The Role of the Asiatic Society in Developing Indian Anthropology

Introduction

The Asiatic Society, established in 1784 in Kolkata by Sir William Jones, stands as one of the oldest and most influential institutions in the development of Indian anthropology. Founded during the colonial period, the Asiatic Society was envisioned as a center for the systematic study of India’s culture, history, languages, and peoples, marking the beginning of organized scholarly inquiry into the Indian subcontinent. Its contributions to anthropology, particularly during its early years, laid the foundation for ethnographic, linguistic, and cultural studies in India, shaping the discipline’s trajectory in both colonial and post-colonial contexts. This essay examines the historical evolution of the Asiatic Society, its pioneering role in anthropological research, its methodologies, key contributions, challenges, and lasting impact on Indian anthropology. By fostering early ethnographic surveys, linguistic studies, and cultural documentation, the Asiatic Society played a critical role in establishing anthropology as a formal discipline in India, influencing subsequent institutions and scholars.

Historical Context and Establishment

The Asiatic Society was founded on January 15, 1784, by Sir William Jones, a British philologist and jurist, with the aim of advancing knowledge about Asia through scientific inquiry. At the time, India was under British colonial rule, and the East India Company sought to understand the diverse populations it governed to facilitate administration. The Society, initially known as the Asiatick Society, was established to study the “history, antiquities, arts, sciences, and literature” of Asia, with a particular focus on India (Keay, 1984). Its founding members included prominent colonial administrators and scholars, such as Charles Wilkins and Henry Colebrooke, who were driven by a mix of intellectual curiosity and administrative needs.

During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, anthropology as a discipline was in its infancy globally, often intertwined with colonial ethnographic practices. In India, early anthropological studies focused on classifying castes, tribes, and religious communities, often to serve the interests of colonial governance (Dirks, 2001). The Asiatic Society provided a platform for these studies, combining antiquarian, philological, and ethnographic approaches to document India’s diverse peoples. Its work laid the groundwork for what would later become Indian anthropology, influencing both colonial and indigenous scholars.

Objectives and Scope

The Asiatic Society’s primary objective was to promote the study of Asian civilizations through rigorous scholarly methods. Its scope encompassed a wide range of disciplines, including philology, history, archaeology, and what would later be recognized as anthropology. The Society aimed to document India’s languages, cultural practices, social structures, and historical artifacts, creating a repository of knowledge that served both academic and administrative purposes.

In the context of anthropology, the Society focused on ethnographic surveys, linguistic studies, and the collection of cultural artifacts. Its early publications, such as Asiatic Researches, provided detailed accounts of Indian customs, religions, and social organization, laying the foundation for anthropological inquiry. The Society’s interdisciplinary approach, combining linguistics, archaeology, and ethnography, set a precedent for the holistic study of human societies in India.

Methodologies and Research Practices

The Asiatic Society employed a variety of methodologies to study India’s peoples and cultures. Its early research relied heavily on textual analysis, drawing from ancient Sanskrit, Persian, and vernacular texts to understand India’s historical and cultural heritage. Scholars like William Jones and Henry Thomas Colebrooke translated and analyzed texts such as the Rigveda and Manusmriti, providing insights into ancient Indian society (Jones, 1788).

Ethnographic surveys were another key method, with Society members conducting field observations and interviews with local communities. These surveys often focused on caste and tribal groups, documenting their customs, kinship systems, and religious practices. While these studies were sometimes biased by colonial perspectives, they represented some of the earliest systematic efforts to understand India’s social diversity.

The Society also pioneered linguistic research, recognizing the importance of India’s linguistic diversity in understanding its cultural mosaic. Jones’s discovery of the Indo-European language family, linking Sanskrit to Greek and Latin, was a landmark contribution to comparative linguistics and anthropology (Jones, 1786). Additionally, the Society collected artifacts, manuscripts, and inscriptions, preserving them in its museum and library, which remain valuable resources for anthropological research today.

Key Contributions to Indian Anthropology

The Asiatic Society’s contributions to Indian anthropology are multifaceted, spanning ethnographic documentation, linguistic studies, cultural preservation, and the establishment of an institutional framework for anthropological research. Below are its key contributions:

1. Pioneering Ethnographic Studies

The Asiatic Society was among the first institutions to conduct systematic ethnographic studies in India. Its journal, Asiatic Researches, published from 1788, featured detailed accounts of Indian communities, including their social structures, religious practices, and economic activities. For example, articles by scholars like Henry Colebrooke described caste systems and tribal customs, providing early ethnographic data that influenced later anthropologists (Colebrooke, 1807).

These studies, while shaped by colonial perspectives, laid the groundwork for understanding India’s social diversity. They informed subsequent ethnographic surveys, such as those conducted by Herbert Risley and the Anthropological Survey of India (AnSI), which built on the Society’s foundational work (Risley, 1908). The Society’s emphasis on empirical observation and documentation set a standard for anthropological fieldwork in India.

2. Advancements in Linguistic Anthropology

The Asiatic Society made significant contributions to linguistic anthropology through its studies of India’s diverse languages. William Jones’s seminal 1786 address to the Society, often referred to as the “Third Anniversary Discourse,” proposed the Indo-European language family, revolutionizing the study of linguistics and anthropology (Jones, 1786). By identifying similarities between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, Jones laid the foundation for comparative linguistics, which became a critical tool for understanding cultural and historical connections among human populations.

The Society also documented vernacular languages and dialects, contributing to the preservation of India’s linguistic diversity. Its publications included glossaries and grammatical studies of languages such as Bengali, Tamil, and Hindi, which provided insights into regional cultures and social practices (Wilkins, 1801). These efforts influenced later linguistic anthropologists, such as George Grierson, whose Linguistic Survey of India (1903–1928) built on the Society’s work.

3. Cultural Documentation and Preservation

The Asiatic Society played a crucial role in documenting and preserving India’s cultural heritage. Its museum and library, established in the early 19th century, housed manuscripts, inscriptions, and artifacts that provided valuable data for anthropological research. For instance, the Society’s collection of Buddhist manuscripts and sculptures contributed to the study of ancient Indian religions and their cultural significance (Prinsep, 1837).

