Sie sind auf Seite 1von 202

ANTHROPOLOGY Science of Human Being


Jahangirnagar University

Anthropology: Science of Human Being By Mohammad Shah Jalal

First Edition 2017

Published by

Early Concern Society for Childhood Research and Development Suite 403, Concord Tower 113 Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh

Cover designed by Hazrat Ali

Printed by Riyad Book, Nilkhet, Dhaka 1205

Distributor: Matribhasha Prokash 11 PK Roy Road, Banglabazar, Dhaka 1100

Price: BDT 500 USD 20

ISBN: 978-984-34-2578-2

Copyright © 2017 by Author Original, compilation and editorial matter

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the Bangladesh Copyright Act without the prior written permission of the author.

Views expressed are those of the author, and may not necessarily be attributed to publisher.


Murshida Khanom, my daughter

Anthropology: Science of Human Being



Brief Notes on Author






b„weÁvb: ÁvbZË¡xq cÖm‡½ wKQzch©‡eÿY



Conceptualization of Human Being: Vision of an Anthropologist



Formation of Anthropology as a Science of Human Being: A Theoretical Exploration in Historical Perspective



Nikolai Nikaliavich Miklouho-Maclay, the Founder of Empiricism in Anthropology: The Lacunae in Anthropology


6 Soviet Anthropology: An Outline of Theoretical Approach



Culture: Theoretical Exploration



G_&wbK cÖwµqv b„weÁv‡bi †K›`ªxq cÖZ¨q: Bg&wcwiK¨vj I ÁvbZË¡xq we‡kølY



Health and Disease of Human Beings: Issue of Survival or Living


10 Birth and Growth of Human Beings


Anthropology: Science of Human Being


I am pleased to note that the book is written by Mohammad Shah Jalal on

Anthropology as a specialized field of knowledge. The author has addressed the issue on the formation of the discipline. He has raised questions that are in my view relevant as Anthropology in its course of formation underwent multiple transformation, shift, turn and through incorporation of new and rejection of so called old thought. It appears to be that interdisciplinarity has come from diverse origin and made together to create an estuary. Therefore, the outcome of integration of all sources and the processes need to be revealed in order for Anthropology to be an insightful specialized field for study of human beings. This book is a reasonable attempt to make Anthropology to be an academic discipline. It will be useful for readers to have a closer look at the pros and cons of the entire process of formation.

I wish that such endeavor need to have a go.

Further, all the best wishes to the author and expect that the readers would be kind enough to go through the text and search for their queries. Best wishes.

through the text and search for their queries. Best wishes. Dr. Farzana Islam Vice Chancellor &

Dr. Farzana Islam Vice Chancellor & Professor, Department of Anthropology Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka

April 4, 2017

Anthropology: Science of Human Being


At the outset, I would like to express my sincerest and deepest gratitude to Professor Dr. Farzana Islam, the first female Vice Chancellor of a public university in Bangladesh. In essence, I am fortunate for her being, who has extended extraordinary supports for two decades, being my colleague at the Department of Anthropology, Jahangirnagar University. Her family, especially, great son Protik, husband Akter Hossain, both brothers Professor Dr. Nazrul Islam and Professor Dr. Hedayatul Islam have inspired me in preparing the context for writing this wok.

I am graceful that Zahirul Islam, being my student been transformed to be my son who is intrinsic in preparing me in every aspect that is possible for a human being who inevitably worked relentlessly in preparing this book.

A. K. M. Mamunur Rashid, my student has outstanding contribution both in my personal and academic endeavor. I am deeply indebted to Mohammad Nasir Uddin, my student and later colleague who has been a great hope of my life and has truly contributed in shaping my thought. I extend tribute to Md. Adil Hasan Chowdhury, my student and later faculty at the Department of Anthropology, Rajshahi University for his intense supports that he had provided to me. I acknowledge all my colleagues and staff members of the Department of Anthropology, Jahangirnagar University. Finally, I express my eternal gratitude to my parents.

Mohammad Shah Jalal

Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Brief Notes on Author

Mohammad Shah Jalal is a professor in the Department of Anthropology, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka. He had a rare opportunity to have a state scholarship to study anthropology at the University of former Leningrad (present Saint Petersburg) in 1973, just having completed schooling at secondary and higher secondary standard from academic institutions in Dhaka. He underwent phases.

Initialy been admitted in Vorovezh State University, at central Russia, he completed basic training needed to study anthropology, say biological foundation of human being, linguistics, ecology and others. He had been admitted to Rostove-on-Don Regional Academy of Cultural Education, to undergo a two years diploma course in anthropology. Later he was admitted to Leningrad University and completed graduation in anthropology in 1980, and M. A. in 1981. During the same period (1977- 1981) Jalal had completed a graduation and an M. A. degree in orchestra conducting (Symphonic orchestra). Later, in December 1981 he was admitted to the N. N. Mikluho-Maklay Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Leningrad branch to peruse a Ph. D degree. The degree had been conferred in 1984.

Having returned to Bangladesh he was appointed to the department of folklore, research and compilation as coordinator in Bangla Academy in March 1985 where he served till 1987 and after opening the first Department of Anthropology in the country at the Jahangirnagar University (JU) been appointed as a lecturer in 1989, since then continuing at JU uninterruptedly.

Anthropology: Science of Human Being

In 1990, Jalal was appointed as a visiting lecturer at the National Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM) under the BSM Medical University and served till 2012. In 1995 the author had been appointed to the department of architecture as a part-time teacher at the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) and served for a short period of time.

Before, going to former USSR in 1973, he was trained in Indian classical music - both vocal and instrumental.

Finally, it is inexplicably, the author has had deep interest on exploring human being and given to reason, wanted that a science of human being as an independent academic discipline must be and it needlessly to be. The process of formation is underway and the author would like to be a part of the academic endeavor.

Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Chapter 1


To begin thinking with an academic discipline that studies Homo sapiens, termed as human being which is the subject and object as a species, while the author is a member and contain all the attributes that the species has, the key and central issue is to define the relationship between the author and the discipline anthropology. This is eternal and undisputable cause to address the most vital issue that is the methodology as to how to study the object as the author is a subject and an object of the discipline. The primary question is is it feasible that the author could absorb the entire diversity that the species has already absorbed in and containing self within it in terms of religion, ethnicity, language, adaptation to immensely different ecosystem, cognitive world, social, economic, political, and life ways. The species has also created a world of its own as well. Most prominently gender, class, caste, religion, race, are not merely diversity, but deleterious sources of inequality and division of the human created world into deadly antagonism.

Therefore, could the author overcome all these, being a member of the species, come out and go above all these and attain a position of a researcher, be neutral, deal with theoretical concepts objectively free of p[fo_ do^ag_hn [h^ `iffiq Doleb_cg‖m Rof_ i` Ihp_stigation which is the first and prior is to treat object and subject or any social phenomenon


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

[m ―nbcham‖. In this regard, the author conceives that as of Lienhardt, could an anthropologist work without being seized to be self.

This particular book is in its inception thoughts to center into fundamental questions that need to be addressed in order for anthropology to have a formation as a science of human being that would be capable of understanding ánthrōpos (human or নৃ), as it has had a long journey with numerous resurrections, turns, frustration, agony, laps, gaps, emergence, reemergence, hopes, hopelessness, disjunctions, loss of canonization, and often self identity.

A vast country such as former USSR, had been trying to move forward with extraordinary theory of Ethnos, while the great United States of America has been experiencing experiments in the theory of physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and archeology. And most importantly, struggling with hierarchically constructed evolutionary model of Morgan that is progress of human being (humanity) with ethnographic era, savagery barbarism civilization, in one hand and from promiscuity group marriage pair marriage to monogamous marriage with drawing the similar hierarchical mn[a_m i` jlial_mm, qbcf_ Tsfil‖m gi^_f i` l_fcacih b[^ g[^_ ]ofnol_ synonymous to progress based on hierarchy.

The mighty England had been preparing to construct anthropology as the science to study culture (Malinowski) and more strongly a discipline that would be a comparative sociology (A. R. Radcliffe-Brown). Darwin had created a great controversy in his writing. France has been using all its mnl_hanb ni ai qcnb Egcf_ Doleb_cg ni l_[]b ―ac`n nb_ils‖ \s M[l]_ff Mauss to be the founder of anthropology in France.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

India almost made anthropology synonymous to caste study and or

―nlc\[f‖ mno^s. Wbcf_, ip_lqbelming majority of the country of the world

is yet thinking whether independent discipline.

In this context, the author has raised a few epistemological issues and concluded the journey that yet to be taken for anthropology to be the science of human being that can assume the role of the science of human beings.

Author is writing this book being aware of that anthropology in the first half of 21 st century is no more a science, neither it would be, as it is infeasible as postmodernism, and postmoderns are convinced that it is a discipline of fiction writing. As Tylor think no observer and no body to be observed so it only would be a dialogical discourse.

However, author strongly believes that having lived at the earth, Einstein could develop the theory of relativity that helped develop an overwhelming knowledge about the universe that helped shaping the world in a reincarnated way. On the other hand, anthropology is heading towards nihilism as Nietzsche say that construction of reality on the earth, and human would be the most stupid ( see his aphorism) .

In Writing Culture, the most loving and acceptable theoretical concept ―]ofnol_‖ b[m \_]ig_ [fgimn [ j[nbifias, qbcf_ qlcncha ]ofnol_ nb[n cm synonymous as ethnography is full of unovercoming problems, so only fiction could be the feasible modality.

Ih nbcm \[]ealioh^, nb_ [onbil‖m ]ihpc]ncih cm nb[n cn cm inevitably feasible to induce into anthropology both heart and soul and make it alive as an independent discipline and inclusive science of human being.


anthropology has its

own merit




Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Chapter 2

b„weÁvb t ÁvbZË¡xq cÖm‡½ wKQzch©‡eÿY 1

f~wgKv ejv n‡q _v‡K ÁvbKvÐmg~‡ni g‡a¨ wb‡Ri BwZnvm m¤ú‡K© b„weÁvbB me PvB‡Z m‡PZb| wb‡R‡`i BwZnvm m¤ú‡K© b„weÁvbx‡`i GB m‡PZbZvi Avevi Awfbœ †Kvb †Pnviv †bB| wbR ÁvbKv‡Ði BwZnvm‡K †Kvb `„wófw½‡Z †`Lv n‡e †m wb‡q b„weÁvbx‡`i g‡a¨ e¨vcK gZwfbœZv jÿ¨ Kiv hvq| †Kej BwZnvm wb‡q bq, gZv‣bK¨ Ges cvi¤úh©nxbZv i‡q‡Q GgbwK †Lv` wbR ÁvbKv‡Ði welqe¯‧, Av‡jvP¨ wel‡qi mxgvbv, c×wZwe`¨v, `„wófw½ Ges ZvwË¡K Ae¯
vbMZ cÖ‡kœ| mywbw`©ó K‡i ej‡j Ôb„weÁvb KxÕ †m cÖ‡kœB Avm‡j b„weÁvbxM‡Yi g‡a¨ i‡q‡Q cÖvq-Aj•Nbxq e¨eavb| me©mv¤úªwZKKv‡j DËibKvVv‡gvev`x Ges DËiv aywbKZvev`x `„wófw½i cÖfv‡e b„‣eÁvwbK RM‡Z †h ÔUvbv‡cv‡obÕ m„wó n‡q‡Q †mwU m¤¢eZ GB gZ‣bK¨i me †_‡K my¯úó Ges AwaK `„k¨gvb cÖKvk 2 | wKš‧ Gi evB‡iI i‡q‡Q eûwea weZK©| Gme weZ‡K©i me¸‡jvB †h AvR‡Ki b„weÁv‡bi mv‡_ hy³ Zv bq, eû weZK©B P‡j Avm‡Q AZxZ Kvj †_‡K| cÖvq †`o kZK Ry‡o wek¦e¨vcx ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e b„weÁv‡bi weKwkZ nevi †h cÖwµqv Zvi mv‡_ mv‡_B †e‡o D‡V‡Q GmKj weZ‡K©i A‡bK¸‡jv| b„weÁv‡bi cÖv‡qvwMKZv ebvg GKv‡WwgKZvi †giæKiY Ges Gi mv‡_ cÖvmw½K weZ‡K©i welqwU mv¤úªwZK mg‡q mvg‡b P‡j Avmv Ab¨ GKwU ¸iæZ¡c~Y© Bm~¨| ms¯‥…wZ-‡Kw›`ªK †jLv‡jwLmg~‡ni AšÍwb©wnZ ivRbxwZ D‡b¥vP‡bi cÖwZ ¸iæZ¡v‡ivc Ges B‡Zvc~‡e© iwPZ G_‡bvMÖvwdmg~n wewbg©v‡Yi (deconstruction) cÖ‡Póv (Marcus & Fischer,

1986; Clifford, 1988); ms¯‥…wZi wec‡ÿ †jLvi AvnŸvb (Abu-Lugod, 1991);

ivRbxwZ Av`wk©KZv I ÁvbPP©vi m¤úK© wb‡q wewPÎ ai‡bi Dcjwäi cÖKvk- cÖf…wZ ZvwË¡Kfv‡e ¸iæZ¡c~Y© cÖkœ mgmvgwqK b„weÁv‡bi Av‡jvPbvq cÖfvekvjx RvqMv `Lj K‡i Av‡Q| HwZnvwmKZvi ¸iæZ¡ wb‡q wewfbœ gZ (Cohn, 1987;


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Fabian, 1983; Sahlins, 1985); Kvj‡Kw›`ªK-KvjµwgK I cÖwµqvMZ

(synchronic-dyachronic and processual) ZvwË¡K `„wófw½i g‡a¨ cÖwZ‡hvwMZv

(Barnard, 2000); †g․j ¸iæZ¡c~Y© Aa¨q‡bi welqe¯‧ wn‡m‡e ÔmgvRÕ Ges Ôms¯‥…wZÕi cÖvavb¨ wb‡q gZv‣bK¨ cÖf…wZ HwZnvwmKfv‡e b„weÁv‡bi cÖavb ZvwË¡K weZK©mg~‡ni g‡a¨ D‡jøL‡hvM¨| Jcwb‡ewkKZv Z_v mv¤ªvR¨ev`x kw³i m‡½ ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e b„weÁv‡bi †hvMv‡hv‡Mi welqwU‡K †Kvb `„wó‡Kvb †_‡K g~j¨vqb Kiv n‡e †m cÖ‡kœ i‡q‡Q `xN© Ges AgxgvswmZ weZK© (Asad, 1973)| b„weÁv‡bi wbR¯^ DcÁvbKvÐmg~‡ni ci¯ú‡ii g‡a¨ †hvMv‡hvM I mgš^q mvab cÖ‡kœ Ges GB mgš^‡qi c_ I cÖwµqv wel‡q i‡q‡Q bvbvwea gZ| b„weÁv‡bi mv‡_ `k©b- mvwnZ¨-BwZnvm-KvjPvi ÷vwWR cÖf…wZ ÁvbKv‡Ði m¤ú‡K©i cÖK…wZ wK n‡e Ges GB AvšÍtÁvbKvÐxqZvq b„weÁv‡bi ¯^vZš¿¨ wKfv‡e iÿv n‡e ev ¯^vZš¿¨ iÿv Kivi Av‡`․ †Kvb cÖ‡qvRb i‡q‡Q wKbv †m cÖ‡kœ b„weÁvbx‡`i g‡a¨ Ae¯
vbMZ w`K †_‡K i‡q‡Q wfbœZv| GB cÖkœ, weZK© ev Bm~¨mg~n - G¸‡jv‡K b„weÁv‡bi †e‡o IVvi cÖwµqv †_‡K wew”Qbœ K‡i cvV Kiv m¤¢e e‡j g‡b nq bv| GKfv‡e †`L‡j b„weÁv‡bi GB AgxgvswmZ cÖkœmg~‡ni Drm Avm‡j wbwnZ i‡q‡Q Gi AvRb¥ e‡q †eov‡bv mxgve×Zvmg~‡ni ev A¯úóZvmg~‡ni g‡a¨|

G wbe‡Üi we‡eP¨ cÖavb ÁvbZvwË¡K cÖm½ GKwU ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e wb‡Ri Ae¯
vb, cÖK…wZ I `„wófw½, Aa¨q‡bi welqe¯‧ ev e¨vwß Ges mvgwMÖKfv‡e, ZvwË¡K †d«gIqvK© Ges c×wZwe`¨vi cÖ‡kœ GB weweaZv Ges eûgvwÎKZv Ab¨ †h †Kvb kv‡¯¿i Zzjbvq b„weÁv‡b A‡bK †ewk cÖKU| weweaZv, eûgywLZv, avivevwnKZvnxbZv Ges m½wZnxbZvi Giƒc wbiew”Qbœ cÖva¨v‡b¨i cÖfve †ek my`yicÖmvix Ges Gi DrmI cÖK…Zc‡ÿ A‡bK Mfx‡i †cÖvw_Z| AviI ¯úó K‡i ej‡j, mgm¨v¸‡jv Avm‡j GK`gB ÁvbZË¡xq (epistemological) Ges Abya¨vbwe`¨v-mswkøó (ontological)|

kv¯¿ wn‡m‡e wb‡Ri GKwU †g․wjK Ae¯
v‡bi K_v b„weÁvb `vex K‡i| G‡ÿ‡Î Ôgvbe cÖRvwZi cwic~Y© Aa¨qbÕB b„weÁv‡bi ÁvbKvÐxq ¯^vZš¿ ev Abb¨Zvi cÖavb wfwË e‡j we‡ewPZ| b„weÁv‡bi ¯^vZš¿¨m~PK GB cÖavb •ewkówUi K_v gv_vq


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

†i‡LB ejv hvq gvbyl m¤úwK©Z Aa¨vq‡bi GKwU cwic~Y© weÁvb nevi cÖwZkÖæwZ wb‡q b„weÁv‡bi hvÎv ïiæ n‡qwQj Ges ÔgvbylÕ Z_v Ôgvbe cÖRvwZÕB b„‣eÁvwbK A‡š^l‡Yi g~j welqe¯‧| A‡š^l‡Yi GB gyL¨ welq‡K †evSvi †ÿ‡Î ev e¨vL¨v- we‡køl‡Yi †ÿ‡Î DwjøwLZ weweaZv I •ewPΨ wKiƒc f~wgKv cvjb K‡i‡Q †m welqwUi cÖwZ ÁvbZË¡xq `„wó‡Kvb †_‡K `„KcvZ Kiv Ges GB `„Kcv‡Zi †cÖÿvc‡U b„‣eÁvwbK ÁvbZË¡ cÖm‡½ wKQz ch©‡eÿY mvg‡b wb‡q AvmvB GB wbe‡Üi jÿ¨|

cÖkœ n‡jv GZme Uvbv‡cv‡ob I wfbœZv wK b„weÁv‡bi wbR¯^ `„wófw½ Ges ZË¡xq †g․j-bxwZ (basic theoretical premise) •Zwi‡Z BwZevPK wKsev mnvqK †Kvb f~wgKv cvjb K‡i‡Q? bvwK, Gi d‡j b„weÁvb Avm‡j GKwU A¯úó, †avuqv‡U, AwbwðZ Ges my¯úó Aeqenxb ZË¡-c×wZavix ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡eB †e‡o D‡V‡Q? Gfv‡e †e‡o IVv ÁvbKvÐwU wK †g․wjKZ¡, ALÐZv Ges wbR¯^ AvZ¥cwiP‡qi †Kvb wbw`©ó Aeqe ev ¯^iƒc AR©‡b e¨_©B n‡q‡Q? AviI ¯úó K‡i cÖkœwU Gfv‡e Dc¯
vcb Kiv †h‡Z cv‡i; b„weÁvb wK gvbyl Aa¨qb‡K †K›`ªxq welqe¯‧ wn‡m‡e wb‡q GKwU •ewk¦K ÁvbKvÐ (universal discipline) wn‡m‡e wb‡Ri ¯^Zš¿, kw³kvjx Ges ¯úó Ae¯
vb `vuo Kiv‡Z mÿg n‡q‡Q? bvwK, GiKg N‡U‡Q †h welqe¯‧ I `„wófw½Z A¯úóZv Ges wØav-؇›Øi dvu‡K b„weÁvb Avm‡j wewfbœ mg‡q, wfbœ wfbœ Ae¯
v I cwi‡e‡k, cwieZ©gvb mvgvwRK-ivR‣bwZK-eyw×e„wËK †cÖÿvc‡U wewfbœ e¨w³, cÖwZôvb, msMVb, ms¯
v wKsev `j-‡Mvôx KZ…©K A‡bKUv Lvg‡LqvwjcyY©fv‡e, ¯^wbe©vwPZ ev †¯^”QvPvix Dcv‡q (arbitrarily) e¨eüZ, e¨vL¨vZ, Dc¯
vwcZ, cwi‡ewkZ ev we‡køwlZ n‡q‡Q? -Gme cÖ‡kœi †cÖÿvc‡U GB wbe‡Üi Ae¯
vb n‡jv: mvgwMÖK Gme A¯úó I AwbwðZ Ae¯
vb Ges Aeq‡ei Kvi‡Y b„weÁvb e¯‧Z wewfbœ ch©v‡q e¨w³-ZvwË¡K, msMVb ev ms¯
v KZ…©K Zv‡`i wbR¯^ myweavRbK Ae¯
vb cÖKv‡k mnvqK Ges myweavRbK e³e¨ ev g‡Zi aviK GKwU c` ev cÖZ¨q Z_v GKwU Ôterm of convenienceÕ wn‡m‡eB e¨eüZ n‡q G‡m‡Q|


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

wbe‡Üi G Ae¯
vbwU‡K G ch©v‡q mijxK…Z (generalized) e‡j g‡b n‡Z cv‡i| wKš‧ cieZ©x Av‡jvPbvi ga¨ w`‡q Dc¯
vwcZe¨ ch©‡eÿYmg~‡ni mvims‡ÿc wn‡m‡eB GB Ae¯
vbwU GLv‡b Zz‡j aiv n‡jv| b„weÁv‡bi ÁvbZvwË¡K †cÖÿvcU, we`¨vRvMwZK weKvk Ges b„weÁvbxM‡Yi Kv‡Ri •ewPΨ I weweaZv we‡køl‡Yi ga¨ w`‡q cieZ©x Av‡jvPbvq G Ae¯
vb Z_v G g~j ch©‡eÿYwUi †cQ‡b wµqvkxj Ab¨vb¨ ch©‡eÿYmg~n ¯úó n‡e e‡j Avkv Kiv hvq|

b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm I Ab¨vb¨ cÖm½ : we‡ePbvmg~‡ni †cÖÿvcU b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm ch©v‡jvPbv Ki‡j †`Lv hv‡e mvgwMÖKfv‡e gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi cwic~Y© kv¯¿ n‡q DV‡Z cvivi e¨_©Zvi Kvi‡YB b„weÁv‡bi AvR‡Ki †h ÁvbZvwË¡K I ZË¡we`¨vMZ Uvbv‡cv‡obmg~n †m¸‡jv •Zwi n‡q‡Q| Ôc~Y©v½ Aa¨qbKvix kv¯¿Õ wn‡m‡e mvgwMÖKfv‡e gvbe cÖRvwZ‡K cvV Kivi g‡Zv ZvwË¡K I c×wZwe`¨vMZ kw³kvjx Ae¯
vb •Zwi bv nevi †cÖÿvc‡U G ÁvbKv‡Ði gyL¨ weZK© I Uvbv‡cv‡ob¸‡jvi KviY †LuvRv †h‡Z cv‡i| cvkvcvwk ZvwË¡K BwZnvm Ges wewfbœ †`k-gnv‡`‡k GKv‡Wwg‡Z b„weÁvb PP©vi BwZnvm we‡køl‡Y AviI AbyavweZ n‡e, Ôb„weÁvbÕ c`wU‡K my¯úófv‡e msÁvwqZ bv K‡i eis eûwea fve, A_© Ges †`¨vZbv cÖKv‡ki D‡Ï‡k¨ eûjvs‡k †¯^”QvPvixfv‡e Ges wbR wbR Ae¯
vb I `„wófw½ Abyhvqx e¨envi Kivi Kvi‡Y GwU kw³kvjx I my¯úó †Kvb ÁvbZË¡xq Ae¯
vb ev aviv •Zwi‡Z mÿg n‡q I‡Vwb|

b„weÁv‡bi ÁvbZË¡xq weKv‡ki BwZnvm Ges †m weKv‡ki bvbv av‡c D‡V Avmv c¨vivWvBgmg~n Ges GB c¨vivWvBg¸‡jvi gv‡S wbwnZ ZË¡-c×wZ welqK †K›`ªxq we‡ePbvw` ÁvbZvwË¡K m¼‡Ui cÖavb aviK Ges wb‡`©kK| †`k I gnv‡`k‡f‡` b„‣eÁvwbK PP©vi †ÿ‡Î †`Lv w`‡q‡Q bvbvgyLx cÖeYZv Z_v GKv‡WwgK b„weÁvb PP©vi †ÿ‡Î RvZxq HwZn¨mg~‡ni g‡a¨ i‡q‡Q wecyj wfbœZv| e¨w³ ZvwË¡KMY KZ…©K b„weÁvb‡K †Kvb avivevwnK ev mymse× Ae¯
vb †_‡K e¨vL¨v I Dc¯
vcb bv K‡i eis wfbœ wfbœ `„wó‡Kvb †_‡K eyS‡Z PvIqv n‡q‡Q| GB bvbvgywL †evSvcovi †cÖÿvc‡U ÁvbKvÐwU‡K Zvuiv ¯^ ¯^ `„wófw½ I fvebvi Av‡jv‡K wbw`©ó AvKvi †`qvi †Póv K‡i‡Qb Ges Avjv`v Avjv`v Ae¯
v‡b wb‡q hvIqvi †Póv K‡i‡Qb| GQvov ivRbxwZ I ÿgZv m¤ú‡K©i wewfbœ cwi‡cÖwÿ‡Z I HwZnvwmK weKv‡ki


