Page 1 :
BRANCHES OF ANTHROPOLOGY, , The discipline of anthropology, as we find it today, is the result of several historical,, biological and socio-cultural forces. There have also been efforts to improve, refine and, redefine the discipline. The broader aspects of anthropology have now been divided into, several branches. Each branch has a speciality. Some anthropologists have also tried to, specify the special branches of anthropology. Among these are included Ralph Piddington,, , E.A. Hoebel and Ralph Linton. The anthropological specialities or branches are specified, below: ‘, , 1. As specified by Ralph Piddington, i) Physical Anthropology, ii) Cultural Anthropology, a) Pre-historic Archaeology, b) Social Anthropology, 2. As specified by E.A. Hoebel, i) Physical Anthropology, a) Anthropometry, b) Human Biology, ii) Archaeology, iii) Cultural Anthropology, a) Ethnology, b) Linguistics, c) Social Anthropology, 3. As specified by Ralph Linton, i) Physical Anthropology, a) Human Paleontology, b) Somatology, ii) Cultural Anthropology, a) Archaeology, b) Ethnology, c) Linguistics, , At the outset, we have said that there is no general agreement on the meaning and, definition of anthropology. There is much differentiation in the meanings in the European, continent, the United States and the Third World countries. In Europe, there is agreement on, the two broad braches of anthropology: (i) physical anthropology, that is. biological study of, man; and (ii) social-cultural anthropology. In USPa, there is physical anthropology and _, ‘cultural anthropology. Social anthropology or ethnology becomes a part of cultural, , anthropology. In the Third World countries, however, there is a definite place for physical, anthropology and social anthropology.

Page 2 :
Ethnology in these countries becomes a part of social anthropology, it consists of the, following:, , (1) Physical Antropology, , (2) Cultural Anthropology, , (3) Ethnology, , (4) Social Anthropology, , Physical Anthropology, , While discussing the understanding of anthropology in the European continent, we, have observed that the meaning of the term here is taken by physical anthropology only., A.L. Kroeber at one place has defined it in specific terms:, , Physical anthropology is more immediately ‘natural’ and less ‘humanized’ in its, , concern. Anthropology, therefore, accepts and uses the general principles of biology., , Actually, physical anthropology is more elaborate and detailed than biology. For, instance, when a zoologist tries to understand the biology of an animal, he never goes into the, details of the length and details, and the number of degrees two bones are twisted in, and the, like. Thus, physical anthropology has a sort of specialization or sharpening of certain aspects, of general biology. Still another speciality of physical anthropology is that it is concerned, only with limited and restricted study of the human species. It never moves beyond the study, of humans., , David Bidney has taken a similar position. Though an American anthropologists, he, defined physical anthropology in terms of the origin, evolution and development of man. He, stresses on the comparative methodology employed by physical anthropology. For instance,, in the classification of human races, comparative physiology has been employed by all, physical anthropologists. Bidney observes:, , Man is the concern of that branch of anthropology known as physical anthropology, , which takes up such problems as the evolution of man and the comparative anatomy, , of races., , If we analyze the whole kit of definitions of physical anthropology, we would be able, , to draw the following characteristics of physical anthropology: ., ee?, , (1) It is a natural science., , (2) Its nature is organic and physical., , (3) It draws from the general principles of biology, zoology and other natural sciences., (4) It depends on heredity and the doctrines of cell development and evolutjon., , (S) It utilizes the methods of laboratory and experimental conditions., , (6) It has a limited field of studying only one species, that is, man., , (7) It studies all varieties of men, different races, sexes and ages, and uses predominantly, comparative methods.