By publishing translations and analyses of ancient texts, the Society made India’s cultural heritage accessible to scholars worldwide. These efforts not only enriched anthropological knowledge but also fostered a sense of cultural pride among Indian intellectuals during the colonial period, influencing the development of indigenous anthropology in the post-independence era (Menon, 2013).

4. Institutional Framework for Anthropological Research

The Asiatic Society established an institutional framework that legitimized and professionalized anthropological research in India. By providing a platform for scholars to publish, collaborate, and share findings, the Society created a scholarly community dedicated to the study of India’s peoples. Its meetings and publications attracted both European and Indian intellectuals, fostering dialogue and collaboration.

The Society’s influence extended to the establishment of later institutions, such as the Anthropological Survey of India (AnSI) in 1945. AnSI’s focus on bio-cultural research can be traced back to the Society’s early efforts to combine ethnographic and biological studies (Singh, 1991). The Asiatic Society’s model of interdisciplinary research also inspired universities and research institutes to incorporate anthropology into their curricula.

5. Influence on Colonial and Post-Colonial Anthropology

During the colonial period, the Asiatic Society’s work informed British administrative policies, particularly through its ethnographic surveys of castes and tribes. These surveys, while often serving colonial interests, provided detailed data that later anthropologists used to study India’s social complexity (Dirks, 2001). For example, Herbert Risley’s The Tribes and Castes of Bengal (1891) drew heavily on the Society’s ethnographic methods.

In the post-independence period, the Society’s legacy influenced indigenous anthropologists like N.K. Bose and M.N. Srinivas, who sought to decolonize the discipline by focusing on Indian perspectives and national priorities (Bose, 2013). The Society’s emphasis on empirical research and cultural documentation provided a foundation for these scholars to build upon, shaping modern Indian anthropology.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its contributions, the Asiatic Society faced several challenges and criticisms, particularly related to its colonial origins. Many of its early studies were shaped by Orientalist perspectives, which portrayed Indian society as exotic and static (Said, 1978). This approach often reinforced colonial stereotypes and served administrative purposes, such as classifying populations for governance.

The Society’s focus on textual and elite traditions, such as Sanskrit literature, sometimes overshadowed the study of vernacular cultures and marginalized communities. This bias limited the scope of early anthropological research, which was later addressed by indigenous anthropologists who emphasized subaltern perspectives (Uberoi et al., 2007).

Another challenge was the Society’s reliance on colonial scholars, which restricted Indian participation in its early years. While Indian intellectuals like Raja Rammohan Roy engaged with the Society, their involvement was limited compared to European members. This imbalance began to shift in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as Indian scholars increasingly contributed to anthropological discourse (Shah, 2015).

Lasting Impact and Legacy

The Asiatic Society’s contributions to Indian anthropology have had a lasting impact, influencing both academic research and public policy. Its early ethnographic and linguistic studies provided a foundation for later institutions, such as AnSI and the Indian Anthropological Society, which built on its methodologies and data. The Society’s publications, particularly Asiatic Researches, remain valuable resources for anthropologists studying India’s cultural and historical heritage.

The Society’s emphasis on interdisciplinary research set a precedent for the holistic study of human societies, combining ethnography, linguistics, and archaeology. This approach influenced the development of Indian anthropology as a multidisciplinary field, capable of addressing complex social issues such as caste, tribal welfare, and cultural preservation (Srivastava, 2012).

In the post-independence era, the Asiatic Society has continued to support anthropological research through its publications, museum, and library. Its collections, including rare manuscripts and artifacts, are invaluable for studying India’s anthropological past. The Society’s engagement with contemporary issues, such as heritage conservation and linguistic diversity, underscores its ongoing relevance (Menon, 2013).

Future Prospects

The Asiatic Society’s role in Indian anthropology can be further strengthened by embracing modern methodologies and technologies. Digital archives and open-access publications could make its vast resources more accessible to global scholars. Collaborations with universities and international anthropological organizations could enhance its impact, fostering dialogue on issues like globalization, environmental change, and cultural identity.

The Society could also focus on public anthropology, engaging communities and policymakers to address contemporary challenges. By promoting inclusive research that highlights marginalized voices, the Asiatic Society can continue to shape Indian anthropology in a way that is relevant to India’s diverse and dynamic society.

Conclusion

The Asiatic Society has played a foundational role in developing Indian anthropology, establishing the discipline through its pioneering ethnographic, linguistic, and cultural studies. From its establishment in 1784 to its ongoing contributions, the Society has shaped the study of India’s peoples by providing a platform for scholarly inquiry, preserving cultural heritage, and influencing both colonial and post-colonial anthropology. Despite challenges rooted in its colonial origins, the Society’s legacy endures through its publications, collections, and institutional framework. As Indian anthropology continues to evolve, the Asiatic Society remains a vital institution, poised to address new challenges and contribute to the understanding of India’s rich bio-cultural diversity.

References

• Bose, N. K. (2013). Indian Anthropology. Anthroholic. Retrieved from https://anthroholic.com
• Colebrooke, H. T. (1807). On the religious ceremonies of the Hindus. Asiatic Researches, 5, 345–368.
• Dirks, N. B. (2001). Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton University Press.
• Jones, W. (1786). The third anniversary discourse, on the Hindus. Asiatic Researches, 1, 343–354.
• Jones, W. (1788). On the chronology of the Hindus. Asiatic Researches, 2, 111–147.
• Keay, J. (1984). The Asiatic Society: A History. Calcutta: Asiatic Society.
• Menon, D. M. (2013). Cultural Preservation in a Globalized India. Oxford University Press.
• Prinsep, J. (1837). Inscriptions on the Buddhist monuments of Sanchi. Asiatic Researches, 20, 79–94.
• Risley, H. H. (1908). The People of India. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co.
• Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Shah, A. M. (2015). The Development of Indian Anthropology. Indian Anthropologist, 45(1), 1–15.
• Singh, K. S. (ed.). (1991). The History of Anthropological Survey of India – Proceedings of a Seminar. Calcutta: Seagull Books.
• Srivastava, V. K. (2012). Indian Anthropology Today. Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India, 61(2), 123–140.
• Uberoi, P., Sundar, N., & Deshpande, S. (2007). Anthropology in the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology. Ranikhet: Permanent Black.
• Wilkins, C. (1801). A grammar of the Sanskrit language. Asiatic Researches, 7, 199–224.

