By Meghna Desai, Guest Associate Editor
The archaeologically and culturally rich landscape of the South Asia sub-continent of India continues to offer new observations, finds and thoughts, often revising and de-colonising the existing knowledge based on new evidence and fresh interpretations. An increasing number of archaeologists are inclined towards generating analytical data to support their studies. As part of this trend, in the last two decades, archaeological sciences in India have gained considerable momentum. Scientific approaches are steadily becoming a coherent part of Indian archaeology, such as the Bellary District Archaeological Project, the Harappan archaeology, Pattinam Archaeological Research, Keezhadi excavations etc. Shinde et al. (2006), for instance, strongly call for interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary collaborations to provide a more inclusive view of Harappan archaeology.
The use of laboratory-based methods in archaeology emerged more than a century ago, when in 1917 the Archaeological Survey of India established their Chemical Branch along with an assigned archaeological chemist. The primary aim of the branch was to examine, treat and preserve objects post excavation (Lal 1953). The quick expansion of the activities was enabled by a permanent position for the use of science in Indian archaeology, two years before the British Museum did so. The 1950s saw routine analytical examination of ceramics, metals, and soil. By the 1970s, archaeological science was helping formulate archaeological narratives. The pivotal role of analytical methods saw striking recognition amongst Indian archaeologists, from very early on, yet, leaving room still for profound integration in terms of database building, funding, student training and infrastructure.
Archaeological science based projects in India are now being funded by the government, public and private organisations and international bodies. The Department of Science and Technology (DST) through schemes such as the Science and Heritage Research Initiative (SHRI) and its autonomous institutions extends support to science-based archaeology. Private international NGOs such as the World Monuments Fund have contributed to several archaeological science and conservation initiatives (e.g., Gill and Bhatnagar 2021). The results of such projects are both fascinating and promising, and some come with doctoral opportunities. Although the developments have been promising, usually, in India and abroad the integration of STEM students in archaeological sciences remains easier in comparison to the students with an archaeology background. To combat this gap for the interested archaeology/humanities students, more opportunities are required for science-based training and access to corresponding laboratory facilities in their domains. The early exposure to analytical studies will enhance and empower knowledge and practical skills for the future generation of Indian archaeologists.
As an interdisciplinary and young discipline, archaeological sciences in India and elsewhere faces a lack of sense of belonging and reception, in spite of its convincing results and emerging recognitions. The archaeological science projects and research conducted by Science and Engineering institutions would benefit equally by recruiting and training students of archaeological background, providing them an opportunity to contribute and learn. The same principle, ideally, should extend to collaborative international projects, where funding should be allocated towards lab-based training, knowledge transfers and development of passionate interns and young researchers from the humanities. In order to facilitate the full integration of archaeological students into archaeological sciences, institutional and funding policies urgently need revision – and this is not limited to just the subcontinent (forthcoming Mardini and Desai 2022).
Archaeological science has not appeared in a university’s curriculum in India. However, the growing list of publications, research interest and opportunities in the last two decades have been significantly reassuring. As became evident during the data collation (see fig 1), STEM scholars led a much higher number of publications in comparison to scholars working in archaeological science or archaeology. In both domains, established scholars drove the majority of publications, while PhD and Master’s students of archaeology contributed less than one-tenth of these publications.
Fig 1: An attempt to visualise the growths of archaeological science papers published in credible Indian and international journals on Indian archaeological sciences, by Indian authors. The graph shows the number of publications in archaeological sciences from India plotted against a two-year interval; publications unavailable online may have escaped the plot. The number of archaeological science publications doubled in a decade, i.e. from 2002 to 2012 and remained steady up until 2016. A slight fall in publications is apparent in 2017-18, with a rise again in 2019-2020. |
 |
Fig 2: Chart showing the sub-disciplines of archaeological sciences in publications from 2001-2021. For the major sub-disciplines of bioarchaeology, archaeometallurgy, ceramic petrography, it is pertinent to explore online database construction to provide a collective platform for disseminating research and enabling comparative studies. |
The encouraging trends shown in the figures 1 and 2 are likely due to the developments of several centres, specialisations and departments at universities, including the Archaeological Science Centre at IIT Gandhinagar, PGRI at Deccan College, BHU Varanasi, Department of Archaeology at Kerala University, and interdisciplinary projects led by archaeological departments at Maharaja Sayajirao University, and the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS). These are just some names along with other emerging facilities, who within their own capacities are contributing to training students in lab-based archaeology at Master’s or Doctoral level. On a national level, the Archaeological Survey of India remains essential to foster the use of science in archaeology.
In addition to deeper collaborations involving humanities-based researchers, more attention is required on building online databases. The CSIR National Oceanographic Institute have successfully used lead and strontium isotope data for paleoclimates and marine research, and databases of lead isotopes have proven highly useful in archaeology. For example, the OXALID (https://oxalid.arch.ox.ac.uk/The%20Database/TheDatabase.htm) project has demonstrated the effectiveness of online isotope databases. The project digitised the lead isotope data for ore and artefacts analysed at the Isotrace Laboratory in Oxford (1978-2001). In addition, the recently launched database Bi(bli)oArch (Bibliographic database for human bioarchaeological studies in EMME region) is already proving to be a substantial contribution to bioarchaeology of the EMME region (https://www.biblioarch.com/) (Nikita et al. 2021). Adimanav.org is one example from India conceptualised for skeletal assemblages studied at the Deccan College. Such open access databases, whether aiming at skeletal assemblages or metal implements etc., developed on FAIR policies would add convenience and value to the outcomes of laboratory-based archaeology results from India and her neighbours, thus, bridging current gaps in our shared heritage.
Acknowledgements
I extend my foremost gratitude to the researchers who have tirelessly worked in the Indian archaeological sciences. I am grateful to Prof. Thilo Rehren for his counsel, support and encouragement and to Maninder Singh Gill for his feedback, insights and review of this manuscript. I extend my gratitude to Mahmoud Mardini who inspired the idea for the publications’ data (Figure 1) through his previous article in the SAS bulletin (Volume 44, Issue 30). Funding support from the Gerda Henkel Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Gill, M.S. and Bhatnagar, M.K. (2021). Examination of Mughal stone inlay work on the mausoleum of I’timad-ud-Daulah, Agra, India. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 13, 221.
Lahiri, N. (2012). Partitioning the Past - India’s Archaeological Heritage after Independence. In: Scarre, G. and Coningham, R. (Eds). Appropriating the Past – Philosophical Perspectives on the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 295-312.
Lal, B.B. (1953). Archaeological Chemistry and Scientific Studies. Ancient India 9, 199-206. Archaeological Survey of India.
Mardini, M. and Desai, M. (forthcoming 2022). Beating Archaeological Science: Using Diversified Science Methods in Archaeology. In Proceedings of the Cambridge Annual Student Archaeology Conference: Diversity in Archaeology. Archaeopress: Oxford.
Mushrif, V. (2014). Human Skeletal Studies in India: A Review. In: B. O’Donnabhain and M.C. Lozada, eds., Archaeological Human Remains: Global Perspectives, Springer: 139-153.
Nikita, E., Mardini, M., Tsimopoulou, C. and Karligkioti, A. (2021). Bi(bli)oArch: An open-access bibliographic database for human bioarchaeological studies in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 39: 10315.
Shinde, V., Deshpande, S.S., Osada, T. and Uno, T. (2006). Basic Issues in Harappan Archaeology: Some Thoughts. Ancient Asia 1, 63–72.
Comments
Post a Comment