Sources of Indian Constitution.

Indian constituion is the largest constitution in the world. By the time of its creation, the tradition of written constitutions was a centarian already, and the norms and procedure had been standardised. The forefathers of modern India studied different constitutions throughout the world and selected the best features from across these various constitutions to suit the locals needs, to best degree.

Following is an excerpt of the various inspirations for out constitution.

-Government of India Act 1935,
The office of Governors, Public services comission, Judiciary, Federal scheme, administrative details and emergency provisions.
Here we observe a clear stamp of british will of governing india. Most of these are related to the framework under which the people will be ruled and law and order maintained; the exoskeleton for the executive. Federal scheme ->administrative details ->emergency provisions-> (judiciary, governor, public services commission)

-British Constitution,
Rule of law, Parliamentary government, single citizenship, legislative procedure, cabinet system, prerogative writs, parliamentary privileges and bicameralism.
Parliamentary form of governemt was both comfortable and inclusive for a nation like India. A large number of above ideals are relating to this only viz. parliamentary government, cabinet system, bicameralism, marliamentary privileges. The other set of ideals relate to conflict in civil life viz. Rule of law,legislative procedure, single citizenship and prejorative writs.

-USA's Constitution-
Independent Judiciary, Judicial review, Removal of judges of supreme/high courts, Removal of Vice president, Impeachment of President, Fundamental rights,
The major inspirations here are in the areas of Judiciary; its independence and powers. Also we see the process to remove the centers of power on proven incapacity.

-Irish Constitution-
Directive principles of state polity, nomination of members to Rajya sabha, and method of election of president.
Ireland had been a good inspiration of freedom struggle and the ideals represented from there are inclusiveness and responsible governance.

-Canadian Constitution,
Federal government with strong center, residuary power with center, appointment of state goernors from center, advisory jurisdiction of supreme court.
Canada like India has a lot of diversity due to french-british history. Thus they evolved a system focussed on keeping the nation united and handle the diversity with a balanced hand.

-Australian Constitution,
Concurrent list, freedom of trade, commercy and intercourse, and joint sitting of the two houses of parliament.
Australia has a true federal sturucture and have an evolved power sharing sturucture. The ideals are useful in striking a balance between states and center and conflict resolution.

-Weimar constitution of Germany.
Suspension of rights during emergency.
Weimar republic came to existance after the second world war; during quite troubled times for Germany. It is to tackle these tough times and still hold the nation together that these ideals were integrated. In India too, due to the vastness of geography and multitudes of ethnicities and subcultures that these ideals exist, to hold the nation together at times of distress.

-Soviet Constitution,
Ideal of justice ( economic, political and social).
Soviet Union was born of the russian revolution, based on the ideals of an utopian socialist society, which would offer justice to the masses. Given the long period of supression of genuine greivances of Indian people it was imperetive to the founding fathers to strive to similar objectives.

-French Constitution,
Republic, ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity.
French constitution was inspired by the french revolution, which strived to rid the nation of class differences and create a society without distinctions. Similar seggregation exists in India too.

-South African Constitution,
Procedure of amendment of constitution and election of members of Rajya Sabha.
Inclusiveness and stability?

-Japanese Constitution,
Fundamental duties.
Along with Fundamental rights it was found that people should also have duties to help preserve the notion of a nation.

2.2 The Nature of Society

2.2      

            Concept of Society-A human society is a group of people involved in persistent interpersonal relationships, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Human societies are characterized by patterns of relationships (social relations) between individuals who share a distinctive culture and institutions; a given society may be described as the sum total of such relationships among its constituent members. In the social sciences, a larger society often evinces stratification or dominance patterns in subgroups.Insofar as it is collaborative, a society can enable its members to benefit in ways that would not otherwise be possible on an individual basis; both individual and social (common) benefits can thus be distinguished, or in many cases found to overlap.More broadly, and especially within structuralist thought, a society may be illustrated as an economic, social, industrial or cultural infrastructure, made up of, yet distinct from, a varied collection of individuals. In this regard society can mean the objective relationships people have with the material world and with other people, rather than people themselves conceived as others.Members of a society may be from different ethnic groups. A society can be a particular ethnic group, such as the Saxons; a nation state, such as Bhutan; or a broader cultural group, such as a Western society. The word society may also refer to an organized voluntary association of people for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

Society and Culture-Culture consists of the beliefs, behaviors, objects, and other characteristics common to the members of a particular group or society. Through culture, people and groups define themselves, conform to society's shared values, and contribute to society. Thus, culture includes many societal aspects: language, customs, values, norms, mores, rules, tools, technologies, products, organizations, and institutions. This latter term institution refers to clusters of rules and cultural meanings associated with specific social activities. Common institutions are the family, education, religion, work, and health care.Popularly speaking, being culturedmeans being well‐educated, knowledgeable of the arts, stylish, and well‐mannered. High culture—generally pursued by the upper class—refers to classical music, theater, fine arts, and other sophisticated pursuits. Members of the upper class can pursue high art because they havecultural capital, which means the professional credentials, education, knowledge, and verbal and social skills necessary to attain the “property, power, and prestige” to “get ahead” socially. Low culture, or popular culture—generally pursued by the working and middle classes—refers to sports, movies, television sitcoms and soaps, and rock music. Remember that sociologists defineculture differently than they do cultured, high culture, low culture, and popular culture.Sociologists define society as the people who interact in such a way as to share a common culture. The cultural bond may be ethnic or racial, based on gender, or due to shared beliefs, values, and activities. The term society can also have ageographic meaning and refer to people who share a common culture in a particular location. For example, people living in arctic climates developed different cultures from those living in desert cultures. In time, a large variety of human cultures arose around the world.Culture and society are intricately related. A culture consists of the “objects” of a society, whereas a society consists of the people who share a common culture. When the terms culture and society first acquired their current meanings, most people in the world worked and lived in small groups in the same locale. In today's world of 6 billion people, these terms have lost some of their usefulness because increasing numbers of people interact and share resources globally. Still, people tend to use culture and society in a more traditional sense: for example, being a part of a “racial culture” within the larger “U.S. society.”

            Social Institutions-Although individual, formal organizations, commonly identified as "institutions," may be deliberately and intentionally created by people, the development and function of institutions in society in general may be regarded as an instance of emergence; that is, institutions arise, develop and function in a pattern of social self-organization, which goes beyond the conscious intentions of the individual humans involved.
As       mechanisms of social interaction, institutions manifest in both formal organizations, such as the U.S. Congress, or the Roman Catholic Church, and, also, in informal social order and organization, reflecting human psychology, culture, habits and customs, and encompassing subjective experience of meaningful enactments. Most important institutions, considered abstractly, have both objective and subjective aspects: examples include money and marriage. The institution of money encompasses many formal organizations, including banks and government treasury departments and stock exchanges, which may be termed, "institutions," as well as subjective experiences, which guide people in their pursuit of personal well-being. Powerful institutions are able to imbue a paper currency with certain value, and to induce millions into production and trade in pursuit of economic ends abstractly denominated in that currency's units. The subjective experience of money is so pervasive and persuasive that economists talk of the "money illusion" and try to disabuse their students of it, in preparation for learning economic analysis.

