Archaeology and identity in south Asia -- interpretations and consequences.

CONINGHAM, ROBIN ; LEWER, NICK

Whilst archaeological discoveries initiated by the Europeans have long encouraged a pride in India's past among its educated elite, there is even less evidence of nationalism influencing the practice of Indian Archaeology.

TRIGGER 1995: 271

In 1995 Bruce Trigger dismissed the role of nationalism within the archaeology of south Asia (1995: 271), apparently ignoring even the archaeological nature of the crest of the new Indian republic -- the Sarnath lion; and his comments have acted as a catalyst for this special number of papers, many of which explore the very real relationship between the south Asian nation-state and archaeology. We have expanded Trigger's tripartite division of nationalist, colonialist or imperialist archaeology (1984), to reflect the aspirations of additional units such as regions, religious groups and individual communities over the last 200 years. In so doing we have used the concept of identity, as offered by Northrup (1989: 63), to encompass these disparate groups:

Identity is the tendency for human beings, individually and in groups, to establish, maintain and protect a sense of self-meaning, predictability and purpose. It encompasses a sense of self-definition at multiple levels.

The contributors were briefed to examine the role of archaeology in the construction and transformation of modern social and political identities in south Asia, and suggested themes included: the relationship of local discoveries with broader national contexts; the use of archaeology in tourism to support regional constructions of identity; the influence of religious revivalism in national identity; the `Aryan question'; the role of diffusion as a theoretical mechanism for culture change; the archaeological visibility of caste; and the use and interpretation of historical texts. Another worrying phenomenon examined was the destruction of archaeology and monuments which are perceived to represent the identity of others; such attacks have been widely condemned as attested by the response to the demolition and damage done to monuments in former Yugoslavia (Chippindale 1992; 1994; Chapman 1994), Cyprus (Silberman 1989) and Sri Lanka (Coningham & Lewer 1999).

The focus in this collection of papers is very much from an archaeological perspective, but the concept of identity is complex and draws from an eclectic literature including anthropology, economics, politics, communications, international relations, social psychology, history, migrational movements, colonial mapping and ethnic studies. That there exists a complex relationship between archaeology, nationalism and identity is not a new idea (Kohl & Fawcett 1995). Archaeologists have been aware of the importance of interpretation, the political implications of this interpretation, the way evidence is exhibited, the social responsibility which they have, and the possible implications for human rights for some time (Gathercole & Lowenthal 1990). For example, a political independence movement usually tries to construct a defined identity in support of its claim to legitimacy, both for domestic and international purposes, and these are related to a need for recognition and security. But, the concept of identity is fluid and linked to different historical timeframes, when certain myths, symbols and writings are chosen to support a particular interpretation of ethnic stereotype(s). This can be manifested in how collections in museums are displayed and labelled at particular points in a nation's history, which in turn may be influenced by the reliance of archaeologists on funding from a state or other authority. There is also a tension between the identity of immigrants and the indigenous population in a multi-cultural society, in the selection of evidence and artefacts which are displayed (Gathercole & Lowenthal 1990: xvii). This can pose moral and ethical dilemmas for archaeologists when pressure may be bought to bear on them to support a particular interpretation to justify claims to identity and historical precedence.

As we have noted there are examples today, especially in areas experiencing violent conflict, when historical and archaeological `evidence' is manipulated and interpreted to support claims of precedence to land and rights for particular groups. Archaeology is used to recreate these myths, particularly in relation to their origins in time and space; their ancestry and descent; their migrations and liberations; their golden ages; their present sad decline; and their future rebirth (Smith 1986: 72). In the past, interpretation of archaeology by colonial powers and others was necessary to fit their own world view, to support or disempower local groups, to cover their lack of knowledge of social fabric and relationships in ancient times, to make evidence fit existing knowledge, to promote concepts of racial superiority and to prove historical ascendancy.

A substantial body of literature is associated with the study of the relationship between identity and archaeology in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Australasia and east Asia (Diaz-Andreu & Chapman 1996; Gathercole & Lowenthal 1994; Layton 1994; Kohl & Fawcett 1995), but until recently this concept has not been explored in any depth in relation to south Asia. The pioneering work of Thapar (1966) has now been joined by a series of publications which have begun to question the role of the past in the construction of modern identities in this region. These studies have included the `Aryan question' (Choudhury 1995; Deo & Kamath 1993; Walimbe 1993; Leach 1990; Shaffer 1984; Edrosy 1995); the role of diffusionism as a major theoretical mechanism for culture change (Chakrabarti 1988); Curzon's manipulations at Bodh Gaya (Lahiri 1999); the events of 1992 at Ayodhya (Rao 1999; Bernbeck & Pollock 1996); the archaeological visibility of caste (Coningham & Young 1999); the relationship between texts and archaeology (Bhan 1998); and the deconstruction of modern indology (Chakrabarti 1997). There are positive and negative aspects to this. Kohl & Fawcett (1995: 5) note that in some instances archaeology has `helped provide resistance to colonialism and racism, which often wore an evolutionary disguise'. However, there are more malign implications such as when archaeology is used to fuel the dynamics of violent conflict. This can be particularly potent when archaeology is used in conjunction with ancient historical texts, to promote negative prejudice and stereotyping. What archaeologists can do, by using objective analysis and empirical evidence, is to counter bogus claims made under the guise of mythology or religion which are used to justify interpretations of the past to promote racist and discriminatory behaviour. The interpretation of archaeology is a crucial piece of the puzzle in helping people formulate an identity which can fit comfortably and peacefully with those of other groups with whom they have to live.

