In Pursuit of the Past

http://sih.sagepub.com

Studies in History

DOI: 10.1177/025764300602300206 2007; 23; 311 Studies in History

Bishnupriya Basak ‘Academic’ Archaeology in Bengal

In Pursuit of the Past: The Development of an ‘Official’ and

http://sih.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/2/311 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Studies in History Additional services and information for

http://sih.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://sih.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.in/about/permissions.aspPermissions:

http://sih.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/23/2/311 Citations

by on December 4, 2008 http://sih.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sih.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://sih.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.in/about/permissions.asp

http://sih.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/23/2/311


Studies in History, 23, 2, n.s. (2007): 311–339SAGE PUBLICATIONS Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore

DOI: 10.1177/025764300702300206

In Pursuit of the Past: The Development of an

‘Official’ and ‘Academic’ Archaeology in Bengal

Bishnupriya Basak∗Department of Archaeology

Calcutta University

Kolkata

This article tries to situate the development of archaeology as a discipline in Bengal in the official

and the academic sphere covering the period from the first half of the twentieth century to the

early 1960s. The beginning of an official archaeology is seen in the activities of the Archaeological

Survey, Eastern Circle, as represented by its annual reports, and may be seen as part of a totaliz-

ing mission of the colonial state in the post-Mutiny era. After the dissolution of these reports in

1920–21, Bengal began to feature in a limited way in the annual reports of the Survey, and later

in its reviews. The birth of an academic archaeology is traced in the activities of the University of

Calcutta. This needs to be seen in the backdrop of an initiative, made by Wheeler, the then director

general of the Survey, to promote the study of past heritage in organizations outside the Survey.

This article tries to cover a very broad canvas in the emergence of archaeology as

a discipline in Bengal—from a colonial project in the first half of the twentieth

century to the establishment of the State Directorate of Archaeology in the 1950s

and the introduction of an MA course in the University of Calcutta in 1960. In

doing so, the broad trends of this emergence have been located within a wider

context of the evolution of this discipline in a pre-independent colonial ambience

and a post-independence era. The domain of ‘official’ archaeology in Bengal chiefly

begins with the decentralization of the Archaeological Survey of India in the Curzon

era and the formation of the Eastern Circle in 1900. Prior to this, Bengal featured

∗I would specially like to thank Devapriya Dasgupta, librarian, the Archaeological Survey of India,

Calcutta Circle, Kolkata, for providing access to the Survey reports at their Salt Lake library, Kolkata;

and the library staff at the Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, Kolkata. A

special word for Dr Gautam Sengupta and Madhumita for carefully going through the manuscript

and making important suggestions, which helped me immensely in modifying some parts of the

paper. I also owe this to the lively discussions with Drs Tapati Guha-Thakurta and Sheena Panja at

the Centre for Studies of the Social Sciences, Kolkata, when the paper was yet to be conceived. Finally,

to Ashis for just being around.



312 / BISHNUPRIYA BASAK

Studies in History, 23, 2 (2007): 311–339

in two government-sponsored surveys, and only to a limited extent in Cunningham’s

countrywide survey programme, and even less so in the following years when the

institutional basis of the discipline itself rested on shaky grounds till the coming

of Sir John Marshall. I have explored the growth of an ‘academic’1 archaeology

in the activities of the University of Calcutta, which became the first Indian uni-

versity to undertake excavation. I have also tried to assess the achievements of

the Asutosh Museum, which was an institute by its own right within the university

infrastructure.

Situating the Colonial Project of Archaeology in Bengal:

Prelude to the Formation of the Eastern Circle

Prior to the formation of the Eastern Circle in 1900, and much before the formation

of the Archaeological Survey in 1871, there were two government-sponsored sur-

veys in Bengal, which were of immense importance for a statistical index of its

antiquarian remains—those of Francis Buchanan and James Fergusson. Enrich-

ing accounts of the antiquarian remains of north Bengal were provided by

E.V. Westmacott and H. Beveridge.2 J.D. Beglar had toured Bengal, on being

commissioned by Sir Alexander Cunningham, the first director general of the

Archaeological Survey of India, as part of Cunningham’s countrywide survey

programme. His report covered over 4,500 miles of survey. Beglar’s methodology

consisted of using ancient texts as a guideline to trace historical places following

which exclusive details on etymology, local history, legends, customs, sculpture

and architecture were noted.3

But it was with the formation of the Eastern Circle that there began a new era

of official control of provincial heritage in Bengal. Its formation needs to be seen

in the context of institutional reorganization of the Survey.4 Its activities, essentially

three-pronged, focusing on conservation, exploration and excavation, need to be

situated in the formulation of an archaeological policy by the colonial state in the

last few years of the nineteenth century and the dawn of the twentieth, which

began with the Marshall era. Its reports—documents of detailed documentation—

were, I am arguing, part of the colonial state’s totalizing mission in the post-

Mutiny era.