            Social groups-

A social group exhibits some degree of social cohesion and is more than a simple collection or aggregate of individuals, such as people waiting at a bus stop, or people waiting in a line. Characteristics shared by members of a group may include interests, values, representations, ethnic or social background, and kinship ties. Kinship ties being a social bond based on common ancestry, marriage, or adoption. In a similar vein, some researchers consider the defining characteristic of a group as social interaction.

Social psychologist Muzafer Sherif proposed to define a social unit as a number of individuals interacting with each other with respect to:

Common motives and goals

An accepted division of labor, i.e. roles

Established status (social rank, dominance) relationships

Accepted norms and values with reference to matters relevant to the group

Development of accepted sanctions (praise and punishment) if and when norms were respected or violated

Social stratification-
In sociology, social stratification is a concept involving the "classification of people into groups based on shared socio-economic conditions ... a relational set of inequalities with economic, social, political and ideological dimensions." When differences lead to greater status, power or privilege for some groups over the other it is called social stratification. It is a system by which society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy. Social stratification is based on four basic principles:

• Social stratification is a trait of society, not simply a reflection of individual differences.
• Social stratification carries over from generation to generation.
• Social stratification is universal but variable.
• Social stratification involves not just inequality but beliefs as well

2.1 The Nature of Culture

William G. Sumner created the term "ethnocentrism" upon observing the tendency for people to differentiate between the in-groupand others. He defined it as "the technical name for the view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it." He further characterized it as often leading to pride, vanity, beliefs of one's own group's superiority, and contempt of outsiders. Robert K. Merton comments that Sumner's additional characterization robbed the concept of some analytical power because, Merton argues, centrality and superiority are often correlated, but need to be kept analytically distinct.

Anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski argued that any human science had to transcend the ethnocentrism of the scientist. Both urged anthropologists to conduct ethnographic fieldwork in order to overcome their ethnocentrism. Boas developed the principle of cultural relativism and Malinowski developed the theory of functionalism as guides for producing non-ethnocentric studies of different cultures.

Cultural relativism and ethnocentrism are the two flip sides of one coin where both of these rather philosophical notions are intertwined. Ethnocentrism landed as a concept amongst different nations earlier than cultural relativism which got to be devised to counter ethnocentrism. And, the most significant feature related to these notions and ideas is the fact that both of these come with specific sect of followers which can be specific individuals and specific nations as well.

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is that notion that allows to see the different habits, traits and values of an individual in the relevance of his or her cultural values. All the nations come up with their specific sects of cultural and ethnic values and norms. And, all such cultural values differ from one ethnic group or nationality to the other. Cultural relativism grants that cushion where no culture gets to be termed as superior or inferior one. All the values, norms and traits get to be seen in the cultural relevance where it being understood that one value appropriate for one specific culture can be inappropriate for the other. So, this very notion does not propagate becoming judgmental or harsh towards any specific cultural value and norms.

Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism on the other hand is the extreme opposite of cultural relativism. The follower of this philosophy will happen not only to consider his or her culture the most supreme of all but that person will judge other cultures by comparing these to his or her specific culture. This notion falls in deep and sharp contrast to cultural relativism which focuses on the better and unbiased understanding of other cultures and the related values.

Cultural relativism is considered to be more constructive and positive conception as compared to ethnocentrism. It permits to see an individual’s habits, values and morals in the context of his or her cultural relevance not by comparing it to one’s own cultural values and by deeming these the most superior and greater of all.

Functionalism

Structural functionalism, or simply functionalism, is a framework for building theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. This approach looks at society through a macro-level orientation, which is a broad focus on the social structures that shape society as a whole, and believes that society has evolved like organisms. This approach looks at both social structure and social functions. Functionalism addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely norms, customs, traditions, and institutions. A common analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer, presents these parts of society as "organs" that work toward the proper functioning of the "body" as a whole. In the most basic terms, it simply emphasizes "the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system".

1.8.b Prehistoric Archeology

Lower Paleolithic culture-

The Lower Paleolithic (or Lower Palaeolithic) is the earliest subdivision of the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age. It spans the time from around 2.5 million years ago when the first evidence of craft and use of stone tools by hominids appears in the current archaeological record, until around 300,000 years ago, spanning the Pre-chellan, Chellan and Acheulean ages. The users of these tools werent humans but rather the ancestors like Homo Habilis; the first species of genus Homo and homo erectus.(2.5 M -70k yBP)

Pre-chellan- Defined by rough and unwieldy hand axes and flakes.

Chellan- Large core tools with made by knocking off big flakes.

Acheulean- Balanced core tools with significant edge and piont.

Middle Paleolithic culture- The period is marked by frequent changes in the climate. The mousterian period attached to middle paleolithic age belongs to Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis. This species of humans existed in Europe, near east and africa ( new finds in Russia and upper China). The period is marked by improved tool making technique. Tools were made by percussion technique and the flakes were refined by pressure method. The main apparatus are- stone levelers, knives, lance and spear.(70 -40k yBP)

Upper Paleolith is the period when we see the arrival of modern human beings. This period sees the emergence of blades and core tools virtually disappear. Along with stone tools the other prominent characteristic is the usage of bone, ivory and horns as weapons and artwork. Other striking features are the lifelike artwork in the form of paintings on the walls and figurines (especially venusian). This shows entry of magic and religion into the human life. Fire usage was prevalent during the period. (70 -20k yBP)

Mesolithic age- It was the short period between upper paleolith and neolith, marked by the end of wurm glaciation. Most of the advancements in art and tool making technology degraded. We find loops used for catching fish in the period. A rough form of cultivation and domestication may also have emerged during the period. The one marked improvement of the period was the emerges of settled sedentious life.(20 -11.5k yBP)

Neolithic period  means the new stone age. Two revolutionary changes took place in the period; domesticaion of animals and agriculture. Plough and potters wheel too were invented in the period. Cotton was domesticated and art of clothmaking emerged. Fishing in the current form with harpoons and hooks emerged.(9.5 -3.5k BC)

Further reading-

http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/bill.schell/civweb101/prehistory.htm

Bronze Age-

soon after the discovery of copper people discovered that mixing it with tin, they could get bronze, a metal much stronger and useful. The stone tools from neolithic times continued to be used but the knowledge of bronze was common.The Bronze Age is a time period characterized by the use of bronze, proto-writing, and other early features of urban civilization. (3.5-1.5 BC)

Iron age-

The early period of the age is characterized by the widespread use of iron or steel. The adoption of these materials coincided with other changes in society, including differing agricultural practices, religious beliefs and artistic styles. The Iron Age as an archaeological term indicates the condition as to civilization and culture of a people using iron as the material for their cutting tools and weapons.

In historical archaeology, the ancient literature of the Iron Age includes the earliest texts preserved in manuscript tradition. Sanskrit literature and Chinese literature flourished in the Iron Age. Other texts include the Avestan Gathas, the Indian Vedas and the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible. The principal feature that distinguishes the Iron Age from the preceding ages is the introduction of alphabetic characters, and the consequent development of written language which enabled literature and historic record.(1.5- date BC))

1.8.a absolute and relative dating methods.