That the concept of identity at both personal, social and national levels plays a major role in the dynamics and resolution of protracted conflicts and inter-group relations is supported by an established and extensive literature (Azar 1990; Northrup 1989; Stephan & Stephan 1996; Tajfel & Turner 1979). Of particular interest is the link between personal and social construction of identities because individuals associate their individual rights with collective, ethnic, class and national identities based on a historic charter of myths of descent (Smith 1986). For Smith, the myths of origin and descent amongst an identity group store many of the most sacred and valued memories and sentiments of individuals, families and communities, and he called this common myth of descent the primordial identity or ethnie of a group. With the development of capitalism and industrialization, large numbers of people from multiple origins were brought together in large urban centres (Gellner 1964 in Smith 1986: 67):

Pre-modern agro-literate societies had no room for nations or nationalism, since they were necessarily culturally divided along class lines. But today modern industrial societies require a mobile and trained population to run their complex social machines.... modernisation uproots people and throws them together in the anonymous city, where their only bond is language and formal education.

Modern theorists expected that there would have been a `withering away' of the more ancient ethnie, with a disruption of continuity from the past and new, more encompassing identities constructed. But this has not happened and, in fact, the older ethnic ties have experienced a revival (Smith 1986: 69).

The authors in this special section on south Asia have picked up many of these themes in their case-studies. A common strand which runs through the papers is how the western centric interpretation of archaeology has been used to support a colonial and imperialistic interpretation of national and regional identities. Such an interpretation usually benefits the elites and majority groups. Throughout this collection of papers, the unstated question arises of how aware were archaeologists and historians of the impact of their research in the creation of identities? Perhaps some were unaware; others, however, freely acknowledged their role in the creation of state-level identities. Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India between 1944 and 1948, thus advised archaeologists belonging to the new Indian republic that `recent Partition has robbed us of the Indus Valley ... We now have therefore no excuse for deferring longer the overdue exploration of the Ganges Valley. After all if the Indus gave India a name, it may almost be said that the Ganges gave India a faith' (Wheeler 1949: 10). His advice was taken by one of his students, B.B. Lal, who excavated at Gangetic sites in search of evidence for the mythical periods described in the epics Mahabharata and Ramayana (Lal 1981: 28). Indentifying Painted Grey Ware as an indicator of the former and Northern Black Polished Ware of the latter, he attempted to match archaeological sites with places named in the epic. Using such evidence at Ayodhya to support his claim of the identification of the god Ram's birthplace, an event not unassociated with the destruction of the Barbari mosque in 1992, one can clearly conceptualize the outcome of Wheeler's recommendations.

This is not, of course, to suggest that Wheeler was impartial as is demonstrated by his work towards the opening of the National Museum of Pakistan in 1950 (Wheeler 1955: 220). Indeed, he even attempted some identity building experiments at Mohenjo-daro, urging the new state to be `aware of a past, to root its present hopes and sufferings in some sort of traditional and confident subsoil' (1955: 222). Wheeler also proposed the Indus Valley civilization as the model for the new state suggesting (1955: 222) that

Four thousand years ago it (the Indus civilisation) occupied almost exactly the same area as their own great West Pakistan occupied today ... Here was their prototype, the shape of things to come. Here was a challenge from the past to the present.

A further reiteration of the necessity of identity was sponsored by his book Five thousand years of Pakistan, in which he stated `the title of this little book is a wilful paradox but contains a fundamental truth' (Wheeler 1950: 11). Clearly his message was understood, as the Minister of Education's preface states that `The heritage of Pakistan must be kept alive if the future is to grow strongly and healthily out of it. It will be no good to tie new leaves on to a dead tree.' (Rahman 1950: 5). Thus we may challenge Trigger's comments in 1995 and suggest that south Asian archaeology has certainly come of age and has reached a level of critical self-awareness!

References

ARCHER, M. 1980. Early views of India. London: Thames & Hudson.

AZAR, E. & J. BURTON (ed.). 1986. International conflict resolution: theory and practice, Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.

BERNBECK, R. & S. POLLOCK. 1996. Ayodhya, archaeology and identity, Current anthropology 37 (Supplement): S138-S142.