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

ch©vq‡f‡` b„weÁvbx‡`i †K›`ªxq wRÁvmvi cwieZ©b n‡q‡Q| ivR‣bwZKZv I HwZnvwmKZvi cwieZ©‡bi djkÖæwZ‡Z mvgvwRK weÁv‡bi wRÁvmvi †ÿ‡Î Ges we‡køl‡Yi †ÿ‡Î cwieZ©b Avmv ¯^vfvweK| wKš‧ wbR¯^ my¯úó †Kvb ÁvbZvwË¡K aviv cÖwZwôZ bv nevi Kvi‡Y (ev cÖwZôv bv Kivi Kvi‡Y) Ges G‡KK †ÿ‡Î G‡KKwU welq ev cÖeYZv‡K cÖvavb¨ †`qvi d‡j m„wó n‡q‡Q avivevwnKZvnxbZv Ges Aw¯
iZv| GQvov, eyw×e„wË-ivRbxwZ-BwZnv‡mi A`j-e`‡ji d‡j m„ó cwi‡cÖwÿZMZ iƒcvšÍi‡K cv‡Vi h‡_ó Dc‡hvMx ZvwË¡K I c×wZMZ cÖ¯‧wZ bv _vKvi d‡j HwZnvwmK NUbvbg~‡ni †¯ªv‡Z GKfv‡e wb‡R‡K nvwi‡q †djvi NUbvI we`¨gvb| Gfv‡e mvgwMÖK welqmg~n‡K we‡ePbv Ki‡j †`Lv hv‡e b„weÁv‡bi BwZnv‡mi g‡a¨B mvgwMÖKfv‡e m¼Ugq ÁvbZvwË¡K wRÁvmvmg~‡ni Dcw¯
wZ i‡q‡Q; G¸‡jvi we‡kølY †_‡KB mgm¨vmg~‡ni g~j m~Î ev m~Îmg~n‡K Lyu‡R cvIqv †h‡Z cv‡i| Gi ga¨ w`‡qB m¤¢eZ b„weÁvb ÁvbKv‡Ði mgmvgwqK wRÁvmvmg~‡ni cÖK…wZ, gvÎv ev cwiwa‡K mwVKfv‡e cvV Kiv †h‡Z cv‡i Ges wbR wbR Ae¯
vb‡K ¯úó Kiv †h‡Z cv‡i|

Bs‡iwR Anthropology k‡ãi eyrcwËMZ A_© n‡jv gvbyl, Z_v b„ m¤úwK©Z Aa¨qb| wKš‧ b„weÁvb wK ev¯ÍweK Ôstudy of human beingsÕ n‡q DV‡Z †c‡i‡Q Kx bv †m cÖkœwUB, Dc‡i †hgb ejv n‡q‡Q, G ch©v‡q me †_‡K ¸iæZ¡c~Y© cÖkœ wn‡m‡e we‡ewPZ n‡Z cv‡i| hyMcr Ab¨ †h cÖkœwU mgvb ¸iæ‡Z¡i mv‡_ we‡ewPZ nIqv Avek¨K Zv n‡jv: b„weÁvb hw` Zvi ÁvbKvÐxq weKvk BwZnv‡m gvby‡li Aa¨qb wn‡m‡e mwZ¨Kvi A‡_© mdj bv-I n‡q _v‡K Zvn‡j wK G wel‡q bZzbfv‡e D‡`¨vMx nevi ev bZzb cÖ‡Póv MÖn‡Yi †Kvb my‡hvMI Aewkó †bB? hw` †_‡K _v‡K Z‡e †m †Póvi ZË¡xq I c×wZMZ iƒc‡iLvwU wK|

b„weÁvb wb‡R‡K `vex K‡i c~Y©v½ weÁvb ev holistic science wn‡m‡e| c~Y©v½ nevi A_© n‡jv gvbe cÖRvwZ‡K mKj w`K †_‡K Ges mKj Ae¯
vq Aa¨qb Kiv:

gvby‡li AZxZ, eZ©gvb I fwel¨‡Zi cwic~Y© Abyaveb Ges Zvi •RweK, mvgvwRK, mvs¯‥…wZK, AvPiYMZ, g‡bvRvMwZK Ges cÖZxKx-fvlvZvwË¡K w`Kmg~‡ni mw¤§wjZ I m¤ú~Y© we‡kølY| ¯^vfvweKfv‡eB †m Aa¨qb n‡e AvšÍ:mvs¯‥…wZK Ges ZzjbvgyjK| Z‡e Zzjbvi ga¨ w`‡q wefvRb ev cv_©K¨B †h


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

†Kej DrmvwnZ n‡e †mwU Awbevh© bq| GB Aa¨qb †Kvb †Kvb †ÿ‡Î gvbe H‡K¨i ev AwfbœZvi welq‡KB D`NvUb Ki‡Z cv‡i| G Kvi‡YB gvbe cÖRvwZi wfbœZvi cvV ïiæ n‡Z cv‡i GKK I Awfbœ gvbe cÖRvwZi ga¨Kvi •ewPΨ wn‡m‡eB| †m cv_©K¨‡K gvbe cÖRvwZi wbw`©ó †Kvb As‡ki Ae¯
vb †_‡K we‡kl †Kvb `„wó‡Kv‡bi cÖ‡qv‡M cvV Kiv n‡j †mwU c~Y©v½ cv‡Vi wfwË •Zwi Ki‡Z bv-I cv‡i| b„weÁvb wK GB ¸iæZ¡c~Y© we‡ePbvwU‡K mvg‡b †i‡L AMÖmi n‡Z †c‡iwQj? gvby‡li Aa¨qb n‡q IVvi m¤¢vebv wK Ôwe‡kl ai‡bi gvbylÕ ÔA™¢zZ gvbylÕ ev ÔAb¨ gvby‡lÕi cv‡V iƒcvšÍwiZ n‡qwQj? †mwU †Kvb †cÖÿvc‡U? †Kvb ÁvbZvwË¡K- e„w×e„wËK cwi‡cÖwÿ‡Z? †mwU wK gvby‡li cyY©v½ cv‡Vi Zzjbvq gvby‡li †Kvb GKwU we‡kl w`K Z_v Zvi mgvR ev ms¯‥…wZ wKsev HwZn¨-AZx‡Zi cv‡V cwiYZ n‡qwQj GK ch©v‡q? Ges AvR‡K wK b„weÁvb wb‡R‡K cÖvmw½K I cÖ‡qvRbxq e‡j cÖgvY Ki‡Z wM‡q Ôgvby‡li c~Y©v½ Aa¨q‡bÕi welqwU‡K cv‡k mwi‡q †i‡L‡Q Ges A‡bK †ewk eZ©gvb ev mgmvgwqK cÖm½mg~‡ni Aa¨q‡b ch©ewmZ n‡q‡Q?

GmKj mgm¨vwqZ cÖkœmg~‡ni †e‡o IVvi ÁvbZvwË¡K †cÖÿvcU‡K †evSvi Rb¨ b„weÁv‡bi Z‡Ë¡i BwZnvm Z_v ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e b„weÁv‡bi BwZnv‡mi w`‡K

g‡bv‡hvM †`qv †h‡Z cv‡i| b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm‡K †Kvb `„wófw½‡Z ev †Kvb †cÖÿvcU †_‡K we‡kølY Kiv n‡e Zv wb‡q ZË¡-BwZnvmwe`‡`i g‡a¨ Aek¨

Zuv‡`i Kv‡R

b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm‡K eyS‡Z †P‡q‡Qb G‡Ki ci GK N‡U hvIqv wKQzNUbv ev avivevwnKfv‡e weKwkZ nIqv bZzb bZzb aviYvi Pjgvb cÖwµqv (sequence or events or new ideas) wn‡m‡e| Avevi A‡b‡K GB BwZnvm‡K †`‡L‡Qb _gvm Kzb (Kuhn, 1970) Gi •eÁvwbK c¨vivWvB‡gi aviYwU e¨envi K‡i- c¨vivWvBgMZ iƒcvšÍi wn‡m‡e (†hgb: Stocking, 1996)| gviwfb n¨vwim wKsev A¨vwb †gwi wW Iqvj †g‡jd¨vU (Harris, 1968; Malefijt, 1976) b„‣eÁvwbK Z‡Ë¡i weKvk‡K †`‡L‡Qb GKUv Awfbœ aviYv e¨e¯
vi (system of ideas) †d«gIqv‡K©; A_©vr Zv‡`i we‡kølY Abyhvqx b„weÁv‡bi ZË¡-BwZnvm‡K †evSv †h‡Z cv‡i GKwU a¨b-aviYvi e¨e¯
v ev system of ideas wn‡m‡e| cwieZ©bkxj wRÁvmvmg~‡ni Reve cÖZ¨vkvq bZzb G‡RÛv mvg‡b wb‡q Avmvi Pjgvb cÖwµqv









Anthropology: Science of Human Being

wn‡m‡eI A‡b‡K b„weÁv‡bi ZË¡-BwZnvm‡K eyS‡Z †P‡q‡Qb

(†hgb: Kuper,

1996)| GB e¨e¯
v‡K Zviv MwZkxj I Pjgvb wn‡m‡e ey‡S‡Qb| Ab¨ A‡b‡K G‡K eyS‡Z †P‡q‡Qb wewfbœ †`‡k mgvšÍiv‡j weKvkgvb wfbœ wfbœ RvZxq HwZ‡n¨i

(national traditions) we‡køl‡Yi ga¨ w`‡q (‡hgb: Lowie, 1937)|

b„weÁvb PP©vi RvZxq HwZn¨mg~‡ni BwZnvm: •ecixZ¡ I avivevwnKZvnxbZv wewfbœ †`k I gnv‡`‡k †hfv‡e b„weÁvb PP©v Kiv n‡q‡Q Zvi BwZnvm we‡køl‡Yi ga¨ w`‡qB ¯úó n‡q I‡V ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e b„weÁv‡bi weKvk cÖwµqvi gv‡S wKfv‡e avivevwnKZvnxbZv Ges •ecixZ¡ wµqvkxj †_‡K‡Q| †`Lv †h‡Z cv‡i †h, †mwf‡qZ BDwbqb ev ivwkqvq b„weÁvb PP©vi †h RvZxq HwZn¨ (national tradition) ‡mwU wK BD‡ivc ev Av‡gwiKvi Ab¨vb¨ †`‡ki mv‡_ m½wZkxj? A_ev, mgMÖ BD‡iv‡cI wK Awfbœ b„‣eÁvwbK avivi †`Lv cvIqv hvq? weªwUk, ¯‥wUk, divwm wKsev Rvg©vb b„weÁvb wK Ôgvbe Aa¨q‡biÕ cÖK…wZ I aib m¤ú‡†Kvb mywbw`©ó avivµ‡g wRÁvmvmg~n‡K ¯
vcb Ki‡Z †c‡i‡Q? A_ev b„‣eÁvwbK AbymÜv‡bi wbw`©ó †Kvb Dcvq w¯
i K‡i wK Zviv AMÖmi n‡Z †c‡i‡Q? mKj †`‡k Awfbœ b„weÁvb PP©v n‡e Ges †mwUB b„weÁv‡bi Rb¨ Kvg¨ - Giƒc †Kvb cÖZ¨vkv †_‡K G cÖkœ Kiv n‡”Q bv| wKš‧ •ewPΨ Ges wfbœZv †h KZ wekvj Ges †m wfbœZv †h wKfv‡e g~j b‣eÁvwbK Aa¨qb Z_v gvbe Aa¨qb wel‡q A¯úóZv I AwbðqZv •Zwi K‡i †mwU Gme wRÁvmvi gvS w`‡q ¯úó n‡Z cv‡i|

1917 mv‡ji ej‡kwfK wecøe Ges †mvwf‡qZ iv‡óªi m„wói †cÖÿvc‡U †mLvbKvi wewfbœ RvwZ †Mvôx¸‡jv m¤ú‡K© we¯Í…Z Aa¨qb cÖvmw½K n‡q I‡V| we‡kl K‡i wewfbœ RvwZZvwË¡K-‡f․‡MvwjK GKK¸‡jvi (ethno-territorial units) ga¨Kvi mxgv‡iLv Uvbvi Rb¨ G Aa¨qb‡K Riæix e‡j g‡b Kiv nq| ÿz`ª Rb‡Mvôx¸‡jvi fvlvi wjwLZ eY©gvjv `vuo Kiv‡bv Ges Zv‡`i Rb¨ we`¨vjq e¨e¯
v cÖwZôvq eû G_‡bvMÖvdvi AZ¨šÍ Nwbôfv‡e KvR K‡ib| 1930 Gi `k‡Ki ci †_‡K †mvwf‡qZ b„weÁv‡bi mKj cÖKvi ZvwË¡K `„wófw½‡KB gv·©ev`x-‡jwbbev`x WKUªvBb m¤ú~Y©iƒ‡c cÖfvweZ Ki‡Z _v‡K| mgvR weeZ©‡bi avcmg~n Aa¨qb, HwZnvwmK cwieZ©‡bi cÖavb kw³ wn‡m‡e †kÖYx msMÖvg‡K †`Lv BZ¨vw` n‡q I‡V


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

¸iæZ¡c~Y© welq| Avw`g mgvRmg~n, weeZ©‡bi cÖv‣MwZnvwmK ¯Íimg~n Ges cÖv_wgK mgvR msMVb cÖf…wZ wel‡qi cÖwZ †mvwf‡qZ b„weÁvbxiv Zv‡`i g~j g‡bv‡hvM

wbweó K‡ib (Tishkov, 1996)|

G_‡bvwR‡bwmm, e¯‧MZ ms¯‥…wZ, •RweK •ewPΨ Ges G_wbK BwZnvm I fvlvZvwË¡K wfbœZvi wfwˇZ m„ó Kv‡U©vMÖvwd-GmeB n‡”Q 1950 Gi `kK n‡Z ïiæ Ki 1970 Gi `kK ch©šÍ †mwf‡qZ †`‡k b„‣eÁvwbK Aa¨q‡bi g~L¨ welqe¯‧| HwZnvwmK-G_‡bvMÖvwdK GUjvmmg~n Ges eû L‡Ði wmwiR Òthe Peoples of the WorldÓ G mg‡qi †mvwf‡qZ b„weÁv‡bi D‡jøL‡hvM¨ KvR| Aek¨ ewnwe©‡k¦i mv‡_ †hvMv‡hvMnxbZv Ges m¤ú‡`i mxgve×Zvi Kvi‡Y †mwf‡qZ BDwbq‡bi evB‡ii AÂj¸‡jv wb‡q we‡kl D‡jøL‡hvM¨ †Kvb KvR nqwb|

1970 I 1980 Gi `k‡K G‡m †mvwf‡qZ b„weÁvb AwaK AvMÖnx n‡q I‡V mgvRZË¡g~jK Rwi‡ci ga¨ w`‡q mgmvgwqK G_wbK Bmy¨mg~n Aa¨q‡bi wel‡q| ga¨ Gwkqv, evwëK cÖRvZš¿mg~n Ges †fvjMv A‡j G mgq we¯Í…Z M‡elYv KvR cwiPvwjZ nq| g‡¯‥vi Bbw÷wUDU Ae G_‡bvMÖvwd Gi cwiPvjK Y. Bromely Ges Zvi mnKg©x‡`i KvR G mgq cÖvavb¨ we¯Ívi K‡i Ges Zviv †h wcÖgwW©qvwj÷ ZË¡wU `vuo Kivb †mwU cwiwPwZ cvq ÔG_&‡bvm w_IixÕ wn‡m‡e (Bromley, 1981)| †mwf‡qZ RvZxqZvmg~‡ni g‡a¨ †h ivR‣bwZK µ‡gv”PZv †mwUB GB G_‡bvm w_Iwii ga¨ w`‡q cÖwZdwjZ nq| GQvov G_‡bvm‡K mvgvwRK-‣RweK mËv wn‡m‡e †KD †KD e¨vL¨v K‡ib Ges GB e¨vL¨vwUI RbwcÖq nq| Aek¨ G_&‡bvm w_Iwii cvkvcvwk HwZnvwmK G_‡bvMÖvwd Ges G_‡bvwR‡bwmm Aa¨qb G mg‡q G‡mI M‡elYv G‡RÛvq h‡_ó ¸iæZ¡c~Y© ¯
vb `Lj K‡i _v‡K Ges c„w_exi BwZnv‡mi Avw`Zg Rb‡Mvôxmg~n (primeval societies) Ges gvbe mgvR¸‡jvi cÖv_wgK ch©vq (early stages of human societies) m¤ú‡K© kw³kvjx wKQz M‡elYv G mgqB cÖKvwkZ nq| AviI KvR nq kvgvwbRg I a‡g©i cÖv_wgK ch©vq, fvlvZvwË¡K cybwbg©vY, wg_, AvB‡Kv‡bvMÖvwd cÖf…wZ wel‡q| `yf©vM¨RbK †h, ivwkqvb cwÐZ føvw`wgi cÖc, Gg, evLwZb ev G, wf, Pvqbv‡fi LyeB kw³kvjx


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

ZvwË¡K wfw˸‡jv‡K GwM‡q wb‡q hvIqvi Rb¨ †mvwf‡qZ we`¨vRM‡Z Lye GKUv D‡`¨vM-Av‡qvRb nqwb| Z_vwc mvgwMÖKfv‡e G mgq †mvwf‡qZ b„weÁvb GKUv AZ¨šÍ kw³kvjx ZvwË¡K wfwË jvf K‡i, hv †mwf‡qZ iv‡óªi Aemvb I ZrcieZ©x bvbvwea cwieZ©b I iƒcvšÍ‡ii gv‡SI ivwkqvb b„weÁvb‡K k³ eyw×e„wËK wfwËi Ici `vuo Kwi‡q ivL‡Z mÿg nq|

1980 Gi `k‡Ki †k‡l Ges 1990 Gi `k‡Ki ïiæ‡Z ivR‣bwZK D`vixKiY Ges djkÖæwZ‡Z †mvwf‡qZ iv‡óªi cZb nevi ci ivwkqvb b„weÁv‡b Avg~j cwieZ©b Av‡m| c~‡e©i g‡Zv gv·©ev` Avi GKgvÎ c¨vivWvBg n‡q _v‡Kwb| ivwkqvi wewfbœ A‡j D™¢~Z RvwZMZ msNvZ ivwkqvb b„weÁvb‡K G_wbK msNvZ Aa¨q‡b AwaK g‡bv‡hvMx K‡i †Zv‡j|

Ab¨w`‡K Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm chv©‡jvPbv Ki‡j wVK †mvwf‡q‡Z BDwbq‡b g‡Zv †Kvb aviv ev cÖeYZv †mfv‡e †`Lv hvq bv| GLv‡b i‡q‡Q cÖZœZË¡, ‣RweK b„weÁvb Ges mvs¯‥…wZK b„weÁv‡bi wefvR‡bi ga¨ w`‡q M‡o IVv ÔPvi-DcKvÐxq PP©vi GKv‡WwgK HwZn¨Õ (four field academic tradition)| GB we‡klvq‡bi m~Pbv nq Dbwesk kZvãxi †k‡l| GB Ô‡dvi wdì G‡cÖvPÕ Gi m~Pbvi c~‡e© Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi HwZn¨ wQj gyL¨Zt BwÛqvb Rb‡Mvôx m¤ú‡K© miKvix AvMÖ‡ni wfwˇZ †e‡o IVv (Malefijt, 1976)| miKvix ey¨‡iv Ae Av‡gwiKvb G_‡bv‡jvwR, ¯
vbxq G_‡bv‡jvwRK¨vj Ges †dvK‡jvi †mvmvBwUmg~n Ges wgDwRqvg¸‡jvi ga¨ w`‡q Av‡gwiKv‡Z me©cÖv_wgK b„‣eÁvwbK AvMÖnmg~n •Zwi nq| †m AvMÖn‡K GKwU RvqMvq cÖvwZôvwbK iƒc †`qvq ZvwMZ †_‡K Dbwesk kZvãxi †k‡l wek¦we`¨vj‡q cÖwkwÿZ b„weÁvbxiv GB Pvi-DcKvÐxq avivi m~Pbv K‡ib|

F. Voget Zuvi History of Ethnology bvgK MÖ‡š
 AvaywbK Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm‡K wZbwU ch©v‡q wef³ wn‡m‡e wPwýZ K‡ib| G¸‡jv‡K wZwb •ewkóvwqZ K‡i‡Qb ÔDbœqbev`Õ, ÔKvVv‡gvev`Õ Ges Ôc„_KxKiYev`x we‡klvqbÕ Gi ch©vq wn‡m‡e| Gi ciB †h Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡b DËivaywbK ch©v‡qi m~Pbv n‡q‡Q †mUvI ¯^xKvi K‡i †bqvi Ici A‡b‡K †Rvi †`b|


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

1851 mvj †_‡K ïiæ K‡i 1889 mvj ch©šÍ mgqKv‡j gvwK©b hy³iv‡óª b„weÁvb

PP©v n‡q‡Q g~jZt `¨v ey¨‡iv Ae Av‡gwiKvb G_‡bv‡jvwR Gi ZË¡veav‡b ev mivmwi Gi AvIZvq| ¯
vbxq fvlv e¨envi K‡i †bwUf Av‡gwiKvb BÛvqvb‡`i gv‡S cwiPvjbv Kiv n‡qwQj `xN©Kvjxb gvVKg©, AvwU©d¨v±m †hvMvo K‡i wgDwRqvg M‡o †Zvjv n‡q‡Q, ¯
vbxq †U·U msMÖn Kiv n‡q‡Q Ges d‡UvMÖv‡di ga¨ w`‡q BÛqvb‡`i RxebwP·K a‡i ivLvi †Póv Kiv n‡q‡Q| A‡b‡K †hgb e‡j‡Qb BD‡ivcxq‡`i Av‡gwiKv Avwe®‥v‡ii ga¨ w`‡qB Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi hvÎv ïiæ n‡q‡Q| m`¨ Avwe®‥…Z GB f~L‡Ûi g~j Awaevmx Z_v Av‡gwiKvb BwÛqvb‡`i (BD‡ivcxq‡`i ÔAb¨Õ) wel‡q AvMÖn †_‡KB Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi wfwË ¯
vwcZ nq| ¯
vbxq BwÛqvb‡`i RxebhvÎv `ªæZ nvwiq hv‡”Q, e¯‧MZ ms¯‥…wZ Aejyß cÖvq Ges RbmsL¨v µgkB n«vm cv‡”Q-Giƒc GKwU cwiw¯
wZ‡Z GK ai‡bi ÔÎvZvÕ ev ÔD×viKvixÕ (salvageanthropology) b„weÁv‡bi Avwek¨KZv

Abyfe Kiv n‡qwQj| ey¨‡iv‡Z Rgv n‡Z _vKv gvV ch©vq n‡Z msM„nxZ Z_¨-DcvË web¨v‡mi Kv‡R Ges †bwUf Av‡gwiKvb mgv‡Ri PwiÎ e¨vL¨v Kivi †ÿ‡Î weeZ©bev`x ZvwË¡KM‡Yi ZË¡¸‡jv e¨envi Kiv nw”Qj (Malefift, 1976)|

1840 †_‡K ïiæ K‡i 1950 ch©šÍ we¯Í…Z mgqKv‡j e¯‧Z cÖvwZôvwbK I †ckvMZ

b„weÁvb GLv‡b cÖwZôv cvq| vbh †evqvm Ges Zvi QvÎ-QvÎx‡`i KvR G †ÿ‡Î gyL¨ f~wgKv cvjb K‡i| Aek¨ 1888 mv‡j †evqvm K¬¨vK© wek¦we`¨vj‡q hLb cÖ_g GKv‡WwgK wb‡qvM jvf K‡ib, Zvi Av‡MB Av‡gwiKvq b„weÁvb Zvi †dvi-wdì G‡cÖvP wb‡q †ek kw³kvjx GKUv Ae¯
vb •Zwi K‡i wb‡Z †c‡iwQj e‡jB A‡b‡Ki gZ (Malefifjt, 1976) 1888 mv‡jB Av‡gwiKvb A¨vb‡_ªv‡cv‡jvwR÷

Gi cÖ_g msL¨v cÖKvwkZ nq †hLv‡b fvlvZË¡, cÖZœZË¡, •`wnK b„weÁvb Ges G_‡bv‡jvwR wel‡q †jLv‡jwL msKwjZ n‡qwQj| Z_vwc wek kZ‡Ki GB ïiæi ch©v‡q Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁvb Z_v mvgwMÖKfv‡e b„weÁv‡bi me †_‡K cÖfvekvjx e¨w³Z¡ wn‡m‡e we‡ewPZ nb †evqvm| e¯‧Z 1896 mvj †_‡K ïiæ K‡i 1942 (G eQiB Zvui g„Zz¨ nq) mvj ch©šÍ Kjw¤^qv wek¦we`¨vj‡q Aa¨vcbvi mg‡q wZwb wecyj msL¨K b„weÁvbx‡K cÖwkÿY †`b hviv cieZ©x‡Z ¯^ ¯^ †ÿ‡Î D‡jøL‡hvM¨ L¨vwZ AR©b K‡ib Ges b„‣eÁvwbK Aa¨qb I M‡elYvi †ÿ‡Î D‡jøL‡hvM¨fv‡e


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

c~eeZ©x b„weÁvbxMY Z_v weeZ©bvev`xM‡Yi Zzjbvq wfbœ `„wófw½i m~Pbv K‡ib| Rvgv©bx‡Z Rb¥ †bqv Ges †e‡o IVv GB b„weÁvbx c`v_©we`¨v, MwYZ Ges f~‡Mv‡j GKv‡WwgK cÖwkÿY cvb| Zvui GB cÖwkÿY Ges Rvg©vbx we`¨vqZb I e„w×e„wËi mv‡_ Zvui †h Mfxi †hvMv‡hvM †mwU‡K wZwb Av‡gwiKv HwZ‡n¨i gv‡S m¤úªmviY K‡ib e‡jB cÖZxqgvb nq|

Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi †ÿ‡Î †evqv‡mi Ae¯
vb we‡køl‡Y †h cÖm½wU G ch©v‡q ¸iæZ¡c~Y© Zv n‡jv: weeZ©bev`x‡`i Kv‡Ri c×wZ‡K wZwb Zxeªfv‡e mgv‡jvPbv K‡ib Ges Zzjbvg~jK c×wZi RvqMvq wZwb HwZnvwmK c×wZi cÖ¯Íve K‡ib| †Kej Zv bq wZwb Avm‡j cwiYZ ch©v‡q G‡m b„weÁv‡bi Aa¨q‡bi welq¸‡jv wb‡q Av‡`․ †Kvbiƒc wbqg-bxwZ ev AvBb Lyu‡R cvIqvi AvkvB †Q‡o †`b:

The phenomena of our science are so individualized, so exposed to outer accident, that no set of laws could explain them

gm found(Boas, 1940: 257).