 

 

The Role of the Indian Anthropological Society in Shaping Indian Anthropology

Introduction

The Indian Anthropological Society (IAS), established in 1969, has been a pivotal institution in the development and promotion of anthropology in India. Headquartered in Kolkata, the IAS emerged as a scholarly platform to foster anthropological research, dialogue, and dissemination, particularly in a post-colonial context where understanding India's diverse cultural, social, and biological heritage became a national priority. Over the decades, the IAS has significantly shaped Indian anthropology through its academic initiatives, publications, conferences, and engagement with both national and international anthropological communities. This write-up explores the historical evolution, key contributions, challenges, and future prospects of the IAS in shaping Indian anthropology, with a comprehensive analysis of its role in advancing research, education, and policy formulation. It also examines the society’s efforts in addressing contemporary issues and its impact on the global anthropological discourse.

Historical Context and Establishment

The IAS was founded in 1969 in Kolkata, a city with a rich legacy of anthropological scholarship, partly due to its proximity to institutions like the Anthropological Survey of India (AnSI) and the University of Calcutta. The society was established by a group of eminent anthropologists, including T.C. Das, N.K. Bose, and others, who sought to create a dedicated platform for anthropological discourse in India. Unlike AnSI, which operates under governmental oversight, the IAS was envisioned as an independent academic body to encourage scholarly freedom, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the professionalization of anthropology in India.

The establishment of the IAS came at a time when Indian anthropology was transitioning from its colonial roots to a more indigenous and nation-centric discipline. Colonial anthropology, often tied to administrative needs, focused on ethnographic surveys of tribes and castes to facilitate governance. Post-independence, anthropologists in India sought to redefine the discipline to address the socio-cultural complexities of a newly sovereign nation. The IAS emerged as a crucial player in this shift, promoting research that aligned with national development goals while fostering critical perspectives on India's diverse societies.

Objectives and Scope

The primary objectives of the IAS include promoting anthropological research, publishing scholarly works, organizing conferences and seminars, and facilitating collaboration among anthropologists. The society aims to advance the understanding of India's cultural, social, and biological diversity through rigorous academic inquiry. Its scope encompasses physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, social anthropology, and applied anthropology, reflecting the multidisciplinary nature of the discipline in India.

The IAS has also sought to bridge the gap between academic anthropology and public policy, encouraging research that addresses contemporary issues such as tribal welfare, social inequality, and cultural preservation. By fostering dialogue among anthropologists, sociologists, historians, and policymakers, the IAS has positioned itself as a key institution in shaping the intellectual and practical dimensions of Indian anthropology.

Methodologies and Research Practices

The IAS promotes a wide range of research methodologies, from traditional ethnographic fieldwork to modern techniques in biological and molecular anthropology. Its members employ participant observation, archival research, surveys, and genetic studies to explore India’s diverse populations. The society encourages interdisciplinary approaches, integrating insights from sociology, linguistics, archaeology, and psychology to provide a holistic understanding of human societies.

Fieldwork remains a cornerstone of the IAS’s research ethos, with anthropologists conducting in-depth studies in rural, tribal, and urban settings. The society’s emphasis on empirical data collection and theoretical rigor has contributed to the development of robust anthropological frameworks tailored to India’s unique socio-cultural context. Additionally, the IAS has embraced technological advancements, such as digital archives and genetic analysis, to enhance the scope and precision of anthropological research.

Key Contributions to Indian Anthropology

1. Publication of the Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society

The IAS’s flagship publication, the Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society (JIAS), established in 1966, is one of its most significant contributions to Indian anthropology. The peer-reviewed journal publishes high-quality research on India’s cultural, social, and biological diversity, covering topics such as tribal studies, caste dynamics, kinship systems, and genetic anthropology. The JIAS has served as a vital platform for both established and emerging scholars, fostering academic discourse and disseminating anthropological knowledge globally.

Notable articles in the JIAS, such as Basu and Biswas’s (1980) discussion on the state of Indian anthropology, have sparked critical debates about the discipline’s direction and relevance. The journal’s commitment to rigorous scholarship, as evidenced by its adherence to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), has elevated its status as a leading anthropological publication in India.

2. Organization of Conferences and Seminars

The IAS has been instrumental in organizing conferences, seminars, and workshops that bring together anthropologists from across India and beyond. Events like the Indian Anthropology Congress, often organized in collaboration with AnSI and other institutions, provide a platform for scholars to present research, exchange ideas, and address contemporary issues. These gatherings have fostered a sense of community among Indian anthropologists and encouraged interdisciplinary collaboration.

For instance, the 2020 Indian Anthropology Congress, co-organized by the IAS, focused on themes such as sustainable development and cultural heritage, reflecting the society’s commitment to addressing global challenges through an anthropological lens. These events have also facilitated networking with international anthropological bodies, enhancing the global visibility of Indian anthropology.

3. Advancement of Tribal and Indigenous Studies

The IAS has made significant contributions to the study of India’s tribal and indigenous populations, a core focus of Indian anthropology. Through its research and publications, the society has documented the cultural practices, social structures, and challenges faced by tribal communities, such as the Santal, Munda, and Onge. These studies have informed policies aimed at protecting indigenous rights and promoting their socio-economic development.

The IAS’s work on endangered languages and cultural traditions has been particularly impactful. By collaborating with linguists and cultural anthropologists, the society has contributed to the preservation of tribal languages and oral traditions, ensuring their survival in the face of globalization and modernization.

4. Contributions to Physical and Molecular Anthropology

The IAS has supported research in physical and molecular anthropology, particularly through studies on India’s genetic diversity. Articles published in the JIAS, such as those by Kumar and Reddy (2003), have explored the genetic implications of India’s social structure, shedding light on the peopling of the subcontinent. These studies have utilized advanced methodologies, such as DNA analysis, to trace the biological and cultural evolution of Indian populations.

The society’s emphasis on biological anthropology has also included anthropometric studies and research on human skeletal remains, contributing to a deeper understanding of India’s prehistoric and historic populations. These efforts have complemented the work of institutions like AnSI, creating a robust framework for biological anthropology in India.