Absolute dating is the process of determining a specific date for an archaeological or palaeontological site or artifact. Some archaeologists prefer the terms chronometric or calendar dating, as use of the word "absolute" implies a certainty and precision that is rarely possible in archaeology. Absolute dating is usually based on the physical or chemical properties of the materials of artifacts, buildings, or other items that have been modified by humans. Absolute dates do not necessarily tell us when a particular cultural event happened, but when taken as part of the overall archaeological record they are invaluable in constructing a more specific sequence of events. 

Absolute dating contrasts with the relative dating techniques employed, such as stratigraphy. Absolute dating provides a numerical age for the material tested, while relative dating can only provide a sequence of age. 
--

Before the advent of absolute dating in the 20th century, archaeologists and geologists were largely limited to the use of relative dating techniques. It estimates the order of prehistoric and geological events were determined by using basic stratigraphic rules, and by observing where fossil organisms lay in the geological record, stratified bands of rocks present throughout the world. 

Though relative dating can determine the order in which a series of events occurred, not when they occurred, it is in no way inferior to radiometric dating; in fact, relative dating by biostratigraphy is the preferred method in paleontology, and is in some respects more accurate. 

1.5 Characteristics of Primates

Important video to see the calssifications and adaptations of primate evolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTjn9JSJV5E

skeletal changes in due to bipedalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skeletal_changes_due_to_bipedalism

1.4.c.2 Terms used in evolution.

Cope's rule, - Organisms through the process of evolution increase in size. This increase can render them a number of advantages viz. Lesser threat of predation, better heat retention, larger brain sizes and ease of reproduction. It has however few disadvantages viz. longer gestation periods, slower rates of evolution, more requirement of food.
Gause's rule, - when two different species compete for the same resources, in the long run one with even the slightest advantage will dominate, pushing the other to extinction or to adapt to some other ecological niche.
parallelism, When two species from a common ancestors develop similar traits. It is a vague concept overlapping with convergence.
convergence, When two species different from each other under adaptive pressure develop similar phenotypes.
adaptive radiation, When a single species in a short span of time gives rise to multiple new species to take advantage of new ecological niches created by environmental changes.
and mosaic evolution, when certain traits of an organism develop at a faster rate than (or with no change in) other physical traits. Example is development of bipedalism in Australopithecus without a substantial growth in brain size.
Allele- The different variation of a single gene found with in a species.
Microevolution - The change in frequency of occurence of an allele within a population of a species over a short period of time. Effected by mutation, selection, genetic drift and gene flow.
Macroevolution - The change in the gene pool of an organism over a long period of time. It is like microevolution but over geological time scale.
Genetic drift- The change in frequency of occurence of an allele within a population due to random sampling.
Gene flow- The transfer of genes or alleles from one population to another.

1.4.c.1 Synthetic theory of evolution.

It is a unique combination of Darwins Theory of natural selection nad post-Darwininan theory of gentic variability in populations.
In 1965, Mendel showed the poroblem of gentic variability by his laws of Heretdity. But nobody realised it unitll 1900. In 1900 correns in Germany, de Vries in Holland, Tschemark in Austria rediscovered Mendelism. De Vries gave mutation theory in this regard and stated that new species arise by sudden changes or steps called mutations rather than by gradual processes.
Wagner suggested the role of geographical isolation in the formation of every species and subspecies of animal nad plants on nearth.
Hardey weinberg stated taht the relative frequencies of genes will remain constatn from one generation to the next if
- the population is large
-if there is no selection for or against any specific gene
-if no mutation occurs
-if there is no migration
This brought out the fact that a population undergoing evolution experiences change in environmental conditions, All these developments had given scientists to identigy th raw material for the operation of natural selection.
In 1930s, some important scientific developments took place. Dobzhasky (1937) in his book 'Genetivs and the Origin of Species' emphasized the role of genetic changes in populations in the process of evolution. Julian Huchsley 1924 and earnest Mayr 1942 explained the mechanism of variation in higher animals and Stebbins 1942 in higher plants.
Several biometricists synthesized the research results pertainng to different fields of meodern biology and gave shape to synthetic theory.
According to Synthetic theory of evolution, the genetiv variability in population is produced by three major processes namely
- Genetic mutation
-changes in the structure and number of chromosomes
-gene re-combination nad 3 accessory processes: Migration, Hybridization, Genetic Drift
This genetic variability in poulation provides raw material for the operation of natural selection and re-productie isolation.
All popualion of sexually reproducing organisms contain a large gene pool of genetic variability. The gene pool of a population maintains a dynamic equilibrium between in flow and out flow of genes and may become large or smaller depending on various external and internal factors. Genes may be added to pool by migraiton or mutation and removed by natural selection and genetic drift. Genetic recombination for acceptance of rejection of natural selection. Thus, natural selection guides population of organisms into adaptive channels.
Thus in short synthetic theory concieves evolution as a process of functional adaptations of organisms by continuous production of variation and natural selection operating on these variations. The fact is that evolution is occuring and is reflected through the change in gene frequency at the population level.
Postulates of sunthetic theory-
& postulates were identified. of these 1 to 4 are concerned with the origins of genetic variability, from 5 to 6 are concerned with origin of species and 7th one highlights how evolution is a continuous process.
Postulates-
1) At least in higher animals and plats, evolution proceeds principally as a result of interation between 4 indispensable processes
-mutation
-gene-recombination
-isolation
-natural selection
2) Mutation neither directs evoution as the earlier evolutionists believed, nor even serves as an immediate sources of variability upon which selection may act. It is rather a reserve or potential resource of variaility, which serves to replenish the gene pool as it becomes depleted through the action of selection.
3) The mutation which are most likely to be accepted by selection and so to form the basis of new types of organisms are those which individually have relatively slight effect on the pheno type and collectively form the basis of multi factorial inheritance.
4) The role of natural selection is much more than the purely negative one of eleminating unfit types. By greatly increasing the frequency of gene conbination which otherwise have a very low chance fo appearing. selection has an essentially creative and progressive effect.
--
5)The continued separation of new adaptive lines of evolution from related lines with different adaptations require the origin of barriers of reproductive isolation, preventing or greatly restricting gene flow between them. this separation is essential for maintaining the diversity fo adaptation which exists in any one habitat and so should be regarded as the basis of species formation.
6) The origin of reproductive isolation like that of new adaptive types, requires the establishment of nmany new genetic changes, including structural alternatives  of the chromosome and cytoplasmicc changes as well as gene mutaiton.
--
7) The origin of genera and other higher catergories, as well as the long time trends, which give rise to increasingly complez and highly organised formss of life. This results from teh continuation into geology spans of time fo the processes responsible for evolution of racial and species level. The only new elemet which mush be considered is the increasingly eminen extinction of populatoins intermediates between these successful lines.

1.4.b.3 Darwins theory of Evolution.