First, I shall briefly touch upon the post-Mutiny scenario. This was dominated

by a shift in the colonial ideology. There was a disillusionment with liberal idealism

1 Panja (2002) has shown how an ‘academic’ archaeology grew outside the bounds of the Archa-

eological Survey of India in institutes and universities in the years immediately preceding and

succeeding independence.2 Goswami (1993–94).3 Beglar (1994, reprint). Also see Upinder Singh (2004: 135–57) for an important assessment of

Beglar’s work.4 Marshall (1939).



The development of an ‘official’ and ‘academic’ archaeology in Bengal / 313


when all thought of reform seemed ‘pointless’.5 A concentrated effort was made

to justify and legitimize the British presence in India. What followed was a

totalizing mission whose aim was, by employing a variety of state facilities or

‘investigative modalities’6 to create a vast body of comprehensive knowledge, or

the Imperial Archive, which did not exist physically but remained, metaphorically

a larger-than-life idea of a world unified by information.7 This would be a valuable

aid to the colonial state to control. There ensued a detailed ‘mapping’ ranging

from a cartographic survey to a recording of botanical, geological and

paleontological specimens to the collection of customs and local histories, to the

recording of architectural and archaeological sites, to the documentation of cen-

suses to creating houses of curiosities or jadughars. India’s past had to be made

subservient to the needs of the Raj and serve as a means of justifying the Imperial

presence.8

However, having said this, I cannot ignore that the Circle reports were also

products of individual efforts, of men drawn from varied fields by the colonial

state and forming a part of the project, who were getting passionately involved in

discovering and interpreting the past. Their intentions and ideas may not always

be reflected in these reports, which only form the indices of ‘official’ archaeological

inquiry in eastern India during this period. Also, prehistoric archaeology remains

largely non-represented in these reports with their focus on historical antiquities.

This branch of archaeology was integrally related to corresponding developments

in geology and ethnology in the second half of nineteenth century in Europe.9 In

Bengal it was initiated by Valentine Ball, a geologist by profession and employed

by the Geological Survey of India, as part of his geological surveys.10 Such individ-

ual initiatives, not falling strictly within the purview of the ‘official’, nevertheless

formed an important part of the colonial project, by expanding the scope of the

discipline.

5 Metcalf (1995: 90).6 See Cohn (1997: Introduction).7 See Richards (1993: 1–9). He is arguing that the formation of such an archive was very much a

product of Victorian England.8 Edney (1997); Guha-Thakurta (1997); also Singh (2004: 1).9 Renfrew and Bahn (2001); Trigger (1989).10 For a brief assessment of Ball’s work see Basak (1998). Between 1865 and 1878, Ball made dis-

coveries of ‘chipped stones’ in Burdwan, Bankura, and the neighbouring districts of Singhbhum and

Hazaribagh in Jharkhand, as well as in Orissa. Ball believed that different forms of implements were

indices of different races. Since the Jungle Mahals were inhabited by the ‘crude to almost savage

races’, discovery of stone implements in this region would throw important light on the correlations

between these races and the implements. In works like Ball’s archaeological discoveries were an aid

to understand the early origins of humanity. Such ideas need to be situated in the intellectual scenario

of Western Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century (Renfrew and Bahn 2001; Trigger

1989). Ball’s Jungle Life in India (1880), a travel account of the subcontinent, is another significant

piece of work. An exhaustive personal diary, it presents a rich kaleidoscope of the natural and ethnic

life of the colony.





The establishment of the Archaeological Survey of India under the director-

general-ship of General Cunningham in 1871 gave archaeology its first institu-

tionalized footing in the country. A recent work11 dwells very capably on the

development of archaeological research in India in the nineteenth century, focusing

on individuals like General Cunningham, the first director general of the Archaeo-

logical Survey, and a host of others like James Burgess, James Fergusson, J.D.M.