5. Engagement with Social Issues and Policy

The IAS has played a critical role in applying anthropological insights to address social issues such as poverty, gender inequality, and health disparities. By collaborating with government agencies and non-governmental organizations, the society has informed policies related to education, healthcare, and tribal welfare. For example, its research on the socio-economic challenges faced by marginalized communities has contributed to the formulation of inclusive development programs.

The IAS’s focus on applied anthropology has also extended to urban studies, examining the impact of urbanization and globalization on Indian society. This engagement with contemporary issues has made the society a relevant voice in shaping public policy and social discourse.

6. Promotion of Anthropology Education

The IAS has been a strong advocate for anthropology education in India, encouraging the inclusion of anthropological perspectives in university curricula and training programs. By mentoring young scholars and providing platforms for their research, the society has nurtured the next generation of anthropologists. Its collaboration with academic institutions has also strengthened anthropology departments across India, particularly in universities like Calcutta, Delhi, and Pune.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its contributions, the IAS has faced several challenges in its efforts to shape Indian anthropology. One major critique is the discipline’s historical association with colonial frameworks, which prioritized ethnographic surveys for administrative purposes. While the IAS has worked to decolonize anthropology by focusing on indigenous perspectives, some scholars argue that remnants of colonial methodologies persist in certain studies.

Another challenge is the limited funding and institutional support for anthropology in India, as noted by scholars like Vinay Kumar Srivastava (2012). The IAS, as a non-governmental organization, relies on membership fees, grants, and subscriptions, which can constrain its activities. Additionally, the society has faced criticism for the uneven quality of some JIAS publications, with concerns about editorial rigor and the need for more robust peer-review processes.

The IAS also operates in a context where anthropology remains a relatively niche discipline in India, overshadowed by more established fields like sociology and history. Increasing public awareness and securing greater institutional support are critical for the society’s continued growth.

Future Prospects

The IAS is well-positioned to lead Indian anthropology into the future by leveraging emerging technologies and interdisciplinary approaches. The integration of digital tools, such as geographic information systems (GIS) and data analytics, can enhance its research capabilities, particularly in studying complex social phenomena like migration and urbanization. The society’s focus on digital archives and open-access publications can also broaden the reach of its scholarship.

International collaboration is another area of opportunity. By strengthening ties with global anthropological organizations, such as the American Anthropological Association and the Royal Anthropological Institute, the IAS can elevate the global profile of Indian anthropology. Additionally, its engagement with public anthropology—through media, exhibitions, and community outreach—can enhance its societal impact.

The IAS’s role in education and training will remain crucial. By expanding its mentorship programs and supporting the establishment of new anthropology departments, the society can address the shortage of trained anthropologists in India. Initiatives like webinars and online courses, as seen in recent collaborations with the United Indian Anthropology Forum (UIAF), can further democratize access to anthropological knowledge.

Conclusion

The Indian Anthropological Society has been a driving force in shaping Indian anthropology, transforming it into a vibrant, multidisciplinary field that addresses the complexities of India’s cultural, social, and biological diversity. Through its publications, conferences, and research initiatives, the IAS has fostered academic excellence, promoted indigenous perspectives, and informed public policy. Despite challenges, its commitment to scholarly rigor, interdisciplinary collaboration, and social relevance positions it as a leader in the discipline. As India navigates the challenges of globalization, urbanization, and cultural preservation, the IAS’s role in advancing anthropological knowledge and fostering inclusive development remains indispensable.

References

• Anthropological Survey of India. (2024). Home. Retrieved from https://ansi.gov.in
• Basu, A., & Biswas, S. K. (1980). Is Indian Anthropology dead/dying? Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society, 15, 1–14.
• Bose, N. K. (2013). Indian Anthropology. Anthroholic. Retrieved from https://anthroholic.com
• Das, T. C. (1970). The scope of anthropology in India. Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society, 5(1), 1–10.
• Doniger, W. (2010). The Hindus: An Alternative History. Penguin Books.
• Guha, R. (1999). Savaging the Civilized: Verrier Elwin, his Tribals, and India. Oxford University Press.
• Indian Anthropological Society. (2024). About Us. Retrieved from https://indiananthropologicalsociety.org
• Kumar, V., & Reddy, B. M. (2003). The peopling of India: A complex mosaic. Current Science, 84(3), 389–395.
• Mehta, S. (2021). Anthropology in India. Anthropology India Forum. Retrieved from https://www.anthropologyindiaforum.org
• Menon, D. M. (2013). Cultural Preservation in a Globalized India. Oxford University Press.
• Misra, V. N. (2001). Prehistoric human colonization of India. Journal of Biosciences, 26(4), 491–531.
• Narayanan, V. (2015). The Rigveda and Early Indian Anthropology. Indian Historical Review, 42(1), 45–60.
• Pattanayak, D. P. (1990). Multilingualism in India. Multilingual Matters.
• Reddy, B. M., et al. (2010). Molecular anthropological studies on Indian populations. American Journal of Human Biology, 22(4), 456–463.
• Shah, A. M. (2015). The Development of Indian Anthropology. Indian Anthropologist, 45(1), 1–15.
• Singh, K. S. (ed.). (1991). The History of Anthropological Survey of India – Proceedings of a Seminar. Calcutta: Seagull Books.
• Sinha, S. C. (1985). Editorial. Man in India, 65(4), 3–5.
• Srivastava, V. K. (2012). Indian Anthropology Today. Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India, 61(2), 123–140.
• Uberoi, P., Sundar, N., & Deshpande, S. (2007). Anthropology in the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology. Ranikhet: Permanent Black.
• Vaid, N. K. (2013). In Search of Ourselves: An Introduction to Social Cultural Anthropology. Delhi: Academic Publishers.

 

Role of Anthropological Survey of India in Shaping Indian Anthropology

 

The Role of the Anthropological Survey of India in Shaping Indian Anthropology

Introduction

The Anthropological Survey of India (AnSI), established in 1945, stands as a cornerstone in the development of anthropological studies in India. As the only government-funded organization dedicated to anthropological research within a governmental framework, AnSI has played a pivotal role in documenting and understanding India's vast bio-cultural diversity. Operating under the Ministry of Culture, Government of India, AnSI has contributed significantly to shaping the discipline of anthropology in India through its multidisciplinary approach, extensive fieldwork, and comprehensive documentation of India's ethnic, cultural, and biological diversity. This write-up explores the historical evolution, key contributions, methodologies, challenges, and future prospects of AnSI in shaping Indian anthropology, with a focus on its impact on academic research, policy formulation, and cultural preservation.

