TUTORIAL: [M21431 Archaeology of Early South Asia] Write a review of the following book: Ashish Avikunthak, Bureaucratic Archaeology: State, Science, and Past in Postcolonial India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

COURSE NAME: M21431 Archaeology of Early South Asia 

M. A. SEMESTER 1

TUTORIAL 1                         

TUTORIAL TOPIC: Write a review of the following book:

Ashish Avikunthak, Bureaucratic Archaeology: State, Science, and Past in Postcolonial India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

SUBMITTED BY: Pranav Kushwaha

[DISCLAIMER: The following tutorial is being shared so students of CHS, JNU can get some idea regarding how a tutorial is to be written. This tutorial is by no means of high quality, and you might find some factual, spelling, and grammatical errors.]

                       

 

Book Review:

Ashish Avikunthak, Bureaucratic Archaeology: State, Science, and Past in Postcolonial India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Bureaucratic Archaeology presents its readers with a detailed insight into the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) – often labelled by the author as “part of the statist machinery” (p. 3) – that has “gained enormous legitimacy and prestige through the production of scientific knowledge about the past” (p. xvii.). The book delves into the history of the ASI, its internal hierarchical structure and functioning, archaeological techniques, and the organization’s obsession with not only the past, but also with how archaeological knowledge is produced and recorded. The author also points out the incompetence and apathy of the ASI when dealing with archaeological artefacts and the subsequent problems when it comes to the proper dissemination of discovered information. Also discussed are the effects of politics on the ASI, its bureaucratic lethargy, and charges of corruption that have been levied upon the organization as a whole and upon its members in particular. The author has prepared this account on the basis of an ethnography he conducted at the Harappan sites in Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Haryana between 2003 and 2005 (p. xviii), and the follow-up he has had with his “informants” (his word) over the years. Description of Mortimer Wheeler’s legacy, its effects on the ASI of independent India, and the uneasy environment of the post-Ayodhya excavation period heavily influence this work.

In many ways, the first chapter, titled “Anthropology of Archaeology” (pp. 1-32), initiates the reader into the themes that are discussed throughout the book. A short account of the debates and ideologies of the 19th and the 20th centuries traces the development of archaeology as a subject from its focus on scientific accuracy to its present-day form, where more importance is given upon the immediate socio- geographical consequences of archaeological activity.

The author credits the creation of the ASI to the British need to understand their colonial subjects by undertaking archaeological surveys. Out of all the director generals the ASI had in its colonial history, Alexander Cunningham (appointed 1871), John Marshall (appointed 1901), and Mortimer Wheeler (appointed 1944) stand out the most. As history would have it, and the book discusses in great detail, Wheeler had the greatest impact on the ASI and on Indian archaeology. (p. 13-16)

The author not only dives into the structure and responsibilities of the ASI, but also considerably expands upon a tussle that has been going on regarding the ministry under which the organization should be placed. On the one hand, we are given the reasoning that owing to the kind of work the ASI performs, it should be declared a scientific organization and be transferred to the Department of Science and Technology. This was also recommended by the Mirdha Committee (1984), and is supported by members of the ASI as well. On the other hand, we have the Ministry of Culture that doesn’t want to relinquish its “most prized possession” (pp. 19-20). This is the first time where the author brings the dissatisfaction of the ASI members into the foreground, and as the book explores, this dissatisfaction is not limited to which ministry is governing the ASI.

As the chapter comes to its final pages, the reader is given a glimpse into the “tangible fear of reprisal” (p. 21) that permeates the halls of ASI. The author notes how both Indian and foreign archaeologists are afraid to upset the ASI as they might lose their permits to excavate in India (p. 21). With a rundown of the corrupt “obstinate bureaucracy” of the ASI (p. 22) and the difficulties the author had to face while attempting his ethnography, the author sets the stage for the rest of the book.

Chapter two, titled “The Making of the Indus–Saraswati Civilization” (pp. 33-69), provides an account of the narratives regarding the origins of the Aryans and the attempts that have been made to reconcile the texts evidence of the Vedic period with the archaeological findings of the Indus Valley Civilization, thereby creating a new “category of the Vedic Harappans (as indigenous Aryan) living on the fertile plains of the Indus and the Saraswati” rivers (p. 37).

It is at this juncture that the central role of politics and religion in the whole debate is highlighted. Earlier proponents of the “Out of India Theory” (p. 36) – that the Aryans are indigenous to India from where they spread across Eurasia – were given a political and governmental blessing with the Saraswati Heritage Project (SHP). At its core, the SHP was meant to “produce credible data…in order to scientifically show that the Rig Vedic Aryans were the authors of the Harappan civilization” (p. 56). As the author notes, many archaeologists involved with the SHP were members of Hindu fundamentalist organizations. This not only took away any academic credibility that the project could have possessed, but it also mired the SHP as one of those projects that are “without a scientific basis… [but]…have all potentiality for subjective interpretation of historical facts thereby, leading to controversies” (p. 57). Ultimately, the SHP was shut down by 2004 as the new UPA government came to power, its political leanings being on the opposite end of the spectrum (p. 57).