’ cn m

ni g_ ^io\n`of qb_nb_l p[fc^ ]ofnol[f f[qm ][h \_

mvgwMÖKfv‡e †evqvm I Zvi cieZ©x b„weÁvbx‡`i Kv‡Ri ga¨ w`‡q Aa¨q‡bi ¸iæZ¡c~Y© welq wn‡m‡e ÔmgvRÕ Gi cwie‡Z© Ôms¯‥…wZÕ mvg‡b Av‡m e‡U wKš‧ †dvi-wdì A¨v‡cÖvP Gi ga¨ w`‡q wejyßcÖvq †bwUf Av‡gwiKvb ms¯‥…wZi cybwbg©v‡Yi IciB ¸iæZ¡ †`qv nq| cieZ©x ch©v‡q Gm 1940, Õ50 I Õ60 Gi `k‡K gvwK©b b„weÁvb Zvi c×wZwe`¨vi ‡ÿ‡ÎB e¨vcK e`j NUvq| mgvRZË¡ ev ivóªweÁv‡bi g‡Zv mvgvwRK weÁvb¸‡jv Av‡gwiKvb mgvR m¤ú‡K© †hme mvaviYxK…Z e³e¨ cÖ`vb K‡ib G mgq b„weÁvbxiv †m¸‡jvi h_v_©Zv wb‡q cÖkœ Zzj‡Z ïiæ K‡ib kû‡i I MÖvgxY Av‡gwiKvb Kgy¨wbwU¸‡jvi g‡a¨ ch©‡eÿYwbf©i Aa¨qb cwiPvjbv Kivi ga¨ w`‡q| HwZn¨, AvaywbKvZ I AvaywbKvqb, AZxZ- eZ©gv‡bi PjgvbZv I cwieZ©b, bMi-MÖv‡gi m¤úK© BZ¨vKvi welqmg~n G mg‡q b„weÁv‡bi cÖvavb¨ cvq|

GiI c‡i 1960 I Õ70 Gi `k‡K wf‡qZbvg hy‡×i AwfÁZvi ga¨ w`‡q hvIqvi ci Ges GKUv `xN© GKv‡WwgK m¼U †gvKv‡ejvi Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁvb


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

BwZnv‡mi cÖwZ Szu‡K c‡o| Ges cieZ©x‡Z µgk DËivaywbK ZvwË¡K‡`i KvR gvwK©b b„weÁv‡b ¸iæZ¡c~Y© RvqMv `Lj K‡i †bq|

weªwUk b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm ch©v‡jvPbv Ki‡Z wM‡q †nbwiKv KzKwjK e‡jb GKfv‡e †`L‡j b„weÁv‡bi GKUv `xN© cÖvKBwZnvm i‡q‡Q| Zvi g‡Z AšÍZt ZLb †_‡K b„weÁv‡bi hvÎv ïiæ n‡q‡Q e‡j †`Lv †h‡Z cv‡i hLb A-cwðgv †jvK‡`i mv‡_ BD‡ivcxq mv¤ªvR¨ev`x‡`i me©cÖ_g mvÿvr N‡U (from the earliest

encounters of European imperialist with non-western peoples) (Kuklick,


weªwUk b„weÁv‡b cÖ_g wek¦hy× ev Zrc~e©Kvjxb mg‡q cÖvavb¨c~Y© ZvwË¡K aviv n‡jv e¨vwßev` Ges wµqvev`; Avi G `y‡Uv ZvwË¡K avivB GKwU‡K Ab¨wUi GK`g wecixZ wn‡m‡e Dc¯
vcb K‡i‡Q| weeZ©bev`x‡`i HwZnvwmK cybtwbg©v‡Yi †h jÿ¨ †mwU e¨vwßev`x‡`i Kv‡RI wQj, weeZ©bev`x‡`i g‡ZvB Giv †`L‡Z †P‡q‡Q cÖvwZôvwbK e¨e¯
vq KvjµwgK cwieZ©‡bi ga¨ w`‡q AvaywbK mf¨Zvi ch©v‡q gvbeZvi DËiY N‡U‡Q| wKš‧ GB HwZnvwmK cwieZ©b‡K e¨vL¨v Kivi †ÿ‡Î weeZ©bev`xMY Ges e¨vwßev`xM‡Yi †g․wjK Abygvb Awfbœ bq| cÖ_‡gv³MY ‡hLv‡b g‡b Ki‡Zb mgMÖ gvbe BwZnv‡mi GK Awfbœ MšÍe¨ i‡q‡Q, Ges †m MšÍ‡e¨ †cu․Qv‡bvi Rb¨ mKj gvbe mgvRB g‡bvMZ H‡K¨i (psychic unity) Kvi‡Y D™¢vebx ÿgZvi ga¨ w`‡q AMÖmi n‡”Q| Gi wecix‡Z wØZx‡qv³MY g‡b Ki‡Zb cwieZ©‡bi g~j AbyNUK n‡”Q AwfMg‡bi ga¨ w`‡q msNwUZ mvs¯‥…wZK †hvMv‡hvM-cÖwZwU ms¯‥…wZi Avjv`v Avjv`v D™¢vebx ÿgZv bq|

1920 Gi `kK n‡Z ïiæ K‡i 1960 Gi `kK ch©šÍ weªwUk mvgvwRK b„weÁv‡b cÖZvckvjx ZË¡ I c×wZMZ aviv n‡jv wµqvev`| wµqvev`x‡`i Ae¯
vb m¤ú‡K© †nbwiKv KzKwjK †hgb e‡j‡Qb †h Giv mvgvwRK b„weÁv‡b 1920 Gi `kK n‡Z ïiæ K‡i 1960 Gi `kK ch©šÍ kw³kvjx Ae¯
vb a‡i iv‡L Ges Aa¨q‡bi welqe¯‧ wn‡m‡e wew”Qbœ Rb‡Mvôxmg~‡ni ¯^Zš¿ ms¯‥…wZi cÖwZB Zviv †Rvi †`b| we‡k¦i HwZnvwmK cwieZ©b msµvšÍ †Kvbiƒc wbqgbxwZ ev e„nr ZË¡ cÖwZôvi †Póv †_‡K Giv weiZ _v‡Kb| Gi cwie‡Z© Zviv ¸iæZ¡ †`b w¯
wZkxj mgvR e¨e¯


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

eZ©gvb‡K›`ªxK •ewkó¨mg~n Lyu‡R †ei Kivi Ici| Zv‡`i `„wó‡Z e¯‧MZ w`K †_‡K mij mgvRmg~n, †h¸‡jv cwðgv mgvR †¯ªvZ †_‡K wew”Qbœ mgvR¸‡jvB n‡”Q b„‣eÁvwbK Aa¨q‡bi Rb¨ Av`k© mgvR Ges Gme mgv‡Ri mvgwMÖKfv‡e mn‡R e¨vL¨v Kiv hvq (Kuklick, 1996)|

Gfv‡e weªwUk b„‣eÁvwbK HwZ‡n¨i g‡a¨B c~e©eZ©x weeZ©bev`x ZvwË¡K‡`i mv‡_ cieZ©x wµqvev`x‡`i ZvwË¡K `„wófw½MZ we¯Íi e¨eavb •Zwi n‡q hvq| GQvov, mvgvwRK b„weÁv‡bi gvVKg©wfwËK Aa¨q‡bi †h •ewkó¨ †mwUI ZvwË¡K weKv‡ki GB ch©v‡qi mv‡_ Mfxifv‡e mswkøó, b„weÁv‡bi cwiPqÁvcK Mfxi I m~² gvVK‡g©i †h HwZn¨ Zv g~jZ G mgqKvi wµqvev`x‡`iB ms‡hvRb|

G mg‡qi weªwUk b„weÁv‡bi weKvk we‡køl‡Y Ab¨ GKwU welq we‡klfv‡e jÿYxq| e¨vwßev` Ges wµqvev`-Dfq avivi Abymvix ZvwË¡KivB ¯úó K‡i GUv A¯^xKvi K‡ib †h, bieY© (race) Ges ms¯‥…wZi g‡a¨ †Kvb iƒc AvšÍtm¤úK© i‡q‡Q| ms¯‥…wZi Ici bie‡Y©i cÖfve‡K Giƒc A¯^xKv‡ii djkÖæwZ‡Z wek kZ‡K G‡m •`wnK b„weÁvbx‡`i KvR Ges mvgvwRK mvs¯‥…wZK b„weÁvbx‡`i KvR GK`gB ¯^Zš¿ n‡q c‡o| `ywU DcÁvbKv‡Ði mvs¯‥…wZK b„weÁvbx‡`i KvR GK`gB ¯^Zš¿B n‡q c‡o| `ywU DcÁvbKv‡Ði ci¯úi cwic~iK n‡q _vKvi e¨vcviUv G ch©v‡q Avi †mfv‡e _v‡K bv| we‡kl K‡i wµqvex`iv cÖvq mKj ai‡bi •RweK AbymÜvb‡K AcÖvmw½K wn‡m‡e we‡ePbv Ki‡Z ïiæ K‡i GB we‡ePbv †_‡K †h, mKj gvbe mgvRB Kg-‡ewk GKB ai‡bi Awbevh© cÖvK…wZK Ae¯
vi gv‡S †e‡o I‡V Ges †m Kvi‡Y mvgvwRK •ewPΨ e¨vL¨vq •RweK KviY¸‡jv wb‡q †ewk g‡bv‡hvMx nIqv †Zgb GKwU Riæix bq|

Ab¨w`‡K cÖZœZvwË¡KMY Ges •RweK b„weÁvbxMY gvbe BwZnv‡mi AMÖMwZ †h Kx K‡i n‡jv †m wel‡q Dbwesk kZvãxi b„weÁvbx‡`i Ôg~jÕ †h AvMÖ‡ni welq Zvi cÖwZB cy‡ivcywi g‡bv‡hvMx _vK‡jv| djkÖæwZ‡Z b„weÁv‡bi DcÁvbKvи‡jv GK`gB ¯^Zš¿ avivi weKwkZ n‡Z ïiæ K‡i Ges GB DckvL¸‡jv PP©vKvix GKv‡WwgK e¨w³eM© ev †ckvRxexM‡Yi g‡a¨ †hvMv‡hvM ev gZvg‡Z wewbgq by¨bZg ch©v‡q †b‡g Av‡m|


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

weªwUk Ges Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁ‡bi wfbœZv cÖm‡½ Ges, GKB mv‡_, weªwUk b„weÁv‡bi †fZ‡i †h DcÁvbKvÐxq Uvbv‡cv‡ob †m wel‡q †nbwiKv KzKwj‡Ki we‡kølY G cÖm‡½ D‡jøL Kiv hvq| b„weÁv‡bi weKvk cÖwµqvqB wKfv‡e Am½wZmg~n Ges wek¦RbxbZvi NvUwZi welqwU Awbe©vhfv‡e Dcw¯
Z †_‡K wM‡qwQj Zv Zvui G Av‡jvPbv †_‡K †evSv hvq (we¯ÍvwiZ Av‡jvPbvi Rb¨ †`Lyb

Kuklick, 1992)|

‡mvwf‡q‡Z, Av‡gwiKvb Ges weªwUk b„‣eÁv‡bi cvkvcvwk `wÿY Gwkqvi b„weÁvb, GLvbKvi b„‣eÁvwbK weKvk Ges M‡elYv I AbymÜv‡bi welq¸‡jvi cÖwZ bRi w`‡jI †`Lv hv‡e GLv‡b wfbœ GKwU Ae¯
v GLv‡b •Zwi n‡q‡Q| `wÿY Gkxq AvaywbK b„weÁv‡bi wfwË iwPZ nq Jcwb‡ewkK Avg‡ji G_‡bvMÖvwdK wi‡cvU©¸‡jvi ga¨ w`‡q| 3 Aek¨ ¯^vaxbZv cieZ©xKv‡j gvVK‡g©i gva¨‡g b„weÁvb PP©vKvixivI G A‡ji g~j avivi b„weÁv‡b weKv‡k eo f~wgKv iv‡Lb| mvgwMÖKfv‡e jyB `y‡gvi Homo Hierarchicus †K †K›`ª K‡iB AwaKvsk KvR m¤úvw`Z nq| A_©vr RvwZeY© cÖ_v Ges ÁvwZm¤úK© Aa¨qb Ges †m j‡ÿ¨ Ôwf‡jR ÷vwWRÕB n‡”Q `wÿY Gkxq b„weÁv‡bi †ÿ‡Î ¯^vaxb cieZ©x cÖavb aviv| cieZ©x‡Z Aek¨ wj½, AmgZv, BwZnvm, AvZ¥cwiP‡qi ivRbxwZ cÖf…wZ welqmg~n cÖvavb¨ †c‡Z _v‡K|

ZvwË¡KM‡Yi Ae¯’vb I `„wófw½: bvbvgyLx wfbœZv I •ewPΨ RvZxq HwZn¨mg~‡ni GB wfbœZv Ges •ecix‡Zi cvkvcvwk gyL¨ ZvwË¡KMY b„weÁvb‡K †h wKfv‡e ev †Kvb `„wófw½ †_‡K eyS‡Z †P‡q‡Qb †mLv‡bI LyeB ¸iæZ¡c~Y© Ges jÿYxq wfbœZv cvIqv hvq| eª¨vwbm&j g¨vwj‡bvw¯‥ Ges †iWwK¬d eªvD‡bi `„wófw½MZ wfbœZv ev¯ÍweK KZUv we¯Í…Z †mUv cÖkœmv‡cÿ e‡U, wKš‧ b„weÁv‡bi Av‡jvP¨ welq wn‡m‡e h_vµg Ôms¯‥…wZÕ Ges ÔmgvRÕ †K eyS‡Z wM‡q Zviv †h weZ‡K© Rwo‡q‡Qb Zv G Av‡jvPbvq we‡klfv‡e cÖvmw½K (we¯ÍvwiZ Av‡jvPbvi Rb¨ `ªóe¨ Kuper, 1996)| G‡`i `yR‡bi gZwfbœZvi cvkvcvwk K¬` †jwf-÷ª‡mi ZvwË¡K Ae¯
v‡bi we‡ePbv AviI ¯úó Ki‡e †Kej mvgvwRK- mvs¯‥…wZK b„weÁv‡bi AaxZe¨ welq wb‡q b„weÁvbx‡`i gv‡S Kx wecyj gZv‣bK¨


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

†`Lv wM‡qwQj ev †`Lv hvq GLbI| †h weeZ©bev`‡K GKUv ch©v‡q b„weÁv‡b cy‡ivcywi cwiZ¨vM Kiv nq †mB weZ©bev`‡KB Avevi cieZ©x‡Z GKfv‡e cÖvmw½K wn‡m‡e †`Lv nq| GKUv mgq weeZ©bev`x‡`i mgv‡jvPbv Kiv n‡Zv Zv‡`i Abygvb-wbf©iZv ev speculation Gi cÖeYZvi Kvi‡Y; A_P wK¬‡dvW© Mxqv‡R©i ms¯‥…wZi e¨vL¨v msµvšÍ e³e¨ GKfv‡e †mB AbywgwZ‡ZB wd‡i hvevi c_ †`Lvq

(Geertz, 1973)|

we‡ePbvi cÖm½mg~n GB eûgvwÎKZv, •ewPΨ I •ecix‡Z¡i †cÖÿvc‡U gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi weÁvb n‡q IVvi †ÿ‡Î b„weÁv‡bi mxgve×Zv ev Am½wZ¸‡jv wPwýZ Kivi j‡ÿ¨ gyL¨ †h †ÿθ‡jv we‡kl g‡bv‡hvM `vex K‡i †m cÖm½¸‡jv‡K GLv‡b Avjv`vfv‡e D‡jøL Kiv n‡jvt

Acwðgv gvby‡li weÁvb ïiæ †_‡KB gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi weÁvb n‡q DV‡Z wM‡q b„weÁvb Zvi wb‡Ri Aa¨qb, M‡elYv ev we‡køl‡Yi AvIZvq mKj ai‡bi ev mKj ch©v‡qi gvbyl‡K AšÍf~©³ Ki‡Z e¨_© n‡q‡Q| mij, cÖvK-wkívwqZ mgv‡Ri ev cÖvK cyuwRev`x Dcwb‡ewkZ gvby‡li mgvR-ms¯‥…wZ Aa¨q‡bi weÁvb wn‡m‡e b„weÁv‡bi cÖv_wgK hvÎv I †e‡o IVv| Gfv‡e gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi c~Y©v½ •eÁvwbK ÁvbKvÐwUi hvÎvB ïiæ nq gvbyl bvgK cÖRvwZwUi LwÐZ Aa¨q‡bi ga¨ w`‡q|

wbR Rb‡Mvôxi bq ÔAb¨Õ Rb‡Mvôxi Aa¨qb GKB fv‡e gvby‡li •RweK, mvgvwRK-mvs¯‥…wZK, fvlvZvwË¡K Ges cÖv‣MwZnvwmK

ev cÖZœZvwË¡K Z_v mvgwMÖK w`‡Ki mw¤§wjZ Aa¨q‡bi cÖwZkÖæwZ w`‡q Áv‡bi GB

kvLvwUi hvÎv ïiæ n‡jI Gi †e‡o IVvi BwZnvm we‡kølY Ki‡j †`Lv hvq BD‡ivc, Av‡gwiKv †Zv e‡UB GgbwK c„w_exi Ab¨vb¨ A‡ji b„weÁvb weKwkZ n‡q‡Q ÔA™¢yZ-wewPÎÕ ÔAb¨Õ (exotic other) gvby‡li Aa¨qb wn‡m‡e| wbR mgvR

I wbR Rb‡Mvôx †m A‡_© AvRI b„weÁv‡bi welqe¯‧ n‡q DV‡Z cv‡i wb| hw`I

b„weÁvb GLb Avi c~‡e©i g‡Zv ÔAvw`gÕ, ÔmijÕ, ÔAbMÖmiÕ, ÔAbÿiÕ ev ÔAmf¨Õ


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

mgvR Aa¨q‡b cy‡ivcywi e¨vc„Z _v‡K bv Z_vwc AvRI b„weÁvb GgbwK wkívwqZ wbR mgv‡R M‡elYv Ki‡Z wM‡q GK ai‡bi ÔAb¨Õ •Zwi K‡i †bq|

gvby‡li cwic~Y© Aa¨qb bvwK cyরুl cক্ষcvZg~jK Aa¨qb wb‡Ri Ae¯
vb, `„wófw½ I ÁvbZ‡Ë¡i GKB iKg A¯úóZv Ges Uvbv‡cv‡ob †_‡KB mKj gvby‡li cvV n‡q IVvi g‡Zv Ae¯
v‡b †cu․Qv‡Z b„weÁvb mÿg nq bv; Ges gvby‡li Aa¨q‡bi cwie‡Z© GwU Awfhy³ nq cyiæl cÿcvwZZ¡c~Y© (male bias) nevi †`v‡l| b„‣eÁvwbK G_‡bvMÖvwd¸‡jv bvix‡K †Kvb `„wófw½‡Z †`‡L †m wb‡q Rb¥ nq we¯Íi weZ‡K©i| gvbe cÖRvwZi mvgwMÖK Aa¨qb bv n‡q GwU µgvMZ †e‡o D‡V‡Q G cÖRvwZi ÿgZvevb As‡ki g‡bvfve I `„wófw½I aviK Ges cÖKvkK wn‡m‡e|

Zvn‡j wK Acwðgv Ab¨ gvby‡li ÔZzjbvg~jK mgvRweÁvbÕ? ‡iWwK¬d eªvDb b„weÁvb‡K †`L‡Z †P‡qwQ‡jb cÖvK…wZK weÁv‡bi g‡ZvB GKwU weÁvb wn‡m‡e Z_v mgvR m¤úwK©Z cÖvK…wZK weÁvb ev Ôa natural science of mi]c_ns‖ wn‡m‡e| Ges Zvui fvebv Abyhvqx b„weÁv‡bi Avm‡j Zzjbvg~jK mvgvwRK weÁvb (comparative sociology) nevi K_v| GLb BwZnvm ch©v‡jvPbvq g‡b nq †h b„weÁvb me gvby‡li c~Y©v½ Aa¨qb bv n‡q eis n‡q D‡V‡Q ÔAcwðgvÕ ÔAb¨Õ gvby‡li Aa¨qb msµvšÍ Zzjbvg~jK mgvR weÁvb| GgbwK mvgwMÖK •ewk¦K †cÖÿvc‡U gvbyl m¤úwK©Z Aa¨q‡bi Zzjbvg~jK mgvR weÁvb n‡q IVvI b„weÁv‡bi c‡ÿ m¤¢e nq bv|

gvby‡li c~Yv©½ cvV bq eis Zvi mgvR A_ev ms¯‥…wZi cvV b„weÁv‡bi †h PviwU cÖavb †ÿÎ (four field) _vK‡e †mwU cÖ_g my¯úó ¸iæ‡Z¡i mv‡_ mvg‡b wb‡q Av‡mb vbh †evqvm| fvlv e›U‡bi gvbwPÎ, •`wnK •ewkó¨mg~n Ges mvs¯‥…wZ MÖæc-gvbe Aw¯Í‡Z¡i GB wZbwU w`K‡K ¸iæ‡Z¡i mv‡_ Aa¨qb Kiv cÖ‡qvRb e‡j †evqvm gZ †`b Ges Gme Aa¨q‡b cÖwZwU †ÿ‡Î wfbœ wfbœ c×wZ e¨env‡ii K_v e‡jb| •RweK •ewkó¨mg~n Aa¨q‡bi Rb¨ gvc-‡RvL I cwimsL¨vb, fvlv †evSvi Rb¨ †U·U I e¨vKiY we‡kølY Ges mvs¯‥…wZK welqvw`


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Aa¨q‡bi †ÿ‡Î ms¯‥…wZmg~‡ni ev mvs¯‥…wZK Dcv`vbmg~‡ni e›Ub Ges cÖwZwU ms¯‥…wZ‡K c~Y©v½fv‡e Aa¨q‡bi c×wZ AbmyiY Kivi cÖwZ wZwb †Rvi w`‡qwQ‡jb| GQvov mvs¯‥…wZK AZxZ Aa¨q‡bi †ÿ‡Î cÖZœZvwË¡K c×wZ Abymi‡Yi K_vI wZwb ¸iæ‡Z¡i mv‡_ D‡jøL K‡iwQ‡jb| Gfv‡e †h PviwU DcÁvbKvÐ b„weÁv‡b weKwkZ nq †m¸‡jvi g‡a¨ cieZ©x‡Z mwZ¨Kvi A‡_© Kvh©Ki †Kvb mgš^q cieZ©x‡Z jÿ¨ Kiv hvq bv| GgbwK GB Pvi †ÿ‡Îi kv¯¿Kvi‡`i ev PP©vKvix‡`i g‡a¨ cvi¯úwiK gZ wewbgq ev wg_w®…qvI by¨bZg ch©v‡q †b‡g Av‡m| cÖfvekvjx Ges ¸iæZ¡c~Y© n‡q I‡V mgvR e¨e¯
v, mgvR KvVv‡gv, ms¯‥…wZ ev mvs¯‥…wZK cÖwZôvbmg~‡ni we‡klvwqZ Aa¨q‡bi aviYv|

ms¯‥…wZ Aa¨qb Qvwc‡q hvq gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi g~j G‡RÛv‡K b„weÁv‡bi cÖvq me¸‡jv c¨vivWvBgB `uvwo‡q‡Q Ôms¯‥…wZÕ †K wN‡i| †h ms¯‥…wZ cv‡Vi ga¨ w`‡q gvbyl‡K cvV Kivi K_v wQj †mB ms¯‥…wZ GZUvB ¸iæZ¡c~Y© Ges we¯Í„Z g‡bv‡hvM †K‡o †bq †h KL‡bv KL‡bv g‡b nq ms¯‥…wZ †h Aa¨q‡bi P~ovšÍ jÿ¨ bq eis ms¯‥…wZ ga¨ w`‡q †h gvbe cÖK…wZ‡K Aa¨qb Ki‡Z PvIqv n‡q‡Q †mwUB b„weÁvbxiv we¯§„Z n‡q‡Qb| GB ms¯‥…wZ Aa¨qb Avevi mywbw`©ó †Kvb ÁvbZË¡xq †d«gIqv‡K© wfwË K‡i AMÖmi nqwb|

mv¤úªwZK cwieZ©b: `k©b I ivRbxwZi cÖvavb¨, †g․wjK ÁvbZvwË¡K wRÁvmvmg~‡ni cÖvwšÍK n‡q hvIqv weMZ `kK¸‡jv‡K b„weÁvb µgk BwZnvm, mvwnZ¨, KvjPvi ÷vwWR Ges mvgwMÖKfv‡e `k©‡bi mgm¨vmg~‡ni mv‡_ AwaK cwigv‡Y e¨vc„Z n‡q‡Q| Gi djkÖæwZ‡Z b„weÁvb GLb †g․wjK wKQzcÖ‡kœi gy‡LvgywL n‡q‡Q| `k©b, ivRbxwZ cÖf…wZi Giƒc cÖvav‡b¨i d‡j GLb µgk cÖvwšÍK n‡q co‡Q †g․wjK ÁvbZË¡xq weÁvmvmg~n| mgmvgwqK GB Uvbv‡cv‡ob‡K †`L‡Z n‡e B‡Zvg‡a¨ b„weÁv‡bi kw³kvjx †Kvb ÁvbZË¡xq wfZ& M‡o bv IVvi †cÖÿvc‡U|


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

AZxZ wegywLZv Ges mv¤úªwZK Bmy¨‡Kw›`ªKZv: ¸রুZ¡c~Y© †g․j Aa¨q‡bi welq D‡cwক্ষZ mvgvwRK-mvs¯‥…wZK b„weÁv‡b mv¤úªwZK `kK¸‡jv‡Z Ab¨ †h GKwU cÖeYZv jÿ¨ Kiv hvq Zv n‡jv AZxZ wegyLZv Ges mgmvgwqK Bmy¨mg~‡ni cÖwZ AwaKZi g‡bv‡hvM cÖ`vb| Gi d‡j AZxZ, eZ©gvb I fwel¨‡Zi wgwjZ †d«gIqv‡K© gvbyl‡K c~Y©v½iƒ‡c Aa¨qb Kivi jÿ¨wU ÿwZMÖ¯Í n‡”Q| Gm‡ei d‡j c×wZMZ mijxKiY N‡U‡Q Ges cÖZœZvwË¡K I RxeweÁvbMZ cÖkœmg~n b„weÁv‡bi ÁvbRvMwZK cwigЇji µgk cÖvwšÍK n‡q c‡o‡Q|

cÖv‡qvwMKZv-cÖvmw½KZvi `„k¨gvb ZvwM‡` b„weÁv‡bi g~j PwiÎ-‣ewkó¨ iক্ষvB GLb eo cÖkœ Ab¨w`‡K cÖv‡qvwMK I cÖvmw½K weÁvb wn‡m‡e cÖgvY Ki‡Z wM‡q †Kvb †Kvb †ÿ‡Î b„weÁvbxMY Zv‡`i ÁvbKvЇK µgk †g․wjK I ¯^vZš¿c~Y© Ae¯
vb †_‡K mwi‡q wb‡q †M‡Q| G ch©v‡q A_©bxwZ, Dbœqb Aa¨qb cÖf…wZ kw³kvjx ÁvbKvÐmg~‡ni cÖfvekvjx ZË¡xq `„wófw½I gy‡LvgywL n‡q‡Q b„weÁvb Ges wbR¯^ Ae`v‡bi Zzjbvq Gme cÖfvekvjx `„wófw½I Pvwn`vi cÖwZ mvov †`qvi, †m¸‡jvi mv‡_ wb‡R‡K gvwb‡q †bqvi ev wb‡R‡K Dc‡hvMx K‡i M‡o †Zvjvi NUbvB †ewk N‡U‡Q| Gi d‡j b„weÁvb Zvi wbR¯^Zv Ges ¯^vZš¿¨m~PK Ae¯
vb †_‡K µgk m‡i †M‡Q|

mvgwMÖK b„‣eÁvwbK wPšÍvq H‡K¨i Zzjbvq •ewP‡Îi cÖvavb¨ mvgwMÖKfv‡e b„‣eÁvwbK wPšÍvq Gfv‡e †Kvb m~Îe× kw³kvjx ÁvbZË¡xq Ae¯
vb •Zwi n‡Z †`Lv hvq bv; eis GLv‡b ZvwË¡K †d«gIqvK© ev wbR¯^ `„wófw½ wba©vi‡Yi †ÿ‡Î GK ai‡bi Lvg ‡Lqvwjc~Y© Ae¯
v ev KL‡bv KL‡bv GK cÖKv‡ii AivRKZv, wek„•Ljv ev weåvwšÍB (chaotic situation) AwaK `„k¨gvb n‡q I‡V|