Beglar, A.C.L. Carlleyle and H.H. Cole, and their contributions in the backdrop

of formulation of an archaeological policy. After the retirement of Cunningham

and till John Marshall took over as director general, the Survey was in a state of

chaos. In 1895, a fresh scheme of reorganization was suggested by the government

of India, slightly modifying the scheme of 1885.12 On the basis of this scheme

five survey circles were created, of which the Eastern Circle was one (initially

known as the Bengal Circle), constituted of Bengal and Assam. Each Circle was

to be looked after by a surveyor whose main duty would be to complete the classi-

fied list of archaeological remains and to advise the local governments about their

preservation. Preservation was a thorny issue where the division of responsibilities

between the central and provincial governments was concerned. The post of

‘Curator of Ancient Monuments’ had been created in 1881 by the government of

India, and the curator was expected to advise local governments on matters of

conservation. Major Cole occupied this post between 1881 and 1884.13 But with

the abolition of the post the responsibility of conservation once again fell on the

local governments, who could approach the Archaeological Survey officers for

advice if the situation so demanded. A definite change was also coming about

in the colonial state’s policy towards past heritage, and this coincided with the

viceroyalty of Lord Curzon (1899–1905) and the director-general-ship of Sir John

Marshall. Apart from other things, he upheld the centrality of the local surveyors

in conservation measures when the director general’s office was only meant to

advise. This was supported by the newly-appointed director-general as well.14

11 Singh (2004).12 Marshall (1939: 8).13 See Singh (2004: 199–212) for a discussion of Cole’s tenure. According to Singh, although Cole’s

work had no substantial impact on actual conservation projects, conflicts and controversies having

been a part of his tenure. Nevertheless, Cole could highlight the amount of work that needed to be

done in this respect. Moreover, this happened to be the first attempt by the colonial state to initiate

conservation on a large scale.14 See Lahiri (1998). This paper highlights the first few years of John Marshall’s director-general-

ship and Curzon’s role in grooming the young man. The formation of an archaeological policy in the

beginning of the twentieth century cannot be understood without knowing the directives of Curzon

and the extent to which they shaped Marshall. The paper contains a very valuable discussion on the

viceroy’s conservationist agenda. Conservation, we shall see, became central to the activities of the

Eastern Circle. Curzon had advised Marshall never to hurt the sensibilities of the local government

in matters of conservation (ibid., p. 23). Also see Singh (2004: 349).





Curzon’s famous directives to Marshall were highly ambitious: ‘It is, in my judge-

ment, equally our duty to dig and discover, to classify, reproduce, and describe, to

copy and decipher, and to cherish and conserve.’15 Curzon was perhaps the most

vociferous of all his predecessors and contemporaries in looking upon the cus-

todianship of India’s past as part of their ‘imperial obligation to India’16 Marshall

realized that Curzon’s ambition may not be implemented in entirety due to shortage

of money and labour, and his early surveys reveal that conservation and restoration

of monuments became top priority.17 During his tenure as the director general, the

Ancient Monuments Preservation Act was passed in 1904. Marshall was pragmatic

enough to make special exception for places where ceremonial functions were

still performed. With these reservations, ‘the object which the government set be-

fore themselves is not to reproduce what has been defaced or destroyed, but to

save what is left from further injury or decay, and to preserve it as a national heir-

loom for posterity’ (emphasis added).18 Marshall’s words sum up the fundamentals

of the British policy—a ‘national heirloom’ of the country’s art and antiquities

had to be created, an archive had to be conceived that would encode all necessary

information.

Singh argues that conservation in the Marshall era was conducted on more

sound principles.19 I shall be showing through a discussion of the Circle reports

that a clear-cut policy of conservation was emerging in Bengal. Exploration of

places was more to check out what was worth conserving. The Circle reports

were essentially a documentation of all places considered to have been important

as indices of past heritage by the surveyors. The methodology of some of them,

like Bloch’s, recalled the wide scope of surveys pursued by Cunningham in the

previous decade with a greater degree of order and stability introduced by Marshall.

Marshall considered ‘detailed survey-work’ to be ‘an indispensable preliminary

to any systematic programme of conservation and research.’20 To him, Buddhist

sites well-known from the texts left behind by Chinese pilgrims held a special

aura, not for idol-digging, but for a more systematic study.21 This choice was also

governed by another important consideration, to lure the public to archaeological

remains by the sheer grandeur of these sites, and thus secure more funds.22 Ancient

cities fascinated him.23 In choosing sites for excavation, Marshall’s intentions

15 Marshall (1939: 13).16 Marshall 1939: 9. See also Lahiri (1998), p. 10.17 Lahiri (1998: 9).18 Marshall (1939: 27).19 Singh (2004: 349).20 Marshall (1939: 22).21 Lahiri (2000: 90).22 Marshall (1939: 24).23 Lahiri (2000: 93).





were maintained by the surveyors: Basarh was the supposed site of the ancient

city of Vaishali, believed to have been visited by the Chinese pilgrims;24 Rajgir

was an urban complex with intimate connections with Buddhism about which

Marshall was most enthusiastic;25 Nalanda was the site of a Buddhist monastery;

and modern Patna, believed to be the Mauryan capital of Pataliputra, was an urban

site which was considered by its excavator as a replica of the Persepolis.26 Marshall’s

excavations were essentially large-scale, careful uncovering of structures, pro-

viding details on stratigraphic sequence, his methodology particularly in Taxila27

was unique. Excavations undertaken by Circle officials lacked the scale and magni-

tude, and, naturally, the persona of the director general, but principally, they meant

digging up buried structures and recording antiquities or ‘minor finds.’ Dissem-

ination of information through publication and museum collections formed another

aspect of Marshall’s policy.28 However, local museums started featuring in the

Circle reports rather late from 1918–19.

