized world) lose most of their peculiarities helpful in
conjecturing cultural evolution and variation in human society. One must, however, bear in mind that
these simple societies are simple because they lack in script and technological development. Otherwise,
their social institutions are by no means simple compared to the modern civilised societies. The recent
trends in anthropology to study technologically advanced societies present a happy augury.

PARTICIPANT observation is the technique evolved by the anthropologists to study their subject matter.
The technique, though most accurate compared to other techniques of fieldwork, is highly time-
consuming. Simply because a genuine anthropologist will never relent short of the truth, he must try to
understand the society he is studying the way members of the society do. Acceptance of an outsider (i.e.
the anthropologist) as a member of society may take a long time and hence in reaching at the right
conclusions. Participated observation stated by Malinowski.

MOST of the governments in the developing world till recently had never the patience to wait for the
observations, analyses and the results derived by anthropologists. They relied more on other less accurate
but quick techniques (e.g. schedules & questionnaires) for designing & implementing development
programmes that expectedly met with their fate. Now when participant observation and the results
obtained there from are gaining grounds, the process of development has somewhat hastened, Despite all
this, anthropology is yet to find its place and contribute to its capacity in the multifaceted progress of
mankind.

HVDCECAN2023
Why Anthropology?

ANTHROPOLOGY is a synthetic science and has strong links with other social and biological sciences.
Yet, its contribution in the human sphere is unique. The major issues resolved by anthropology in the
short span of its existence are given below

(i) Understanding Human Differences : BEFORE the anthropological researches, the simple, pre-
industrial societies were considered being comprised of savage, barbarous people. who, would go
all extremes to fulfill their selfish aims. Anthropology has clarified many of such myths
regarding the tribals. Similarly, the cultural bias in terms of "ethnocentrism' has well been
exposed. The study of a large number of varied societies has shown all cultures to be ever
evolving and variations present in different cultures of today are the result of various historical
processes of each group. The myth of superiority of (western) cultures too has been negated,
proving a moral booster for the developing societies. THE ethnocentrism prevalent among the
western cultures culminated into the concept of superior race and racism'. The study of various
'races' in terms of their physical and genetic features by anthropologists, that was the major
concern of early physical anthropologists, revealed a number of facts to prove the oneness of
human race and the absence of pure races in the human species. It was also revealed that the
physical differences between different groups are the consequences of the adaptation of each
such group to its environment.
(ii) Understanding Ourselves : THE knowledge gained through anthropology, that all behaviour is
learned and not inherited, can help us understand ourselves and make necessary changes in our
cultures. The anthropological perspectives (particularly, cultural relativism), may be utilized for

HVDCECAN2023
 solving intragroup and intergroup problems and can prove to be a panecea for various problems
facing the societies today.
(iii) Applied Anthropology :

APPLIED anthropology can well be defined as the 'organized interaction between

professional anthropologists and policy-making bodies public and/or private. In this sense, the
administration can well utilize the services of anthropologists and their works for policy making
and administration of various regions in a heterogeneous or multinational state by utilizing their
knowledge of cultural variations and felt needs of the people (in terms of anthropology of 'other
cultures"). Anthropologists, however, can render greater service in terms of action anthropology
i.e. by involving themselves in planning, administering the policy of development and advising
the administration.

The term Action Anthropology was coined by Sol Tax, an American Anthropologists in
1957. While Applied Anthropology is the anthropological knowledge (collected by
anthropologists) used by others like governments, missionaries, voluntary agencies etc to
promote their personal agenda, Action Anthropology involves an anthropologist's knowledge to
become an agent of change with respect to the community studied by him. Both approaches may
lead to development of a community but the information provided by Applied Anthropology
results in development which acts as means to fulfill the ends of its users. For example,
politicians may use it to create or sustain their vote banks or missionaries may use it for
conversions. For an Action Anthropologist, development of the community is an end in itself.
We must, however, add that anthropologists in the third-world countries, where their services are
required most urgently, are often neglected because an anthropologist has genuine concern for
the society while the administration and politician have to achieve their own selfish ends while
following the policy of development.

HVDCECAN2023