The development of archaeology in the Indian subcontinent Dilip K. Chakrabarti Because of its sheer size, if for no other reason, the archaeology of the Indian subcontinent will receive primary attention here. Among the earlier writings on this subject are Roy (1961), Ghosh (1953), Allchin (1961), Imam (1966) and Chakrabarti (1976, 1979, 1981) in the Indian context. The roots The first European notices of the living temples and ancient monuments of India are found in the reports of travellers and sailors in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and the first half of the eighteenth centuries. These notices relate primarily to west and south India. The most import- ant records of living temples are by John Huighen van Linschoten in the late sixteenth century and Pietro della Valle in the early seventeenth century. While Linschoten (Purchas 1905) was unhappy about 'pagodes, cut and formed most uglie' Valle (1664) was detailed, objective and remains unique among his contemporaries in the sense that he supplemented his descriptions of south Indian temples with ground plans. Among the ancient monuments the rock-cut caves of the Deccan, particularly Elephanta (Fig. 1), Kanheri and Ellora, attracted most attention (anon. 1785; Sen 1949). The descriptions were sometimes detailed, although there was no attempt at historical explanations, except occasional references to Alexander. The two important archae- ological landmarks on the Orissan coast, the Jagannath temple of Puri (the White Pagoda) and the sun temple of Konarak (the Black Pagoda), were also recorded during this period (D. Mitra 1968). The middle of the eighteenth century This period saw the beginning of a systematic and scholarly interest. First, accurate and precise records of monuments began to appear and there was a better appreciation of India as a rich and fruitful area of historical and archaeological investigations. Second, there was also the beginning of theoretical research, primarily concerning the historical geography of the country. In 1758 Anquetil du Perron (anon. 1785) was interested in the precise measurements and plans of the Ellora rock-cut complex and its associated mythology. About 1760 he investigated World Archaeology Volume 13 No. 3 Regional traditions II ?R.K.P. 1982 0043-8243/82/1303-326 $1.50/1 This content downloaded from 210.212.93.46 on Mon, 13 Feb 2017 05:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms The development of archaeology in the Indian subcontinent 327 Figure 1 Architectural details of pillar and statue from Elephanta Island, Bombay. From the log of Captain Pyke of the East-Indiaman Stringer, 1712, published in Archaeologia, 7, 1785, pp. 323-33 by Alexander Dalrymple Elephanta and Kanheri. Carsten Niebuhr's visits to Elephanta, where he 'made drawings of all the most remarkable parts of it', seem to be somewhat later (anon. 1785). In both du Perron and Niebuhr one detects a positive awareness of India as an area of historical and archaeological research. Niebuhr wrote: 'One still finds among the Indians, one of the oldest nations of the world, so many valuable remains of antiquity, which deserve more attention from the literati of Europe, than has been hitherto bestowed on them' (anon. 1785). The first significant author on Indian historical geography was M. D'Anville (1753, 1775), who was concerned, among other things, with the identification of historical sites that had been mentioned by the Classical authors on India, such as the Palibothra of the Classical sources with Pataliputra. A fuller subsequent study of these problems appeared in a three-volume work by Joseph Tieffenthaler, du Perron and James Rennell (1786-88). About this time Rennell (3rd ed. 1793) published an independent study of his own. In all these volumes the primary concern was with the identification of ancient sites. This content downloaded from 210.212.93.46 on Mon, 13 Feb 2017 05:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 328 Dilip K. Chakrabarti The Asiatic Society The Asiatic Society was founded in Calcutta on 15 January 1784, primarily at the initiative of William Jones. An annual journal, Asiatic Researches, was first published in 1788 and a museum was established in 1814. The aim of the Society was 'to inquire into the history and antiquities, the arts, sciences and literature of Asia'. Three historical factors explain the success of this society. First, it was increasingly clear that the early British role of the trader would be replaced by that of a territorial ruler, and the time was ripe for a systematic investigation of the country. Second, as Poliakov (1974: 183-88) has shown, in their attempt to free themselves from Judaeo-Christian thought, Western philosophical thinking, particularly that of the French Encyclopaedists, turned to India for the origin of culture and religion. This attitude is well reflected in the writings of Voltaire, who was 'convinced that everything has come to