The Eastern Circle: 1900 to 1920–21

The Eastern Circle, initially known as the Bengal Circle, was constituted of Bengal

and Assam. Central provinces and their feudatory states also came within its pur-

view. Bengal (undivided) at the outset included modern Bihar and Orissa, but with

the reorganization of provinces first reflected in the report of 1911–12,29 the latter

were administratively segregated from Bengal, though they still came within the

jurisdiction of the Circle. Activities of the Circle in Assam and the central provinces

have been left outside the scope of this discussion.

The headquarters of the Circle were initially at Calcutta. Between 1910 and

1920–21 they were shifted a number of times between Calcutta and Bankipore,

Patna.30 Initially, the office constituted of an archaeological surveyor who held

24 Bloch (1990).25 Lahiri (2000: 93).26 Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey, Eastern Circle (henceforth ARASEC), 1912–13,

pp. 55–61; ARASEC, 1913–14, pp. 45–74. These reports were published from Calcutta till 1917,

after which till 1920 they were published from Patna. The last report, that is, of 1920–21 was published

from Calcutta. I consulted these reports—the only surviving documentation of the activities of the

Eastern Circle—in the library of the Archaeological Survey of India, Calcutta Circle, Kolkata.27 Marshall (1975).28 Lahiri (2000: 96–98).29 ARASEC (1911–12).30 ARASEC (1909/10: 1). The headquarters were shifted to Bankipore, Patna (ARASEC 1913–

14:1); they were shifted back to Calcutta (ibid.: 1917–18); and transferred back to Bankipore (ibid.:

1920–21: 1). In accordance with a government order dated 31 December 1919 from the Department

of Education, Government of India, the Eastern Circle with headquarters at Calcutta was separated

from the old Eastern Circle (renamed Central Circle) at Patna from April 1920.





the organizational reins, assisted by a pandit whose principal duties were to under-

take preliminary inspection tours and copy ancient inscriptions.31 Later the surveyor

came to be known as the superintendent.32 Soon the gradually increasing workload

of the superintendent called for a division of responsibilities, and in 1911–12 the

entire responsibility of conservation work was given to Blakiston, an architectural

expert (subsequently becoming the assistant superintendent), while D.B. Spooner

as the superintendent devoted his attention to research.33 Soon after the survey

was expanded34 to include an assistant superintendent who became solely respon-

sible for conservation, while the charges of excavation, preparation of reports

and all the necessary routine work of the office rested with the superintendent.

Other than the former, the superintendent had his regular office staff of clerks,

photographers, draftsmen and peons.

The reports usually consisted of an introductory part, where the superintendent

made general remarks on conservation, exploration, epigraphy, photography, draw-

ings, departmental notes, tours (where the amount of time spent was mentioned

along with the object of the tour) and touring programmes, giving a detailed itin-

erary for the following year. The study of epigraphy was essential as the grants

were the only means to fix the chronology and delineate the genealogy and military

achievements of the donor and his ancestors,35 which would provide the colonized

with a history.

The appendices listed all the monuments visited and inspected, and the nature

of their repairs, with a break-up of the costs incurred in each case. The second

part consisted of detailed notes on places visited. The reports carried every small

detail of organization, from the grants and tenure of leave of the employees, their

transfers, to an account of all office expenses. Each tour programme was chalked

out and reported on a day-to-day basis. Often these journeys were found to be

useless when after covering great distances by bullock cart or walking through bad

roads and treacherous weather, one came across monuments not worth conserv-

ing.36 The scope of activities of the Circle is best explicated by Longhurst:37

Owing to the magnitude of this circle... it is as much as a Superintendent can

do to look after the numerous ancient monuments in his charge, to prepare rec-

ord drawings, plans, maps and photographs of the most important of these, to

submit detailed reports accompanied with working drawings for the use of the

31 Annual report of the Archaeological Survey, Bengal Circle (henceforth ARASBC), 1900-01, p. 1.32 Possibly this change was effective from 1905–06.33 Ibid. (1911–12).34 Ibid. (1911–13: 2).35 For an idea on the importance of the study of epigraphy during this period, see Dirks (1993).36 ARASEC (1906–07: 10).37 Ibid. (1909–10: 2).