Charles Darwin through his book "The origin of species" in 1859, has been credited with giving the first systematic and comprehensive spproach in the perspective of evolutionary development.
In the book, he presents his theory based on 3 factors
-The reproductive capacity of all plants and animals is very high.
-The population of plants and species remains more or less the same through generations.
-Variations secure Universally
Based on these he arrived on the following inference
-Survival of the fittest/natural selection.
Under the above observations he made the following conclusions-
As a result of struggle for existence, variability and inheritence, the successive generations tend to become better adapted to their environment. These adaptations are preserved and accumulated in the individuals of the species and ultimately lead to the origin of new species from the old ones.
The environment is ever changing and it leads to further changes and the appearence of new adaptations in the organism. As natural selection continues, the latter descendants after several generations become markedly distinct from ancestors. Furthermore certain memebrs of a population with one group of variations may become adapted to environmental changes in one way, while others with differnt set of variations may become adapted in a different way. As a result, tho or more species may arise from a single ancestral species.

Darwin's Theory of Artificial selection-
According to Darwin, the commonest method of producing new race of individuals is that of selection under human control. The man selects only the useful variety of plants and animals and breeds them together expecting htat offspring will have beneficial characters, Thus, various new races of plants and animals are produced which are more useful, viable and domestic value to common man.
A good example of this is the development of gaze following in Dogs and horses; a trait missing even in apes.

Darwin's Theory of Sexual selection-
There is always a contest among males for possession of beautiful female. During this contest, inferior males are eliminated and superior males dominate. Thus sexual dimorphism becomes marked in highly developed individuals.
Example would be development of huge horns in male stags, while missing in females.

He was however now able to explain how heridity of trains occurs in nature. For this he used the concept of Pangenes; All somatic cells produce minute particles called pangenes which are included in sperm cells. These pangenes dictate development in a zygote.

1.4.b.2 Neo-Lamarckism

The evolutionists who support the Lamarckian doctrine of inheritence of acquired characters came to be known as neo- Lamarckians and their theory neo- Lamarckism. Notable supporters were Griffith, Tower, Packard and Herbert spencer, lindsey and ED Cope.
They considered that adaptation is universal. It arises as a result of casual relationshp of structure, function and environment. Changed environment conditions alter habits of organisms. Herce it response to new habits, organisms acquire new structure in place of old structure. It stresses direct action of environement on organis structure. They rejected natural selection as the sole mechanism of evolution. On the ohter hand, they believed in the interplay of structure, function and environment as the whole truth of evolution.

1.4.b.1 Lamarck's theory of evolution.

It states that changes in environmet bring about bodily change sin individuals by their inner urge. Such changes are developed by use and are handed over to the next generation. Thus, his theory centres around the idea of use and disuse of parts and inheritence of acquired characters. He gave his theroy in his book "Phylosophie Zoologique".
He considered that every organism has the wish, desire, will and needs to increase in size and complexity. When the environment changes, there is an alteration in the needs of organism. Thus, its not the environment that causes changes but the urge in organism that shapes it. The change in environment necessitates new habits and activities. Thus some organs are made more effecient while other are rendered useless. Tese are passed on then to the next generation and in due time new species are born.
His theory is based on four ideas-
1. Theory of growth-
The eternal force of life tends to increase the size of an organism by growth in organs and systems. Thus the internal force is capable of forming new organs and increasing the complexity of lifeforms. Ex- A seed grows to be a giant tree and a zygote develops to be a large creature.
2. Theory of environmental pressure and spontaneous formation of organs.
Changes in invironment inititate the desire in organism to develop new organs to meed the challenges of environment.
3. Theory of use and disuse.
If an organ is used continuously, it will develop while one in disuse will de-generate.
4. Theory of inheritence of acquited character.
All changes acquired in one generation are passed on to the next generation.

1.3.d Scope and relevance of Linguistic Anthropology

Linguistic anthropology is the interdisciplinary study of how language influences social life. It is a branch of anthropology that originated from the endeavor to document endangered languages, and has grown over the past 100 years to encompass almost any aspect of language structure and use.

Linguistic anthropology explores how language shapes communication, forms social identity and group membership, organizes large-scale cultural beliefs and ideologies, and develops a common cultural representation of natural and social worlds.
Dell Hymes was largely responsible for launching the second paradigm that fixed the name "linguistic anthropology" in the 1960s, though he also coined the term "ethnography of speaking" (or "ethnography of communication") to describe the agenda he envisioned for the field. It would involve taking advantage of new developments in technology, including new forms of mechanical recording.
A new unit of analysis was also introduced by Hymes. Whereas the first paradigm focused on ostensibly distinct "languages" (scare quotes indicate that contemporary linguistic anthropologists treat the concept of "a language" as an ideal construction covering up complexities within and "across" so-called linguistic boundaries), the unit of analysis in the second paradigm was new—the "speech event." (The speech event is an event defined by the speech occurring in it—a lecture, for example—so that a dinner is not a speech event, but a speech situation, a situation in which speech may or may not occur.) Much attention was devoted to speech events in which performers were held accountable for the form of their linguistic performance as such.
Hymes also pioneered a linguistic anthropological approach to ethnopoetics.
Hymes had hoped to link linguistic anthropology more closely with the mother discipline. The name certainly stresses that the primary identity is with anthropology, whereas "anthropological linguistics" conveys a sense that the primary identity of its practitioners was with linguistics, which is a separate academic discipline on most university campuses today (not in the days of Boas and Sapir). However, Hymes' ambition in a sense backfired; the second paradigm in fact marked a further distancing of the subdiscipline from the rest of anthropology.

1.4.a Biological and Cultural factors in human evolution

Biocultural Evolution–An Overview

“Biocultural evolution” is a really useful phrase for anthropologists. Many of us agree that the term captures something fundamental about humanity’s identity, about our place in the world. The phrase efficiently points toward the simultaneous tension and intimate proximity between our biological evolutionary origins and inheritance, on the one hand, and our symbolically structured, socially entangled, and technologically shaped lives, on the other.

Indeed, biocultural evolution is a staple term that college students learn in introductory anthropology courses. It gives a thematic focus to exploring the evidence for how prehistoric culture, technology, population migrations, and interbreeding patterns contributed to the rise of sickle cell anemia in Central and West African populations … as a biological adaptation to resist malaria infection! Students who have taken Anthro 101 or an Introduction to Physical/Biological Anthropology course will find the concept–and very possibly the example I just mentioned–familiar. When we see one of the few, really clearly documented examples of biocultural evolution, we immediately get a more profound appreciation about how we shape our own biology, perhaps just as much as it shapes us.

The phrase is not problem-free. From the beginning, there has been–and there certainly remains–a conceptual imbalance between the concept’s biological and cultural dimensions. The evolutionary theory foundation for understanding biological change in populations enjoys a solid disciplinary history, with both healthy debates and advancing scientific knowledge. However, when it comes to culture and its connection to biology, moments of clarity tend to be obscured by clouds of intellectual confusion and disagreement. Thus, a major point of departure for this blog is consideration and clarification of the culture concept and the phenomenon of culture’s evolutionary emergence as a major factor–interlinked with biology–in shaping human diversity.