Chapter three, titled “Bureaucratic Hierarchy in the ASI” (pp. 70-101), holds true to its title and gives a detailed explanation of the internal structure of the ASI. This description is augmented by several interviews that bring the dissatisfaction of the ASI officers to the foreground. The problems of shortage of staff and rare instances of promotions plague the ASI. I was shocked to learn that an ASI official can spend decades of their life without receiving a single promotion. The Lal Committee of 2001 attributed this failure – to appreciate and reward its members on the part of the ASI – to a lack of regular cadre review and the appointment of bureaucrats from the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). The committee noted that the latter has destroyed “the careers of about three generations of officers and staff [as the IAS officials had] no stakes in the ASI and no accountability to anybody in the ASI” (p. 73). This sentiment is shared and echoed several times by ASI archaeologists, as they maintain that the “IAS DGs [Director Generals] know nothing about archaeology” and that there has been a “serious degradation…in the workings of the ASI” due to the appointment of non-archaeologists to the position of the Director-General (p. 76). The author notes that although a couple of archaeologist DGs were appointed in 2010 and 2013, the position reverted to the IAS officials in 2017 (p. 78-79).

To add to the systemic and unnecessary complications of the ASI bureaucracy, archaeological sites are not transferred between an incoming and an outgoing excavation director. Instead, an old excavation team is replaced with a new one, the latter being brought by the director from wherever they have been transferred to (p. 83-84).

But before a person can become privileged enough to face the problems of low salary and lack of promotions, they have to face a web of corruption to get themselves recruited into the ASI machinery (p. 88-89). Moreover, one’s exemplary academic qualifications do not matter if the person in question hasn’t obtained a diploma from the Institute of Archaeology, which is the “official training school for ASI Archaeologists” (p. 89). This focus on the “ASI way” of archaeology has rendered the Indian archaeologists unaware and insecure of “theoretical approaches in archaeology [that] were more than 30 years old in 2003–04” (p. 90).

Lastly, and in great detail, the status of the labourers is discussed as well. While they have created a social structure of their own in the field by applying the caste system, I was more impressed by the sheer number of labourers working at Indian archaeological sites and interested in the problems they face due to the seasonal nature of their work. The author notes that the labourers form “the largest category of workers at an ASI site” (p. 94). However, they are not counted within the ASI hierarchy and are “hired on minimum daily wages [while doing] the most labour-intensive work at the sites” (p. 94). The stark reality of their status within the Indian archaeology scene is reflected by the fact that they are not assimilated into the formal ASI structure even after devoting decades of their lives to the service. In this way, the problems of both formal and informal workers of the ASI are similar, no matter whether and where they are situated in the organization’s hierarchy. One cannot help but be saddened by the lack of appreciation that the organization has for its workers. A question that then automatically comes into mind is: isn’t the ASI destroying its future by its carelessness and apathy?

Chapter four, titled “Spatial Formation of the Archaeological Field” (pp. 102-127), is concerned with the way life is structured on the field, and the manner in which the world of the ASI officials is differentiated not only from the actual excavation site, but also from the labourers working on it. The author describes the excavation site as “the terrestriality where the primary knowledge production process is executed” and notes that the camps, in which the ASI officials reside, are “the site of rest and the setting for secondary knowledge production processes [and functions as] the bureaucratic office in the field” (p. 106). The camps are not only physically and spatially differentiated from the actual excavation sites, they are also structured in a way that reflects the hierarchy that is intrinsic to the ASI. From the size of tents to the facilities available within them, one can gauge the stature of the ASI official occupying any given tent (pp. 112-114).

The two most interesting aspects of this chapter are: (i) the way ASI acquires these excavation sites and the effects this acquirement has upon the common people; and (ii) the basis on which the credit for the discovery of an archaeological site is given to a person.

The ‘Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958’ has paved the way for any archaeologically significant site to be declared protected. However, the author notes that the “ASI [does] not pay the requisite compensation or the payment [is] delayed by several years” after the sites are acquired (pp. 116-117). As for the second point, the author notes that the discovery of an archaeologically important site and the credit for the same “did not depend on the claim to initial sighting, but rather on the idea of recognition [that is] the ability to recognize the archaeological ‘potential’” of a geographical location (p. 124). As has been discussed in the chapter, an archaeologically untrained person simply cannot claim the glory of having discovered an archaeological site because they are not trained “to categorize the site as epistemologically valuable” (p. 124).