Public Works Department, showing what repairs are required and how the work

should be carried out, to prepare a list of all the ancient monuments in his charge,

giving their history, locality, architectural description, present state of preserva-

tion, etc., to prepare estampages of inscriptions, to collect sculptures and other

objects of art for the museums and last but not the least, to travel hundreds of

miles by rail and road on inspection tours and to keep his office work both in

camp and at headquarters up to date.

In 1919, V. Natesa Aiyar, the officiating superintendent stated38 that the anti-

quarian maps of Bihar and Orissa had to be revised from time to time, thus showing

dexterity in the documentation process. A detailed list of expenses was kept, which

shows that the bulk went for conservation.

The Circle in its brief span of twenty years was entrusted in the hands of a few

able men: Theodore Bloch, A.H. Longhurst, D.B. Spooner, K.N. Dikshit and later,

for a very brief period, Natesha Aiyar. I shall discuss the activities of the Circle

chronologically, grouping them, tenure-wise, under the superintendentship of these

men. This is also to point out the contribution of these individuals and their assist-

ants, who, although working under certain central directives, need to be as-sessed

in their own right.

Theodore Bloch ARASBC 1900–01, 1901–02, 1902–03 1903–04;39

ARASEC 1905–06, 1908–09

Bloch’s reports of the first few years laid the foundation of activities to be con-

ducted under the aegis of the Circle. The foremost aim of the Circle was to revise

the ‘List of Ancient Monuments in Bengal’ prepared in 1895, for which an extensive

survey programme was to be undertaken to ascertain what was really worth con-

serving.40 Besides, it was important to know which places needed to be isolated

for a more detailed and systematic study. It was also essential to make them ‘better

known to the general public interested in them by means of facsimile reproductions

of good photographs and drawings accompanied by the necessary explanatory

text’.41 In the reports spanning 1900–01 to 1905–06, Bloch singled out certain

items of conservation, which later sustained the interest and attention of his suc-

cessors. In the first year he surveyed over 160 ancient buildings, copying about

fifty inscriptions.42 His knowledge of inscriptions spanned from Sanskrit to Persian,

bearing testimony to the vast expanse of his knowledge. I shall briefly touch upon

some of the places, highlighting Bloch’s methodology of survey.

38 ARASEC (1919–20: 3).39 Ibid. 1900–01: 1–3, i–vi,1901–02: 5–29, 1902–03: 4–24, 1903–04: 3–14, ARASEC 1905–06:

11–17. The report of 1904–05 unfortunately remains inaccessible.40 ARASBC (1900–01: 1).41 Ibid. (1901–02: 2).42 Ibid. (1900–01: 1–3).





In Champaran and Bhagalpur three Asokan pillars, an ancient Buddhist stupa

in the vicinity of Kesariya, the mound of Sagardih possibly containing the ruins

of a stupa, earthen barrows, and remains of some forts and temples formed the chief

items of his exploration. Detailed notes were provided on the state of each monu-

ment, their architecture, individual history of each incorporating local traditions

and inscriptions, and an attempt was made to ascribe their chronology wherever

possible. A special case was made for repairing the Rampurwa Asokan pillar.

Rock carvings of Jain, Buddhist and Brahmanical images at Sultangunj were de-

scribed, along with the rock-cut temples at Colgong and Patharghata. Bloch’s

awareness of local tradition is reflected when he showed how a hill near the Ganges

in Sultangunj became the place of worship for pilgrims who carried Ganges water

from there to Baidyanath. His awareness of local names is seen in his discussion

of the name of this hill. His knowledge of the religious pantheon of all the three

sects and their iconography is apparent from his description of the images here

and elsewhere. The Western idiom often crept into his descriptions. For instance,

he ascribed a Persepolitan influence to the architecture of the temples at Colgong

and Patharghata. Ancient texts were given preference to in studying ancient

remains. The exploration of the area around Nandangarh in Champaran district

was undertaken to unearth the remains of an ancient citadel mentioned in old

literature. Mythology and ancient legends featured in his reports as seen in the

descriptions of the Mandar hill, a hill held auspicious to the Hindus.43

The same methodology of an all-compassing survey is replicated in his descrip-

tions of other areas. In Gaya district he surveyed the city of Gaya along with

Budh Gaya and its adjacent places, the Barabar and Nagarjuni hills, some Hindu

temples and Muhammadan remains. In Budh Gaya he entered into a controversial

position with the local mahant when he visited the temple to re-erect the ancient

railing pillars and inspect two Buddhist images. Bloch did not find the mahant to

be favourably disposed towards the government for the fear of losing his proprietary

rights over the temple.44 Sites like these, as I shall show later, became arenas where

the colonial urge to preserve often came into direct friction with local sentiments.