Dcmsnvi G Aa¨v‡q GiB g‡a¨ Dc¯
vwcZ cÖkœmg~n ev ch©‡eÿYmg~‡ni ga¨ w`‡q †h †K›`ªxq cÖm½My‡jv Dc¯
vcb Kiv n‡q‡Q †m¸‡jv g~jZ b„weÁvb‡K ÁvbZË¡xq †cÖÿvcU †_‡K eyS‡Z PvIqvi djkÖæwZ| gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi c~Y©v½ ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e GKwU weKwkZ n‡e GUvB cÖZ¨vwkZ _vK‡jI HwZnvwmKfv‡eB b„weÁvb †m jÿ¨ AR©‡b mÿg nqwb Ges AvR‡Ki †cÖÿvc‡U †h bvbvgyLx m¼U, cÖkœ ev wRÁvmg~‡ni ev


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

weZK© I Uvbv‡cv‡o‡bi gy‡LvgywL b„weÁvb n‡”Q Zv‡Z b„weÁvb †h wewfbœ mgq GKwU myweavRbKfv‡e e¨eüZ cÖZ¨q ev t_lg i` ]ihp_hc_h]_‖ n‡qB †_‡K‡Q †mwU ¯úó K‡i †`L‡Z cvIqvUvB ¸iæZ¡c~Y© e‡j g‡b nq| GB Ae¯
vb †_‡K mvgwMÖKfv‡e DËi‡Yi ga¨ w`‡q gvbe cÖRvwZi cwic~Y© I gvbweK Aa¨q‡bi ÁvbKvÐ n‡q IVv wK b„weÁv‡bi c‡ÿ Avi m¤¢e bq? hw` †m m¤¢ebv GLbI †_‡K _v‡K Z‡e Zvi c_ I cÖwµqv wb‡q we¯ÍvwiZ KvR Kivi `vwqZ¡ AvR‡Ki b„weÁvbx‡`i i‡q‡Q| fwel¨‡Zi b„weÁvb †Kvb LwÐZ ev A¯úó kv¯¿ n‡q hv‡Z bv _v‡K, ÁvbZË¡xq w`K †_‡K mg„× I cwic~Y© gvbe-Aa¨q‡bi ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e hv‡Z GwU mdj n‡Z cv‡i †mwUB AvR‡Ki Ges fwel¨‡Zi b„weÁvbxi g~j fvebvi welq n‡Z cv‡i|


1 G Aa¨v‡q b„weÁv‡bi ÁvbZË¡xq cÖm½ wb‡q wbeÜKv‡ii ch©‡eÿYmg~n Dc¯
vcb Kiv n‡q‡Q| ÁvbZË¡ ej‡Z (philosophy) ‡evSv‡bv nq Ávb m¤úwK©Z ZË¡ ev

Ôtheory of knowledgeÕ Ges Ôsource and process of knowledgeÕ‡K| †h

we‡kl ai‡bi Áv‡bi AbymÜvb †_‡K b„weÁv‡bi hvÎv I weKvk Zvi ZvwË¡K we‡kølY GLv‡b g~j jÿ¨| GB we‡køl‡Yi ga¨ w`‡q ‡evSvi †Póv Kiv n‡q‡Q b„‣eÁvwbK Áv‡bi ZvwË¡K m¼U, mxgve×Zv ev Uvbv‡cv‡ob¸‡jv †Kv_vq| b„‣eÁvwbK Áv‡bi ZvwË¡KZv eyS‡Z wM‡q GLv‡b cÖavbZ g‡bv‡hvM †`qv n‡q‡Q Gi ÁvbKvÐxq BwZnv‡mi (disciplinary history) cÖwZ| b„weÁv‡bi ÁvbZË¡ (epistemology) we‡køl‡Y Gfv‡e ÁvbKvÐ (discipline) wn‡m‡e b„weÁv‡bi D™¢e I weKvk we‡kølY GLv‡b cÖvmw½K n‡q D‡V‡Q|

2 DËivaywbKZvev`x ZË¡ b„weÁv‡b Kx ai‡bi cÖfve •Zwi K‡i‡Q Zvi GKwU mswÿß Av‡jvPbvi Rb¨ †`Lyb Layton, 1997 Gi c„ôv 185 n‡Z 215 ch©šÍ|

3 `wÿY Gkxq b„weÁvb msµvšÍ G Av‡jvPbvwU‡Z g~jZt we‡ePbv Kiv n‡q‡Q fviZ I kÖxj¼vq b„weÁvb PP©vi †h BwZnvm i‡q‡Q †mwU‡K| mvgwMÖKfv‡e `wÿY Gwkqv ejv n‡j Zv‡Z evsjv‡`‡ki b„weÁvbI AšÍf~©³ nq| wKš‧ GLv‡b cwimi I


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

welqe¯‧ wePv‡i evsjv‡`‡k b„weÁvb m¤ú‡K© mywbw`©ó we‡kølY Dc¯
vcb †_‡K weiZ _vKv n‡q‡Q| e¯‧Z G †cÖÿvcU †_‡K Av‡jvPbv Kivi †ÿ‡Î evsjv‡`‡ki b„weÁvb ¯^Zš¿ I we¯Í…Z Av‡jvPbv `vex K‡i| eZ©gvb cwim‡i †mB †Póv bv K‡i GwU fwel¨‡Z wfbœfv‡e Av‡jvPbvi cÖZ¨vkv _vK‡jv|


Abu-Lughod, L. (1991) Writing Against Culture, in R. G. Fox (Ed) Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present. Santa Fe: School of American Reserch.

Asad, T. (Ed) (1973) Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London:

Ithaca Press.

Bromley, Y. V. (1981) Sovremennye Problemy Ethnografii. Moscow:


Clifford, J. (1988) The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Cohn, B. (1987) An Anthropologist among the Historians. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Fabian, J. (1983) Tume and the Other, How Anthropology makes Its Object. New York: Columbia University Press.


University Press.









Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Geertz, C. (1973) Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays. New York:

Basic Books.

Gellner, E. (1988) State and Soceity in Soviet Thought. London: Basil Blackwell.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revulotions. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.


Anthropology 1885-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.










Kiklick, H. (1996) British Anthropology, in J. Spencer & A. Barnard (Eds) Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. London:


Kuper, A. (1996) Anthropologists and Anthropology: The Modern British School. London: Rountledge.


Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lowie, R. H. (1937) The History of Ethnological Theory. New York:

Halt, Rinehart and Winston.










Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Malefijt, A. de W. (1976) Images of Man: A History of Anthropological Thought. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Marcus, G. & Fischer, M. (Eds (1986) Anthropology as Cultural Critique. Durham, N C: Duke University Press.



Comparative Studies in Sociey and History, 26: 126-66.









Stocking, G. W., Jr. (1996) After Tylor: British Social Anthropology, 1888-1951. London: The Athlone Press.

Sahlins, M. (1981) Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


Anthropogy, 33 (4): 371-82.










Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Chapter 3

Conceptualization of Human Being:

Vision of an Anthropologist

Anthropology has emerged as a science to study human beings-presumably the most complex subject and object of investigation. The history of anthropology reveals that the foundation of the discipline have been laid by individual scholars from diverse background and also at the primary stage adequate materials were gathered by travelers, traders, missionaries, administrators and explorers. The period in the history of anthropology, extends from the time of the Greek historians, philosophers, and naturalists and its rudiments were scattered throughout the writings of natural historians, physicians, travelers, and social philosophers (Penniman, 1935). Over the years, the discipline has received its academic ground, developed its vision about the subject matter and got equipped with theories, methodologies, and instrumentations. In different parts of the world, emphasis and focus of the discipline varied significantly. In Europe, particularly, in England, central issue of the discipline has been societies. Radcliffe-Brown had conceived [hnblijifias [m ]igj[l[ncp_ mi]cifias. ―Fl[h]_ g[s \_ ]cn_^ [m [h _r[gjf_ of the abnormal situation arising in anthropological work from a rigid separation between the faculties of science and arts. The University of Paris grants three diplomas in anthropology- a diploma in ethnology (with arts optional) awarded by the faculty of arts, the same diploma with sciences optional, awarded by the two faculties combined, and the lastly, a diploma in physical anthropology, awarded by the facufns i` m]c_h]_ [fih_‖. Ih Nilnb America, anthropology is studied as a combination of four sub-fields; physical


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology and archeology. Anthropology has a long history in India with emphasis on physical ahnblijifias [h^ ih nb_ mno^s i` ―nlc\_m‖. Ih `ilg_l Sipc_n Uhcih [h^ ch

]ihn_gjil[ls Rommc[, [hnblijifias b[m \

categorized nations, nationalities and ethnic groups. In Bangladesh, [hnblijifias b[m mn[ln_^ cnm‖ diolh_s nqo decades ago and now is gaining its


A deeper look in the past clearly indicates that the discipline has uneven and inconsistent growth over the world while understandings about its subject matter vary from country to country and the focus has often been on a single aspect. Levi-Strauss (1986) has expressed his concern about the way [hnblijifias cm ]ih]_cp_^. H_ pc_q_^ ―nb[n ch m_p_l[f Eolij_[h ]iohnlc_m nb_ term anthropology was left undefined and was, therefore, limited in practice to physical [hnblijifias‖.

Tbcm ―h[lliq `i]om‖ [jjli[]b ni chm_j[l[\f_ [mj_]nm i` bog[h fc`_ ^c^ hin ai without implications. This approach constrained the discipline in having a partial view about human beings. In this regard, Levi-Strauss has observed nb[n ―cn cm no realize, from the outset, that anthropology is not distinguished from other humanistic and social sciences by any subject of study peculiar to cn [fih_‖. Ahnblijifias cm ohcko_ [h^ ^cmnch]n `lig inb_l m]c_h]_m ch cnm [\cfcns to explain how different aspects of human life are interrelated, interdependent and fit together to constitute human beings as one. In order to have a more comprehensive understanding about human being a model is proposed (diagram 1) below.

This model conceives human beings as a synthesis of body, mind, culture and society, power and many other contexts which are inextricably linked to each other and to the given organic and inorganic environment. The inorganic component which consists of climate, energy and materials has been placed in


mno^scha ―_nbhim‖ ^cmnch]ncp_fs


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

the outer surface of the model as it envelops all the organic forms of life such as plants, animals, microorganisms, pathogens and vectors and exists presumably all over the universe. Existing interrelationship refers to mutual inter-dependency of elements. It envisages that human being actively transforms the organic and inorganic environment they live in and the process is mutually implicated. Further, human beings are seen as a species that is divided into nation states, nationalities, and ethnic groups that structured in the system of kinship and family through a gender line.

Language, all forms of non-linguistic symbols, cognitive abilities and contents behavior, and music are seen as integral part of culture. Food is one of the central components of culture while organic environment, particularly plants and animals remains to be the sources of food.

Inseparability of culture and body could be observed in the very fact that language being a symbolic system is founded on the biological capabilities, particularly, neural connection between association areas for hearing and motor coordination of speech, localized in the left hemisphere of the brain j[lnc]of[lfs ch Bli][‖m [h^ W_lhc]e_‖m [l_[m. Scgcf[lfs, ][j[]cns `il ]ofnol_ has also a genetic basis.

However, the most fundamental aspect of homo sapience is the brain; see Gray’s Anatomy (Gray & Carter, 1858) for detail.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Kinship Gender Economy Power INORGANIC

M]Eflis [h^ Tiqhm_h^ b[p_ i\m_lp_^ nb[n ―nbl

characteristics underlie the human capacities for culture. First; humans have evolved extensive and complex neural connections in the cerebral cortex of

the brain, with considerable overlap between specific association areas for

a_h_nc][ffs based


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

vision, hearing, touch, and motor coordination. This overlap allows learning to occur through transfer and correlation of information between association areas. Second; evolution of human hands accompanied evolution of the fine visual motor coordination in the brain. Third; humans are born as altogether dependent beings, which allows a relatively long time for learning. These three characteristics-a complex brain, the ability to make tools and social bonding have allowed humans to generate an impressive diversity in cultural sysn_g [h^ ni molpcp_ ch nb_ qc^_ l[ha_ i` _]ifiac][f hc]b_m‖.

Further, culture is deeply related and linked to the society, as early as Tylor has observed that culture is acquired by humans as member of the society. Human beings constitute complex networks of relationship based on blood, affinity, descent, gender, economy, and power, and continuously transform it. Mind, together with body, culture and society constitute human beings. Individual psyche, personality, mental processes, emotional feelings and experiences are basic elements of humans.

Therefore, the model emphasizes on interrelationships, interconnectedness and interdependency of individual elements of human life. Intrinsically, the model contains a relational basis of anthropology with all its specialized fields shown in the diagram 2.

In the above diagram, 17 specialized fields are mentioned while there exist many other sub-fields which could not be included. Though each field appears ni \_ [h ―ch^_j_h^_hn mj_]c[fct[ncih‖. E[]b i` cn ]ihn[chm mige basic theoretical orientation in common. In order to have a clear idea about the individual field a brief discussion may be useful.

The board sub-field of cultural anthropology incorporates such fields as linguistics anthropology, which focuses on language, ethnography and ethnology study contemporary cultures (Aitchison, 1995). Archaeology


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

reveals extinct cultures, cognitive anthropology analyzes the processes and contents of cognition, symbolic anthropology explains the meaning of non- linguistic symbols and ethnomusicology studies culture through music. Social anthropology encompasses such specialization as economic anthropology that deals with economic systems as culture. Political anthropology analyzes power and authority in all types of societies and political systems, Feminist anthropology explains gender relationships. Urban anthropology examines human life in urban settings. Biological or physical anthropology deals with biological aspects of human life, while psychological anthropology explains human mind and psyche. Ecological anthropology focuses on relationship of human beings with other organisms in a given environment while environmental anthropology analyzes interactions between humans and natural environment. McElroy & Townsend (1996) have proposed an ecological model which explains that the environment impinges on people could be categorized into three parts; the physical or abiotic, biotic or organic and cultural. Three components constitute a system where the elements are interrelated, any change in one of the component lead to change in other. Medical anthropology deals with such aspects as health and disease.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Anthropology: Science of Human Being Diagram 2: The interrelationship between specialized sub-fields of Anthropology

Diagram 2:

The interrelationship between specialized sub-fields of Anthropology

However, the very existence of the specialized branches refers to the idea that not individual field but all of these together constitute anthropology as a discipline. These fields refer to an underlying interdisciplinary conceptual framework of anthropology that combines natural sciences, social sciences,


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

biological sciences and humanities. It also offers conceptual means to understand any phenomena or outcome related to human beings. Which is based on recognition of the fact that not a partial, but a comprehensive view is needed.

Conclusion From the above discussion it can be stated that over the years, the specialized fields of anthropology have emerged due to the needs of time and context. However, these developments lack comprehensive vision of anthropology. Presumably, anthropology is unique and distinct from other sciences in its ability to explain how different aspects of human life are interrelated, interdependent and fit together to constitute human beings as one. This discussion suggests that the comprehensibility in conceptualization of the human beings provides the basic theoretical foundation of anthropology.

Bibliography Aitchison, I. (1995) Linguistics: An introduction. Reading: Cox & Wymen Ltd.

Gray, H. & Carter, H. V. (1858) Gray’s Anatomy: Descriptive and Surgical. London: John W. Parker and Son.

Levi-Strauss, C. (1963/1986) Structural Anthropology. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

McElroy, A. & Townsend, P. K. (1996) Medical Anthropology in Ecological Perspective. New York: Westview Press.













Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Chapter 4

Formation of Anthropology as a Science of Human Being: A Theoretical Exploration in Historical Perspective

Abstract Anthropology is experiencing impasses and thus exigencies are very much apparent to overcome this state. In the recent phase of its development (since 1960s) through post-structuralism and post- modernism in particular, this impasse has reached its climax. To be more

precise, the discipline has taken a belligerent turn to philosophy, raised unprecedented doubt about ethnography, especially writing culture, _rjl_mm_^ ch]l_^ofcns niq[l^m ―al[h^‖ nb_ilc_m [h^ nb_ hincih i` jlial_mm by means of rationalization. Darwin has become almost irrelevant, as

nihilisg b[m _hn_l_^ ^

l_^o]_^ ni ―`c]ncih‖ qlcncha. Gcp_h nb_ ]ihn_rn, cn b[m \_]ig_ ch_pcn[\f_ to discern reasons for such a unique fate of a discipline that was destined

to study human beings. A modest attempt has been made in this present chapter, in order to explore the formation of anthropology. Further, an examination has been tried as to what theoretical constraints had contributed to inconsistent and arbitrary formation unlike any other discipline. Why anthropologists had been turning their blind eye to tangible lacunae? The article reveals the fact that anthropology has seriously failed to be developed as a science of human beings. The author



[h^ nb_ ―fiaim‖ i` ―[hnblijim‖ b[m \


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

puts forward his own theoretical perspectives that may help formation of anthropology as a science of human being.

Introduction In 2005, anthropology looks unprecedentedly different from what was in its formative stage and has undergone changes that are exclusive and fundamental. An exploration into the reasons for impasse is inevitable, since only theoretical insight of the formation of its contexts and epistemological grounding may help understand the present crisis and construct paradigm of the science of human being.

In the contemporary stage of its development the crisis has reached its climax. In this phase, it has taken a belligerent turn to philosophy, which has significantly influenced both theory and ethnography. The very existence of the discipline has been put into serious question. Culture being the central concept, around which anthropology aspires to develop,

]ihn_mn_^. Ih cnm jf[]_ ―jiq_l‖ b[m _g_la_^ jli`ioh^fs [m

the key notion.

nb[n ―mno^scha‖ bog[h \_cha cm [fgimn

impossible as its complexity has created not an ordinary crisis rather it

Ah _rjl_mmcih i` nb_ `

b[m hiq \



has led to an impasse for anthropology as a discipline, This has also produced profound tension among the anthropologists all over the world. S[bfchm b[m i\m_lp_^ nb[n [hnblijifias cm oh^_laicha nblioab ―nqcfcabn‖. For, Geertz, anthrijifias cm ―[^ bi]‖, [h^ ―_r jimn‖ _hn_ljlcm_, [h^ worldview, rather than a discipline. Nihilism is viewed as extensively embedded.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

As a student of anthropology, author earnestly feels that the reasons for disarray of the discipline need to be explored. Given the context and exigencies, it is examined reasons for such crisis, and has arrived at the ]ih]fomcih nb[n [hnblijifias b[m `[cf_^ f[la_fs ni \_ [ ―m]c_h]_ i` bog[h \_cha‖. Tbcm chapter b[m [^^l_mm_^ nb_ ―h[nol_‖ i` nb_ ]ihn_gjil[ls ]lcmcm in anthropology and explored reasons that had contributed to this crisis. It is understandable that these crises are the outcome of historical flaws that can be traced back in the very root of the discipline. It is further appretend that the development of anthropology as a science of human being has not been possible as to its inconsistent and arbitrary pattern of growth.

It is needless to prove again that anthropology has been superficially attractive and as said it has failed to be a science of human beings, and thus remained as an arbitrary term of convenience. This chapter extends the view that anthropology is undergoing theoretical and methodological crises and often nihilism is unanimous. However, author extend own conception as to how could anthropology be the science of human beings.

It will be worth mentioning that while the turn of anthropology to philosophy was associated with post-structuralism, the linguistic bias of anthropology had been linked to structuralism. The shift from social to linguistic structures is what has come to be known as the linguistic turn which dramatically altered the nature of the social sciences (Lash, 1991:

IX). This turn was obviously connected with the works of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). The turn of anthropology to philosophy is caused by the epistemological and ontological differences emerged around the notion of structure and the idea of progress embedded in modernism. A


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

closer look at the contemporary phase, post-structuralism and post- modernism in particular, make it tangible that it has almost entirely encompassed the vision of anthropology. This phase might be considered as a radical turn of anthropology to philosophy.

First shift towards philosophy: post-structuralism Rolland Barthes is often referred as a founder of semiotics (Ritzer, 1996:

594) and a precursor of post-structuralism whose central premise was to deconstruct linguistics (Barthes, 2000). And his two particular essays ―Aonbilm [h^ Wlcn_lm‖ [h^ ―Tb_ D_[nb i` nb_ Aonbil‖ b[p_ f[c^ nb_ foundation of post-structuralism. The other most influential Post- structuralism is J. Derrida. He has used two concepts, such as the concept i` ―^_`_l_h]_‖ [h^ ―^_]ihmnlo]ncih‖ nb[n b_fj_^ bcg l_gipcha [onbil from the centre, in one hand and see reader free of the ideas of all the intellectual authorities who have created the dominant discourse, on the inb_l. B_mc^_m, D_llc^[ qcnb nb_ b_fj i` nb_ ]ih]_jn i` ―^_]_hn_lcha‖ removed author from the centre of the traditional theatre (Derrida, 1976; 1977). He deconstructed logocentrism, which search for a universal system of thought and reveals what is true, right, beautiful and so no (Ritzer, 1996: 596-7).

The other thinker to be the most influential in post-structuralism is

Michel Foucault who had a very different theoretical orientation from those of Rolland Barthes and Derrida. Michel Foucault being profoundly

ch`fo_h]_^ \s Nc_ntm]b_‖m hincih i` h_rom \_nq


knowledge has developed a perspective as to how human beings are transformed to a subject and be ruled by the power gained through knowledge. Foucault has explained this process of subjectification, with a focus on madness, punishment and m_ro[fcns. Fio][ofn‖m mcahc`c][hn




Anthropology: Science of Human Being

[h[fsmcm b[mh‖n f_`n [hs m]ij_ `il ehiqf_^a_ [\ion g_^c]ch_ [h^ psychiatry which could have certain use for human beings.

In addition to that, while Michel Foucault was not at all agreeing with the existence of human nature (innate), he was rather keener to pursue such issues as human nature that has appeared in the discourses under any circumstances (Foucault, 1984).

Hence, ‗nb_ c^_[ i` [ ^cm]cjfch_, ch [hs i` nb_ m_hm_m i` qbim_ clihc_m [h^ cross-actions Michael Foucault built so much of his rhetorical tower, fits anthropology none too well. At once broad and general, wildly aspiring (‗Tb_ Sno^s i` M[h‘), [h^ j[lnc]of[l [h^ miscellaneous, strangely obsessive (puberty rites, gift exchange, kin terminology), it has always

had, both to itself and to outsiders, a blurry ig[a_‘ (G

Since the article does not have a scope for a detailed discussion on post- structuralism and pos-modernism, only some basic observations on these two perspectives are presented here. It should be noted that post- mnlo]nol[fcmg b[m hin s_n ]igjl_b_hmcp_fs ]limm_^ nb_ ‗jb[m_ i` mnlo]nol_‘ [h^ [mmog_^ nb_ ncnf_ ―jimn‖ nb_il_nc][ffs. I` nbcm cm ni \_ recognized than we have to put over all efforts to the revelation of the structure of all inorganic bodies composed of not only atom and particles but also its decaying qualities (uranium, carbon 14) including its transformation, in case of organic elements DNA is the life process as it contain gene that carry information about how the protein synthesis is to be carried out, being a mechanism of its growth, while the structure of h_olih [h^ h_oliafc[ cm nb_ e_s ni \_ ―bog[h‖. Ih ][m_ i` f[hao[a_, sound is the exclusive means to attach meaning to be produced and generate a system of arbitrary sing that can be the principal means of

lnt, 1995: 97).


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

communication, which presumably makes us human beings; in case of ohcp_lm_, _p_h nb_ ―_gjnch_mm‖ cm nb_ \[mc] mnlo]nol_ [m qcnbch qbc]b [ff huge bodies not only situate themselves, but also find their way of being, transforming and emerging.

Therefore, post-structuralism as a perspective has limited focus on deconstruction of logocentrism, linguistics, decentering of author:

freeing; readers from intellectual authority and the constraints of the structure.

Second shift toward philosophy: post-modernism Post-structuralism has prepared the ground for post-modernism to emerge (Ritzer, 1990). The first element of post-modernism is its historical location as a counter-reaction to modernism (Rabinow, 1990:

248). Therefore, a brief discussion of modernism will be useful to comprehend the context of post-modernism. For Habermas (1979) the modern period begins with the West-European Enlightenment, continued for one hundred years, from the mid-seventeenth to the mid-eighteenth century when a new realization developed regarding the power of reason to improve human society. Such ideas are expressed or embodied in the philosophy of Kant in Germany, Voltaire and Diderot in France, and Locke and Hume in Britain (Barry, 1995: 85). The grand theories developed by the founders of modern social thought also embody such characteristics. Nietzsche, the German philologists and philosopher stood in diametrical opposition to these grand narrations. He criticized such notions of totality and the scientific pretensions that supported them. For Nietzsche, there was no value in the ideas of totality. He rather proposed to reject the universalistic pretensions of modern, science, and thought that not only our knowledge about our reality, but reality itself may be


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

much less certain than nineteenth century science would have us believe (Appleby, 1996). This theoretical position provoked many other thinkers who had developed post-modern perspective. How this perspective differs from modernism may be apparent in its basic understanding.

Gicha \_sih^ nb_ ‗]f[mmc]‘ ^_`chcncih i` Lsin[l^ (1979/1984),

i` g_n[h[ll[ncp_m‖, J[g_mih (1983) ^_fcgcnm nb_ m]ij_ i` nb_ n_lg ―Pimn-

e_s _f_g_hnm j[lnc]of[lfs, cnm bcmnorical

gi^_lhcmg‖ \s i``_lcha nbl



location which is: 1) a counter-reaction to modernism; 2) its use of pastiche (a jumbled mixture); and 3) the importance of images (Rabinow,

1986: 248-249).

The above elements of post-modernism are profoundly significant, yet without the concept of simulation, developed by Baudrillard (1983), the undrestandign of post-modernism remains to be incomplete. The conceptions of simulation is usually known as the loss of the real, which means that in contemporary life the pervasive influence of images from film, TV, and advertising has led to a loss of the distinction between real and imagined, reality and illusion, surface and depth.