us from the banks of the Ganges, astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc.' (Poliakov 1974: 185). This particular image of India exerted considerable influence on German Romanticism (Wilson 1964). Third, the closing years of the eighteenth century witnessed the growth of many literary and philosophic societies in Britain (Plumb 1966: 167): By 1815 every provincial town of importance had its society, supported by both the local aristocracy and the local manufacturers who were equally aware of the social value of scientific discovery . The results of this activity were vast and valuable. The flora and fauna of Britain, the nature of its soils and rocks, were examined in detail, catalogued, and given a scientific order and arrangement. The foundation of the Asiatic Society in Calcutta was entirely in keeping with the scientific spirit of late eighteenth century Britain. Early theoretical approaches There were two early theoretical traditions. The first was distinctly geographical in content and a continuation of the earlier historical-geographical studies. In the late eighteenth century its chief exponent was Rennell (1793), who identified ancient Pataliputra with modern Patna. He was also aware that ancient Ujjayini was the Ozene of the Periplus and Ptolemy. On some sites, such as Gaur, he made precise measurements. By and large Rennell's was a factual approach that tried to bring an element of objectivity into the reporting of ancient Indian monuments and sites. The primary exponent of the second theoretical tradition was William Jones, who tried to link Indian history to Universal History as it was then understood. Its important source was the ten 'discourses' Jones delivered on various topics between 1784 and 1793 (published between 1788 and 1793) as President of the Asiatic Society. When he delivered his discourses, the biblical theory of human creation was still dominant. There was no doubt about the unitary origin of mankind from a common ancestor. In this way all branches of the human family were thought to be linked and likely to show survivals in various spheres of life that would reflect their commnon ancestry and spread from a single place of origin. One of the main issues before Jones was to understand these survivals in the Indian context and to demonstrate how ancient India and Indians were historically linked to other human groups in the world. This theme is This content downloaded from 210.212.93.46 on Mon, 13 Feb 2017 05:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms The development of archaeology in the Indian subcontinent 329 recurrent in virtually all his discourses. Jones's idea of the affinity of Sanskrit with several other ancient languages neatly fitted into this thought-pattern. In the third discourse delivered on 2 February 1786 (1788: 430-1), he argued that the speakers of Sanskrit had an immemorial affinity with the old Persians, Ethiopians and Egyptians, the Phoenicians, Greeks and Tuscans; the Scythians or Goths, and Celts; the Chinese, Japanese and Peruvians; whence, as no reason appears for believing that they were a colony from any one of these nations or any of these nations from them, we may fairly conclude that they all proceeded from some central country ... Jones's ideas were echoed by many of his contemporaries, although in a different form. T. Maurice (1800-1) wrote a seven-volume study of Indian Antiquities in which antiquities themselves hardly figured, but there were discussions of such esoteric issues as the Indian origin of Druids. This was not an isolated idea but may be found in the works of a number of authors until the middle of the nineteenth century (Chakrabarti 1976). With his emphasis on India as the centre of all things, Maurice echoes the tradition of the Encyclopaedists. Francis Wilford (1792) sought to trace the origin of the Nile on the basis of 'Hindu sacred books'. The point which must be stressed is that William Jones and many of his contemporaries were not interested in accurately observing and reporting on Indian antiquities and monuments. For them, the basic problem was to integrate the emerging historical knowledge of India with con- temporary notions concerning the origin of culture and civilization and within the framework of the unitary origin of man as laid down in the Bible. These provided a significant frame- work for interpreting the Indian past. Jones's linguistic hypothesis linking Sanskrit to Greek, Latin and other languages, is only a part of this interpretive framework evolved in the context of pre-evolutionary thinking. If to Jones (1792) the centre of population, knowledge, languages and all the arts was Iran, some of his contemporaries made India the centre of all things (cf. Maurice 1800-1). Until the middle of the nineteenth century it was believed that different cultural influences along with actual migrations of people went out of India, ultimately pen- etrating as far north as Scotland.