In Patna district he surveyed the ancient remains identified by Waddell as those of

ancient Pataliputra,45 Rajgir and Giryek, the high mounds at Baragaon burying

the Nalanda monastery, the fort in Bihar, and the tombs in Maner. He noted Jain

images in Rajgir, pointing out the place as a potential one for further exploration.

Trial excavations were undertaken at Rajgir in 1905–06;46 Archaeological Survey

of India Annual Reports [henceforth]47 in the presence of John Marshall. A large

43 ARASBC (1901–02).44 ARASEC (1905–06: 13).45 Waddell (2000).46 ARASEC (1905–06: 13–15).47 ASIAR (1990: 86–106).





medley of secular buildings were uncovered, partially of bricks, the rest of stones.

Stone walls were traced and some bases of brick stupas were discovered. Bloch

surmised that this was possibly the site of a Buddhist sanctuary. The base of a

Buddhist image, to which Bloch assigned the date of first–second century A.D. was

found in the ‘old city’. The most important discovery was that of a brick temple

or the Maniyar Math on top of a mound. While taking trenches, Bloch discovered

an older circular brick structure below the temple, three well-preserved stucco

figures, a linga, an image of Ganesa and that of a female snake deity. For a proper

exposure of these structures he dismantled the temple, which again created a

controversial situation. The remains at Maniyar Math formed important items of

conservation in later years (see following). Bloch was aggrieved at being accused

of iconoclastic doings. He felt he was actually conferring a ‘benefit’ upon the

Hindu community for bringing to light one of their sacred edifices.48 He also re-

ferred to the practice prevailing among the local populace of acquiring some of

the Brahmanical and Buddhist images lying around in different parts of Gaya and

Patna, and worshipping them in modern temples. The ideal place for them, he

maintained, was the Indian Museum. This reflects the typical Imperial voice of

control, which also made a note of preventive measures enforced by local authorit-

ies to debar white men from entering their sacred premises.49 In such situations

other means were resorted to for continuing documentation, namely, employment

of Hindu assistants.

Excavations were carried out at Basarh, Muzaffurpur district, in 1903–04.50 Fol-

lowing Hieun Tsang’s account, the place was identified with ancient Vaisali. Excav-

ations were chiefly undertaken in a fort area known popularly known as Raja

Bisal ka Garh. Traces of ‘masonry buildings’ were discovered, the entire place

bearing evidence of plunder. Among the mass of broken pottery and bones Bloch

also recovered 700 clay seals, all being secular in nature. A date of fourth to fifth

century was assigned to these on the basis of two seals.

The district of Puri featured in Bloch’s reports from the very beginning. Pro-

posals for repairing the temples of Bhuvaneshvar, especially the Lingaraj temple,

the Black Pagoda or the Sun temple at Konarak, and the caves of Khandagiri

(possibly a ‘pleasure retreat’ for the king, and may have served for the retreat of

ascetics of some order as well) and Udayagiri featured as items of top priority, later

taken up by his successors (see section on Spooner). The temples at Bhuvaneshvar

and the caves at Khandagiri were almost fully restored by 1909.51 The Black Pagoda52

was assigned a chronology on the basis of inscriptions and some sculptures in

48 ARASEC (1905–06: 8, 14).49 Ibid. (1908–09: 1).50 ARASBC (1903–04 : 14–20); ASIAR (1903–04: 81–106).51 ARASEC (1908–09: 22–23).52 Ibid., pp. 18–22.





chlorite. The list of repairs needed for the Black Pagoda was exhaustive. Although

Bloch was generally in favour of removing prime antiquities to the Indian Museum,

he suggested in situ preservation when, for example, broken statuary at Konarak

had to be conserved, by erecting sculpture shed at the site. The Asokan inscription

at Dhauli needed to be protected. He expressed concern at the appropriation of

this site for local worship. The famous Navagraha stone of Konarak had also met

with a similar fate. Bloch commented that only after these monuments were re-

stored from a ruinous state by the government they had become objects of vener-

ation.53 Whitewashing of structures, like that of the Jagannath temple of Puri, met

with his disapproval, and he attributed such ‘modernization’ of structures to public

worship.54

The temple complex at Vishnupur,55 Bankura district, including such pieces of

grandeur like the Shamrai temple, and the temples of Madan Gopal, Madan Mohan,

Malleswar, Jor Bangla and Kalachand, among others, engaged Bloch’s attention.

He copied twelve inscriptions on these temples and described in detail the location

and style of each. What struck him as most significant about the Malla Rajas, the

builders of these temples, was that they used an era of their own, the Malla saka.