Historical Context and Establishment

The origins of AnSI can be traced back to the Zoological and Anthropological section of the Indian Museum, which was reorganized into the Zoological Survey of India in 1916. In 1945, the anthropology section was carved out to form the Anthropological Survey of India, initially based in Varanasi, with its headquarters later shifting to Kolkata in 1948. Dr. Biraja Sankar Guha, a distinguished anthropologist with expertise in both biological and cultural anthropology, was appointed as the founding director, with Verrier Elwin serving as the deputy director. This marked a significant shift from colonial ethnographic traditions to a more scientific and nation-focused approach to anthropology, aligning with the needs of a newly independent India.

The establishment of AnSI was influenced by the vision of academics and administrators like R.B. Seymour Sewell, who emphasized the need for a scientific survey to understand India's diverse races and cultures, particularly its indigenous populations. Guha's leadership was instrumental in defining AnSI as a unified discipline combining physical and cultural anthropology, with contributions from allied fields such as linguistics, psychology, and biochemistry. This holistic approach set the stage for AnSI's role in shaping Indian anthropology as a multidisciplinary science aimed at national well-being.

Objectives and Scope

AnSI's primary objectives include studying the tribes and other communities of India from both biological and cultural perspectives, preserving human skeletal remains (both archaeological and modern), collecting samples of tribal arts and crafts, and serving as a training center for advanced students in anthropology. These objectives reflect AnSI's commitment to a comprehensive understanding of India's population, encompassing its ethnic affinities, social institutions, and cultural practices. Over the years, AnSI has expanded its research ambit to include rural and urban populations, marginalized sections, and the Indian diaspora, thereby broadening the scope of Indian anthropology.

Methodologies and Research Practices

AnSI's research methodology is rooted in the principles of anthropological fieldwork, emphasizing participant observation and extended engagement with communities. Its multidisciplinary teams, comprising anthropologists, sociologists, linguists, archaeologists, and other professionals, conduct in-depth studies across India. The organization employs state-of-the-art technologies, such as DNA laboratories for genetic studies, paleoanthropology for skeletal analysis, and visual anthropology for ethnographic documentation. These methodologies have enabled AnSI to produce voluminous data on India's bio-cultural diversity, including the landmark "People of India" project, which documented the cultural and social profiles of thousands of Indian communities.

Fieldwork remains the cornerstone of AnSI's approach, with researchers spending extended periods living with the communities they study. This immersive method allows for a nuanced understanding of social structures, kinship systems, religious beliefs, and economic activities. AnSI's focus on both physical and cultural anthropology has facilitated groundbreaking research in areas such as molecular anthropology, linguistic diversity, and archaeological heritage, contributing to a richer understanding of India's past and present.

Key Contributions to Indian Anthropology

1. Documentation of Bio-Cultural Diversity

AnSI has been instrumental in documenting India's ethnic and cultural diversity, particularly among indigenous and marginalized communities. The "People of India" project, initiated in the post-independence era, is a monumental effort that compiled ethnographic data on over 4,600 communities, covering their social structures, cultural practices, and biological traits. This project has served as a foundational resource for anthropologists, policymakers, and scholars, providing insights into India's complex social fabric.

AnSI's work in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands exemplifies its commitment to studying isolated and indigenous populations. For instance, its research on the Sentinelese, a pre-Neolithic tribe, confirmed their presence in the islands for over 2,000 years through carbon dating and genome studies, highlighting their unique cultural and genetic heritage. Such studies have not only enriched anthropological knowledge but also informed policies for the protection of vulnerable tribes.

2. Preservation of Cultural and Linguistic Heritage

AnSI has played a significant role in preserving India's cultural and linguistic heritage. By documenting endangered languages, developing scripts, and compiling dictionaries, AnSI has contributed to the revitalization of linguistic diversity. Its research on tribal arts, crafts, and cultural practices has been showcased in institutions like the Zonal Anthropological Museum in Port Blair, which attracts thousands of visitors annually and serves as a vital repository of ethnographic knowledge.

3. Advancements in Physical and Molecular Anthropology

AnSI's contributions to physical anthropology include studies on human skeletal remains, genetic diversity, and anthropometric data. Its DNA laboratories have facilitated research on the genetic implications of India's social structure, as seen in studies published in journals like the American Journal of Human Biology. These studies have provided insights into the peopling of India, revealing the complex interplay of ethnic, cultural, and geographic factors in shaping the subcontinent's population.

4. Archaeological and Historical Research

AnSI's archaeological research has helped reconstruct India's ancient history and culture. Through excavations and surveys, AnSI has documented prehistoric and historic sites, contributing to the understanding of India's civilizational heritage. Its collaboration with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has further strengthened its impact on Indian archaeology.

5. Policy Formulation and Social Impact

AnSI's research has had a direct impact on policy formulation, particularly in areas such as healthcare, education, and social welfare. By providing nuanced socio-cultural insights, AnSI has informed government interventions aimed at addressing the needs of indigenous and marginalized communities. For example, its studies on the impact of the 2004 tsunami on Andaman and Nicobar Island communities led to recommendations for community-based rehabilitation, demonstrating its commitment to contemporary relevance.

6. Academic and Public Engagement

AnSI has fostered academic engagement through its flagship publication, the Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India, published since 1952. This peer-reviewed journal disseminates research on India's people, their cultures, and ethnic affinities, adhering to rigorous academic standards as a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). AnSI also organizes events like the Indian Anthropology Congress, which facilitates collaboration among anthropologists and promotes public discourse on anthropology.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its contributions, AnSI has faced challenges in its journey. One major critique is the historical influence of colonial anthropology, which shaped early ethnographic studies in India. Some scholars argue that Indian anthropology, including AnSI's work, initially followed colonial frameworks, focusing on tribal and caste studies to serve administrative purposes. However, AnSI's post-independence efforts, particularly under Guha's leadership, sought to decolonize the discipline by emphasizing national priorities and scientific rigor.