BHAN, S. 1998. Recent trends in Indian archaeology, in K.M. Shrimali (ed.), Reason and arcaeology: 1-15. Delhi: Association for the Study of History and Archaeology.

CHAKRABARTI, D.K. 1988. Theoretical issues in Indian archaeology. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

1997. Colonial Indology. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

CHAPMAN, J. 1994. Destruction of a common heritage: the archaeology of war in Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Antiquity 68: 120-26.

CHIPPINDALE, C. 1992. Editorial, Antiquity 66: 1-4.

1994. Editorial, Antiquity 68: 1-9.

CHOUDHURY, P 1995. The Aryan hoax. Calcutta: Parmesh Choudhury.

CONINGHAM, R.A.E. & R.L. YOUNG. 1999. The archaeological visibility of caste: an introduction, in Insoll (ed.): 84-93.

CONINGHAM, R.A.E. & N. LEWER. 1999. Paradise lost: the bombing of the Temple of the Tooth -- a UNESCO world heritage site in Sri Lanka, Antiquity 73: 857-66.

DEO, S.B. & S. KAMATH (ed.). 1993. The aryan problem. Pune: Bharatiya Ithasa Sankalana Saiti.

DIAZ-ANDREU, M. & T. CHAMPION (ed.). 1996. Nationalism and archaeology in Europe. London: University College London Press.

EDROSY, G. (ed.). 1995. The Indo-Aryans of ancient south Asia. Berlin: De Gruyter.

GATHERCOLE, P. & D. LOWENTHAL (ed.). 1990. The politics of the past. London: Unwin Hyman.

GELLNER, E. 1964. Thought and change. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

INSOLL, T. (ed.). 1999. Case studies in archaeology and world religion. Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR International series S755.

KOHL, P. & C. FAWCETT (ed.). 1995. Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

KRIESBERG, L., T. NORTHRUP & S. THORSON (ed.). 1989. Intractable conflicts and their transformation. Syracuse (NY): Syracuse University Press.

LAHIRI, N. 1999. Bodh-Gaya: an ancient Buddhist shrine and its modern history (1891-1904), in Insoll (ed.): 33-43.

LAYTON, R. (ed.). 1994. Conflict in the archaeology of living tradition. London: Routledge.

LEACH, E.R. 1990. Aryan invasions over four millenia, in Ohnuki-Tierney (ed.): 227-45.

LOWENTHAL, D. 1994. Identity, heritage and history, in J. Gillis (ed.), Commemorations: 41-57. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.

LUKACS, J.L. (ed.). 1984. The peoples of south Asia. New York (NY): Plenum Press.

MEHTA, G. 1994. A river sutra. London: Minerva.

NORTHRUP, T. 1989. The dynamic of identity in personal and social conflict, in Kriesberg et al. (ed.): 55-82.

OHNUKI-TIERNEY, E. (ed.). 1990. Culture through time. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

RAHMAN, F. 1950. Preface, in Wheeler: 5.

RAO, N. 1999. Ayodhya and the ethics of archaeology, in Insoll (ed.): 44-7.

SHAFFER, J.G. 1984. The Indo-Arvan invasions: cultural myth and archaeological reality, in Lukacs (ed.): 74-90.

SHENNAN, S. (ed.). 1989. Archaeological approaches to cultural identity. London: Routledge.

SILBERMAN, N.A. 1989. Between past and present: archaeology, ideology and nationalism in the modern Middle East. New York (NY): Henry Holt.

SMITH A.D. 1981. The ethnic revival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1986. Conflict and collective identity: class, ethnie and nation, in Azar & Burton: 63-84.

STEPHAN, G. & C. STEPHAN. 1996. Intergroup relations. Boulder (CO): Westview Press.

SUMMERFIELD, D. 1998. The social experience of war and some issues for the humanitarian field, in P. Bracken & C. Petty (ed.), Rethinking the trauma of war. 9-37. New York (NY): Free Association Books.

TAJFEL, H. & J.C. TURNER. 1979. The social identity theory of inter-group behaviour, in Worchel & Austin (ed.): 33-47.

1982. Social identity and inter-group relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

THAPAR, R. 1966. A history of India. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

TRIGGER, B.G. 1984. Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist, Man 19(3): 355-70.

1995. Romanticism, nationalism and archaeology, in Kohl & Fawcett (ed.): 263-79.

WALIMBE, S. 1993. The Aryans: the physical anthropological approach, in Deo & Kamath (ed.): 108-15.

WHEELER, R.E.M. 1950. Five thousand years of Pakistan. London: Royal India & Pakistan Society.

1955. Still digging. London: Michael Joseph.

WORCHEL, S. & W. AUSTIN (ed.). 1979. Psychology of inter-group relations. Chicago (IL): Nelson-Hall.

ROBIN CONINGHAM & NICK LEWER, Coningham, Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, England. r.a.e.coningham@bradford.ac.uk

Lewer, Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, England. n.lewer@bradford.ac.uk