Artefacts of History is an intriguing and detailed account of the development of Indian archaeology as a distinctive regional discipline. Through a reevaluation of existing histories and narratives, Sudeshna Guha not only produces a critique of some of the contemporary canons of disciplinary history, but extends this to the implications for the actual practice of archaeology in India today. This book prompts the somewhat pressing question of what exactly archaeology should be, and though answers to this inquiry are constantly evolving, Guha's account is a fascinating and thought-provoking read for both practitioners and general audiences interested in debates about the Indian past.
The introduction lays out the book's program of critique—from questioning the singular narrative of South Asian archaeology and its development as a historical science to the concepts and practices of postcolonial archaeology in India today. The former theme is elaborated in chapter 1, which reviews traditional colonial histories of early Indian archaeology and the claim that a pioneering era in Indian archaeology was initiated by British field-based explorers such as Alexander Cunningham. By simultaneously reviewing both this history and many of its omissions (including examples from precolonial times), Guha is able to develop a sense of the historical and intellectual setting that gave rise to an archaeology oriented specifically toward empirical detail.
Chapter 2 examines different perspectives on archaeology through the unexpected and very interesting example of the Near Eastern antiquities that passed through, and were exhibited in, Bombay in the mid-nineteenth century. This provides additional commentary on the presentation of archaeology as a material and scientific enterprise, and as a tool of imperial power. It is also an intriguing glimpse of archaeological thought prior to the discovery of the Indus Civilization in the 1920s, a revelation that radically changed the focus of much of South Asian archaeology.
The shift toward prehistory and materially based archaeologies after the discovery of the Indus is the focus of chapter 3, which contrasts the field-based views of British archaeologists with the textually based studies of the German philologists, finding the latter more favorable in terms of their view of Indian society and their ability to incorporate indigenous cultural views into their narrative frameworks.
The limitations of field-oriented archaeological practices are further highlighted in chapter 4, which examines the imprint of V. Gordon Childe on studies of the Indus civilization. This chapter questions the paradigm shifts posited by the conventional historical narrative of Indian archaeology, taking down some of the major figures associated with early Indus studies and demonstrating the fallacy of a strict, empirical approach to studies of the past. Tantalizing references to personal correspondence support this view and are most entertaining to read.
Chapter 5 uses the collective arguments developed in preceding chapters to address Guha's perceptions of and concerns about postcolonial scholarship on the Indus civilization. The arguments are extremely significant, reminding contemporary scholars to be wary of replicating earlier nationalist and colonial paradigms, and of the perils of an uncritical approach to the material study of the past. However, Guha is highly selective in both her choice and her reading of scholarship on the Indus civilization, and of the examples and citations she provides to readers. While the main argument of this chapter—and of the book as a whole—is both compelling and convincing, actual practitioners more familiar with scholarship on the Indus civilization may have some concerns about the way some of this research is presented, and more significantly, with what is omitted from this review. The brief discussion of post-processual archaeology at the end of this chapter (p. 226) and occasional references throughout the rest of the book demonstrate Guha's understanding that paradigms of archaeological theory have since moved on from the scientifically oriented “Processual” era initiated during the mid-twentieth century. Nevertheless, the brevity of the discussion and its presentation only at the very end of the book might worry those who are aware that additional theoretical perspectives have emerged within the field and continue to be debated both within and outside of the realm of Indian archaeology. Although much of this more interpretive scholarship is recent and spread across several genres of academic publication, its omission detracts from Guha's authority to speak for the current state of Indian archaeology as a whole. Despite this, Guha's arguments are cogent and extremely critical for any regional archaeological tradition to address. The book also highlights the importance and implications of disciplinary history for actual disciplinary practice.
Throughout Artefacts of History, one gets the sense that Guha is building toward a new model of archaeology designed to address the current problems she has identified in the preceding chapters. When it emerges in the epilogue, entitled “A Vision for Archaeology,” there is some validation, as many suggestions, such as the acceptance of multivocality and the consideration of gender, seem to come straight from general post-processual canon. Ideational and introspective voices have emerged in Indian archaeology over the past ten to fifteen years, but in addition to the issues mentioned above, they have been somewhat muffled by institutional models of research that still rely on the materialist ontology of the “Processual” era. Guha is right to draw our attention to this. As a disciplinary history, this is an outstanding work of scholarship and a must-read for any professional archaeologist engaged with self-reflexive questions about the historical development of our own working paradigms.
