\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Archaeology The Power Power The Archaeology Gamble We can Perhaps Archaeology Colonial Imperialist It
\nof power and identity: the political use of the discipline. <\/span><\/span>1<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ntwo ways of looking at archaeology and its use and abuse of power and identity: <\/span><\/span>1<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nand politics embedded within archaeological records: <\/span><\/span>1<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nand discipline of Archaeology: <\/span><\/span>1<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nconceptual parameter of Identity: <\/span><\/span>2<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nby and large does not directly engage in the key political struggles of the
\nmodern world. Archaeologists do not in any noteworthy way direct armies, shape economies,
\nwrite laws, or imprison or free people from bondage (McGuire, 2018). However,
\narchaeology has been and is being used by politics, ideology and identity in a
\nprofound way. Hodder (2005) argues that On the one hand, ideology represents
\nthe interests of the dominant group in society. The dominant perspective
\nbecomes absorbed and \u2018taken for granted\u2019. We become mystified and duped. On the
\nother hand, ideology can be seen as enabling as well as misrepresenting. He
\nopined that it is important to take the second stand and investigate how
\narchaeological data are being misrepresented. <\/p>\n
\n(2004) suggests we can look at the idea of power and politics in archaeology
\nfrom at least two different perspectives, first, the entity of power as
\nembedded within the archaeological record, and second within the discipline of
\narchaeology, in its theory and practice. <\/p>\nPower and politics embedded within archaeological records:<\/a><\/h3>\n
\ninvestigate the social inequality of the past societies from archaeological
\nrecords which range from grave goods and ornaments to the settlement pattern.
\nHowever, as we investigate them, we also need to keep it in mind that we are
\nusing the categories and perceptions of our investigation from the kind of
\nexperiences that we have in our present world. The major categories such as gender,
\nethnicity, class positions, etc. can be derived along the axis of power.
\nAlthough, these categories of findings are often seen as \u2018objective\u2019 and
\nscientific in nature and are not really linked to existing socio-cultural
\nhierarchies, their use by the ruling dispensation like what Hoddar (2005)
\nargues are nevertheless part of politics, politics of identity construction and
\nformulation.<\/p>\nPower and discipline of Archaeology:<\/a> <\/h3>\n
\nthe second and more important category of understanding the political use of
\narchaeology is to look at the ways in which archaeologists have actively shaped
\nour understanding of the world. Trigger (1984) has described archaeologies as being
\nnationalist, colonialist or imperalist<\/b>. <\/p>\n
\nhas been, and is still, important in the establishment of national identities.
\nTherefore, archaeological records are being vividly interpreted and used by the
\ncompeting political regimes to establish and rationalize their particular
\nideology and frames of rule. Using this lens one can understand in what ways
\nHindu Nationalism has proliferated in India in recent decade and has pushed the
\nsecular forces towards the margins. One of the many reference points has been the
\narchaeological establishment of Hastinapur as a city connected to the epic
\nMahabharata, or for that matter the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya.<\/p>\n
\narchaeologies denigrate non-Western societies to the status of static yet
\nliving museums from which the nature of the past might be inferred. The
\nunchanged and living museum like character has been used in legitimizing the
\ncolonial rule over its subjects. In fact, the categories such as \u2018primitive\u2019, \u2018native\u2019,
\n\u2018barbar\u2019, \u2018savage\u2019, and later on like \u2018under-developed\u2019, \u2018backward\u2019, has been \u2018scienfically\u2019
\nprojected to not only legitimize the colonization but also to dehumanize the \u2018other\u2019.
\nArchaeology has been systematically used in such a process. Archaeologists,
\nmost of them, during the colonial period has not only helped establishing and rationalizing
\nthe colonial rule over the rest of the world, but also was directly responsibly
\nfor establishing institutions which are carrying this legacy even in the
\npost-colonial period. The Archaeological Survey of India for example was
\nestablished during the British period. These institutions have also helped transporting
\nthe archaeologically significant entities from their places of origins to the colonizers
\nmuseums, most famously, the British Museum. <\/p>\n
\narchaeologies (largely those developed in Britain and America) exert
\ntheoretical hegemony over research in the rest of the world through extensively
\nengaging in research abroad, playing a major role in training either foreign students
\nor those who subsequently obtain employment abroad, and in the dissemination of
\ntexts. The American expression of the new archaeology, advocating high-level
\ngeneralization and a crosscultural comparative perspective, ‘asserts the
\nunimportance of national traditions . . . and of anything that stands in the
\nway of American economic activity and political influence’ (Trigger, 1984, p.
\n366). At an even more general level, Friedman (1986) has inserted archaeology
\ninto what he claims to be world cycles of ‘traditionalist-culturalist’,
\n‘modernist’ and ‘post-modernist’ cultural identities or cosmologies. <\/p>\nThe conceptual parameter of Identity:<\/a><\/h3>\n
\nis important to understand that archaeological facts which we use to explore
\nthe concepts like identity, power, ethnicity and nationalism are quite abstract
\nin nature. The problems of archaeological records, therefore, is the fact that
\nthe past is not a neutral subject. It is not something of interests to only the
\nresearchers and readers, but it is also of the interests to lobbyists and
\ncompeting political forces. At one level of the identity spectrum is concered
\nwith the construction of our personal identity, that sense of self. At another
\nwe also belong to much larger communities that influence what that self will be
\nand against which it will be tested. Here lies the contestation of present and
\npast, and here lies the role of lobbyists and political players. As scholars
\nlike Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar variously sees history as a result of the
\ninteraction between past and present, archaeological records are being used and
\ninterpreted in particular ways so as to go in line with the power groups. They
\nare helped in formulation of national identities and political identities in
\npresent era. Similarly, they were used in constructing the multiple and often
\nderogatory identities of the \u2018weak\u2019 others. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n