FIRST DEFINITIONS

The definition given in the textbook that I use in teaching Oxford College of Emory University’s Anthropology 201: Concepts and Methods in Biological Anthropology is straightforward:

Biocultural Evolution: The mutual, interactive evolution of human biology and culture; the concept that biology makes culture possible and that developing culture further influences the direction of biological evolution; a basic concept in understanding the unique components of human evolution. (Jurmain et al. 2012: 7)

The middle part of the definition above is the sense in which the term most often gets used in current academic literature on human evolution. A key part of the definition is that there is a dynamic feedback over time between biological and cultural changes. Consider recent archaeological research that has provided striking evidence for big game hunting, transport, butchering, and small-group meat sharing around a campfire around 300,000 years ago in the Near East (Stiner et al. 2009). The biocultural-feedback concept helps us to place this finding in a bigger framework of human evolution. The nutritional and resulting fitness benefits of cooperative hunting and food-sharing–which were presumably socially learned, cultural behaviors that our Middle Pleistocene ancestors exhibited–would have shaped natural selection over subsequent generations for direct and indirect reciprocity and reputation monitoring behaviors (for a clear definition of direct versus indirect reciprocity, see Nowak 2006). Culture can influence biological evolution. And in turn, biological evolution shapes cultural behavior patterns in later generations. So far, so good.

However, I would suggest that the first part of the biocultural definition above (“mutual, interactive evolution”) means very different things to different specialists within the umbrella discipline of Anthropology. This raises one problem. Different anthropologists who use the term “biocultural evolution” mean very different, sometimes logically incompatible things when they talk about culture. We see this most clearly in the contrast between dual-inheritance theory research and biological/medical anthropological research on the cultural causes of health disparities. Dual-inheritance theorists were–as far as I have been able to discern–the first to use the term biocultural evolution, back in the 1970′s. Researchers such as Eugene Ruyle, William Durham, Charles Lumsden, E. O. Wilson, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Robert Boyd, and Peter Richerson offered variations on the theme that intergenerational inheritance in human populations occurs on two main channels: the genetic and the cultural. Reasoning along this line was common then. (Mark Flinn and Dick Alexander [1982] provided a nice early review of dual-inheritance models.) Richard Dawkins coined his now-famous (and social-media-transformed) “meme” in his best-seller The Selfish Gene(1976). In popular essays around the same time, Stephen Jay Gould described cultural inheritance as Lamarckian. We socially pass on learned or socially acquired traits to the next generation. (In comparison, genetic inheritance is mainly only modified by random mutation, and it is natural selection that shapes adaptation over the generations on the population level.) In any case, inquiry into cultural inheritance as being analogous to genetic inheritance–and thus forming a dual-channel inheritance dynamic in human evolution–has certainly been productive. Boyd and Richerson’s work (collected in their 2004 volume) highlights three robust, albeit very general, insights from dual-inheritance theory:

1. The socio-cognitive capacity to learn fitness enhancing behaviors from conspecifics is most likely to evolve in populations inhabiting substantially unpredictable environments. In other words, cultural learning can be an adaptive strategy when your environment really varies randomly and over space and over time.
2. Status, resource-holding power, and reputation may be especially important in shaping the social dynamics of learning and imitation, producing cultural transmission dynamics that are “horizontal” (within generations) as well as “vertical” (between generations).
3. Reputation-monitoring, punishment of free-loaders, AND punishment of non-punishers (that is, “second-order free-loaders”) were additional behaviors favored by natural selection in complex, uncertain environments; this was because, in such environments, groups with genetic instructions influencing the development of reciprocal altruism AND reputation monitoring AND second-order punishment would have had higher growth and dispersal rates, leading to the formation of more and more (and perhaps larger, more socially and behaviorally complex) groups over the generations.

As I will discuss in another post, second- (or higher-order) free-loading, reputation-monitoring and punishment emerges as an especially interesting problem–one which Boyd and Richerson’s work, in particular, deserves credit for bringing to light … and one that may further help us to understand human evolution as biocultural evolution.

Of course, the notion of culture having to do with transmission and inheritance of ideas, behaviors, and artifacts is not unique to dual-inheritance research, which is a quite specialized area of inquiry within Biological Anthropology and Human Biology. Thus, most introductory textbooks in Cultural Anthropology also emphasize that culture is what is historically transmitted, especially in the process of childhood enculturation, across generations. The problem is that dual inheritance theory would define culture only as the vertical or horizontal transmission of behaviors and ideas, whereas cultural anthropologists tend to use the concept of culture as a much more encompassing socio-cognitive and symbolically structured phenomenon, often constraining and guiding our embodied social actions … but sometimes opening up possibilities for agency, social change, and resistance. From the biological anthropologist’s perspective, once you allow that everything that humans do–and how we do it–is culture, the possibility of clear definition recedes quickly toward the horizon.

It is telling, then, that biological/medical anthropologists most sympathetic to the idea that culture pervasively influences disparate health experiences and outcomes–especially in the context of income and power inequality–call their approach “biocultural,” but they do not clearly define culture. Consider the otherwise excellent volume edited by Alan Goodman and Thomas Leatherman, Building a New Biocultural Synthesis (1998). A lot of attention is given to biological variation and its measurement. A lot of argument–usually well-reasoned, with clear scholarly support–is devoted to themes like political economy and inequality. In contrast to Richerson and Boyd’s similarly well-reasoned Not By Genes Alone (2006), no contributor to the Goodman and Leatherman volume starts out by defining culture. I underscore that this is a problem precisely because Goodman and Leatherman, in their introductory chapter, state that their goal is to TRAVERSE THE CHASM between biology and culture. This is sort of hard to do if you don’t know where the chasm begins or ends on the culture side of the gap. They and other contributors present compelling arguments and evidence that symbolic structures and power relationships influence human health, well-being, and demography. Yet, their version of biocultural synthesis does not define culture.

I will state up front that there are a lot of reasons to conclude that human culture is indeed about more than transmitting ideas and behaviors. Insights from dual-inheritance research are highly valuable scientifically, but they ignore why Goodman and Leatherman perceive a chasm between evolutionary and cultural analysis frameworks.

This finally brings us to the last part of the definition given above (“understanding the unique components of human evolution”). One might think, then, that maybe it’s not so important to define culture. It may be enough to argue that culture is not just social transmission of behaviors. It’s all of that complex symbolic and social stuff, which is part of dialectics rather than evolution … And which can–and has been–analyzed from an enormous variety of interweaving humanistic and social science approaches. But the evolutionary emergence of human culture (whatever it may actually be) is a compelling scientific problem. When it comes down to it, anthropologists broadly agree that biocultural evolution is an important concept, so much so that it is a staple of what we teach undergraduates at the introductory level. The evolution of human culture is somehow connected to our capacity for language, tool-making and use, and effective participation in really complicated social networks. The point of departure in this blog–as I try to clarify biocultural evolution as a human-specific evolutionary process–is that exploring where we came from will help us to break down and define the phenomenon of culture much more clearly. In doing so, we will also better understand the relationship between culture and biology.

