http://www.hindu.com/br/2004/03/16/stories/2004031600111800.htm
A retrospective of Indian archaeology
INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY IN RETROSPECT - Vol. I - Prehistory: Archaeology of South
Asia; Vol. II - Protohistory: Archaeology of the Harappan Civilization; Vol.
III - Archaeology and Interactive Disciplines; Vol. IV - Archaeology and
Historiography: S. Settar and Ravi Korisettar - Editors; Manohar and Indian
Council of Historical Research, Delhi. Distributed by Manohar Publishers &
Distributors, 4753/23, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002. Rs. 1250
each volume.
THIS SET of four volumes aims to cover the salient findings of Indian
archaeological research over the past many decades. Several contributors
have written comprehensive bird's-eye view papers, with useful, extensive
bibliographies, on the various technological and cultural "ages" and
"stages" of the earliest past - the exception being the Harappan
civilisation, on which there are some 14 papers covering matters such as
settlement patterns, script, formative stages, social life and religion,
terracottas and, plant and animal studies.
Besides, there are surveys in the other volumes of metallurgy, studies of
animal and human bones, plant finds, the use of earth sciences, pastoralism,
and ethnoarchaeological research, with a couple of papers touching on
theoretical perspectives.
One wonders why the Iron Age and second urbanisation did not deserve a
volume by itself in the same way as did the Indus civilisation; after all,
it is in the Iron Age - and not the Harappan period - that extensive regions
of South Asia were interconnected in various ways, and from the Iron Age
that we can trace several developmental trajectories into the historical
period.
The papers on the paleolithic and neolithic stages refreshingly abstain from
seeking the earliest possible dates for the cultures in question. The
neolithic-chalcolithic cultures of the north are, quite validly, set in a
global context, and due attention is paid to the importance of discoveries
in the Northeast.
There is, however, an imbalance in that the paper on the southern neolithic
is disproportionately long (including, in the body of the text, a list of
Ph.D dissertations written on the area!) whereas its companion, on the
northern cultures, is less than a third its length. Even though it is
Mehrgarh in Pakistan, of all South Asian neolithic sites, this has by far
seen the most sustained and problem-oriented excavation and study.
Four papers in various volumes deal with pastoralism, and two with animal
bones, while there is inadequate discussion on architecture, art, and
religion.
Thus many issues remain unaddressed. What kind of society was it that gave
importance, in permanent materials (stone), to the dead when the living were
housed in impermanent huts? Is it possible to correlate various types of
megalithic structures, and the collective burials, with social groups such
as lineages, clans, or tribes?
There is little interest in these volumes in the kinds of societies,
economies, and religious structures that are represented by archaeological
remains of different periods; and this state of affairs will continue until
some of our archaeology departments introduce courses on cultural and social
anthropology at the postgraduate level.
One of the few papers on theory addresses the vexed issue of Western
research paradigms; it bemoans the general indifference to theory, but has
little to say on why this may be so. Another contribution wonders whether
the question about the Harappan state is, "no more than terminological
hair-splitting."
Behind this question, in fact, lies the issue whether Indian culture was
ever so unique that the Indian state or Indian urbanisation has first to be
defined in order to explore its origins - this idea comes from Orientalists
and early Indologists, and is political in that it spills over into thinking
that democracy and secularism are exclusively "Western notions". It is
perhaps also the outcome of insecurity and a sense of inferiority. Are not
all the civilisations of the world unique?
A chapter on the archaeology of the epic sites covers the (by now familiar)
evidence of the early pottery at these sites, but goes further (an editorial
lapse?) and refers to the controversial "pillar bases" at Ayodhya, linking
them with some stone pillars that stood in the Babri Masjid, and also refers
to the stone inscription said to have been found by vandals while they were
bringing the mosque down.
On the other hand, the paper on theory asserting that the Masjid "belongs to
the whole nation", regrets the fact that archaeologists are ranged on two
sides of the controversy, so that the common man is left wondering who is
right.
The question is nothing if not archaeological (even though of no relevance
to the period covered by these four volumes); was there, or was there not, a
temple below the Babri Masjid?
It is strange that those who speak up against the tide of opportunism,
condemning the misuse of archaeology and arguing along lines generally
accepted as credible and conforming to the available data (those whose
arguments have not, to date, been refuted), should be condemned as partisan.
One would have thought being partisan involves ignoring the evidence and the
rigours of a particular discipline. Besides, neither the contributors nor
the editors regret the universal failure of Indian archaeology departments
to denounce the demolition itself.
There is one aspect in which I think matters have improved. Those doing
research in ethnoarchaeology now tend to be wary of referring to tribal
people as Stone Age relics. While there are statements in some of the papers
about tribal life being virtually unchanged since prehistory, thereby
relegating some Indian citizens to the stone ages, the special paper on
ethnoarchaeology stays away from such incorrect, vulgar, and objectionable
generalisations. One would only urge that the hunter-gatherer society as an
analytic category must not be confused with (agricultural) tribal society.
To return to the Iron Age and early historical periods, perhaps they find
such short shrift here because of the way sites of these periods have been
excavated, as is brought out by a paper on excavations at early historical
sites by the Archaeological Survey of India.
The latter's failure to develop research trajectories and construct problems
as the frameworks for excavation and exploration is perhaps reflected in the
volumes under review; they lack discussion on the development of building
techniques, the urban forms, crafts, artistic expressions and materials,
scripts and literacy and transportation technologies that constitute the
very foundations of Indian civilisation.
SHEREEN RATNAGAR