Here the key question is, whether the modern era or, as of Habermas, modernism has already ended and the entire concept of rationalization (q_\_l) il l_[mih b[m ]_[m_, [h^ nb_ ―jimn‖ j_lci^ i` gi^_lhcmg b[m \ h fully established? Exploration of these questions with exclusiveness can reveal the fact post-modernism has fundamental constraints as a theoretical perspective.

The implication of philosophical shifts for ethnography The major implication of this philosophical shift would be transparent in its position with regard to ethnography. The post-modernists have urged


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

anthropologists to take on board the central propositions about cultural studies that culture serves power and that it is (and should be) contested. There is clearly something in this, even if culture is not quite the same thing as ideology, there is surely a place for the critical account of the merchant of culture (Kuper, 1999: 231).

Tb_ ]_hnl[f jl_gcm_ [\ion _nbhial[jbs cm l_`f_]n_^ ch nb_ qile ―Writing Culture: Poetics and Politics of Ethnography‖ (Cfc``il^ & Marcus, 1986), which is an outcome of a seminar held in Santa-Fe, New Mexico.

The overriding concern, the p_ls ―n[me‖ i` nb_ qlcncha ]ofnol_ []]il^cha ni G_ila_ M[l]om, ‗q[m ni chnli^o]_ [ fcn_l[ls ]ihm]ciomh_mm ni ethnographic practice by showing various ways in which ethnographies ][h \_ l_[^ [h^ qlcnn_h‘.

The collective voice of the seminar highlighted and responded positively to a crisis in anthropology that was inseparably epistemological and political. Eschewing the holistic persuasions of traditional anthropologists and recognizing that these representations are fundamentally the products of asymmetricaf jiq_l l_f[ncihm, ―Wlcncha ]ofnol_‖ b[m _rjl_mm_^ ―ch]l_^ofcns‖ niq[l^m ]ofnol_, ]ofnol_ cm qlcnn_h and the writing involves major epistemological an^ jifcnc][f jli\f_gm‖ (James et al., 1997:1).

Clifford further observed that ethnographic writing is determined in at least six ways 1) contextually; 2) Rhetorically; 3) institutionally; 4) generically; 5) politically; and 6) historically. He conceives ethnography as a fiction but not in the conventional sense. For him, fiction is not something that merely opposes truth. He is prepared to consider ethnographic truth as inherently partial, committed and incomplete


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

(Clifford, 1986: 6). It may be noted here that James Clifford is attributed with the interdisciplinary program at University of California, Santa Clause, who is himself not an anthropologist but rather (in his own qil^m) [ ‗bcmnilc[h [h^ ]lcnc] i` [hnblijifias‘ (Koj_l, 1999: 210).

Cfc``il^‖m l_]iahcncih i` _nbhial[jbc] nlonbm [m ―j[lnc[f‖ b[m jlipc^_^ space to the authors of After Writing Culture‖ `il developing their ideas and in order to overcome to eschew the antagonisms and pessimisms that the debate has aroused and respond constructively to the challenge for ethnography which constitutes the heart of the matter (James et al., 1997:


―Wlcncha Cofnol_‖ ^_\[n_ b[m [fmi g[^_ [hnblijifiacmnm ]ihm]ciom [\ion the need to pay closer attention to the epistemological basis of their representations. Moreover, this has made them aware to consider the practical implications of the process of reflection both for the anthropological enterprise and the subjects of any anthropological inquiry (ibid: 3).

Tb_ ^_\[n_ cm ]ihnchocha [m nb_ [onbil i` ‗A`n_l qlcncha ]ofnol_‘ jlijim_m ni ^_[f qcnb nb_ ko_mncihm l[cm_^ \s ‗Wlcncha ]ofnol_‘. Tb_ [onbilm i` ―A`n_l Wlcncha Cofnol_‖ b[p_ c^_hnc`c_^ nb_ g[dil ]ihmnl[chnm i` ―Wlcncha Cofnol_‖. Tb_s `ioh^ nb[n nb_ [onbilm i` ―Wlcncha Cofnol_‖ have concentrated only on four major issues: 1) subject-matter (other 2), methodology, (participant observation), 3) form (textuality), 4) intention (information). It suggests that four discrete epistemological means particularity. 1) The humanism of representational practices; 2) the difficulty of uncovering representations which are being presented and by whom; 3) the problem of the form that the different representational


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

process can make; and 4) the politics and ethics of making l_jl_m_hn[ncihm. Tbcm jimcncih i` ―Wlcncha Cofnol_‖ cm kocn_ h[lliq, go]b broader essence is to be taken into consideration which could be traced in nb_ p_ls ―l_jl_m_hn[ncih‖ cnm_f`. R_jl_m_hn[ncih ch]iljil[n_m [n f_[mn mcr dimensions: Representation as interpretation, communication, visualization, information, translation, and advocacy.

However, there are few anthropologists who differ with the understanding of ―A`n_l qlcncha ]ofnol_‖. Ihmn_[^ nb_s jlijim_ ni qlcn_

[a[chmn ]ofnol_ \_][om_ nb_s nbchem nb[n ―]ofnol_‖ cm

g[echa inb_l, [h^ nb[n ―]ofnol_‖ ij_l[n_m ch [hnblijifiac][f ^cm]iolm_ ni enforce separations that inevitably carry a sense of hierarchy. Therefore,

anthropologists may use a variety of modes for writing against culture (Abu-Lughod, 1991).

What auther i\m_lp_ b_l_ nb[n h_cnb_l ―qlcncha ]ofnol_‖ hil ―[fter writing ]ofnol_‖ mb_^ fcabn ih nb_ gil_ `oh^[g_hn[f ko_mncih l_f[n_^ ni ethnography. For me, the fundamental question is: could epistemology be separated from politics in writing culture? Can an ethnographer be able to go beyond his own political bias and be consistent in following epistemology? Or it is expected that every ethnographer must have a political position and ideological orientation? Is this separation feasible? In my view, if such separation is unfeasible then the question of anthropology to be a science is certainly bleak, especially after two hundred years from Hegel (1807) when a shift from anthropology to philosophy has taken place to explain social process.

Answer to this question may be searched in the works of George Hegel (1770-1831). In 1806 Hegel looked into the events of French Revolution


_mm_hnc[f niif `il


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

of 1789 in his writing, despite their philosophic pronouncement his works were extremely forward-looking in their focus on society and history, which led to the development of an autonomous social theory distinct from philosophy itself. The rapid decline of the French society prompted Hegel to observe that one form of social and political existence was replacing another i. e. history itself changes. Therefore it was Hegel, who was the first to understand that historical change took a social form. This development made clear that philosophy could only understand history by adopting social concepts and that history was, in fact, social in nature (Morrison, 1995:2).

Afnbioab H_a_f‖m pc_q [\ion m_j[l[ncha ―mi]c[f‖ `lig jbcfimijbs (1807) had been strengthened by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) and other social scientists, Durkheim (1858-1917) has really founded a science of society (Si]cifias), ^_]f[lcha nb[n ―cn cm ch^_j_h^_hn i` [ff jbcfimijbs‖ (Durkheim, 1895/1950: 159). Thus it might be again quite appropriately discerned the circumstances and epistemological necessity for which a shift from social to philosophy takes place in recent times.

In fact, the contemporary crisis is an outcome to the lapses, arbitrariness and inconceivable indifferences between founders of anthropology, extremely limited sources of origin and variety of origin and variety of subject matter, methodology and theoretical orientations. These could be traced in the very root of the discipline itself. So, a closer look at the formative phase will be extremely fruitful.

The historical root of the impasse The impellent growth of anthropology has been rooted deeply into the history of its development. E. E. Evans- Pritchard has explored why


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

mi go]b ^cmchn_al[n_^. H_ qlcn_m ‗In cm [

remarkable fact that none of the anthropologists who have been most

h_[l ni jlcgcncp_ j_ijf_‘ (Ep[hm-Pritchard,

1951:1-19), rather it was European explorers, missionaries, administrators and traders who gathered data for most influential anthropologists to lay theoretical foundation of the discipline. Given categories of people had been highly selective; particularly what travelers liked to put on a paper was what most struck them as curious, crude and

sensational. Events of daily life were almost completely excluded (ibid).

‗Tb_h nb_ m]bif[lm ain ni qile ih nb_ jc_]_m i` ch`ilg[ncih jlipc^_^ `il them haphazardly and from all over the world, and built them into books with such picturesque titles as The Golden Bough (Frazer) and The Mystic Rose‘ (cbid., P. 8). Evans-Plcn]b[l^ `olnb_l i\m_lp_m, ‗I ^i hin say that it was fabricated, though sometime it was; and even such famous travelers as Livingstone, Schweinfurth, and Palgrave were given to gross carelessness. But much of it was false, and almost all of it was unreliable and, by modern standard of professional research, casual, superficial, out of perspective, and out of context; and to some extent this was true even of the earlier jli`_mmcih[f [hnblijifiacmnm‘ (cbid:6).

ch`fo_hnc[f b[^ _p_l \

[hnblijifias b[^ \



Based on these materials, scholars of diverse background other than [hnblijifias q_l_ ‗fi]e_^ oj‘ qcnb ohcfch_[f _pifoncih[ls m]b_g[ nb[n invariably means progress from lower to higher such as Morgan (savagery- Barbarism-Civilization), Mclennan (group marriage- pair marriagemonogamous marriage); Frazer (magic- religion- science); Tylor (animism- polytheism- monotheism); Marx (Tribal society- Slavery-feudalism- Capitalism).


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

These unilineal progressive development theories were severely nullified because of the in feasibility of application of comparative method and use of materials that are relative in nature and incomparable.

Institutionalization of Anthropology Anthropology was born in the nineteenth century. In France and Great Blcn[ch cnm ilcach[f ^_mcah[ncih q[m ―_nbhifias‖, as mentioned in the society Ethnologique de Paris (founded in 1839) and the Ethnological society of London (dating from 1843) respectively. Until 1870s Anthropology has been referred quite narrowly to what is today called physical anthropology, but with the establishment of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland in 1871, Ethnology was renamed as Anthropology, Consequently, the first formal teaching in anthropology. Consequently, the first formal teaching in anthropology began at the University of Oxford in 1884, along with the honorary British chair of anthropology being created at the University of Liverpool in 1908 to which Sir James George Frazer was appointed (Cheater, 1989:


Cb[lf_m, D[lqch‖m The Descent of Man (1871) has made an attempt to discern human beings as a species which, of course, has bad developed within the conceptual framework of his theory of natural selection worked out in The Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859). For some peculiar reasons the theoretical premise of Darwin as developed in his The Descent of Man had failed to draw adequate attention of academicians and scholars for which it faced discontinuity in time and space. During nb_ `iffiqcha nqi ^_][^_m [ m_lc_m i` ―mi]cifiac][f‖ gihial[jbm appeared dealing with primitive society. These included classic studies


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

by Bachofen, Maine, Fustel de Coulanges, Lubbock, Mclennan, Morgan [h^ Tsfil. Aff mb[l_^ [ ]iggih ]ih]_lh [\ion nb_ h[nol_ i` ―jlcgcncp_‖ society and religion. Virtually, all assumed a direct progression from primitive society through various intermediate stages to modern society. N_p_lnb_f_mm, [ff nb_m_ qlcn_lm qiof^ \_ n[e_h nia_nb_l [m ―_pifoncihcmn‖ \s f[n_l a_h_l[ncihm, \on D[lqch‖m nb_ils q[m hin nb_cl ]iggih inspiration. There is a paradox here for Darwins triumph stimulated a very Un-Darwinian anthropology (Kuper, 1988: 2).

It was in this world of upheaval and transition that anthropology first emerged as an academic discipline. Many museums were founded.

Distinguished anthropologists either belonged to Great Britain (the fiha_mn ]ifihc[f jiq_l, qcnb jf_hnc`of []]_mm ni ―inb_lm‖) il USA (qb_l_ ―nb_ inb_lm‖ q_l_ ]fim_ [n b[h^). Theoretical developments in these two traditions also differed remarkably. The evolutionism typical of nineteenth century anthropology built on the ideas of development from the eighteenth century, bolstered by the experience of colonialism (starting in the 1860s) and also by the influence of Darwin and his supporters among whom Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) was the outstanding figure who really founded social Darwinism. All the leading [hnblijifiacmnm i` nb[n ncg_ mojjiln_^ nb_ jlch]cjf_ i` nb_ ―jms]bc] ohcns i` g[hech^‖ cn g_[hm nb[n [ff bog[h \_cham q_l_ \ilh _p_lsqb_l_ gil_ of less with the same potentials and thus inherited differences were quite negligible.

There are four prominent founders of anthropology. They are Franz Boas (1858-1942), Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942), A. R. Radcliffe- Brown (1881-1955) and Marcel Mauss (1872-1950). All of them were


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

responsible for a near-total renovation of at least three of the four national traditions namely the American, the British and the French. In the fourth, Germanic tradition, diffusionism retained its hegemony. Terrible things were in store for it, as well as for the Russian diffusionist nl[^cncih. Liha \_`il_ Bi[m‖m \iie q[m \olh_^ ch B_lfch, [ a_h_l[ncih i` Russian ethnographers would die in the Gulag, and after the Second World War, certain German ethnologists would be found guilty of Nazi collaboration. Due to these and other reasons, German and Russian anthropology developed very slowly during most of the period of twentieth century when they could hardly maintained contact with the mainstream traditions. However, Boas being German, and Malinowski Polish brought with them an intimate knowledge of the German tradition in anthropology when they emigrated to USA and Britain respectively. German anthropology lived on throughout the twentieth century, albeit in nl[hmjf[hn_^ [h^ ―bs\lc^‖ `ilgm.

‗Aff i` nb_ `iol jf[s_lm were to so some extent socially marginal in the environment they inhabited. Mauss was a Jew, Radcliffe-Brown came from a working-class background, Malinowski was a foreigner and Boas was both a foreigner and a Jew. Predictably, perhaps the four had no shared programme. There were significant methodological and theoretical differences between the schools they founded, which even today, may be traced in French, British and American anthropology. There were (and are) no clear-cut boundaries, as the influence of Durkheim on British anthropology most clearly shows. Finally, all four of our heroes had the intellectual legacy of the nineteenth century in ]iggih‘ (Elcem_h _n al., 2001: 36-38).


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

In England it has developed and flourished to a large content independently under the name of social anthropology exclusively. Hiq_p_l, ‗Si]c[f [hnblijifias b[m [ p_ls fcgcn_^ n_]bhc][f pi][\of[ls, so that it has to use everyday and these are all known, is not very precise, mo]b qil^m [m ―mi]c_ns‖, ―]ofnol_‖, ―]omnigm‖, ―l_fcacih‖, ―m[h]ncih‖, ―mnlo]nol_‖, ―`oh]ncih‖, ―jifcnc][f‖, [h^ ^_gi]l[nc], ^i hin [fq[sm ]ihp_s nb_ g_[hcha ni qil^m ch ]iggih om_‘ (Evans-Pritchard, 1951: 2).

The situation in France was almost similar as Levi-Strauss has observed:

‗Fl[h]_ g[s \_ ]ited as an example of the abnormal situation arising in anthropology works from a rigid separation between the faculties of science and arts. The University of Paris introduced three diplomas in anthropology, a diploma in ethnology with arts optional awarded by the faculty of arts; the same diploma with sciences optional, awarded by the two faculties combined; and lastly, a diploma in physical anthropology, [q[l^_^ \s nb_ `[]ofns i` m]c_h]_ [fih_‘ (L_pc-Strauss, 1967:351).

After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in former Soviet Union, it was been necessary to know about the large number of ethnic groups who b[p_ chb[\cn_^ nb_ ]iohnls, A jlcgil^c[f nb_ils i` ―Enbhim‖ [h^ Marxism become dominant in Soviet Union. After the collapse of Soviet Union in 1989 Marxism was removed from its core position while anthropology has began to reshape itself.

In England, Radcliffe-Brown bad explicit hopes of transforming

[hnblijifias chni [ ―l_[f‖ m]c_h]_, qbc]b Doleb_cg jli\[\fs ^c^ hin

Ih ―A Natural Science of Society, his last book (based on a lecture


series in Chicago in 1937 and posthumously published in 1957), Brown indicates the tenor of this hope. He says in his book that Social structure


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

exists independently of the individual actors who reproduce it (Eriksen et


―]igj[l[ncp_ mi]cifias‖ (R[^]fc``_-Brown, 1952/ 1958).

In the United States of America, a four-field approach was adopted by Franz Boas. The fields were cultural anthropology, archaeology, linguistic anthropology and physical anthropology. Of four fields, three cm \[m_^ ih [ ]iggih ]ih]_jn ―]ofnol_‖. Cofnol[f Ahnblijifias mno^c_m contemporary culture, archaeology extinct culture, linguistic anthropology is the key to the study cultural anthropology, while physical anthropology studies biological variation of human. Therefore, the fields significantly overlap.











Wbcf_ L_mfc_ Wbcn_ b[m _hpcm[a_^ [hnblijifias [m [ m]c_h]_ i` ―]ofnol_‖ (White, 1949: 397- 415), his ambition was to turn anthropology into a real science of cultural evolution. According to him the effects of technology on culture was regarded as impertinent and irrelevant (Eriksen et al., 2001: 80).

Thus in the context of multiplicity, diversity and appositional conceptual convergence in anthropology, two major observations are made and discussed below:

a) Anthropology is a science of non-Western population. Since its inception, anthropology has not yet incorporated all the people of the world. It has excluded the western population, which turned [hnblijifias ni \_ [ ―m]c_h]_‖ i` nb_ ih_ j[ln i` bog[h, _r]fo^cha westerners who have created it. This means that anthropology was not developed as universal science of human being.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

\) Ahnblijifias b[^ nolh_^ ni \_ [ ^cm]cjfch_ ni mno^s ―inb_lm‖, moch as ―_rinc]‖ j_ijf_, ―lc^c]ofiom m[p[a_m‖, il jlcgcncp_‖, il ―nlc\[f‖.

Anthropology has not paid adequate attention to both male and female _ko[ffs [h^ cn cm i`n_h []]om_^ i` \_cha ―g[f_ \c[m‖. Bon cn cm hin_qilnbs that feminist scholars have significantly contributed to address the women issues through gender studies, inclusively gender. Instead, it is i`n_h []]om_^ `il mno^scha ―jiq_l`of‖ m_]ncih i` bog[h \_cham j[lnc]of[lfs nb_ ―g[f_‖. Si [hnblijifias b[m ^_p_fij_^ [m [ ―g[f_ \c[m_^‖ subject.

Putting aside human beings, anthropology has almost exclusively focused on culture and society. Culture has overwhelmed the fundamental agenda of human beings. These are the ways through which human beings have been marginalized, lost, and faded away in anthropology.

Could anthropology be a science Epistemology and ontology are the foundation of a science where fuller account of the source and process of knowledge are given with its outcome in one hand and an understanding about the basic elements that is theorized about, on the other. Can anthropology study human being without political bias and can produce ethnography exclusively based on scientific procedure? If it is unfeasible than anthropology may become cll_f_p[hn [m [ m]c_h]_ i` bog[h \_cha [h^ nb_ qil^ ―m]c_h]_‖ g[s \_ completely removed from anthropology while ethnographers could only be co considered as fiction writers or as of S. Tyler the ideology of ―i\m_lp_l-i\m_lp_^‖ mbiof^ \_ ]igjf_n_fs l_`om_^ [h^ gono[ffs


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

production of dialogical discourse should be the only job to do (Tyler,


In 1895, Durkheim, in his book, The Rules of Sociological Method addressed the relationship between epistemology and politics. He said, ‗chmn_[^ i` i\m_lpcha, ^_m]lc\cha [h^ ]igj[lcha nbcham, q_ [l_ ]ihn_hn

to reflect upon our ideas, analyzing them and combining them. Instead of

a science, which deals with realities, we carry out no more than an c^_ifiac][f [h[fsmcm‘ (Doleb_cg, 1895/1950: 60).

Two fundamental theoretical positions of Durkheim are directly relevant

ch nbcm ^cm]ommcih. Egcf_ Doleb_cg ]ih]_cp_^ ‗Hiq_p_l

cannot be considered definitively constituted until it has succeeded in establishing its own independent status. For it lacks any justification for existing unless its subject matter is an order of facts which other sciences do not study, since it is impossible for the same notions to fit identically nbcham i` [ ^c``_l_hn h[nol_‘ (Doleb_cg, 1895/1995: 162). This understanding of Durkheim is reflected in his anthropological work on

―jlcgcncp_‖ l_fcacih (Doleb_cg, 1912/1948).

a science

The question is whether this conception of Durkehim is insightful, valid, rationale and applicable for the all fields of human knowledge? I would like to consider this conception for the sake of an argument and relate it

to anthropology in the following manner.

a) Doleb_cg‖m `clmn proposition is that any discipline to be considered as science, must have an independent status. Has anthropology as yet assumes an independent status to be regarded as science?


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

b) His second Proposition is that whether anthropology has been able to define its distinctive subject matter? And if it has defined then what is it?

Tb_m_ jlijimcncihm i` Doleb_cg‖m g_nbi^ifias qcff \_ \_nn_l oh^_lmnii^ ch nb_ ]ihn_rn i` Cign_‖m jimcncpcmg. Cign_ b[^ ionfch_^ bcm pc_qm ih jimcncpcmg ch bcm `[giom ]f[mmc] ][ff_^ ―Ciolm_ ^_ jbcfimijbc] jimcncp_‖ published in 1830. This was mostly developed in response to what he perceived as the anarchy of philosophic speculation that had prevailed since Hegel. Comte defined positivism as a scientific movement which sought to determine the scope of scientific investigation in the study of society. Auguste Comte aimed at putting all speculative disciplines such a history, philosophy, and political economy on the same footing as the

natural sciences (ibid: 123). Sch]_ 1830 Cign_‖m _rj_]nation has not been fulfilled to make anthropology a science, rather its expectation may b[p_ [fl_[^s jomb_^ nb_ ^cm]cjfch_ ni cll_p_lmc\cfcns [h^ Cign_‖m c^_[m has turned to be a myth in relation to anthropology as a discipline. Though anthropology with eam_ `ch^ cnm_f` [nn[]b_^ ni mi]c[f ―m]c_h]_‖,

\on cn `


jlc^_ ni \_ [h ―[ln‖.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Of all the human sciences, anthropology is perhaps the most given to questioning itself as to what it is and coming up with answers that sound gil_ fce_ ―ip_l[ff qilf^ pc_qm‖ il ―^_]f[l[ncihm i` `[cnb‖ nb[h nb_s ^i

fce_ ^_m]lcjncihm i` ‗[ \l[h]b i` ehiqf_^a_‘ (G

lnt, f995).

Lacunae in Ethnography Since it was been mentioned earlier that anthropology had started its

journey qcnb nb_ n_lg ―_nbhifias‖, _nbhial[jbs b[^ \

with a fieldwork tradition which is known to had begun by Malinowski in I914 but in fact it had originated much earlier, on the one hand, and by

another ethnographer, on the other. This lacunae is courageously confessed by Angela Cheater (Cheater, 1989: 21) at a time when the academic communities of the world had turned their blind eye to this proven fact. She writes in this connection that the Russian naturalist, Nikolai Niklouho-Maclay (1846) spent some three years between l87l and 1882, studying the people as well as the natural history of the ―M[]f[s Ci[mn‖ i` nb_ M[^[ha ^cmnlc]n i` N_q Goch_[. D_mjcn_ bcm political representations to the British government on behalf of those he studied, and his fame in Australia for some peculiar reason, he is never l_a[l^_^ [m nb_ `ioh^_l i` nb_ ―`c_f^qile nl[^cncih ch [hnblijifias‖ (Cheater, 1989: 21).

h cnm `ioh^[ncih

This fact could be further found in the work A History of Anthropology by Thomas Eriksen and Finn Nielsen who wrote another less known exception was the Russian ethnographer Nicolai Nicolaievich Niklouho- Maclay (l846-88), who as early as in 1871, 40 years before Malinowski, carried out a l5-month long intensive field study on the New Guinea


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

coast, and laid the foundation for a rich ethnographic tradition in Russia that is virtually unknown in the west (Eriksen et al., 2001: 24).

Thus what the world know is that the founder of fieldwork in [hnblijifias cm Blihcmf[q M[fchiqmec, ‗qbi q[m [ Pifcmb, \ilh ch Cracow in 1884, the son of a professor of Slavic Philology. He was awarded a doctorate degree in physics and mathematics in 1908. He claims that he first become interested in anthropology through the wrcncham i` Fl[t_l‖m Golden Bough (Raison, 1979: 242-243). M[fchiqmec‖m `clmn _rj_^cncih q[m ch 1914 qb_h b_ pcmcn_^ Mino [h^ Papua and the Mailu of New Guinea and spent some years from 1914-15 and 1915-18 in the Trobriand Island (ibid: 243). However, 1 would like to propose here that the fieldwork tradition in anthropology had actually begun in 187l by Nikolai Miklouho-M[]f[s [h^ bcm _rnl[il^ch[ls ―`c_f^ hin_m‖, [ pcpc^ _nbhial[jbc] ^_m]lcjncih i` M[]f[s ]i[mn qlcnn_h ch Russian being translated in English subsequently had entered into the academia in the USA and other countries. This historical gap needs to be bridged, as this would take ethnography to its true root.

Can anthropology be considered as the most humanistic science or is

it a Fallacy? At the formation stage or in its infancy, anthropology had destined to be ―ohcko_‖ \s \_cha m_f_]ncp_ [h^ ]biim_s. Tb_ bcmnilc][f ^_p_fijg_hn i`

`[m]ch[n_^ ni mno^s ―]ofnol_‖, m[s, ―\clnb lcno[fm

[h^ l_f[n_^ ]_l_gihc_m‖. Tbcm m_f_]ncih b[^ [onig[nc][ffs _r]fo^_^ ―\clnb nl[og[‖ - specially, feg[f_ ch`ilg[hn‖m _rj_lc_h]_m i` gcm][llc[a_, [\ilncih, mncff \clnb, jiil [hn_h[n[f ][l_ [h^ cnm cgjfc][ncih ih ginb_l ―ni \_‖ [h^ `_nom‖, jip_lns, mbiln[a_ i` `ii^, g[fhiolcmbg_hn, ^cm_[m_m,

anthropology had \



Anthropology: Science of Human Being

jms]bifiac][f nl[og[ i` ginb_l ―ni \_‖, ]ih`fc]n [n nb_ `[gcfs, [nd many inb_l ]igjfc][ncihm. fh mo]b [ \[]ealioh^ biq [ mno^s ih ―\clnb lcno[f fiiem fce_ [h^ biq go]b cm cn ―_h^olcha‖ `il nb_ ch`ilg[hnm [h^ gimn cgjiln[hnfs nbcm ―ch]fomcih‖ [h^ ―_r]fomcih‖ g[e_ [hnblijifias humanistic discipline? Further, what theoretical implication anthropology had as a result of exclusion of such a universal aspect of human life as ―^cm_[m_‖ [h^ ―b_[fnb‖? A `i]om ih ―]ofnol_‖ qiof^ \_ f_mm bog[hcmnc] nb[h [ `i]om ih ―^cm_[m_ [h^ mo``_lcham. Tb_l_`il_, chmn_[^ i` b[pcha [ ―h[lliq `i]om‖, [ff iol _``ilnm beextended to comprehend real life of human beings in a holistic way. Further, for sure anthropology would be taken away human being from it humanistic foundation as a species.