 source : https://blogs.emory.edu/bioculturalevolution/biocultural-overview/

1.3.c Scope and relevance of Archaeological Anthropology

Archarological Anthropology studies culture and societies that existed in the past and reconstructts them to the extent of picturising them as they were. it is the study of past people and cultures through the recovery and examination of surveying fossil remains and artefacts and it is not only confined to the study of prehistory but has also added much information to the study of historic cultures not only by providing material evidence concerning the life of historic peoples, but aslo by uncovering lost documentary records.
To be precise, archaeologyical anthropology is concerned with the systematic retreival and analysis of the physical remains including the skeletal, cultural and non cultural remains left behind by ancient humans and with the reconstruction of environment, culture and society and identification of the processes and patterns of social cultural evolution of ancinet humans.
It is divided into three parts-
Text free  (old world and new world)
Texy aided
Applied archeology 

1.3.b Scope and relevance of Physical/biological anthropology

Physical anthropology treats human beings as organisms. They thus try to define, analyse and explain human evolution, human biology and human variations in relation to environment, culture and society. It thus focuses its attention to biological evolution of humans and human ancestors, the reltaion of humans to the organisms and patterns of biological variations within nad among human populations.
It has multiple specializations-
Palaeontology
Primatology
Human biology(genetics, oestology, serology, dermatoglyphics)
Race
Human ecology ( bio-social adaptations and nutritional)
Demographics
Medical anthropology
Forensic
Anthropometry(somatometry,cephalometry, craniometry, phsiometry, osentometry)
Following are the scopes of different specialisations of biological anthropology-
Race as a major sub branch has adopted a new way of looking at human varioation. It no more demends on measurements for classification of humans into types. It studies history, migration, environments, adaptations, genetics, physiology, growth and development, morphology and serology of different populations to know the differences in frequency of phenotypic and genoryphic character to classify man in races, sub races, ethnic groups or isolates and to detect the underlying causes for such variation.
Primatology, palaeontology, primate biology, comparative anatomy and ethology deal with evolution fo primates and humans. To do this it evaluates living and extinct primates and compares them to living and extinct humans. It also compares the tools used by them at different times to give us a picture of 1) who out common ancestors are 2) how humans evolved from them.
Race, human ecology, nutrition anthropology, demogfaphic anthropology, medical anthropology, forensic anthropology  help the study of human variations besids human evolution. The population genetics  molecular genetics and other branches of genetics reveal human variations at teh population level and at the molecular, biochemical, immunological, ecological and other levels. At the same time serogenetics reveals not only the diverse blood group systems but also the gentic relationship and the possible ancestors of humans.
--
It helps in crime investigations with identification of material remains and other proofs in terms of DNS, finger prings dermatolographics, teeth and hair. It helps in identifying susceptibility to certain diseases based on genetics and cultural impact.
It helps the industry in designing of better cockpits, ejection seats in aeroplaces; Safer cars with more comfortable riding positions; moder furnitures and sanitary ware.
It helps in sports by identifying what body types can excel at what sports and what nutrition would help in performance.
They help in space missions by designing appropriately safe space suits and oxygen masks.
It helps military in designing better helmets, goggles, armour, gloves, boots and uniforms. It also helps in preparation for warfare in high altitude, deserts and snow.

1.3.a scope and relevance of socio-cultural anthropology.

Scope and relevance of Soicio-cultural anthropology,
It tries to understnad how human beings live, how do they manage their environment, how do they express their bonds of co operation and conflict, and how do they keep chnaging their natural cultural and social environments.
From the very emergence, it has had  a universal approach. This is also highlighted in the definition given by Gopal Sarana,"it is a study of the relations and patterns of life among all societies as seen through the institutions and groups such as marraige, family, kinship, economic activities, political life, religious beliefs and preactices, folklore, mythology, symbols and such".
To study human societies in all space and time is the purpose of socio-cultural anthropology. To deal with the vast subject matter, it has been divided into two sections, ethnography and ethnology.
Ethnography is the descriptive account of a society in a particular point of time. Ethnology compares the results of ethnography; different societies and cultures.
--
More socio-cultural anthropologists today can be sighted in corporate offices museums and government offices than in universities. The importance of ethnology and ethnography has been understood and being utilised by these organisations.
When entering into new markets, corporations often use them to better place their products. Governments utilise their services in conflict management when tribal societies are involved. This is evident from the advancements made in rehabilitation policies that GOI utilizes for the people effected by development projects.
Specializations within social anthropology shift as its objects of study are transformed and as new intellectual paradigms appear; musicology and medical anthropology are examples of current, well-defined specialities.
More recent and currently ; social and ethical understandings of novel technologies; emergent forms of 'the family' and other new socialities modelled on kinship; the ongoing social fall-out of the demise of state socialism; the politics of resurgent religiosity; and analysis of audit cultures and accountability.

1.2.g Anthropology and Life sciences.

Anthropology and Life sciences are closely related to each other through fields such as taxonomy, anatomy, physiology, embryology,palentology and genetics being very close to biological anthropology. The difference lies in the emphasis placed on Human biology by anthropologists.
Taxonomy is required to place humans in the correct position in the evolutionary family tree.
Paleo-Anthropology along with paleontology, soogeography and evolutionary biology have a common focus on emergence and changes to species, especially primates.
After 1930, with the advent of Genetics, the interactions between biology and biological anthropology increased further. Genetics helped in understanding the relation of humans with other home species and the differnece between different human groups.
Biological anthropology and anatomy are concerned with the physical human strucrure in itself and with relation to other primates.
Physiology, genetics, embryology and ecology are concerned with special aspects of bodily apparatus of humankind.
Anthropology and lifesciences use evolutionary, stuructural, systems and ecological approaches to deal wtih the biology of humans in relation to environment especially while examining adaptations and human beings. Likewise, both both depend on geologists, geochemists, chemists and physicists to dertermins the age of prehistoris specimen.
Scope-
While anthropology studies biology and learned behaviour(culture) of human beings; life sciences study biology and instinctual behaviour of organisms.
Also Life sciences is much older than anthropology and latter has adopted a lot of tools and systems from the former.
Subject matter-
Anthropologists use criteria developed by zoologists and botanists to classify human beings  and primates.
Athropology heavily depends upon Genetics wrt the study of human evolution and human variation.
Anthropologists use data from botany and zoology to reconstruct the environment of prehistoric populations.
Life sciences use criteria developed by themselves to classify animals and humans. Fields like embryology, taphonomy and palynology provide an idea about true age of humankind and its relation with other species.
Life scientists use data provided by anthropologists to study plant and animal ecology besides human ecology.
Methodology-
Anthropologists do the studies in natural settings of a community.
There is a heavy dependency on participative observation for gathering data.
there is lesser scope for validity and reliability of data.
Life sciences bring the specimen back to laboratory to study them.
The dependency is on observation for gathering data.
Greater scope for validity and reliability of data.