Another challenge is the uneven growth of anthropology in India, as noted by scholars like Vinay Kumar Srivastava. Limited funding, institutional support, and public awareness have hindered the discipline's expansion. AnSI has also faced criticism for the quality of some publications, particularly in recent years, with concerns about editorial standards and shallow content in certain volumes. Addressing these challenges requires increased investment in research infrastructure, professional editing, and broader dissemination of anthropological knowledge.

Future Prospects

AnSI's future lies in leveraging emerging technologies and interdisciplinary approaches to address contemporary challenges. The integration of digital tools, such as geographic information systems (GIS) and big data analytics, can enhance its research capabilities. Collaborations with international institutions and participation in global anthropological forums can further elevate AnSI's impact. Additionally, AnSI's role in public anthropology—engaging with communities, policymakers, and the public—can strengthen its relevance in addressing issues like urbanization, globalization, and cultural preservation.

The organization’s focus on training and education also holds promise. By serving as a training center for advanced students, AnSI can nurture the next generation of anthropologists, ensuring the discipline's growth in India. Initiatives like the Indian Anthropology Congress and webinars organized by the United Indian Anthropology Forum (UIAF) demonstrate AnSI's commitment to fostering dialogue and innovation in the field.

Conclusion

The Anthropological Survey of India has been a trailblazer in shaping Indian anthropology, transforming it from a colonial enterprise into a vibrant, multidisciplinary science that serves national and global interests. Through its comprehensive documentation of India's bio-cultural diversity, preservation of cultural and linguistic heritage, advancements in physical and molecular anthropology, and contributions to policy formulation, AnSI has left an indelible mark on the discipline. Despite challenges, its commitment to scientific rigor, interdisciplinary collaboration, and public engagement positions it as a leader in anthropological research. As India navigates the complexities of modernization and globalization, AnSI's role in understanding and preserving its diverse heritage remains more critical than ever.

References

• Anthropological Survey of India. (2024). Home. Retrieved from https://ansi.gov.in
• Anthropological Survey of India. (n.d.). Anthropological Survey of India. Indian Culture Portal. Retrieved from https://indianculture.gov.in
• Balakrishnan, V. (1980). Comment on the article by Basu, A. and Biswas, S. K. (1980). ‘Is Indian Anthropology dead/dying?’ Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society, 15, 4–5.
• Basu, A., & Biswas, S. K. (1980). Is Indian Anthropology dead/dying? Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society, 15, 1–14.
• Bose, N. K. (2013). Indian Anthropology. Anthroholic. Retrieved from https://anthroholic.com
• Doniger, W. (2010). The Hindus: An Alternative History. Penguin Books.
• Guha, B. S. (1958). The role of social sciences in nation building. Sociological Bulletin, 7(2), 148–151.
• Guha, B. S. (1959). Studies in social tensions among the refugees from eastern Pakistan (Memoir No. 1). Delhi: Department of Anthropology, Government of India.
• Guha, R. (1999). Savaging the Civilized: Verrier Elwin, his Tribals, and India. Oxford University Press.
• Kumar, V., & Reddy, B. M. (2003). The peopling of India: A complex mosaic. Current Science, 84(3), 389–395.
• Mehta, S. (2021). Anthropology in India. Anthropology India Forum. Retrieved from https://www.anthropologyindiaforum.org
• Menon, D. M. (2013). Cultural Preservation in a Globalized India. Oxford University Press.
• Misra, V. N. (2001). Prehistoric human colonization of India. Journal of Biosciences, 26(4), 491–531.
• Narayanan, V. (2015). The Rigveda and Early Indian Anthropology. Indian Historical Review, 42(1), 45–60.
• Pattanayak, D. P. (1990). Multilingualism in India. Multilingual Matters.
• Ray, S. K. (1974). Bibliographies of Eminent Indian Anthropologists (with life-sketches). Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India, Government of India, Indian Museum.
• Reddy, B. M., et al. (2010). Molecular anthropological studies on Indian populations. American Journal of Human Biology, 22(4), 456–463.
• Shah, A. M. (2015). The Development of Indian Anthropology. Indian Anthropologist, 45(1), 1–15.
• Singh, K. S. (ed.). (1991). The History of Anthropological Survey of India – Proceedings of a Seminar. Calcutta: Seagull Books.
• Sinha, S. C. (1985). Editorial. Man in India, 65(4), 3–5.
• Srivastava, V. K. (2012). Indian Anthropology Today. Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India, 61(2), 123–140.
• Uberoi, P., Sundar, N., & Deshpande, S. (2007). Anthropology in the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology. Ranikhet: Permanent Black.
• Vaid, N. K. (2013). In Search of Ourselves: An Introduction to Social Cultural Anthropology. Delhi: Academic Publishers.

 

Archaeology of power and identity: the political use of the discipline

 

Archaeology of power and identity: the political use of the discipline. 1

The two ways of looking at archaeology and its use and abuse of power and identity: 1

Power and politics embedded within archaeological records: 1

Power and discipline of Archaeology: 1

The conceptual parameter of Identity: 2

 

Archaeology of power and identity: the political use of the discipline

Archaeology by and large does not directly engage in the key political struggles of the modern world. Archaeologists do not in any noteworthy way direct armies, shape economies, write laws, or imprison or free people from bondage (McGuire, 2018). However, archaeology has been and is being used by politics, ideology and identity in a profound way. Hodder (2005) argues that On the one hand, ideology represents the interests of the dominant group in society. The dominant perspective becomes absorbed and ‘taken for granted’. We become mystified and duped. On the other hand, ideology can be seen as enabling as well as misrepresenting. He opined that it is important to take the second stand and investigate how archaeological data are being misrepresented.

The two ways of looking at archaeology and its use and abuse of power and identity:

Gamble (2004) suggests we can look at the idea of power and politics in archaeology from at least two different perspectives, first, the entity of power as embedded within the archaeological record, and second within the discipline of archaeology, in its theory and practice.

Power and politics embedded within archaeological records:

We can investigate the social inequality of the past societies from archaeological records which range from grave goods and ornaments to the settlement pattern. However, as we investigate them, we also need to keep it in mind that we are using the categories and perceptions of our investigation from the kind of experiences that we have in our present world. The major categories such as gender, ethnicity, class positions, etc. can be derived along the axis of power. Although, these categories of findings are often seen as ‘objective’ and scientific in nature and are not really linked to existing socio-cultural hierarchies, their use by the ruling dispensation like what Hoddar (2005) argues are nevertheless part of politics, politics of identity construction and formulation.