Chapter five, titled “Epistemological Formation of the Archaeological Site” (pp. 128-152), gives a broad outline of the excavation process. As the author explains, a survey of a geographical location is carried out first. In recent times, aerial photography is combined with modern technologies like drone videography to accomplish this task. A map is thus created and then fragmented into using the Cartesian grid (p. 143). The site is then reorganized using the “Wheelerian Grid” (or the “Wheeler- Kenyon” method), dividing it into 10-metre-by-10-metre squares (p. 146). For Wheeler, this process provided him “with an epistemological foundation on which the excavation site was rendered legible and decipherable” (p. 148). Excavation is carried out first in a vertical manner, and if satisfactory results are produced, horizontal excavations follow. The author notes that vertical excavation helps “uncover the chronological history of the site by correlating the artifacts [sic] discovered with the stratigraphical layers of the trench”, while horizontal excavation helps in uncovering the “complete… spatial spread of the site” (p. 139). Thus, the author uses this chapter to describe the legacy of Wheeler on modern Indian archaeological practices and how he has “inscribed… [the] ideas of scientific excavation, stratigraphy, and efficacious technical methods” on Indian archaeology (p. 134).

Chapter six, titled “Theory of Archaeological Excavation” (pp. 153-177), delves into the archaeological trench and builds upon the concepts introduced in the previous chapter. Continuing the tradition of referring to Wheeler’s methods and the era in which he presided over the ASI, the author explains the colonial obsession with understanding Indian history as something happening on the fringes of the European world. One example would be the excavation of Arikamedu undertaken by Wheeler in 1946, where due to the “occurrence of Roman material culture”, Wheeler relegated Arikamedu to “a peripheral trading post of the classical world…[and]… a colony of the Roman Empire” (p. 163). However, the use of stratigraphy in conducting this excavation caught on and became a crucial aspect of Indian archaeology. In the present day, the very act of interpreting the various layers of soil and demarcating a line – to differentiate between the different soil layers and hence the cultural deposits that have occurred over thousands of years – has become a rite of passage for an archaeologist in the ASI (p. 172). On the other hand, not all practical skills are given the same value. For example, although the skill of section-cutting is supposed to be a tool present in the arsenal of every archaeologist, the actual task of section-cutting has effectively been relegated to the skilful labourers (p. 175).

For me, chapter seven, titled “Making of the Archaeological Artifact” (pp. 178-204), is easily one of the most interesting chapters of the book as it shattered some of my assumptions associated with the archaeological process. For instance, I used to believe that every archaeological artefact was dealt with the same level of sincerity and was assigned the same, but high, value. This assumption, one I am sure is shared by a number of people, is quickly shattered as the author clarifies that “only the objects that were considered antiquities by the excavators were…recorded in the site notebook, and labelled… On the other hand, only the depth and layers of the ceramics and faunal remains were recorded” (p. 182). Moreover, the discovery of these artefacts doesn’t guarantee that they will be available to the researchers. The best-case scenario is that these artefacts will be displayed in the National Museum, the worst-case scenario being these artefacts will get lost in the Purana Qila storage facilities, never to be seen again (p. 183).

Ironies also abound at this stage of the archaeological process. The bulk of the actual excavation is carried out by labourers that exist outside of and separate from the ASI hierarchy, and not by the trained archaeologists. Resonating with the previously discussed issue of who should be declared the actual discoverer of an archaeological site, the “laborer-excavator [is] given the agency of identifying objects but not of discovery” while “the archaeologists gave the discovery its epistemic worth” by “measuring… labelling… cataloging [sic]” the artefacts and “writing the reports” (p. 186).

On the other hand, there exist a few “skilled” labourers who have worked for so long – and have been taught by some archaeologists – that they have acquired a considerable amount of technical know-how and knowledge of the archaeological trench and artefacts. However, for these people, this knowledge is of a special and greater value. During the non-excavation period, these skilled labourers use this knowledge to work as tourist guides, thereby earning their livelihoods. Thus, as one of the skilled labourers by the name of Jamal bhai puts it, “It is a matter of survival” for them (p. 190).

One of the innumerable problems hampering the ASI reveals itself in the lack of specialists in the ASI. The author notes that there “were neither any archaeozoologists, archaeobotanists, or archaeometallurgists, nor were there any lithic or ceramic specialists” in the ASI. These specialised works are often outsourced to professors of Indian universities or to PhD students (p. 197).

One of two fates awaits an artefact once it is excavated. As mentioned earlier, the Purana Qila houses the artefacts deemed worthy enough to be labelled. As for most of the artefacts that occur in huge quantities, they are reburied (p. 200). Thus, the age of an artefact does not determine its value.