Several repairs connected with their architecture were suggested. In Malda dis-

trict the old vestiges of Nawabi rule in Gaur and Pandua, including the Dakhil

Darwaza, the golden mosque near Ferozepur, the minar of Firoz Shah, the Qadam

Rasul, the Lukka Chori gate, the Chika Masjid, the Tantipara Masjid containing

the finest specimens of brick moulding and the Adina Masjid in Pandua were

singled out in the very first report as ‘the best specimens of Muhammadan archi-

tecture in Bengal’, and it was considered to be a worthwhile task to make accur-

ate drawings of them and make them public (ibid. 1900–01: v, Appendix). In

Manbhum district he drew references to local history while writing on the Barakar

temples:56

Their presence in the ancient forest country of Jharkhand points to some sort

of civilisation...and to this also seems to be due to the prevalence of Jain remains

here. It is a well-known tradition that the country was taken away by the Hos

from the Srawaks, i.e., the Jains, and it is believed that the latter had come

down there to work the numerous copper ores.

The responsibility of the repair of the Baigunia temples was to be given to the

maharaja of Cossimbazar.57 Small notes of description were attached to the other

53 Ibid. (1905–06: 12–13).54 ARASBC (1900–01: iii, Appendix).55 Ibid. (1903–04: 6–8).56 ARASBC (1902–03).57 Ibid. (1903–04: 4).





Jain remains at Pakbirra, Palma, Churra, Arsa, Burram and Deoli, and the large

group of medieval temples at Telkupi was also taken up. Most of these were in a

state of neglect and needed to be preserved urgently. Interestingly, modern temples

were left out, as they were of very little archaeological interest. Pandit Babu P.C.

Mukherjee drew the surveyor’s attention to the brick temple at Jatar-deul and

Bharatgarh in the forests of Sundarbans, calling for immediate conservation; to

the Shyamchand temple at Nadia, the ancient remains at Ballal Dhipi, a potential

site for future excavation; and the site of Tamluk or ancient Tamralipta, an old

seaport of the ‘Hindu and Buddhist times’ amongst others.58

Among other places highlighted in Bloch’s reports and worthy of having been

included in the ‘List of Ancient Monuments’ were the Juma Masjid near Rajmahal;

the temple of Mundesvari, Sher Shah’s tomb in Sassaram and a few other tombs

at Sassaram, the tomb of Bakhtiyar Khan at Chainpur, and the forts of Rohtas and

Shergarh in Shahabad district; the temple at Bakreswar, Birbhum, where the local

sebaits were to provide for the cost of repairs; the tomb and mosque of Murshid

Kuli Khan at Katra, near Murshidabad; the site of Devikot (Bangarh); Kantoji’s

temple at Kantonagar providing the best specimens of modern brick architecture

displaying Muhammadan influence, district Dinajpur; the dargah of Khauja Ali

and the Sat Gumbaz mosque near Bagerhat in Khulna district; the site of Sonargaon,

the ancient capital of eastern Bengal in Dacca district; the tomb of Bahram Sakka,

the famous Muhammadan poet and saint, at Kalna, Burdwan district; the dargah

of Zafar Khan ghazi at Triveni (the oldest mosque in lower Bengal); the dargah

of Shah Sufi Sultan at Pandua in Hoogly; and two Dutch tombs in Balasore district.

Thus, Bloch’s methodology of understanding the past was not only through a

study of monuments—iconography, religion, oral traditions, local history, myths,

legends and inscriptions were integrated to unravel the mysteries of the past.

He considered the preparation of a ‘Corpus Inscriptionum’ for Bengal and wished

that some interest could be aroused in the officials for research in this field.59

The span of his knowledge was vast, covering all kinds of monuments—Hindu,

Buddhist, Jain, Muhammadan and European. However, as I have shown through

this brief survey, Bloch was selective in his choice of monuments that required

preservation. Monuments considered to be too modern and, hence, of no archaeo-

logical interest were excluded. Also, conservation meant the retaining and main-

taining of the old. Criticism was levelled at works, which did not retain the ancient

appearance of a monument, but subjected it to plastering and whitewashing in an

effort to conserve. Measures of conservation were chalked out in detail, eradication

of vegetation around structures was the most common form. Other special works

meant preserving parts of structures like the spire of a temple or a railing, or their

re-erection; construction of wire fencing to maintain a safe distance between the

58 Ibid. (1902–03: 24–26).59 Ibid., pp. v, 24.





public and the monument; erection of boundary pillars in order to avoid any dispute

regarding ownership; construction of glazed tiles as authentically as possible to

match and replace the old; and erection of sculpture sheds at or near sites to house

sculptures recovered from the surrounding area.60 The Circle was not the sole

authority concerned with conservation. The Public Works Department was pulled

into this sphere. Sometimes the upkeep of monuments that were of no special

archaeological interest—like the temple of Bhabanishwara in Buranagar,

Murshidabad district,61 the Siva temples at Bakresvar, the temples of Shibnibash,