Power and discipline of Archaeology:

Perhaps the second and more important category of understanding the political use of archaeology is to look at the ways in which archaeologists have actively shaped our understanding of the world. Trigger (1984) has described archaeologies as being nationalist, colonialist or imperalist.

Archaeology has been, and is still, important in the establishment of national identities. Therefore, archaeological records are being vividly interpreted and used by the competing political regimes to establish and rationalize their particular ideology and frames of rule. Using this lens one can understand in what ways Hindu Nationalism has proliferated in India in recent decade and has pushed the secular forces towards the margins. One of the many reference points has been the archaeological establishment of Hastinapur as a city connected to the epic Mahabharata, or for that matter the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya.

Colonial archaeologies denigrate non-Western societies to the status of static yet living museums from which the nature of the past might be inferred. The unchanged and living museum like character has been used in legitimizing the colonial rule over its subjects. In fact, the categories such as ‘primitive’, ‘native’, ‘barbar’, ‘savage’, and later on like ‘under-developed’, ‘backward’, has been ‘scienfically’ projected to not only legitimize the colonization but also to dehumanize the ‘other’. Archaeology has been systematically used in such a process. Archaeologists, most of them, during the colonial period has not only helped establishing and rationalizing the colonial rule over the rest of the world, but also was directly responsibly for establishing institutions which are carrying this legacy even in the post-colonial period. The Archaeological Survey of India for example was established during the British period. These institutions have also helped transporting the archaeologically significant entities from their places of origins to the colonizers museums, most famously, the British Museum.

Imperialist archaeologies (largely those developed in Britain and America) exert theoretical hegemony over research in the rest of the world through extensively engaging in research abroad, playing a major role in training either foreign students or those who subsequently obtain employment abroad, and in the dissemination of texts. The American expression of the new archaeology, advocating high-level generalization and a crosscultural comparative perspective, 'asserts the unimportance of national traditions . . . and of anything that stands in the way of American economic activity and political influence' (Trigger, 1984, p. 366). At an even more general level, Friedman (1986) has inserted archaeology into what he claims to be world cycles of 'traditionalist-culturalist', 'modernist' and 'post-modernist' cultural identities or cosmologies.

The conceptual parameter of Identity:

It is important to understand that archaeological facts which we use to explore the concepts like identity, power, ethnicity and nationalism are quite abstract in nature. The problems of archaeological records, therefore, is the fact that the past is not a neutral subject. It is not something of interests to only the researchers and readers, but it is also of the interests to lobbyists and competing political forces. At one level of the identity spectrum is concered with the construction of our personal identity, that sense of self. At another we also belong to much larger communities that influence what that self will be and against which it will be tested. Here lies the contestation of present and past, and here lies the role of lobbyists and political players. As scholars like Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar variously sees history as a result of the interaction between past and present, archaeological records are being used and interpreted in particular ways so as to go in line with the power groups. They are helped in formulation of national identities and political identities in present era. Similarly, they were used in constructing the multiple and often derogatory identities of the ‘weak’ others.  

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural Relativism          

                        Cultural Relativism expresses the idea that the beliefs and practices of others are best understood in the light of the particular cultures in which they are found. The idea is predicated on the degree to which human behavior is held to be culturally determined, a basic tenet of American cultural anthropology. This is often joined with the argument that because all extant cultures are viable adaptations and equally deserving of respect, they should not be subjected to invidious judgments of worth or value by outsiders. Alternatively, some argue that since all norms are specific to the culture in which they were formulated, there can be no universal standards of judgment.            

                Cultural relativism in American cultural anthropology is often attributed to the critique of social evolutionist perspectives by Franz BOAS and his students, especially Ruth BENEDICT, Margaret MEAD, and Melville HERSKOVITS. Boas criticized the use of EVOLUTIONARY STAGES as the basis for organizing museum displays, arguing that exhibits should display artifacts in the context of specific cultures.          

                Most societies are not relativist: they view their own ways as good, other people's as bad, inferior, or immoral   a form of ETHNOCENTRISM. However, the reverse is also possible, a syndrome Melford Spiro (1992b: 62 7) termed "inverted ethnocentrism," in which some anthropologists go well beyond relativism to assert that Western culture is globally inferior to Primitive or Third World cultures.       

                Cultural relativism as an approach can be contrasted with the search for human UNIVERSALS, the latter often grounded in claims based on such analytic perspectives as Freudian psychology, marxist political economy, Darwinian natural selection, or technoenvironmental determinism. Strong cultural relativists often see anthropology more as an art than a science and prefer to interpret symbolic meanings rather than explain social mechanisms. Clifford GEERTZ (1984b) has been an influential spokesman for this approach.    

                In the broader philosophical context, cultural relativism is sometimes merged with cognate forms of relativism (moral, ethical, cognitive, linguistic, historical, etc.) under the general rubric of Relativism, which is then seen in opposition to Rationalism, or occasionally, Fundamentalism (see M. Hollis & Lukes 1982). In treating the lively debates on cultural relativism in anthropology and philosophy, Spiro (1992b) discussed cultural relativism in relation to both cultural diversity and cultural determinism. Taking the existence of cultural variation as well documented, as do most anthropologists, he distinguished three types of cultural relativism   descriptive, normative, and epistemological   each with its attendant subtypes.           

                These detailed distinctions have not become conventional within the discipline. Most anthropologists remain content to distinguish the first-order methodological use of cultural relativism in anthropology from insensitive ethnocentric attempts to arrive at final ethical, moral, or scientific judgments.

Anthropology-Psychology interface

 

Anthropology and Psychology interface:

Contents

Anthropology and Psychology interface: 1

Beginnings – Culture-Personality: 1

Concepts developed through the interface. 2

Models for humans: 2

Cultural Models: 2

Embodiment and neurophenomenology: 3

Further reading: 3

 

 

Anthropologists who work at the interface of psychology and anthropology have developed a field of Psychological Anthropology. It approaches the comparative study of human experience, behavior, facts, and artifacts from a dual sociocultural and psychological most often psychodynamic perspective. It emerged in the early twentieth century as an attempt to understand our common humanity, led by such figures as Franz Boas and his students Edward Sapir, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Melville Herskovits. Psychological anthropology displays an arc of theoretical approaches ranging from scientific positivism, which embraces objectivity and the scientific method, through various hermeneutic humanisms that emphasize the role of subjectivity in fieldwork and writing (Suárez-Orozco 1994).