Chapter eight, titled “Performance of Archaeological Representations” (pp. 205-226), begins with the author’s eye-witness account of a site tour of Dholavira conducted for the then chief minister of Gujarat. By the time this description ends, the reader finds themself encapsulated by the complex relationship between ASI officials and the government. It soon becomes clear that the “site visit” is an opportunity for ASI officials to boost their morale and to showcase their contribution in service of the nation, irrespective of how interested the intended audience of the tour actually is. The focus of the chapter then shifts to the importance of preparing an excavation site for the purpose of photographing the discovered artefacts. To paraphrase a senior photographer at Bhirrana, photographs provide the only proof of an excavation since archaeology destroys everything (p. 212). This profound observation makes even more sense when you consider that large quantities of easily occurring artefacts are reburied – disturbed from their resting place only to be returned to the soil with a reduced sense of respect for the past.

In the closing pages of the chapter, the epistemic concept of scales – i.e., a relative method of measurement used to give a sense of the dimensions of the excavation site, artefact and/or the trench – is detailed. Narrating his own experience of having to act as a human scale at the site of Dholavira, the author points to the usage of local people in their traditional attire for this purpose as being part of the legacy left behind by Wheeler. As the chapter – and the book as a whole – discusses in detail, the labourers are treated as a backward and illiterate people, yet are used not only for excavation, but also for photographing the site. In this way, while they bring out the past to the present, the labourers are not given the credit nor the respect they deserve. Instead, the author argues, that by using the labourers as part of the process yet detached from it at the same time, the ASI continues the colonial “project of producing the past for the natives” (p. 224). In other words, the ASI still follows its colonial practices of producing archaeological knowledge to a T – a feat undertaken in such a way that patronises the labourers working at the archaeological site – without having made any changes in its ideology in the decades that have followed since independence.

Chapter nine, titled “The Absent Excavation Reports” (pp. 227-258), recounts the chaos that the ASI had to go through during the Ayodhya excavation of 2003. Facing considerable socio-political pressure, judicial oversight and interference from religious groups, the ASI had to conduct the excavation in less than 150 days, compared to a period of 500-700 days had the situation been normal and purely academic for a site of a similar scale (p. 230-231). To say that the subsequent excavation report was of sub-par quality would be an understatement.

From here, we enter into the world of paperwork and the actual process of writing the excavation report. Unfortunately, the sub-par quality of the Ayodhya excavation report is not an exception. Various committees that have been constituted over the years have been shocked to learn the delay it takes in writing the excavation reports. An extreme example would be the Kalibangan report, published 33 years after the excavation (p. 241). These committees have also expressed concern over the public money being spent without any apparent result, a concern that is shared by the ASI officials as well. As the author discusses, while the ASI is notorious for delaying excavation reports, sometimes not writing one at all, there are understandable reasons for that as well. The ASI officials are treated more like bureaucrats than archaeologists. They don’t get the time to write reports as they are drowned in bureaucratic paperwork. Getting transferred for no reason severely limits their access to the site notes and artefacts that are left behind or stored at far-flung ASI offices. Then there is the issue of rampant corruption where senior officials are more concerned with making money than producing knowledge. Moreover, poor storage facilities make identifying artefacts with their location a nightmare. All these issues combine to form a rotten system of knowledge production, one that is a source of frustration to its people and disrespect to the past.

As I conclude my book review, I must say that book goes into a lot more detail than I have been able to summarise here. Once you get past the author’s jargon-laden, adjective-heavy sentence structure – a structure that sometimes seems to purposefully complicate his language without any apparent necessity – his work truly begins to shine. Not only does the author explain the historical context and political background of the issues he discusses, but he also manages to balance it with an eyewitness account of the ASI excavation sites. This approach is further improved by the interviews conducted with the ASI officials situated at different levels of the organization’s hierarchy. The information thus obtained slides the ASI door ajar, allowing us a peek into the Indian archaeological scene. One cannot help but be amazed at the scale of excavation and the discoveries made by the organization. Yet at the same time, one finds out the stark reality of working for the ASI and the manner in which politics and bureaucratic lethargy hamper the organization’s true potential. In the end, one is left saddened at the state of the people working for the ASI.

For students aspiring to work for the esteemed organization, this book acts as an eye-opener to the pitfalls of the ASI. There is, no doubt, a disappointment with the corrupt, sluggish system that is being bogged down by political interference. Moreover, bureaucratic mismanagement remains a source of great anxiety. However, in discussing these pitfalls, the book also suggests the areas where the ASI can make improvements, and points to considerable opportunities, both academic and technical, that can be exploited by aspiring archaeologists. There might be some drawbacks to the author’s work, but if anything, the book serves as a near-perfect introduction to the world of ASI archaeology.

Pranav Kushwaha 

Enrolment Number: 21/61/HH/063

Semester 1

M. A. Ancient History (ANCM), CHS, JNU