1.2.f Anthropology and Medicine

Many of the early anthropologists were medical professionals and as such the transfer of ideas initially was relatively free betwee the two fields. However with the discovery of microbial diseases the two fields seemd to split ways.
It was during the second world war and the period after that, that we observe convergence of the two fileds again. Fresh light was cast on the social and cultural aspects of medical systems. While implementing health programs in developing worl, stiff resistance was faced by modern medicine. Due to this, there was a surge in study of ecological, social and cultural aspects of diseases and health. Thus medical anthropology evolved as a separate part of physical anthropology.
Some other studies common to the two fields included growth, skeletal age, nutritional factors  and genetic endocrinology.
Scope-
Anthropology studies health,disease and medicine of all people but medicine studies contemporary societies only.
While former studies health,disease and medicine with relation to biology, society and culture; the latter studies it as an autonomous system.
Subject matter-
Anthropology studies indegenous mediclal systems.
It relates medical and non medical factors wrt each other.
Studies disease causation in terms of personalistic ( supernatural), emotionalistic and naturalistic factors and forces.
Shows how a single disease is treated in different ways in different societies.
It shows how local shamans, priests, magicians and curere acquire their knowledge through selection training and practice.
Shows how native practicioners are better able to treat mental diseases that psychotherapists in western medicine.
Medicine studies western medical systems.
It doesnt examine relations between medical and non medical aspects that much.
It studies diesases only in terms of emotional and natural factors, ignoring personalistic factors.
Shows how a single disease is treated in a single system.
It shows how physicians, surgeons and other specialists are selected through a socially accepted process and undergo training to get certification from an institution.
It shows how modern medicine is less successful in treating mental disorders.
Methodology-
Anthropologists do field work in rural, primitive or urban communities.
Consider that units of investigation are populations.
Holism dominates theoretical perspective.
Medicine depends on first hand information recieved from clinics hospitals and medical institutes.
It considers an individual as the unit of investigation.
Atomism dominates the theoretical perspective.

1.2.e Anthropology and Psychology.

Psychology focuses on human mental process such as emotions, memory,perception, intelligence and formation of personality. It has its roots in natural sciences like biology and depends largely on clinical and laboratory experiments.
While anthropology focuses on society and its impact on human beings, psychology focuses on individual and his relation with the society. These overlap where the two fields study human behaviour and personality.
-Both are concerned with human behavior; how they learn and acquire personalities.
-Both contribute to understanding individual, society and culture. They are interested in study of aggression, sexuality, sex roles and intelligence in human beings. Both have come to appreciate the relation between individual cognition and the social beliefs and values.
However they do differ in their scope, subject matter and methodology.
Scope-
While Anthropology is universal in its scope, psychology studies mostly advanced societies.
Subject matter-
In Anthropology, the focus is on society more than the individual.
It studies social behaviour of societies through time and space.
It tends to relate social facts to other social and cultural facts. It ignores relations between social facts and biological facts.
Psychology on the other hand gives equal or more attention to individual than the society.
It studies the state of individual - consciousness, feeling and motivations - in modern societies.
It studies psychological facts wrt biological facts especially when dealing with abnormal state.
Methodology-
Anthropology studies objectively, facts which are external to an individual.
Since it studies interactions between different social institutions the data is largely qualitative; the scope for quantitative data collection is low.
The data is collected using observations and experiments (clinical and laboratory) are not used. When they are used, its to study behaviours of anthropoid apes.
They explain social facts with relation to other social facts and psychic facts are ignored.
Psychology subjectively studies mental facts, which are the deep insides of any human being.
The study of individual cases leads to compilation of an extensive data.
The data is collected by extensive usage of experiments. It is essential to their study. They also use controlled experiments to study behaviour of rats, guinea pigs, monkeys etc, which are then applied to human beings.
They consider phychic and social facts to be the same and both are granted equal improtance.

1.2.d Anthropology and History

Anthropology and History are largely entertwined. While history observed mostly literate societies, archaeological and biological anthropology focus on pre-literate societies. And while history studies societies of the past, ethnology studies societies of the present. Thus we can say that anthropology is history with a much wider time bases.
History tells us about ourselves, the lessons we should learn to avoid mistakes from the past that could threaten the society. Anthropology on the other hand with an evolutrionary view points, shows us the threats that endanger the very existance of human beings.
Scope-
Anthropology has universal scope and is a full science. It is the history of human beings through all time.
History is limited in scope as it is focused on studying literate societies and the study of human experience in last 5k years.
Subject matter-
The primary motive is to find out general laws of society and culture.
Studies art, music and literature independent of their commissioners or appreciators, but just as creative expressions of their times.
It is less concerned with individuals and their accompalishments.
The primary motive is to arrange events in chronological events.
Studies art, music and literature wrt their commissioners or appreciators
Much more concern can be found in the history books for individual accompalishments.
Methodology-
Anthropology is concerned with creation of data.
Defines a problem and knows what tools are needed.
Has holistic approach ie. can deduce how one event is related to other.
History is concerned with finding the data.
Knows what is going to be found.
Is explanatory in approach ie. can detail how one event gives rise to another.

1.2.c Anthropology and Political science.

Aristotle who had coined the term Anthropology, in his book Politics had defined man as a political animal. Political structure is a part and parcel of social structure in all existing societies be it primitive ones or advanced societies. Hence Political anthropology and Political science share a lot in common.

Prior to 1940 it was the pervading view amongst Political scientists that politics was an attribut of state societies. However with the publication of 'African Political Systems' by Ivans-Pitchard and Meyer Fortes, it was recognised that political systems existed within stateless societies too. The book not only analysed the political systems of 8 sub-saharan societies but also related them to the social structure; and evolution due to colonial contact.

Thus it was realised by political scientists that the study of politics was incomplete without the knowledge of its social aspects. Anthropologists too depend on political science for their conclusions.

Scope-

Anthropology is universal in its scope as it studies all the societies in various stages of development. However the emphesis is on primitive, peasant and pre-industrial societies.

Political science studies the political structures of the modern complex societies only. It is a half science.

Subject matter-

Anthropology defines how man became a political being in relation to social and cultural systems.

Studies maintenance of law and order in terms of social control and systems of law and jural norms.

Gives an expanded comparitive understanding of political systems; highlighting that cirme, law and war are not universal.

Studies socio- cultural integration in terms of conflict resolution and functionality.

Studies conscious and unconscious activities to analyse the political lives.

Political science assumes man to be a political being.

Studies maintenance of law and order in terms of laws. courts, judicial mechanisms. military and councils.

Gives a narrow understanding (only of modern society) considerin that war, crime and law are universal.

Studies integration of judicial, legislative and executive organs of political systems.

Studies conscious activities to analyse the political lives.

Methodology-

Anthropology depends on field work to derive its conclusions.

It uses structural-functional approach, conflict approach, processual approach and world system approach to study political life of different societies.

Political science is mostly text guided with little stress on field work.

It uses structural, funcational and marxian approaches to study political life in modern society.

1.2.b Anthropology and Economics

Anthropology (specially economic anthropology) and economy are intimate in their relations. While econymy deals with the 'rational allocation of scare means(resources) to alternative ends(users)', anthropolgy tries to understand the soclial implications of these economic variables. Economics studies the 'economic man' while anthropology studies man in whole and so, while economy is based on the concept of profit as the motive, anthropology rejects profit as the sole motive. It is visible in the concepts of formal and substantive meanings of economy and the Kula ring described in 'the argonoughts of western pacific- by Polyani' can be sighted as an example.
Economy today has developed an advanced mathematical model to understand the modern, monetary economy while anthropology has expanded to cover social impacts of such systems (viz. impact on women involved in modern economic organisations).