Conclusion The present writing extend assumption that anthropology has not yet

become a science of human being. As such most of the contemporary crises are associated with how the said discipline can really grow up as

nb_ ―fiaim‖ i` ―[hnblijim‖. Ah [nn_gjn b[m \

responsible for this failure. What constraints have made anthropology so fragile, tentative, often arbitrary and vulnerable. How has anthropology been historically exposed to so many changes, shifts, divergences and

discontinuities. And finally, under what circumstances anthropology

could not succeeded to be an universal science of human beings. Rather, it has divided human beings into different categories, such as, the exotic, native, savage, tribals, and those who are undergoing humanization, process, in particular as subject matter of anthropology, while the

_r]fo^_^, `lig nb_ jolpc_q i`

―^_p_fij_^ W_mn_lh_lm‖ b[^ \ anthropology.


g[^_ ni _rjfil_ l_[mons



Anthropology: Science of Human Being

However, the discipline has strictly confined its focus primarily into ―]ofnol_‖ [h^ ―mi]c_ns‖, [h^ ni [h insignificant extent the biological aspect i` j[lnc]of[l bog[h \_cham. Tbcm ―h[lliq `i]om‖ b[m hin ihfs _r]fo^_^ many of the universal aspects of humans, but creates constraints upon the discipline to be parochial in character.

On the basis of arguments given above, the author has identified some aspects of human life that are universal and intrinsic for every human. being. Which are to be indispensable subject matter of anthropology as noted below:

a) A particular anatomy (structure) and physiology (function) of the body

qcnb \l[ch nb[n g[^_ bog[h ―m[jc_h‖.

b) The structure and function of the body are susceptible to pathology that may cause by pathogen, injury or aging process.

c) Mch^, nb[n cm [\mnl[]n, b[pcha ―oh]ihm]ciom‖ [h^ ]ihm]ciom j[ln, qbc]b

are, according to, Sigmund Freud, Id, Ego and Super ego respectively. Mind is also susceptible to alternation. Psyche has an inextricable link

with the mind.

d) A system of consanguinity, affinity, descent, kinship and other social

relations constituted by assuming different roles by individual organisms

creating a complex network of social structure for human to live in.

e) A system of values, attitudes, beliefs, customs, traditions, religion are

learned, shared and transmitted that create an external environment to


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

cope with for the continuation of life. But these are indeed certain individual exceptions.

f) Language is learned not only for communication but also for all cognitive activities that continue throughout life.

g) Brocas and Wirnick areas of brain provide capacities for symbolic

activities that are the biological foundation for culture and language.

h) An organic or biotic environment (plants, animals, micro-organism

including pathogen, predators, vectors, organic materials), and an inorganic system (climate, energy and materials) constitute ecosystem to cope with the transformation of and life.

i) Not passive, rather active pursuance of individual and social life is the basic trends.

Tb_m_ ohcp_lm[f [mj_]nm i` bog[h fc`_ [m g_hncih_^ [\ip_ ch ―A‖ ni ―I‖, are not isolated from one another rather these are inextricably linked to each other. All these aspects have undergone synthesis in such a way that they are inseparable and only this amazing outcome of synthesis constitutes human beings.

Therefore, anthropology has to be conceptually, theoretically, methodologically equipped in order to describe and analyse this highly complex subject of investigation.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

For this purpose, anthropology has to share itself with biological, social, physical sciences as well as humanities. A narrow focus would only jlipc^_ cffomcp_ ―mb[^iq‖ i` [ ]igjf_r \ocfn.

Im [hnblijifias [ mi]c[f ―m]c_h]_‖ il [h [ln. or is it synonymous with sociology (which deals with society), culturology (whose focus is culture), economics (which deals with economic systems), political science (whose focus of interest is power and authority) biology (that deals with the structure and function of human body), medicine (that deals with pathology and normalizing process), psychology (whose main concern is psychic disorders of individuals) and feminism (that deals with gender issues). If the mentioned sciences deal with almost all aspects of human beings then what anthropology would do, or have the subject matters of anthropology already been incorporated in those disciplines reducing it to be a mere term of convenience. And whether its survival would depend on its ability to cope with the need of the development agencies or on the pious wishes of academics to provide some scope for anthropology. In answering to these basic questions, a broad based approach may be necessary.

Therefore, anthropology is yet to be formed, two hundred years of its growth seems to show that it has not succeeded to comprehend all these aspects. What anthropologists have done so far is the reduction of this mammoth task into a single aspect of human studies, excluding those that are inseparable.

Thus it is the firm conviction of the author that a science of human being could definitely be formed, the treasury of knowledge, theories and


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

paradigms that already had been gathered and formulated could be fully utilized, adding new ideas to it. Finally, a rigorous process to reorganize anthropology, as a science of human being is a call of the time. And probably it is not too late to begin the great work with.

Bibliography Abu-Lughod, L. (1991) Writing Against Culture, in R. Fox (Ed.) Recapturing Anthropology. Working in the present. Santa Fe, N. M.:

School of American Research Press.

Appleby, J. et al. (Eds) (1996) Knowledge and Post Modernism in Historical Perspective. New York: Routledge.

Barthes, R. (2000) Inaugural lecture, College de France, in S. Sontag (Ed) A Barthes Reader. New York: Vintage.

Barry, P. (1995) Beginning theory: An introduction to literary and cultural theory. New York: Manchester University Press.

Baudrillard, J . (1983b) Simulations. New York: Semiotext (e).

Baudrillard, J. (1984a) Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor, Michigan:

University of Michigan Press.

Cheater, A. (1989) Social Anthropology: An Alternative Introduction. London: Unwin Hyman.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Clifford, J. (1986) Introduction: Partial Truths, in J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds) Writing Culture, The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of Califomia Press.

Clifford, J. & Marcus, G. E. (Eds) (1986) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Darwin, C. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.

Darwin, C. (1871) The Descent of Man. London: John Murray.

Derrida, J. (1967/1976) Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Derrida, J. (1967/1977) Writing with Difference. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Durkheim, E. (1895/1950) The Rules of Sociological Method edited by, E. G. Catlin. Chicago.

Durkheim, E. (191/1948) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, translated by Joseph, W. Swain: Free press.

Eriksen, T., et al. (2001) A History of Anthropology. London: Pluto Press.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1987) Theories of Primitive Religion. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1951) Social Anthropology. London: Cohen and West.

Foucault, M. (1984) The Foucault Reader, edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon.

Geertz, C. (1995) After the Fact, Two countries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Habermas, J. (1979/1995) Modernity an Incomplete Project, in P. Barry (Ed) Beginning Theory: An introduction to lliterary and cultural theory. New York: Manchester University Press.

Habermas, J. (1981) Modernity versus Post-modernity, New German Critique, 22 (winter): 3-44.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1806/1977) Phenomenology of Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1807/1977) Phenomenology of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

James, A. et al. (Eds) (1997) After Writing Culture: Epistemology and Praxis in Contemporary Anthropology. London: Routledge.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Jameson, J. (1983) Postmodernism and consumer society, in H. Foster (Ed) The anti-aesthetic essays in post modern Culture. Port Townsend:

Bay Press.

Kuper, A. (1988) The Invention of Primitive Transformations of an Illusion. New York: Routledge.

Kuper, A. (1999) Culture: The Anthropologists’ Account. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Lash, S., (1991) Introduction, in Post-Structuralist and Post-Modernist Sociology. England: Aldershot.

Levi-Strauss, C. (1967) Structural Anthropology. England: Penguin Books Ltd.

Lyotard, F. (1979/1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Morrison, K. (1995) Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formation of Modern Social Thoughts. London: Sage.

Rabinow, P. (1986) Representations are Social Facts: Modernity and Post Modernity in Anthropology, in J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds) Writing Culture, the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1937/1957) A Natural Science of Society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952/1958) The comparative method in social anthropology, in M. N. Srinivas (Ed) Method in Social Anthropology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Raison, T. (1979) The Founding Fathers of Social Science. London:

Scholar Press.

Ritzer, G. (1996) Sociological Theory. New York: The McGraw Hill.

Tyler, S. (1986) Post-Modern Ethnography: From Document of the Occult to Occult Document, in J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds) Writing Culture, The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

White L. A. (1949) The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Civilization. New York: Grove Press.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Chapter 5

Nikolai Nikaliavich Miklouho-Maclay, the Founder of Empiricism in Anthropology: The Lacunae in Anthropology

The Russian Naturalist, Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay (1846) spent some three years, between 1871 and 1882, studying the people as well as the natural history of the ‘Maclay Coast’ of the Madang district of New Guinea. Despite his political representations to the British government on behalf of those he studied, and his fame in Australia, for some peculiar reason he is never regarded as the founder of the fieldwork tradition in anthropology. For a while, the expedition in 1898-9 of Cambridge academics to the Torres Straits (separating Australia from Papua-New Guinea) became the model for such investigations(Angela P. Cheater, 1989: 21).

The Russian ethnographer Nicolai Nicolaievich Niklouho- Maclay (1846-88), who as early as in l871, 40 years before Malinowski, carried out intensive field study on the New Guinea coast, and laid the foundation for a rich ethnographic tradition(Eriksen & Finn, 2001:24).


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Introduction Malinowski has been recognized as the founder of fieldwork tradition in anthropology in almost entire world academia and anthropology is considered as a child of colonialism. Malinowski's first expedition was in 1914 when he visited Motu and Papua and the Mailu of New Guinea and spent some years from 1914-15 and 1915-18 in the Trobriand Island (Eriksen & Finn, 2001: 243).

In this background, author in this chapter, being a student of anthropology of present Petersburg University and having obtained a Ph. D. degree form N. N. Miklouho-Maclay Institute of Ethnography felt to bring at sight the lacunea of the discipline. Ihnli^o]cha M[]f[s‖m fc`_ [h^ work would help Anthropology reach to its very root, which is immensely significant to reveal the conceptual and empirical foundation of the discipline. This writing has outlined in brief the life and work of Maclay. It is needless to note that the exploration of work of Maclay would provide fresh insight of the origin of the discipline. However, as within the scope of this writing it is infeasible to enter into the entire a[gon i` M[]f[s‖m nbioabnm [h^ qilem, nb_ ]ihmnl[chnm l_g[ch i\pciom. Nevertheless, this content would shed light on Maclay's work to not only those who are undergoing training in anthropology or anthropologists but general readers.

Facts for Life Mikluho-Maklai, Nicholai Nicholaievich (1846-1888), scientist and explorer usually known as Nicholas Maclay, was born on 17 July 1846 at Rozhdestvenskoye, Russia, second son of Nicholaivijtch Mikluho- Maklai, hereditary nobleman, and his wife Ekaterina Semenovna, née


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Bekker. Educated in St Petersburg at a secondary school, he briefly studied law and philosophy at the university and in 1864 moved to Heidelberg. He studied medicine at Leipzig in 1866 and paleontology, zoology and comparative anatomy at Jena. On vacation travels he became a competent linguist, and in the Canary Islands examined sponges and shark brains, on which he published important papers. Marine biology drew him to the Red Sea and after a bout of malaria to the Volga. His attention was drawn to New Guinea as a promising field for anthropological and ethnological studies. Aided by the Imperial Russian Geographical Society he visited European museums and met leading scientists. In October 1870 he sailed in the Russian corvette Vitiaz and by way of South America and the Pacific Islands reached Astrolabe Bay in September 1871 (Butinov, 1953; Tumarkin, 1988).

The Expedition In 1871 he settled on the northeastern coast of New Guinea (now Papua New Guinea) where no white person had been before. While his primary objective in going to New Guinea was to make a comparative study of the racial types of the Pacific region, he is known more for his efforts in defending the rights of indigenous people to their land against the spread of colonialism than he is for his ethnographic work. Miklouho-Maclay spent more than 3 years living and travelling in New Guinea pursuing his ethnographic studies. His work focused mainly on recording the physical characteristics of people and their material culture and paid little attention to social relationships and religious matters.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Although Miklouho-Maclay continued his scientific studies in New Guinea and Australia, the last ten years of his life was mainly devoted to defending the rights of indigenous peoples.

Conception of Maclay

A theory was widespread according to which primitive societies were

formed of people of a lower type who were incapable of raising themselves to the level of modern civilization. This argument was used

in justifying the seizure of land as colonies, the slave trade, and the

poverty-stricken existence of huge masses of people. Such views were quite alien to Miklouho Maclay. He was firmly convinced that naturally [ff j_ijf_ [l_ \ilh nb_ m[g_ [h^ _ko[f, nb[n nb_l_ q_l_ hi ‗bcab_l‘ [h^ ‗fiq_l‘ \_cham, nb[n nb_ jlcgcncp_ mn[n_ q[m [ bcmnilc][f ih_, qbc]b q[m

fading in the face of the modern world and that it was the duty of the scientist to describe and understand this state better and more fully (Butinov, 1953; Tumarkin, 1988).

Maclay viewed civilization as a corrupting force. He depicted returning Papuan laborers from European plantations as violent agitators who disrupted an otherwise peaceful and pristine lifestyle (Miklouho-Maclay, 1982/1874). Maclay had several ideas for saving the Papuans from what

he saw as the evils of colonialism; one was to establish a utopian Papuan

community in a zone free of colonial control and exploitation. Underlying Maclay's liberal concern for the people he studied was the idea that simple Papuan societies would be destroyed by more sophisticated European societies or by the "contaminating influence" of Indonesian civilization.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

In 1874 Russian explorer Miklouho-Maclay selected the Kowiai Coast as the site for one of the first anthropological studies in West Papua. He chose this site because he imagined the Kowiai to be pure savages: lt was told that the natives savagely.

Methodology He was convinced that his only hope of overcoming distrust was to gain

a command of the language, just as it was the only way for him to

understand the customs, and traditions, and mode of life of the natives. The main impediment to learning the language consisted in the fact that

it was incredibly dificult to identify the words for notions, actions, and

states that one could not point out. Only after four months, for example, did Miklouho-M[]f[s f_[g qb[n ‗gilhcha‘ [h^ ‗_p_hcha‘ q_l_ ][ff_^,

but he did not know the qil^ `il ‗hcabn‘. H_ b[^ ^cm]ip_l_^ biq ni m[s ‗\[^‘ \on ^c^ hin ehiq nb_ qil^ `il ‗aii^‘. H_ ain chni mig_ `ohhs situations and sometimes simply awkward ones with the language.

Maclay knows that for the anthropologist and the ethnographer there is no such thing as minor items everything is important, and one must know everything. But genuine knowledge can only be obtained in the course of lengthy, repeated, direct observations. An outsider cursory views or data from unreliable sources frequently mislead scientific research.

It took 130 days for Maclay to built needed relationship with the Papuan

villagers. In those hours Maclay keenly watched, all that was going on, attempting to remember every little, detail to imprint on his memory every single feature, storing up the observations as an ethnographer and

_hdischa qb[n b_ m[q nblioab [h [lncmn‖m _s


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Papuans believed that Maclay Besides the fact that he could heal various cffh_mm_m fcn `cl_, jl_p_hn l[ch c` b_ qcmb_^―, cn cm ch nb_ ^[cls nb[n b_ poured a few drops of water into a dish containing alcohol and set fire to the alcohol.

Focus of Observations Miklouho-Maclay also attached great importance to the long article ‗Enbhifiac][f Nin_m ih nb_ P[jo[hm‘. In cm mo``c]c_hn ni fcmn nb_ ^c``_l_hn subjectm ^_[fn qcnb ni [jjl_]c[n_ nb_ m]ij_ i` nb_ [lnc]f_: ‗Fii^‘ (qcnb [ detailed description of the fruits, their properties, harvesting season, and ways of preparing them; with a list of the animals, birds, insects, and shellfish used as food; everything that concerns the cooking of food); ‗Pinm [h^ Un_hmcfm‘; Igjf_g_hnm [h^ Algm‘; ‗Cfinbcha [h^ Olh[g_hnm‘; ‗Oh nb_ pcff[a_m [h^ nb_ Dq_ffcham‘; ‗Pf[hn[ncihm [h^ nb_ Wilecha i` nb_ Sicf‘; ‗D_[fcham [h^ B[ln_lcha Agiha nb_ Vcff[a_m‘; ‗Tb_ Ep_ls^[s Life of the Papu[hm‘ (ch]fo^cha g[llc[a_, `[gcfs l_f[ncihm, ]bcf^l_h, nb_

P[jo[h‖m ^[s, j[chncha i` nb_cl `[]_m [h^ \i^c_m, al

[h^ `oh_l[f

lcn_m); ‗Nin_m ih nb_ Sno^s i` nb_ L[hao[a_ [h^ ih Dc[f_]nm‘; ‗Aln‘ (ilh[g_hncha); ‗Oh \_fc_`m [h^ nb_ Comnigm Cihh_]n_^ 'Wcnb Tb_g‘; ‗Momc] [h^ Schacha‘; ‗F_mncpcnc_m [h^ F_[mnm‘.


An abundance of facts is given systematically. There is nothing superfluous or doubtful, no hasty generalizations; everything is set down in concise form and precisely, but in the necessary detail. Every object is given its local name. The numerous drawings show one what things really looked like. The entire work bears the imprint of the tight restrictions the author imposed on himself.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Fieldwork Miklouho-Maclay wrote several anthropological and ethnographic essays on the islands of Vuap (Yap), Hermit, Palau, and others. He was particularly interested in the purpose of objects, their function in society. He tried to approach this subject unbiased by European ideas and prejudices stemming from the concepts of power, the state, property, and so forth.

Miklouho-Maclay found any attempts to justify theories based on racial discrimination and the practices stemming from them quite intolerable. Complete equality of rights for all the human races was for him an indisputable scientific and humanist principle: the existence of different races in completely in agreement with the laws of nature, and it should be recognised that these races have the rights common to all people.

He had made an absolutely golden rule to avoid any kind of speculative constructions, poorly founded hypotheses and theories.

Miklouho-Maclay was witness to the consequences of the harmful influence of Europeans on the Melanesians.

Miklouho-Maclay writes an open letter on April 8, 1881, to Commodore Wilson, the head of the Australian naval station. Written five days before his second letter to Sir Arthur Gordon, which was printed in the M_f\iolh_ h_qmj[j_l Alaom oh^_l nb_ b_[^cha ‗Kc^h[jjcha [h^ Sf[p_ls ch nb_ Sionb S_[ Imf[h^m‘.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Miklouho-M[]f[s‖ j[nb pcmcn_^ B_lfch, Tb_ H[ao_, P[lcm, [h^ Lih^ih. Among the scientists he met in are Henry Moseley and George Schweinfurth. The former was an explorer who voyaged on the Challenger around the islands of Melanesia.

Miklouho-Maclay has visited a number of European capitals not only attending to practical matters, but also building up his contacts with the academic world, and thereby gained popularity and respect which was firmly established in the scientific world after 1882-1883.

Within the time period between 1886 and 1888 Peter the Great Anthropology and Ethnography Museum in Leningrad were Australia and Oceania and New Guinea had been well represented.

Besides his diaries, Miklouho-Maclay also had notebooks in which he entered various scientific observations during his travels: characteristics and drawings of objects, descriptions of customs, rites, festivities, dances he had seen, native words and names, geographical names, the routes of the excursions, various ideas and observations, and others. A sound and consistent positivism formed the basis of his scientific methodology.

He received a letter from Tolstoy which greatly helped him reconsidered nature of his work.

West Papua has been described as "an earthly paradise for anthropological research" where indigenous societies are "untouched by


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Western culture". Colonialism has often been considered a force that can corrupt indigenous societies.

From his hut at Garagassi Point, Maclay visited many villages, collected specimens, drew faces and scenery and named mountain peaks. With patience, courage and medical Skill he won the confidence and co- operation of the inhabitants. He found them far from long-headed as earlier reported and studied their languages and characteristics. His necessities were running out when the corvette Isumrud arrived in December 1872. He named the Maclay Coast from Isumrud to Vitiaz Straits and in the corvette went to the Halmaheras and Philippines where he found primitive tribes similar to those he had seen in New Guinea. In 1873 at Batavia he published his anthropological observations, sent specimens and comments to his European teachers and recuperated for six months at Buitenzorg in the mountains. He then visited the Celebes and Moluccas, and at Papua-Koviai in west New Guinea found ethnological traits similar to those on the Philippines and Maclay Coast. After local exploration he returned to Papua-Koviai and found that raiders had smashed his hut, stolen his equipment and killed some local supporters. With skill he captured the chief offender and brought him to JUSTICE, but the experience contrasted so strongly with the goodwill of the more isolated natives of the Maclay Coast that he determined to preserve their cultures.

Key Works The works of Miklouho-Maclay were published in 1873 in Russian, German, Dutch, and English editions. Miklouho-Maclay published some


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

of the results of his research in articles in journals, printed in German in Batavia, and in English in Singapore.

In 1878, in Sydney he met William John Macleay with whom he wrote three scientific papers. In April 1874 Maclay went to Amboina, where in June he was found seriously ill by Captain John Moresby who had been sent to look for him. By July Maclay was at Buitenzorg resting and preparing publications. In November he went to Singapore and for 176 days traveled in Malaya where he found more primitive tribes whose ethnological characteristics were akin to those in the Philippines and New Guinea. In December he returned to Buitenzorg and published four papers suggesting a relation between the natives of the regions he had investigated.

In January 1876 Maclay sailed to the Halmaheras and Carolines, and on

nb_ A^gcl[fns Imf[h^m _mn[\fcmb_^ nb[n nb_ h[ncp_m ―_hf[la_^ n



not a racial tl[cn \on l_mofn_^ `lig ]b_qcha‖ \_n_f hon qcnb fcg


returned to Astrolabe Bay in June and with material from Singapore built a new home at Bugarlom near Bougu village. Renewed friendships and greater facility with dialects enabled him to visit many villages in the mountains and on the coast and islands. He prevented violence which threatened to erupt from superstition and warned his native friends against slave traders. He also made drawings and collections of local animals but confined his diaries to anthropological matters. In November 1877 he sailed north among the islands and reached Singapore in January 1878. He went to Hong Kong in June and in July arrived at Sydney with large collections.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Visit to Australia On 26 August Maclay addressed the local Linnean Society on the need for a laboratory of marine studies on Sydney Harbour. The lecture was one of his thirty-four research papers and notes published by the society; he was made an honorary member in l879. In November 1878 the Dutch government informed him that on his recommendations it was checking the slave traffic at Ternate and Tidore. In January 1879 he wrote to Sir Arthur Gordon, high commissioner for the Western Pacific, on protecting the land rights of his friends on the Maclay Coast, and ending the traffic in arms and intoxicants in the South Pacific. In March, after continuing his campaign for the laboratory, Maclay sailed in the Sadie F. Caller for the islands northeast of Queensland. In April 1880 he went to Somerset, Queensland, and thence to Brisbane, where he resumed his studies on the comparative anatomy of the brains of Aboriginal, Malayan, Chinese and Polynesian origin.

Maclay returned to Sydney in January 1881. With the help from the government and scientific societies in Sydney and Melbourne his ambition for a marine laboratory was at last realized. While it was being built at Watsons Bay he worked in Sydney museums and collected evidence for his campaign against the exploitation of natives. In August he went to New Guinea in hope of providing guidance at the trial of the murderers of native missionaries and their families at Kalo. He returned in October and found the laboratory almost complete. When the Russian Pacific fleet visited Melbourne in February 1882 Maclay joined the Vestnik and arrived at Kronshtadt, Russia, in September.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Maclay lectured to the Russian Geographical Society and each morning explained his collections and drawings to enthusiastic visitors. He was awarded a gold medal by the society and a certificate of honour by the Czar but failed to raise funds.

Maclay wrote to Bismarck in October seeking protection of pacific islanders from white exploitation and later protested against the German annexation. Early in 1886 he returned to Russia with his family and twenty-two boxes of specimens. He arranged some publications, lectured in St Petersburg and on his travels visited the family estates and scientists. At Vienna he and his wife were married by rites of the Russian Orthodox Church. He intended to return to Sydney but his health deteriorated and he died on 2 April 1888.

Conclusion It is widely established that anthropology, especially the field work tradition has been founded by Malinowski who was a polish by origin and a mathematics and Physics by training and son of a Professor of Philology of Slavic Language who has published his first Ethnographic text the Argonauts of the Western Pacific published in 1922. At least 40 years before in 1871 in one of the Oceanic Island Papua New Guinea and led the foundation of empiricism in anthropology. Further, it is recognized that Colonialism has given -the birth of anthropology. These to pivotal questions appears to be different if a look at the very root is evident regards the founder instead of Malinowski it is seems to be N. N. Miklouho-Maclay who struggle against Colonialism through out his life. Therefore, a detail, both extensive and intensive exploration would be of great academic value. Basic constrains of this writing is nonavailability


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

works of Maclay in English language and the limited scope of this article.

Bibliography Beregu, N. (1975) Maklaiya etnograficheskiye ocherki (On the Maclay Coast, ethnographic essays). Moscow: Nauka Publishers.

Butinov N. A. (1953) N. N. Miklouho-Maclay (A biographical essay in Russian), in N.N. Miklouho-Maclay Sobraniye Sochinenii (Collected Works). Moscow-Leningrad: USSR Academy of Sciences Publishers.

Butinov, N. A. (1992) Miklouho-Maclay in Australia, in J. McNair & T. Poole Russia and the Fifth Continent: Aspects of Russian-Australian Relations. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Cheater, A. P. (1989) Social Anthropology. London: Academic Division, Unwin Hyman Ltd.

de Bruijn, J. V. (1959) Anthropological Research in Netherlands New Guinea Since 1950, Oceanic, 29:123-163.

Eriksen, T. H. & Finn, S. N. (2001) A History of Anthropology. London :

Pluto Press.

Fischer, D. (1956) Unter Su'dsee-lnsulanern: das Leben des Forschers Mikloucho-Maclay (Among South Sea Islanders: The Life of tlie Scientist Miklouho-Maclay). Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Greenop, F. S. (1944) Who travels Alone. Sydney: K. G. Murray Publishing Company.

Jackman, H. (1976) A Russian Scientist in 19th century New Guinea, book review of Mikloucho-Maclay: New Guinea diaries 1871-1883, transleted by C. L. Sentinella, South Pacific Bulletin, 26(1): 44.

Lack, C. (1965-66) Russian Ambitions in the Pacific: Australian War Scares of the Nineteenth Century, Royal Historical Society of Queensland Journal, 8(3): 432-59.

Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1882) Cranial Deformation of Newborn Children at the lsland Mabiak, and Other Islands of Torres Straits, and of Women of the S. E. Peninsula of New Guinea, Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of New South Wales, 6: 627-29.

Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1885) Note on the Brain of Halicore Australia Owen, Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of New South Wales, 10(2):


Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1950-1954) Sobraniye sochinenii (Collected Works). Moscow & Leningrad: USSR Academy of Sciences Publishers.

Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1975) New Guinea Diaries 1871 - 1883. Madang, Papua New Guinea: Kristen Pres.

Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1977) Grolier, Sydney, vol. 4, 183.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Miklouho-Maclay, N. N.

Letters, and Documents. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

(1982) Travels to New Guinea: Diaries,

Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1982) Travels to New Guinea: Diaries, Letters, Documents. Moscow: Progress.

Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1993) Miklouho-Maclay and the Perception of the Peoples of New Guinea in Russia, Pacific Studies, 16(1):33-42.

Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (nd) Tamo Russ: Reisetagebu'cher Von N.N. Miklucho-Maklaj (Tamo Russ: travel diaries of N. N. Miklouho-Maclay). Berlin: SWA-Verlag.


Nicholaievich (1846 -1888), in Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol.







5. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Ogloblin, A. K. (1997) Commemorating N. N. Miklukho-Maclay, in Perspectives on the Bird’s Head of Irian Joya. Indonesia.


Literature, 8.









Putilov, B. N. (1981) Nikolai Nikolaievich Miklouho-Maclay. Stranitsy biografii (Nikolai Nikolaievich Miklouho-Maclay, pages from His Biography), Moscow.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Putilov, B. N. (1982) Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay: Traveler, Scientist and Humanist, translated by G. N. Koslov. Moscow: Progress.

Roginski, Y. Y. & Tokarev, S. A. (1950) N. N. Miklouho-Maclay as an Ethnographer and Anthropologist (in Russian), in N. N. Miklouho- Maclay Sobraniye sochinenii Collected Works, Vol. 2, Moscow- Leningrad: USSR Academy of Sciences Publishers.

Sentinella, C. L. (1975) Mikloucho-Maclay: New Guinea Diaries 1871- 1883, transleted by C. L. Sentinella. Madang: Kristen Press.

Shnukal, A. (1985) The Spread of Torres Strait Creole to the Central Islands of Torres Strait, Aboriginal History, 9(2): 220-34.

Shnukal, A. (1998) N. N. Miklouho-Maclay in Torres Strait (Nikolai Nikolaevich Miklouho-Maclay, 19 th Century Russian Natural Scientist). Australian lnstitute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait lslander Studies.

Thomassen, E. S. (1882) Biographical Sketch of Nicholas de Miklouho- Maclay. Brisbane: Royal Geographical Society.

Tudor, J. (1975) A Shadowy Russian in Unknown New Guinea (review i` S_hnch_ff[‖m \iie), Pacific Islands Monthly, December: 53-55.

Tumarkin, D. D. (1977) The Papuan Union (from the history of the struggle of Miklouho-Maclay for the right of the Papuans to New Guinea), in Rasy i narody (Races and Peoples). Moscow: Nauka Publishers.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Tumarkin, D. D. (1982) Miklouho-Maclay and New Guinea, in Travels to New Guinea: Diaries, Letters, Documents, Miklouho-Maclay, S-56. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Tumarkin, D. D. (1988) Miklouho-Maclay: A Great Russian Scholar and Humanist, Social Sciences, 2:175-89.

Valskaya, B. A. (1959) The Struggle of Miklouho-Maclay for the Right of the Papuans on the Maclay Coast, in Strany i narody Vostoka (Lands and Peoples of the East). Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura Publishers.

Webster, E. M. (1984)

Miklouho-Maclay. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

The Moon Man: A Biography of Nikolai

Zuckerman, E. S. (1993) Book review of Russia and the Fifth Continent:

Aspects of Russian-Australian Relations, Australian Historical Studies, 25(101): 652-53.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Chapter 6

Soviet Anthropology:

An Outline of Theoretical Approach

Anthropological scholarship what used to be the Soviet Union found its own theoretical and methodological rationale, in Ethnos theory. Soviet anthropology focuses on building knowledge on human being through integrated as well as intensive investigation of a particular group of people or ethnos in their historical perspectives Soviet anthropologists have defined such human groups, classified them using devices based on ecological condition of life, social system and physical traits. Emphasis has been given in cultural, social and psychological aspect than that of physical traits. Human history is seen in the light of an evolutionary scheme of different types of ethnos, while the core focus of anthropology is biological aspects of human being and to reveal its evolutionary transition.

I. Introduction The development of Anthropology in former Soviet Union as scientific discipline for the study of human being is not very old. The process of development began only in the mid-nineteenth century. However, since then it developed tremendously and attained a distinguished status in the theoretical and conceptual development of anthropology.

There is no denying the fact that Soviet anthropological development owes much to Euro-American societies of Ethnography and


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Anthropology, the formations of which dates back to 1839 with the `ilg[ncih i` Si]c_ns ^―_nbhifia ^_ P[lcm. Agiha inb_l mo]b _[lfc_mn societies were: American Ethnological Society founded in New York in 1842; Ethnological Society and Anthropological Society founded in Britain in 1843 and 1863 respectively. Later, in 1871 Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland was established. At about the same time the same kind of societies also sprang up in Germany, ltaly and other western countries. The formation of such societies implies that a methodical and scientific study of people's life had become a social demand by then. In course of development, scholars of Western Europe America and France came up with the meaning of Ethnography as a study of mankind as a group only upto a descriptive level and Ethnology as a study of man with analysis and synthesis. On the contrary, in the Soviet Union, the term Ethnography came to embrace the whole dornain of the study of man with description, analysis and synthesis.

In the western world the term Ethnography is synonomously used as Cultural and Social Anthropology, while in the Soviet Union, Anthropology is a discipline which studies human uptill its group divisions i.e., origin of human beings, man's relationship with other animals, modem races physical pecularities and traits. Practically these are studied in physical Anthropology in the western world. However, Ethnography in the Soviet Union did not develop in isolation from western developments. Soviet scholars closely watched the development that was taking place in this regard in the western world. They scrutinized their writings and translated those in their own languages to make the development accessible to home scholars. Thus the Soviet scholars, taking full


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

advantage of western developments, developed their own strategy for the study of mankind. With such developments they only during 1960-1970s


categories etc., of the study. This finally gave rise to Soviet Ethnography as a specialised discipline.







Ethnography in the Soviet Union became a major and dominant discipline among the social sciences. All the major universities in former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) have departments of Ethnography which offer a five year Masters Degree Course. Besides, Soviet Academy of Sciences, which is the appex of all academic institutions, has established a special institute of Ethnography. This is basically a research institute having exclusive museum and specialised library of ethnography. The institute has been divided into sectors based on the geographical divisions of world population, like Asia, Africa, Australia, America, Europe etc. These sectors are again subdivided into subsectors, viz, South, West, South East and Central Asia.

II. Theoretical Concepts of Modern Ethnography in Soviet Union Ethnography is a science, which studies the people of the World as groups from the early stage of their formation, historical development and also their contemporary life.

Therefore, to avoid confusion ethnography in the Soviet Union uses the term Ethnos to mean a particular human group. Ethnos is a stable social grouping of people originated in a natural process within a common territory, having a common language, specific cultural and psychological features, inner unity and bonds, which are usually unconsciously


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

accepted by the members of the group. Such group expresses its difference with others by using the words weand they. Again a specific group can be identified by its group name (Bromley, 1983: 15-


Origin and formation of each group or community is conditioned by some factors. This is possible only if the people live in a neighbourhood, i.e. within common territory. Therefore commonness of territory is the basic condition for the formation of ethnos. This is also a factor for the development of economy and linkage among different pans of the ethnos. The natural environment have impact on the life of the people, which is reflected in the traits of their economic activities, culture, psychological make up and finally mode of life. This also facilitates reproduction of ethnos through intermarriage among the members.

One of the most important factors of ethnic self- consciousness is the belief in their common origin, historical fate of their ancestors all through their existence. Ethnos has survived for many centuries by transferring experience, knowledge, culture and language orally and through tradition and teaching.

Functions of Ethnic Culture Like common territory, common language is also one of the vital conditions for the formation of ethnos. This is an integrative device of culture and the principal media of communication.

Besides language, some other elements of culture also play a substantial role in the stable functioning of an ethnos. Exclusive components of


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

culture, which are stable and traditional in character, appear in everyday life of the masses. These components are categorised as a material culture e.g. traditional houses by type and usage, economic tools and household utensils, dresses, food, ornaments, craft and others, spiritual culture e.g. beliefs and practices, religion, oral tradition and finally basic functioning components such as customs, rites, rituals and ceremonies connected with life cycle and calendaric cycle, behavioural norms and patterns. This cultural unity is closely associated with the psychological pecularities of the members, which appear commonly in nuances of character, specification of value orientation and also tastes. Totality of all these pecularities forms the so called ethnic character, which varies among peoples.

III. Typology of Ethnos In the natural course of the history of Homo sapiens, the ancestors of modern man have been divided into different human groups, i.e. communities and racial clusters. There are a few thousand such communities in the present day world. These communities present remarkable differences with regard to their degree of social advancement, cultural and racial pecularities and finally their size. This happened because they had to undergo a long process of independent development, existence in different socio-ecnonomic and environmental conditions. At the same time there had never been any strong demarcating line, between the communities, which had hindered their mutual exchanges. Therefore there had always been contacts among themselves.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

The first social groups in the human history were the herds of archaeoanthropoids, which were essentially flexible bio-social groups with ignorable stability. Most of the ethnographers do not consider this early type as ethnos proper. The specialists relate the origin of the first human community -- the ethnos --to the developed primitive society with the appearance of exogomous kin organisations known as clan and lineage the human communities- the ethnos- never developed outside a definite socio-economic formation and a power structure.

On the basis of the above factors and from the historical point of view the ethnos in primitive society are categorised as lineage clan, phratry, tribe and tribal unions. Then they developed the nationalities in slave owning and feudal societies with political state power, and nations in capitalist and socialist society (Bromley, 1975: 47-57).

In between the early and later palaeolithic age the primitive herd transformed into primitive kin, where main social centre was societies based on kinship and affinity to good relationship-the basis of kinship. The recognition of this relationship may be culturally conditioned. Often in such societies kinship relations play the role of mode of production.

The kins were divided into two groups- Lineage and Clan.

Lineage is a consanguinal kin group resulting from unilinear descent, either patrilineal or matrilineal. It consists of members with common relationship in the prevalent line of descent as the result of a specific group of geneological ties, and in which descent must be demonstrated,


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

thus differing from the clan. Lineage may be unilocal or multilocal, and it extends through a number of generations. It is usually exogamous.

Clan is matrilineal or a unilateral kin group which is often exogamous. Membership in a clan hinges on kinship through parents. In most contexts, a clan is a unilineal group of relatives often living in one locality through sometimes multilocal and with common property. The members of the clan trace stipulated descent from their original ancestor, who exist only in the mythological past and is perhaps neither animal nor human but a spirit or a landscape feature. lt differs from a lineage, which traces descent by demonstration from human ancestors and it often tends

to be an overgrowh lineage. Usually a patrilineal clan is called gens. Generally a union of two or several clans constitutes a phratry.

A phratry is generally exogamous. It may be matrilineal or patrilineal.

The phratry stems from an expansion of the clan. In the classical form, several phratries constitute a tribe. In many cases, the middle link, the

phratry, is missing among greatly weakened tribes.

Tribe is a social group, usually with a definite area, dialect, cultural homogeneity and unifying social organisation. It may include several

subgroups. A tribe ordinarily has a leader and may have a common ancestor, as well as a patron deity. The families or small communities making up the tribe are linked through economic, social, religious, family

or blood ties. Therefore, the tribe has some distinctive features such as

the possession of its own territory and its own name, a special dialect, war chiefs elected by the tribe, common religious ideas, rites of worship,

tribal council for common affairs, tribal head.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

The entire system of gentes, phratries and tribes developed with almost compelling necessity. All these three are groups of various degrees of consanguinity, each complete in itself and managing its own affairs, but each also supplementing the rest; therefore we discover the gens as the social unit of a people.

Nationality Tribal communities were replaced by nationality in slave- owning society. Society was divided by classes and antagonistic classes as well. Blood-based kinship organisation was replaced by the territorial state with political power. Nationalities were formed out of tribal components and have been developing throughout the slave- owning and feudal socio- economic formation. Today the term nationality is being used for coding the sense of belonging to a particular ethnos.

Nations arise in the epoch of the formation of capitalism form tribes, nationalities and different races. Capitalism eliminates the feudal economy, political and cultural apartness of the population speaking one and the same language by promoting the growth of industry and trade. That leads to the formation of centralised national states, which, for their part, accelerate that consolidation. The economic and political consolidation of a nation helps to form a common national language. The specifics of a nation's historical development, its economic system, culture in everyday life, customs and traditions, and geography are important factors in shaping the national character. Main features of nation are economic community, common territory, common language,


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Common national character, which manifests itself in the peculiarities of culture and mode of life.

IV. Historical Perspective of the Development of a Nation

Ethnic Processes In course of the historical development, the human groups were conditioned by their socio-economic and political factors, environmental pecularities and finally interactions with each other. These factors always leave some impact on the overall development of ethnic groups. This process is called ethnic process.

Socio-economic process is related with the development of productive forces of the people, changes in production relationship, transformation of class structure and finally changes in the socio-economic formation. This change definitely has a substantial impact on the ethnic community but not on the basic characteristics of ethnos. Cultural changes always undergo a gradual and slow process. Therefore, one ethnos may continue its existence through two, three or even four socio-economic formation, such as the Persians.

Ethnic process is of two types; ethnic division and ethnic unification. Ethnic division is the process which divides one unified ethnic community into a few others and creates a few other independent ethnos. This process was typical in the primitive society. The tribes used to be divided mainly when the size of the tribes increased or natural resources within the tribal territory fell short. In developed societies, the division of ethnos happened due to political reasons, for example, Germans and Austrians, Bengalies in Bangladesh and in lndia. Sometimes migration of


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

a major portion of an ethnic community also caused division of ethnos. Process of unification of ethnos: this process unites different communities in order to create a greater one. This process could be subdivided into consolidation, assimilation and integration (Bromley, 1987: 40-50). The progressive tendency of unification was mainly followed during the period of transition of primitive society to slave- owning society.

Consolidation is the process of amalgamation of few closely related groups linked by language and culture to form a new and larger one.

Assimilation takes place when a small

environment of other larger community and slowly merges with them. In this process the small group consciously accepts the language and culture of the larger group.


ethnic group lives in

Integration is the result of interaction, remarkably different ethnic groups unify into one. But each group preserves their main ethnic trait.

During this unification process adaptation and acculturation take place gradually.

V. Classification of the People of the World Ethnography in the former Soviet Union classifies the total population of the world by some basic criteria. The classification criteria are geographical distribution of the people, racial traits, their linguistic belongingness, and economic cultural pecularities.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Geographical Classification This classification considers only the distribution of ethnos in accordance with their place of living and is mainly used in describing the people. The peoples of the world are broadly divided as follows:

People of Asia: West Asia, South Asia, South East Asia, East and Central Asia,

People of Africa: east, West, North and South,

People of Australia and Oceania: Australia and Tasmania, Polyneasia, Micronesia and Melanesia,

People of America: North America, Central America and South America.

People of Europe.

People of USSR:

Causasious, Central Asia.

Europian part of USSR, Siberia and

Far East,

Racial Classification Though race is a social phenomenon, Soviet anthropology has classified race phenotypically. Race is a historically formed group of people, having a common origin, which presents common hereditary, morphological and psychological traits that vary within certain limits. Modern races were formed during later palaeolithic age and from that very time a continuous process of intermixing was going on which resulted in elimination of racial differences. On the other hand, racial


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

characteristics never played an important role in the historical development of the people. Nevertheless, the information about racial characteristics provides insights into anthropogenesis.

Anthropologists recognize four major races; Europeoids, Mongoloids, Negroids and Australoids. As a result of intermixing, the transitional and races have been developed (Gorman, 1974: 124-130).

Europeoids are living in all the continents. They are subdivided into a few smaller races such as fair haired blond, dark haired brunette, and other.

Mongoloids are distributed mainly in Siberia and Asia. American Indians are also referred to as Mongoloids. Mongoloid race is subdivided into continantal pacific oceanians and polar Eskimos. Polynesians and mongoloids of South Asia.

Negroids are concentrated mainly in Africa. The race has subdivisions Negroes, Bushman, Hottentots and Pigmies.

Australoids are mainly the aboriginal population of Australia, Negritos of Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, Veddoid population of Andaman Islands and Veddas in Sri Lanka.

Transitional racial group among Australoids and Europoids are the Dravidians of South lndia.

The Ainu population of Japan is an example of contact race formed between Mongoloids and Australoids (Alekceev, 1985: 75-85).


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Linguistic Classification Comparative linguistic study is crucially important in ethnography as an establishment of genetical relations between the languages revealing the relationship between the human communities.

Two or more languages are considered relatives only if both originate from one common language. Therefore, linguistic classification helps us to understand not only the culture of the people but also to identify genetical relationship between communities (Bromely, 1987: 50-60).

Main language families Indo- European Hamito- Semitic Ural-Altai with Finno-Ugric, Turko-Tartar, Mongolic, Tungus-Munchu branches Caucasic- Cartvel Kongo Kardafan Sino-Tibetan with Tibeto- Burmese, Shan- Siamese, Annamese, Sinitic branches Austro- Asian with Viet, Mon-Khmerian, Munda branches Austronesian, Malayo- Polynesian family Dravidian Thai Papuan Japanes Korean


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Economic Cultural Classification Ethnographic information shows that people belonging to absolutely different ethnic communities but having similar natural environment and, socio- economic conditions has developed common material culture.

Ethnography in

economy in early stage of ethnic development. These are:


Union distinguishes



Food gathering, hunting and fishing,



Domesticating animal and cultivation with the use of hand

Agriculture, ploughing of land with the help of oxen (Bromley, 1973: 60-


These three types of economic activities have been able to develop distinct material culture with regard to agricultural tools, utensil types, food practices, house, crafts and etc.

VI. Methodology


quantitative approaches are also used to support qualitative information.








The exercise could be divided into two broad phases. The first phase is collection of material, mainly based on field work. The second phase is interpretation of material. Of course in between these two phases lies the compilation or data processing stage.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

are ethnographic research.










Collection of the Material Collection of data and other materials are made from different sources, for example, consulting secondary sources of information, museum collection, archive materials. Still the main source is the people. Therefore only field work can provide basic data.

Usually in the field work one uses classical methodology, i.e., participant observation. Soviet ethnographers called this method- direct participation. In field work, beside mapping, observation and recording, a few other effective methods are also used. These include unstructured open ended interviews which are often called indepth-interview and informal discussions are also conducted in order to know the Knowledge, attitudes and practices of a special group on particular issue.

Field work also is of two types. One is stationary, which provides indepth Knowledge but within a limited territory. The other is expedition, which allows collecting material in wider geographical territory (Cherepnin, 1981: 128-141)

In the second phase,- the collected materials are interpreted. For interpretation many methods are used. Among them the most effective ones are comparative historical method, structural method and historic geographical method and method of quantitative analysis.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

VII. Conclusion In this chapter the theoretical, methodological and conceptual aspects of soviet anthropology have been outlined, as they show, Soviet Ethnography attempted to attain a systemetic rigour as a modern academic discipline at par with other sciences.

Bibliography Alekceev, V. P. (1985) "Chelavick" Evalutsia i Taksanomia human, evolution and Taksanom ("Man" Evolution and Taxonomy human, evolution and Taxonomy), p. 75-140. Moscow.


Ethnography (Ethnos and Ethnography 19, Ftos and Ethnography), p. 47-










77. Moscow.

Brornley, V. Yu. (1979) Problemi istori i Ethnographi Americ (Problem of History and Ethnography in America), p. 133-145. Moscow.

Bromley, V. Yu. (1981) Ethnographia (Ethnography), editted by G. E. Markova, p. 4 -25. Moscow.

Bromley, V. Yu. (1983) Ocherki Theori Ethnosa (An outline of Ethnos Theory). Moscow.

Bromley, V. Yu. (1987) Ethnosocial nea Prosessi, Theori, Usiori, Sovremennosty (Ethnosocial Process, Theories, History and Mordernily), p. 40-73. Moscow.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Bromley, V. Yu. (1987) Ethnicheskea processi v sovremennom Mire (Ethnic processes in modern world), p. 5-20. Moscow.

Chebaksarov, N. N. (1981) Tipi Tragitsionnova Selskovo Gilisha Narodov iyogo-gapadnoe ejnou Aji (Type of Tradition Rural Housing in South and South East Asia), p. 160-175. Moscow.

Cherepnin, L. V. (1981) Boproci methodologi isorcheskova lsledovania (Qestions of Methodology of historical research), p. 128-141. Moscow.

Gerasimov, K. M. (1986) Traditsionnya Kultura Narodov Centralnoi Asia (Traditional Culture of the People of Central Asia Novosivirsk), p.

















Morphology of Man), p. 124-130. Leningrad.

Vutunov, S. A. (1981) Ethnographia Pitania Narodov Stran Yagabasnoi Asi (Ethnography of Food of the People of Soth East Asia), p. 86-95. Moscow.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Chapter 7

Culture: Theoretical Exploration

Abstract Culture has undertaken a long journey through evolutionism, diffusionsim, historical particularism, cultural relativism, cultural ecology school, cultural materialism, culture and personality school, symbolism, functionalism, structural functionalism, structuralism, post- structuralism and postmodernism. As for Kroeber and Klukhohn the journey of the concept of culture began from Tylor and had gradually emerged as a key theoretical concept, received epistemological grounding, acquired distinctive meanings and application. The greater

the attention the concept of culture has received from anthropologist, the

gil_ cn

\_cha‖. Am nb_ diolh_s oh^_ln[e_h \s nb_ ]ih]_jn i` ]ofnol_ cm nii fiha ni follow, particularly, within the scope of this article, an attempt to go through its central course is made. It could be observed that major theoretical schools have been deeply involved in defining, formulating and theorizing the concept. Shifts in paradigm were often resulted by the epistemological and ontological differences emerged around the notion of culture. The idea of progress appeared to be intrinsic to culture that was rooted in the enlightenment, positivism and utilitarianism, and was extended to the theory of modernization and globalization. In the recent phase, culture has lost its meaning as a theoretical concept of the term. It now rather refers to a process of constructing others. The publication of





_gjiq_l_^ ni ip_lqb_fg nb_ ]ih]_jn i` ―bog[h

Anthropology: Science of Human Being

‘Writing Culture: the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography’ has expressed ―ch]l_^ofcns' niq[l^m ]ofnol_: ―]ofnol_ cm qlcnn_h‖ [h^ nb_ qlcncha chpifp_m major epistemological and political problems. Further, Abu-Lughod has jlijim_^ gi^_m `il qlcncha [a[chmn ]ofnol_, qbcf_ ―A`n_l qlcncha ]ofnol_‖ jlijim_m nb[n ]ofnol[f ―nl[hmf[ncih‖ cm pc[\fe. In this context, an account of the journey of culture through anthropological thoughts may be useful.

Introduction Ahnblijifias b[m _g_la_^ [m [ m]c_h]_ ni mno^s ―[hnblijim‖ c

, beings, but a closer look into the history of the discipline shows that its focus has significantly varied all over the globe (Jalal, 2003:47). Radcliffe-Brown (1952) has conceived anthropology as a natural science i` mi]c_ns, qbcf_ Wbcn_ (1942) _hpcm[a_^ [hnblijifias [m [ ―m]c_h]_ i` ]ofnol_‖.


This chapter makes an attempt to outline how selected anthropologists have conceived culture. It will be useful to see how this concept is used ch cnm a_h_l[f n_lgm. Ensgifiac][ffs, cn cm fche_^ ni qil^m fce_ ―]ofncp[n_‖, ―]ofncp[ncih‖ ―[alc]ofnol_‖ [h^ ―bilnc]ofnol_‖. In the seventeenth century, it became common to apply this term metaphorically to human development, and, in the eighteenth century, it developed into a more general term (Williams, 1983). In German, the word was spelt first Culture, and then, Kultur. Nep_lnb_f_mm, ―Cofnol_‖ b[m mn_gg_^ `lig nbcm orbit of German usage. The term was originally processual being drawn from cultivation or agriculture and then was applied as cultura animie - the cultivating of young minds in order to aspire them to adult ideals. In this latter sense, it came into German in the seventeenth century; its meaning was extended from the development of individuals to include


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

cultivation of the moral and intellectual capacities of nations and humankind (Kroeber & Klukhohn, l952:18). This shift in emphasis from culture as cultivation to culture as the basic assumption and guiding aspiration of an entire collectivity-a whole people, a folk, a nation- probably occurred in the course of the nineteenth century, on the promptings of an intensifying nationalism. Then each people with its characteristic culture came to be understood as possessing a mode of perceiving and conceptualizing the world all of its own (Wolf, 1999: 29). The term was used in works of speculative history from the second half of the eighteenth century and crucially started to be used in the plural in the sense of humanity being divided into a number of separate distinct cultures (Barnard, I996: 136).

Selected anthropologists’ basic understanding on the notion of culture In 1952 Kroeber and Kluckhohn published an extraordinary survey on the conception of culture (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, I952). This book has contained not only definitions, but also non-anthropological usage of the qil^ ―]ofnol_‖ ch Ehafcmb, G_lg[h [h^ Fl_h]b. N_[rly 300 definitions of the term were published (Smith, 1986: 65).

According to Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), the anthropological sense i` nb_ qil^ q[m `clmn _mn[\fcmb_^ \s Tsfil (1871). Ih ―Plcgcncp_ Cofnol_‖, Tsfil qlcn_m nb[n ―]ofnol_ il Ccpcfct[ncih, taken in its widest ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by g[h [m [ g_g\_l i` mi]c_ns‖ (Tsfil, 1871: 26).


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Perhaps, the most intriguing aspect of this statement is whether culture is relevant only to the modern world, which was understood at the time to be the apex of civilization, or it could be applied to all forms of society.

Extensive work on animism and the origin of religion indicates the prominence of ideological realm in the understanding of Tylor (1871). H_ l_`_lm ni ]ofnol_ [m \_cha ―[]kocl_^‖ \s bog[h \_cha: cn cm [h essential, inevitable aspect of human life, ^_n_lgch[ncp_ i` ih_‖m nbioabn and behavior. Culture is a shared characteristic, existing only when individuals have assembled into a defined group, i.e. society. In his view culture is hierarchical, non-relativistic and synonymous to civilization. Culture takes the social group from lower to the higher stage. This ]ih]_jncih i` ―jlial_mm‖ q[m _pc^_hn ch _pifoncih[ls nbioabnm.