Page 3 :
Cultural Anthropology, , A.L. Kroeber, in his celebrated work on anthropology published in the forties, divides, anthropology broadly into two divisions: physical anthropology and socio-cultural, anthropology. Ata later stage, the socio-cultural anthropology got split into cultural, anthropology and social anthropology. Even today, this split is not readily accepted all over, the world. As a matter of fact, before discussing social anthropology and cultural, anthropology, we must reiterate that the meaning of sociology, as we said earlier, varies from, continent to continent and in fact, from society to society. The diverse traditions of, anthropology in the domain of cultural anthropology and social anthropology are very, successfully elaborated by Eriksen. His narration, which is a little lengthy, goes as under:, , Anthropology is a large and diversified subject, which is practiced somewhat different, in different countries, although it retains its distinctive character everywhere. Since, the Second World War, the core areas have been Great Briain, the US, France and, Australia. British anthropology, which is generally spoken of as social anthropology, and which also enjoys a strong position in Scandinavia and India, emphasizes the, study of social processes and is thus close to social anthropology. The British social, anthropologist Edmund Leach (1982) once characterized this subject as a, comparative micro-sociology. In the US, we tend instead to speak of cultural, anthropology, and in general the sociological underpinning characteristic has been, less dominant there. Instead, liquistics and pre-history have informed American, anthropology in different ways. Several important specializations such as cultural, ecology, linguistic anthropology and various approaches in psycholocical and, interpretive or hermeneutic anthropology were developed in the US., , Eriksen has also discussed the anthropologicttradition prevailing in France. There,, after the Second World War, cultural anthropology has been replaced by structuralism. This, brand of structural anthropology is proposed by Claude Levi-Strauss, Louis Dumont and the, distinguished structuralists such as Marxist Maurice Godelier and others. Eriksen further, informs that in South America, Italy and the Iberian Peninsula, and partly in Belgium and the, Netherlands, the French orientation is strong., , We now dwell on the definition of cultural anthropology as given by the eminent, American anthropologists. In USA stress on cultural anthropology is laid with the objective, that man is more-than-merely organic man. He is cultural also. By knowing the culture of, the society, we can better understand civilization irrespective of time and place. It is with this, purpose in mind that cultural anthropologists study ‘other cultures’ of the world. The, American cultural anthropology also includes archaeology, that is, the science of what is old, in the domain of this discipline. Similarly, stress on culture study has also created ethnology, — the science of people — as a speciality in USA., , Eriksen, in his book Small Places, Large Issues, has provided the etymology of the, concept of cultural anthropology. According to him, ‘culture’ originates from the Latin word, colere which means to cultivate. He defines cultural anthropology as below:, , , , .

Page 4 :
tivated humans’, that is,, re not natural, but which are, , , , , , al anthropology thus means knowlec, ge about these aspects of humanity w, , , , related to that which is acquired., , It must be admitted that the world ‘culture’ is very complicated. In 1952, Clyde, Kluckhohn and Alfred Kroeber presented 161 different definitions of culture. Iti not, possible to consider the 1 majo} ily of these definitions here. In a broader way, it could be said, that anything which is acquired by members of society is culture. And, cultural anthropology, is concerned with all these acquired attributes,, , , , , , , , Herskovits has defined cultural anthropology in a very precise way. He observes:, Cultural anthropologists study the ways man has devised to cope with his natural, setting and his socil milieu; and how bodies of custome are learned, retained, and, handed down from one generation to the next., , , , Herskovits’ definition makes a clear differentiation from physicl anthropology. {, Whatever material and non-material things man has devised, constitute the subject matter of, cultural anthropology. The works of man as Herskovits argues include traditions, folkways,, socil institutions and other social networks. Thus, a survey of definitions of cultural, anthropology given by American anthropologists indicates that all that is considered as, cultural anthropology includes besides cultural orientation, social orientation too. For, cultural anthropologists social system is a part of society. Culture cannot emerge without a, social system. They are two sides of the same coin. David Bidney has argued this point at a, greater length. He says:, , Social anthropology and cultural anthropology are then understood as two branches, , of a common discipline of anthropology concerned with the study of man and his, , cultures in society., , , , Aes kk aR aoe ao £