Scope-
Anthropology is a whole science as it deals with biology, culture and society of entire humanity. It is universal and covers all of humanity through space and time.
Economics covers the economic process (apart from its social ramifications) of the modern industrial, monitory economy.
Subject matter-
Anthropology deals with methods of subsistance and ecomonic models in relevance to other social factors.
Focuses on integration of economy and society by inter-personal relations established by receprocity, exchange and redistribution.
Considers methods of production to be simple but methods of distribution to be complex.
Economics studies history of modern society's economics.
Focus on study of consumpltion pattarns and rational decision making to maximise profits.
Considers methods of production to be complicated and that of distribution to be simple.
Methodology-
Anthropology deals with specific case studies and its methods are inductive. Therefore it uses substantive approach to economic activity of a society.
It tries to discover different motives for economic activity in different societies.
Dependence on field work for comparative analysis, based on which it derives understanding of human society.
Economics deals with economy in general and hence its methods are deductive. As a result it uses formal approach to economic activity in a society.
It considers that the motive for economy is one: maximisation fo profit, which is also universal. Thus its application is limited to modern industrial societies only.
Rarely depends on field work and largely derives its observations from statistical data.

1.2.a Anthropology and relation with social sciences.

Major disciplines under social sciences -
Cultural studies
Economics
History
Linguistics
Politics
Sociology
--
Anthropology and sociology- In many a university departments we observe that sociology and anthropology departments exist as combined units. It is so because the two studies are very clost to each other, specially socio-cultural anthropology and sociology. Many consider them to be the same, as they cover many common subjects. There do however exist differences between the two. While sociology seems to be more interested in analysing empirical data from present and extracting meaningful information from it using analysis and thus provide useful cues for future; Anthropology seems more interested in human existance in the past through time and space and its relevance in the present. Due to these specializations sociology tends to be more data based and focused on modern urban populations while anthropology tends to narrow down on human societies in the past and primitive and peasant societies of present. Also, while socliologists tend to favour analysis of survey data, away from the actual subjects; anthropologists tend to give humongous improtance to field works. More on the comparison below-

Scope-
Anthropology is a whole science as it deals with biology, culture and society of entire humanity. It is universal and covers all of humanity through space and time.
Sociology is part science as it covers only urban and rural society. Its scope is limited for it concerns with contemporary societies only.
Subject matter-
Anthropology's origins can be traced to philosophy, biology and details of pre-literate societies.
It originally studied the social structure ( viz. marraige, kinship and family,religion and politics) of primitive society; however now it covers all societies.
They depend heavily on surveys and dependence on field work is that delivered by anthropologists.
Sociology's origins can be traced to study of modern industrial socety's history, political science and social surveys.
It originally studied its own society in industrial west; howeer now it covers aspects ( viz. marraige, family and politics) of urban and rural soceity.
Firld work is of prime importance and survey data when used is derived from works of sociologists.
Methodology-
Anthropology treats humans as having consciousness and as such dont treat them objectively. Their study depends on immersion into the subject community and the data collected is qualitative, with stress on intensive study.
Interested in interconnected broad aspects of human life, specially primitive and peasant societies.
Sociology on the other hand treats subjects objectively and do not believe in getting involved with the subject culture. They depend on extensive study of the subject community and the data collected is quantitative.
Interested in narrow set of variables, specially of modern urban soceities.

1.1 Anthropology

Anthropology is the scientific study of the origins, the behavior and the physical, social, cultural development of humans. It is the study of humankind, throughout space and time, in all its aspects especially human culture or human development. It draws and builds upon knowledge from the social sciences and biological sciences, as well as the humanities and the natural sciences.
Aristotle coined the term Anthropology which is derived from 'Anthropos', meaning man and 'logos' meaning study.
--
Anthropology is usually classified as a social science along with disciplines such as sociology, economics, political science and psychology but it has much in common with natural sciences like biology and geology as also with religion and art in the field of humanities. The diverse field of anthropology has broader scope than other social sciences. Anthropologists are interested in all human beings and their different aspects such as skin color, kinship system, religious beliefs, technologies and other aspects of life.

In physical anthropology ,investigation of the evolution of the human species, physical variations among different human groups and anatomy of monkeys, apes and humans are studied.Primatology is a line of specialization within anthropology and it specializes in the evolution,anatomy,adaptation and social behaviour of primates which constitutes the taxonomic order including humans.Anthropogists studying the variation in the human beings seek to measure and explain the similarities and differences among the people of the world.

Archaeology studies the human past on the basis of examination of the material remains of the past in order to understand human life has changed over centuries.
Cultural anthropology also known as ethnology involves the study of historically recent and contemporary human cultures and societies. They study a wide range of subjects of which some main are -
Study and preparation of reports about the ways of life of particular human societies.
Comparison of diverse cultures to understand their common features and influences operating on the cultures.
Understanding the mutual relationship and influence of the various aspects of like economics, family life, religion and art etc.
Ethnology helps people to understand and appreciate cultural differences in the increasing multi-cultural world. The ethnologists move into the community to study, live in close contact with the people and communicate with them in the local language to gain firsthand knowledge.

Anthropological linguistics involves description and analysis of sound patterns, words, meanings and sentence structures of human languages. Cultural anthropologists try to understand how language and culture influence each other.

Medical anthropologists investigate interaction among human health, nutrition, social environment and cultural beliefs and practices.
Development anthropology is a field in which anthropologists apply their expertise to the study of human problem.

It is simultaneously biological science, social science and humanities subject.
---

for simpler understanding : http://reflectionsofachronicanthropologist.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/what-is-anthropology/
http://www.udel.edu/anthro/budani/Anth101%2006F%20%20Intro%20Lecture.pdf

Bipedalism

Anatomy of advanced bipedalism-
There are multiple varions of bipedalism. While early apes were able to shand straight for short period and walk little distances (evident from foramen magnum) , true bipedalism appears in Ardipithecus Ramidus. By Ardipethecus Sadiba we see preference to use of feet for walking over climbing trees. Homo erecuts take the capacity of bipedalism to next step, developing as capable long distance runners. Following are the various factors and physical changes involved with bipedalism.-
1)Nuchal ligament- Ligament at the back of the head that support the head. Absent in apes and most mammals. Starts with homo habilis.
2)Ankles ( bottom of tibia)- The ankles loose their ability to bend in greater angles, become more flat and perpendicular to tibia. The pattern of wear is rectangular instead of trapeziod. Starts with later Austropithecenes.
3)Foramen magnum - The position moves from back to head to the bottom. Indicated a balanced head. Appears in Ardipethecus Ramidus.
4)Glutious maximus - The buttock muscles become more developed to support running instead of walking. Shows up in Homo erectus
5)Hip bones- they become narrower and longer to support weight of body while standing up and rapid movement of body, side to side while running. Modern form in Australopithacus Sadiba
6)Toes - The toes are closer, no more prehensile and thumb toe is not opposible. Shows up in Australopithacus Sadiba.
7)Loss of fur - loss of fur due to endurance running. Probably Homo Erectus.
8)Shorter arms - The arms are shorter than the legs and not used for knuckle walking. Australopithecus Sadiba.