White (1949) has viewed culture as a vehicle to universal progress. Cofnol_ cm [h ―ila[hct_^ chn_al[n_^ msmn_g‖, qbc]b ]ihmcmnm i` mo\- systems, particularly technological, sociological and ideological organized hierarchically- ideological on the top, technological at the bottom, and sociological in the middle, creating a means of carrying on the life process of Homo Sapiens. As human culture is dynamic it consumes energy. This consumption of energy became the core of his evolutionary approach: the greater the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year, the greater the degree of cultural development (White, 1949: 369).

The idea of progress is also embedded in multilineal evolutionism of Steward (1955). Cufnol_ cm ]ih]_cp_^ [m ―f_[lh_^ gi^_m i` \_b[pcil qbc]b [l_ mi]c[ffs nl[hmgcnn_^ `lig ih_ a_h_l[ncih ni nb_ h_rn‖ (Sn_q[l^,


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

1955: 98). Sn_q[l^ ch]iljil[n_m nb_ ―f_[lh_^‖ [h^ ―nl[hmgcnn_^‖ _f_g_hnm

into the conception of culture. For him, culture is a collective effort and a

Tb_ bcmnilc][f jli]_mm g_[hm j[mmcha mig_nbcha `lig ―ih_

a_h_l[ncih ni [hinb_l‖- a position between culture and history. Inheritance of cultural forms does not occur at random or over continuous lengths of time, instead, it happens systematically with the onset of every new age group. This conception suggests that there is a ―ohcp_lm[f jli]_mm_m i` ]ofnol[f ]b[ha_‖ (Sn_q[l^, I955). An nb_ p_ls ]_hn_l i` nb_ ]ih]_jncih q[m ―nb_ ]ihmn_ff[ncih i` `_[nol_m qbc]b [l_ 'most closely related to subsistence activities and economic [ll[ha_g_hnm‖ (Sn_q[l^, 1955:327). This refers so to the notion that culture is rooted in the practices and material conditions inherent in a given society.

bcmnilc][f ih

In relating culture to the ecology, Steward (1955) has developed the concept of culture-type. Cultural features are derived from synchronic, functional and ecological factors and are represented by a particular diachronic or developmental level, while the concept of cultural core has similar functional interrelationships resulting from local ecological adaptations and similar levels of socio-cultural integration (Steward, 1955: 3-6). Cultural evolution may be regarded either as a special type of historical reconstruction or as a particular methodology or approach.

D[lqch‖m nb_ils i` bog[h _pifoncih [m ionfch_^ ch nb_ D_m]_hn i` M[h ch 1871 had an enormous impact on the conception of culture as the theory provided possibilities for explaining human differences in biological terms and in this sense culture might follow natural laws (Kuper, 2002).


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

The idea of diffusion has provided a very different perspective on culture. Every culture draws on diverse sources depending on borrowings and is in flux. Human beings are very much alike, and every culture is rooted in a universal human mentality. Cultural differences are caused by the challenges presented by the local natural environment and by the contacts between human populations. Borrowings were the primary mechanism for cultural change.

Franz Boas (1982/1898) viewed culture from relativistic and pluralistic [mj_]nm. Ih ]ihnl[mn ni nb_ Vc]nilc[h hincih nb[n ―Cofnol_‖ q[m [ mchaf_ evolving from-[ jlininsj_ `il nb_ [^p[h]_g_hnm i` ―]cpcfct[ncih‖- Boas was seen to have pluralized and decentralized cultures, to have made them as valid as they were diverse (Knauft, 1996: 21). Boas (1982/1898) emphasized that race, language and cultures were not linked to each other. With his understanding of culture, Boas opposed the dominant evolutionist paradigm of Victorian anthropology. He insisted that positioning individual cultures on the savage and barbaric civilization ladder not only discounted their particularity and integrity, but sidestepped the important task of reconstructing unwritten histories for non-Western peoples (Barnard & Spencer, 1998: 73). However, it is to be noted that the concept of pluralism is associated with the name of H_l^_l, [m b_ m[sm. ―We cannot and should not judge members of one people of culture by the standards of another, nor should we require people of one culture to adopt to the demands of another alien ]ofnol_‖ (Barnard & Spencer, 1998: 137).

Tb_ c^_[ i` ―f_[lh_^‖ [h^ ―mb[l_^‖ cm l_ch`il]_^ \s B_h_^c]n, qbi describes culture as a learned behaviour, which is not given at birth, but


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

must be learned (Benedict, 1943: 9-10). Cultures were ways of living, pclno[ffs jms]bifiac][f nsj_m, qbc]b mb_ ][ff_^ ―]ofnol[f ]ihfiaol[ncihm‖, which were said to be best, perceived as integral and patn_lh_^ ―qbif_m‖ (Benedict, 1932:24). Sapir (1932) puts more emphasis on the problem of nb_ ch^cpc^o[f j_lmih[fcns. Fil S[jcl, nb_ ―nlo_ fi]om‖ i` ]ofnol_ f[s hin ch mi]c_ns, \on ch nb_ ―chn_l[]ncihm i` mj_]cfi] ch^cpc^o[fm [h^ ch nb_ ―qilf^ of meanings; whc]b aoc^_ nbim_ chn_l[]ncihm: ―Ep_ls ch^cpc^o[f cm, nb_h, in a very real sense, a representative of at least one subculture, which may be abstracted from the generalized culture of the group of which he cm [ g_g\_l‖ (S[jcl, 1932; 1949: 151).

―Cofnol[f g[n_lc[fcmg‖ omo[ffs l_`_lm ni nb_ mj_]c`c] ech^ i` g[n_lc[fcmn approach advocated by Harris (1979). Harris (1979) maintains that the material world appears deterministic. Thus, to him, culture is a product of relations between things. According to the cultural materialist view, environmental conditions and subsistence techniques together either determine or severely limit the development of many other aspects of culture. Harris and his followers regard observed behaviour as logically and chronologically prior to cultural categories. Thus, cognitive and ideological aspects of culture must necessarily take second place to technological superorgan ones (Barnard & Spencer, 1998:137).

Kli_\_l (1948) b[m [nn[]b_^ nb_ c^_[ i` ―moj_lila[hc]' ni ]ofnol

of the superorganic refers to viewing culture as an entity, not separate from individuals, persists outside the control of human and is being acquired by conscious awareness (Kroeber, 1948). Culture is sui generic and culture could only be explained in terms of itself and not reduced to racial, psychological or (other) non-]ofnol[f `[]nilm. In q[m [fmi ―moj_l-



Anthropology: Science of Human Being

ila[hc]‖ ([ n_lg qbc]b b_ \illiq_^ `lig H_l\_ln Sj_h]_l) ch nb_ Sense that it had to be explained with reference to a level of understanding above individual organism. Culture is less a product of individual human beings. And it develops independently of individual thoughts.

―Tb_ g[mm i` f_[lh_^, nl[hmgcnn_^ ginil l_[]ncihm, b[\cnm, n_]bhcko_m, c^_[m, p[fo_m [h^ \_b[pcil‖ cm ]ofnol_ (Kli_\_l, 1948: 148). Hoganistic features, such as ideas and values, are incorporated into conception of culture. Culture is determinative, relatively autonomous, and less connected to the inner complexities. Instead of on the individual it focuses on institutions and organizationm. ―Ahnblijifias i\pciomfs cm concerned not with particular men as such, but with men in groups, with l[]_m [h^ j_ijf_m [h^ nb_cl b[jj_hcham [h^ ^icham‖ (Kli_\_l, 1948:141). Behavior is a product of ideological and psychic conditions. Culture is both learned and shared. McElroy & Townsend (1989) have thought that this learning is based on a biological foundation, particularly the three genetically based characteristics underlying the human capacities for culture: a complex brain, the ability to make tools and a social bonding.

Radcliffe-Brown (1952) has conceived culture as a process of social life. Culture refers to a process by which a person acquires from contact with other persons or from such things as books or works of art, knowledge, skill, ideas, beliefs, tastes, sentiments. The transmission of learnt ways of thinking, feeling and acting constitutes the cultural process, which is a specific feature of human social life (Brown, 1952)

Levi-Strauss (1963) viewed culture as something based on universal principles and sought a special recognition for the details, which


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

distinguish one culture from another. Cultures in particular are illustrations of the logical possibilities of panhuman capacity for culture in general. Although Levi-Strauss has written at length on the issue of cultural differences, his own analyses have rarely been confined to the study of a particular culture.

If materialist conception of culture is rooted in Marx, symbolic understanding rests on Max Weber. Weber held to investigate the ―g_[hcham‖ nb[n []ncih b_f^ `il nb_ []ncha ch^cpc^o[f, [h^ hin ni understand people simple as products of social forces (Wolf, 1999: 41). Tb_ ]ih]_jn i` ―p_lmn_b_h‖ g_[hm oh^_lmn[h^cha b[^ jf[s_^ [ g[dil lif_ in the study of culture. Further, Weber viewed culture as a value concept (Weber, 1958).

Clifford Geertz being greatly resourced by Weber, explains culture as a ―bcmnilc][ffs nl[hmgcnn_^ j[nn_lh i` g_[hchgs embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means i` qbc]b g_h ]iggohc][n_, j_lj_no[n_, [h^ ^_p_fij nb_cl ―ehiqf_^a_

[\ion [h^ [nncno^_m niq[l^ fc`_‖ (G

culture was essenti[ffs [ m_gcinc] ih

with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he has himself spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the

analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law

\on [h chn_ljl_ncp_ ih_ ch m_[l]b i` g_[hcha‖ (G

1973:89). Ti bcg, nb_ ]ih]_jn i` A]]il^cha ni bcg, ―B_fc_pcha,


lnt, 1973: 5).

The initial use of the concept stressed a supposed inner unity, marked by continuity nblioab ncg_ `lig jlcgil^c[f \_achhcham. A ―]ofnol_‖ q[m nbom conceived as the expression of the inner spiritual force animating people


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

or nation. This understanding was carried to anthropological usage, together with the implicit or explicit expectation, that a culture constituted a whole, and it centered on certain fundamentals that distinguished it from others. It was also seen as capable of reproducing

and regenerating itself and as being able to repair any tears in its fabric through internal processes (Foucault, 1980). This stationary notion of culture as a fixed entity or stable system is being questioned by post-

gi^_lhcmn. ―Cofnol_ cm hiq \_mn m

fixed group of people, but as a shifting and contested process of constructing colf_]ncp_ c^_hncns‖ (Kh[o`n, 1996: 44).


hin [m [h chn_al[n_^ _hncns nc_^ ni [

Tb_ jo\fc][ncih i` Cfc``il^ [h^ M[l]om _^cn_^ ]iff_]ncih, ―Wlcncha Cofnol_: nb_ Pi_nc]m [h^ Pifcnc]m i` Enbhial[jbs‖, b[m [f_ln_^ anthropologists to the need to pay closer attention to the epistemological grounds of their representations. It has also made them consider the practical import of that process of reflection, both for the anthropological endeavour and for those who are the subjects of any anthropological inquiry. If culture is not an object to be described, neither is it a unified corpus of symbols and meanings that can be definitively interpreted. Culture is contested, temporal, and emergent (Clifford & Marcus, 1986).

Abu-Lughod (1991) has conceived that culture is the essential tool for g[echa inb_l, [h^ nb[n ―]ofnol_‖ ij_l[n_m ch [hnblijifiac][f ^cm]iolm_ ni _h`il]_ m_j[l[ncihm nb[n ch_pcn[\fs ][lls [ m_hm_ i` bc_l[l]bs. Tb_l_`il_‖, [hnblijifiacmnm g[s om_ ―[ p[lc_ns i` mnl[n_ac_m ‗`il qlcncha [a[chmn ]ofnol_‖ (A\o-Loabi^, 1991). ―A`n_l qlcncha ]ofnol_‖ (J[g_m, Hockey & D[qmih, 1997) _rn_h^m bij_ nb[n ]ofnol[f ―nl[hmf[ncih‖ cm pc[\f_ [h^ cn proposes epistemologies for it.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Conclusion The brief exploration of the concept of culture through anthropological thoughts illustrates that in the entire evolutionary course culture was understood in terms of abstract concept of progress, and it was often used synonymously to civilization, which was rooted in enlightenment, positivism, utilitarianism, and extended to the theory of modernization and globalization. Counter enlightenment had provided a rebellion against such conception of culture. If value and belief are considered as culture, then mol_fs cn g[s hin \_ ―m]c_hnc`c][ffs‖ \[m_^. Tb_ nb_ils i` biological evolution by Darwin had an enormous influence on the concept of culture as it had reinforced a biological theory of human progress. Diffussionism has conceived the concept of culture in opposition to that connected with biology, and it rested on the universal human mentality. Franz Boas has provided a new meaning and momentum to the concept of culture. He conceived it as particular and relative. Geertz (1973) has focused on the questions of meaning of culture. He has defined culture semiotically. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) have conceived culture as a collective symbolic discourse. Poststructuralists have taken culture is a fabricated text of a fiction written by ethndgraphers. Culture is now seen as a process of constructing collective identity. Abu-Lughod (1991) has proposed modes for writing against culture while James, Hockey and Dawson (1997) b[p_ i``_l_^ _jcmn_gifiac][f g_[hm `il ]ofnol[f ―nl[hmf[ncih‖. Tbcm b[m been a very brief journey and scanty as well. However, the journey reveals that culture has been pivotal to all anthropological paradigms. Therefore, culture has got particular theoretical and methodological significance in anthropology.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Bibliography Abu-Lughod, L. (1991) Writing against Culture, in R. Fox (Ed) Recapturing AnthropoIogy: Working in the Present, p. 37-62. Santa Fe:

School of American Research Press.

Allison, J., Jenny, H. & Dawson, A. (1997) After Writing Culture. Epistemology and Praxis in Contemporary Anthropology. London and New York: Routledge.

Barnard, A. & Spencer, J. (Eds) (1998) Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. London: Routledge.

Benedict, R. F. (1934) Patterns of Culture. New York: The New American Library.

Boas, F. (1982/1898) Summary of the work of the committee in British Columbia, in G. Stocking (Ed) A Franz Boas Reader: The Shaping of American Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.

Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-I977. Brighton: Harvester Press.

Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretations of Culture: Selected Issues. New York: Basic Books.

Harris, M. (1979) Cultural Materialism: The struggle for a science of Culture. New York: Random House.

Inglis, F. (2000) Cliflord Geertz Culture, Custom and Ethics. England:

Polity Press.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Jalal, S. M. (2002) Conceptualizing of human being: anthropological approach, Asian Studies, 21: 43-48.


Anthropoloy. London: Routledge.

Kuper, A. (2000) Culture: The Anthropologists Accounts. Harvard:

Harvard University Press.

Levi-Strauss, C. (1963) Structural Anthropology. New York: Doubleday.

McElroy, A. & Townsend, P. K. (1996/1989) Medical Anthropology, in Ecological Perspectives. London: West view Press.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. R. (1952) On Social Structure, in A.R. Radcliffe- Brown (Ed) Structure and Function in Primitive Society. London: Cohen and West.

Sapir, E. (1949/1932) Cultural anthropology and psychiatry, in E. Sapir (Ed) Culture, Language and Personality: Selected Essays. Berkeley:

University of California Press.










Sapir, E. (1985/1949) Selected Writings in Language, Culture and Personality. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Saussure, F. D. (1959/1916) Course in General Linguistics. London:


Smith, C. S. (1986) Macmillan Dictionary of Anthropology. London:



Anthropology: Science of Human Being


Buckingham: Open University Press.









Steward, J. H. (1955) Theory of Culture Change. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Stocking, G. (1968) Matthew Arnold, E. B. Tylor, and the uses of invention, in G. Stocking (Ed) Race, Culture and Evolution: Essays in the History of Anthropology. London: Free Press.

Strauss-Levi, C. (1963) Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.

Tylor, E. B. (1871) Primitive Culture. London: John Murray.

Weber, M. (1958) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (Edited by H. N. Gerth & C. W. Mylls). New York: Oxford University Press.

White, L. A.

civilization. New York: Grove Press.

(1949) The science of culture: a study of man and

Williams, (1983) Key words: A vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana.

Wolf, E. R. (1999) Envisioning Power Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. California: University of California Press.


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

Chapter 8

G_&wbK cÖwµqv b„weÁv‡bi †K›`ªxq cÖZ¨q: Bg&wcwiK¨vj I ÁvbZË¡xq we‡kølY

f~wgKv evsjv‡`k f~L‡Ði †cÖÿvc‡U cÖZ¨qxKiY ïiæ Kiv †h‡Z cv‡i| GLv‡b GLb †hmKj fvlv‡Mvôx emevm Ki‡Q Zv‡`i GKwU eY©bv (account) †`Iqv nqZ

KwVb KvR n‡e bv| †mUvi Rb¨ Mfxi AbymÜv‡bi cÖ‡qvRb †bB| wKš‧ GB mKj

fvlv‡Mvôx †Kvb mg‡q, Kxfv‡e GB f~L‡Ð emevm ïiæ K‡i; Ges Kx ai‡bi G_wbK cÖwµqv GLv‡b N‡UwQj, I Kxfv‡e eZ©gvb iƒc aviY K‡i‡Q, †mwU Mfxi AbymÜvb Ges we‡kølY K‡i ÁvbZË¡xq (epistemological) Ges Abya¨vbMZ

(ontological) we‡kølY Awbevh©| GB KvRwU †h ïiæ n‡q‡Q, Zv bq| Z‡e Gi

Dci wPšÍv I M‡elYv n‡”Q| mKj HwZnvwmK †cÖÿvc‡U evsjv‡`k f~L‡Ð gvby‡li

c`hvÎv Ges emev‡mi welq¸wj we¯ÍvwiZ ch©v‡jvPbvi `vex iv‡L|

Avw`evmx wi‡UvwiK 1 wbe‡Ü Bs‡iwR Ôwi‡UvwiK (rhetoric)Õ c`wU‡K fvlvšÍwiZ bv K‡i e¨env‡ii GKwU

†cÖÿvcU i‡q‡Q| evsjvq Gi `ywU cÖwZkã nj, ÔAj¼vieûjÕ, ÔevMvo¤^iÕ (Siddiqui, 1993)| Avevi GB `yBwU evsjv kã‡K †hfv‡e †evSv nq, Zv

wi‡Uvwi‡Ki A_©‡K h_vh_ wb‡`©k K‡i bv| Bs‡iwR‡Z Gi GKwU AvwfavwbK msÁv

nj: Ôgvbyl‡K cÖfvweZ Kivi wbwg‡Ë e³…Zv ev †jLv‡jwL, wKš‧ †m¸‡jv cy‡ivcywi

mZ¨ ev AK…wÎg bqÕ (Hornby, 2005)| hvB †nvK, cÖvPxb MÖxK mgqKvj †_‡K


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

we`¨gvb GKv‡WwgK cwigЇji GKwU cÖZ¨q wnmv‡e wi‡UvwiK mPivPi e¨eüZ nq Ôev¯ÍeZvi (reality)Õ wecixZ‡K †evSv‡Z| ÔmZ¨Õ D˜NvUb Gi jÿ¨ bq, hw`I

GwU ÔmZ¨Õ wn‡m‡e wb‡R‡K Dc¯
vcb K‡i| bx‡k ‡hgbwU e‡j‡Qb, Ôwi‡UvwiK Pvq

Ávb (epistêmê) bq eis GKgvÎ AwfgZ‡K Zz‡j ai‡ZÕ (Nietzsche, 2001)|

GwU GKv‡WwgK cwigЇji GKwU cÖZ¨q| GB cwiPq msµvšÍ wi‡UvwiK wbg©v‡Y †hgb Avw`evmx‡`i wb‡Riv hy³, †Zgwb Zv‡`i evB‡ii gvbyl‡`iI GB e¨vcv‡i f~wgKv i‡q‡Q| ¯
vbxq †jLK I eyw×Rxex †_‡K ïiæ K‡i AvšÍR©vwZK ch©v‡qi wewfbœ e¨w³ I cÖwZôvb GB cÖwµqvq m¤ú„³|

Avw`evmx Rb‡Mvôx‡`i †`Lvi `„wóf½x nj, hv Zv‡`i‡K ¯
vwcZ K‡i mf¨Zvi wb¤œZg ch©v‡q Ges Zv‡`i ms¯‥…wZ‡K fvev nq Ôg~javivÕ ms¯‥…wZi g~j¨‡ev‡ai gvcKvwV‡Z| Zv‡`i‡K Aa¨qb Kivi †ÿ‡Î Kv‡`i ¯^v_© I AvMÖn‡K we‡ePbvq †bIqv nq? wb‡R‡`i m¤ú‡K© wPšÍv Kivi Avw`evmx m`m¨‡`i mÿgZv‡K ¯^xK…wZ †`Iqv nq? Zv‡`i cÖwZ `„wófw½ Zv‡`i G·K¬zmvb‡K Kxfv‡e DrmvwnZ K‡i|

‗Ih^ca_hiom aliojm – there are more than fifty distinct groups in Bangladesh are identified by putting them in the upajaati/jaati binary relationship with Bengali. Though the Bengali word upajaati is wi^_fs om_^ ni nl[hmf[n_ ―nlc\[f‖, cnm _nsgifiac][f g_[hcha cm ―mo\-h[ncih‖, qbcf_ d[[nc l_`_lm ni ―h[ncih‖ ch indicating Bengali community. Besides upajaati, the paper unveils many terms that are brought to denote these groups with negative and debilitan_^ cg[a_m: ―[^c\[mbc‖, ―_nbhc] gchilcns‖,


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

―\ihs[‖, ―dihafc‖ [h^ ―m[p[a_‖. Ih^ca_hiom aliojm [l_ bigia_hct_^ chni [ ]iff_]ncp_ ―nb_s‖ [h^ jimcncih_^ [n ^cmn[h]_ from the centre. Their social systems and cultures are portrayed as primitive, exotic, inferior and backward. Thus, a lens emerges and operates in viewing indigenous children. The paper urges that the underpinning values that support this view in development field are a legacy of colonization. Practices of participation rights in the indigenous communities are imposed \s chn_lh[ncih[f ila[hct[ncihm l[nb_l nb[h \[m_^ ih ]bcf^l_h‖m chn_l_mnm‘ (Imf[g, 2015).

Avw`evmx Rb‡Mvôx Ñ Giv Kviv, cwiPq Kx, DrcwË Kxfv‡e, G‡`i ms¯‥…wZ I RxebvPvi †Kgb? Gme welq m¤úwK©Z wi‡Uvwi‡Ki D™¢e I weKv‡k ÔA-Avw`evmxÕ e¨w³MY †hgb hy³, †Zgwb Zv‡`i wb‡R‡`i ga¨ †_‡KI D‡jøL‡hvM¨ f~wgKv i‡q‡Q| ¯
vbxq †_‡K AvšÍR©vwZK ch©vq ch©šÍ wewfbœ eyw×Rxex, †jLK, cÖwZôvb Ges cÖkvmwbK e¨w³eM©, Avw`evmx‡`i e¨vcv‡i IqvwKenvj Ggb e¨w³ we‡kl (Ges mgKvjxb `vk©wbK gZev`) GB cÖwµqvq Ae`vb ‡i‡L‡Qb| Z‡e, Zvrch©c~Y© e¨vcvi nj, Avw`evmx‡`i wb‡q wPšÍvfvebv I †jLv‡jwL Avw`evmx bq, eis ÔA- Avw`evmx‡`iÕ cwi‡cÖwÿZ †_‡K †ewk n‡q‡Q| cÖvK& weªwUk mgqKv‡j Avw`evmx †Mvôxmg~n wb‡R‡`i ev Ab¨‡`i wbKU †Kvb mvaviY bv‡g cwiwPZ wQj bv|

Kv‡RB, wewfbœ m~‡Î (†hgb, Tripura, 1992; †m‡›`j I ej, 1998; Bmjvg,

2005) cÖvß Z‡_¨i wfwˇZ ejv hvq, Aóv`k kZ‡Ki ‡k‡li w`‡K evsjv weªwUk‡`i Kivq‡Ë Avmvi mg‡q Zv‡`i eZ©gvb cwiP‡qi wbg©vY ïiæ nq| weªwUk, cvwK¯Ívb, evsjv‡`k Ñ wZb kvmbvg‡ji g‡a¨ weªwUk Avgj nj Avw`evmx


Anthropology: Science of Human Being

wi‡Uvwi‡Ki eywbqvw` mgqKvj| †`Lv †M‡Q, GB A‡ji RvwZ‡Mvôxmg~‡ni wb‡q ‡jLv‡jwL, wPšÍv I aviYvi cw_K…r n‡jb BD‡ivcxqMY| GB mg‡q ¯
vbxq Rb‡Mvôx‡`i wb‡q Zv‡`i KvR GZ e¨vcK gvÎvq n‡qwQj ‡h, †Kvb ¯
vbxq Rb‡Mvôx Ges mswkøó RxebvPvi Avi †jLv‡jwL Ges wPšÍvfvebvi evB‡i _v‡Kwb| weªwUk Jcwb‡ewkK Avg‡jB RvwZ‡Mvôx msµvšÍ ¸iæZ¡c~Y© ivóªxq c`‡ÿcmg~‡ni AwaKvsk M„nxZ n‡qwQj| weªwUk kvmKMY GB A‡j Zuv‡`i cÖ‡qvR‡b wewfbœ Rwic cwiPvjbv I `vßwiK bw_cÎ ‣Zwi K‡ib| BD‡ivcxq †jLK I wPšÍvwe`‡`i, hviv ¯
vbxq Rb‡Mvôx‡`i wb‡q ÁvbMf© KvR K‡i‡Qb, Zv‡`i GKwU `xN© ZvwjKv evbv‡bv hvq| Zv‡`i g‡a¨ D‡jøL‡hvM¨ K‡qKRb n‡jb: d«vwÝm eyLvbb, Rb IqvUmb, Rb K¨vB, K¨v‡Þb †jDBb, WvjUb, ‡Rgm IqvBR, nvievU© wiR&wj, RR© wMÖqvimb, Rb ndg¨vb, Gjvb †cø‡dqvi, ‡nbwi †evgcvm I cj ewWs| d«vwÝm eyLvbb cÖYxZ 1798 mv‡ji `wÿYc~e© evsjv ågYcÄx Ges Zuvi Øviv cwiPvwjZ 1805 mv‡ji DËie½ I wenvi Rwic‡K G AÂjmg~‡ni Rb¨ cÖ_g Ges AZ¨šÍ Zvrch©c~Y© wnmv‡e we‡ePbv Kiv nq (†m‡›`j, 1994)| cve©Z¨ PÆMÖv‡gi cÖ_g †Rjv cÖkvmK K¨v‡Þb †jDBb GB A‡ji Rb‡Mvôxi Dci GKRb we‡klÁ wnmv‡e L¨vZ (Bmjvg, 2005)| weªwU‡kvËi Kv‡jI GKwU D‡jøL‡hvM¨ msL¨K KvR m¤úbœ n‡q‡Q (†hgb, ‡Nvl, 1355; Levi-Strauss,