The 1970s saw the invention of psychological anthropology, the 1980s brought us cultural sychology, in the 1990s we rediscovered the body and phenomenology, and at the same time witnessed the resurgence of cognitive anthropology which, during the first decade of the twenty-first century would appear to dominate the field, contributing to the development of what is today called cognitive science.

Beginnings – Culture-Personality:

The origin of such approaches in rooted to Culture and Personality school, which was a broad and unorganized movement that brought together anthropologists, psychiatrists, and psychologists who agreed on the mutual relevance of their disciplines but lacked a common theoretical position, an acknowledged leader, and an institutional base. Its founders were Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Edward SAPIR, all students of Franz Boas, whose influential concept of Culture had implied a psychological dimension they attempted to spell out and translate into research. They argued that culture played a role in individual psychological development (Mead) and in the emotional patterns typical of particular cultures (Benedict), and also that individuals of a particular society realized its culture in different ways (Sapir). They criticized psychological theories that posited Universals for the human species without taking into account human variability as revealed by anthropological fieldwork in diverse cultures. At the same time, they were influenced by those psychological and psychiatric theories that emphasized social influences on the individual, such as the neo-Freudian formulations of Karen Horney and the interpersonal psychiatry of Harry Stack Sullivan. Although the movement had no formal organization, its anthropological founders were joined at seminars, conferences, and in publications by sociologists, psychologists, and psychoanalysts   including W. I. Thomas, John Dollard, Erik Erikson, Abram Kardiner, Henry A. Murray   and by a growing circle of anthropologists   Ralph Linton, A. Irving Hallowell, Gregory Bateson, Cora Du Bois, Clyde Kluckhohn, and John W. M. Whiting, to name but a few. The field of culture and personality studies was very active during the 1930s and in the postwar period 1945 50, as a new generation of anthropologists conducted studies among Native American peoples and in the Pacific.         

Concepts developed through the interface

Models for humans:

Fundamentally, its object is to be conceived of at the outset as living and as human, not as an information-processing device. This model starts with human physical actuality: the fact that each one of us is, like other living things, biologically speaking autopoietic – self-creating, self-regulating. A newborn baby, infant or young child requires other humans to look after its primary needs, making its ontogeny a social process. Indeed, as living systems that are human, each and every one of us needs others if we are to maintain our autonomy over the course of our own lives and contribute to the lives of others. There is nothing paradoxical about this: rather, it is given to us as human beings that the particular nature of our autonomy resides precisely in the history of our relations with one another. In the unified model, mind is a function not of the brain, nor of the embodied nervous system, but of the whole human being in intersubjective relations with others in the environing world. Implicit is a view of consciousness as an aspect of human autopoiesis. Here consciousness cannot be a ‘domain’  or a ‘level of psychological functioning’; rather, it is that aspect of mind that posits the existence of the thinker and the conceptual self-evidentiality of world as lived by the thinker. Intersubjectivity is shorthand for: I know that you are another human like me, and so I know that you know that because I am human, I know that you are too. Whether, over coming decades, cognitive anthropology will continue to dominate our understanding of mind will have everything to do with the extent to which anthropology as an intellectual project is able to realize and come to grips with the real political implications of the ahistorical concept of human being that lies at its heart.

Cultural Models:

The processes through which we know the peopled world, like the neurological processes of which they are an aspect, are likewise autopoietic, characterized by continuing differentiation through functioning. Once we understand this, it becomes obvious that information-processing (or representational) models of mind cannot capture its inherent dynamics. The idea of continuity-in-transformation is interesting, one can think about onself – the whole person, including the ideas about the world – as a dynamic system of transformations; ageing, for example, is one aspect of the workings of this dynamic system, and so is digestion, and so is reading a book, or having a conversation. One remains autonomously oneself even though, from moment to moment and year to year, the continuity through time is that of a dynamically transforming system. The representational model of mind that mirrors objectively given properties of the world which do not go away with the development in the 1990s of cultural psychology. Shweder, however, did his best to move anthropologists away from what he characterized as the ‘Platonic impulse’ that presumed mind to be a fixed and universal property of the psyche. He argued for a cultural psychology that presumes instead that the life of the psyche is the life of intentional persons, responding to, and directing their action at, their own mental objects or representations and undergoing transformation through participation in an evolving intentional world that is the product of the mental representations that make it up (Shweder 1991: 97).

Embodiment and neurophenomenology:

Anthropologists took encouragement from neurophenomenology … [whose] aim is to incorporate phenomenological investigations of experience into neuroscientific research on consciousness. Neurophenomenology focuses especially on the temporal dynamics of conscious experience and brain activity …. (Thompson 2007: 312) Ethnographic studies of how children make sense of the conditions in the world created for them by adults can contribute to the dynamic systems perspective on human development over time as an autopoietic and historical process – one that grounds the entire spectrum of individual difference (within and across regions of the world) in the way that our biology provides for sociality, specifically for empathy and intersubjectivity, as the bedrock condition of human being. Furthermore, the details of ethnographic studies of ontogeny as an historical process feed directly into the argument that the development of the neural processes that characterize human conceptual development is an emergent aspect of the functioning of an embodied nervous system for which intersubjectivity is a necessary condition.

Further reading:

Toren, Christina. (2012). Anthropology and Psychology. In Richard Fardon et al. ed. The SAGE Handbook of

Social Anthropology, (pp.27 – 41). Thousand oaks: Sage

 

D’Andrade, Roy. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Schwartz, Theodore, Geoffrey M. White, and Catherine A. Lutz. 1992. New Directions in Psychological

Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Read also the entry on Psychological anthropology here: http://sumananthromaterials.blogspot.com/2013/11/psychological-anthropology-suman-nath.html

And

also on the Branches of Social-cultural anthropology here: http://sumananthromaterials.blogspot.com/2014/11/branches-of-social-cultural-anthropology.html