Nadia district, built by Raja Krishna Chandra,62 or those that were family relics

and of no interest to the general public like the temples at Boinchee in Hoogly

district63—were considered to be best left with the owners or the sebaits. Inter-

estingly, sometimes monuments like the old mosque at Bagha,64 Rajshahi district,

were to be ignored and left in the care of their unwilling owners as they were only

of local interest. On the other hand some monuments like the dargah of Shah

Nafah, Monghyer district65 were to be conserved because they were of local interest.

Conservation also meant an arena of strife, as we have already seen, between the

colonial urge to preserve and the colonized’s claim to ownership.

The amount sanctioned for conservation works was the highest in 1903–04—

Rs 2,94,000, of which only Rs 60, 000 was spent in that year. The sum was reduced

to Rs 132,000 rupees in 1905–06, of which only Rs 31,000 was spent. Thus, there

was never any dearth of funds for conservation.

A.H. Longhurst66

Longhurst’s tenure was brief. In 1909–10 he acted as officiating superintendent

following the sudden demise of Bloch. In 1906–07 the amount sanctioned for con-

servation was Rs 141,000, of which only Rs 51,000 was spent, showing that the

sanctioned amount continued to be greater than the requirement. The chief items

of his exploration and the required conservation were the ruins of Berachampa

in the 24 Parganas district; some Hindu temples in Dinajpur; the great temple

in Puri; the Black Pagoda in Konarak; the temples in Bhubaneswar; the caves in

Udayagiri and Khandagiri; and the Asokan columns in Rampurwa, Champaran

district.67 At Berachampa his visit had been solicited by some inhabitants of the

60 These measures are elaborated on in one report, particularly. See ARASEC (1908–09,:18–20,

23–24, 27).61 ARASEC (1905–06: 4).62 Ibid. (1908–09: 16).63 Ibid., p. 15.64 Ibid., p. 9.65 ARASBC (1902–03: 3).66 ARASEC (1906–07, 1909–10).67 ARASEC (1906–07).





Basirhat subdivision, who feared that if the ‘palace’ or the ‘fort’ was not conserved

the Muhammadan population may build a masjid on the site. Interestingly, the

ruins, later famous in post-independent Bengal as Chandraketugarh, were considered

to be of no value. Longhurst’s note on the Black Pagoda was particularly detailed,

showing a continuity of interest in this monument among the officials. To trace

the chronology of the temple, he mentioned local traditions, the account left by

Abul Fazl and Fergusson’s architectural study. After excavating the statues and

carvings of the temple, Longhurst concluded that the temple was dedicated to

sun, which according to him represented Siva. On his examination of several of

the images found inside the temple, he added that they were Saivite, and, therefore,

the temple could not have been anything else. By connecting a local, annual festi-

val dedicated to sun and held on a fixed day of the year to the silting of the

Chandrabhaga river, flowing in the vicinity, he rather curiously tried to assign a

chronology to the monument (which he believed to be of ninth century).68 The

caves at Udayagiri and Khandagiri were, he believed, in a good state of preservation.

On the basis of some sculptures inscribed on walls of the older caves, he ascribed

naga worship to their makers. He wondered whether ‘swastika and shield emblems’

found in the caves could be considered as exclusively Buddhist symbols. Monu-

ments were not considered to be worthy of conservation if they were relatively

modern, ‘hopelessly ruined’ and formed ‘an uninteresting class of buildings’.69

His abhorrence at monuments badly repaired by private bodies and shock at this

deterioration of Hindu architecture almost betrays a personal concern for these

monuments. The same impatience is seen at the ‘contamination’ of the temple by

‘fakirs and beggars’ who left behind their dirty remains.70

Estampages of inscriptions, although not in the province of Bengal, formed the

other important activity. The superintendent preferred to send it to the government

epigraphist for decipherment rather than keeping the task to himself with the help

of a pundit.71

Perhaps not as well versed as Bloch, but nevertheless Longhurst’s reports show

an awareness of local history, traditions, and a certain knowledge of iconography,

art and architecture. The Western idiom often crept into his description of sculp-

tures. Conservation remained the central issue. He chalked out some criteria for

conservation, which were elaborated upon and added to by his successors. The

dissatisfaction with repairs by private bodies and irritation at the defilement of

these monuments, as we shall see, was a recurring theme in the reports.

68 Ibid., pp. 12–14.69 Ibid., p. 15.70 Ibid., p. 10.71 ARASEC (1909/10: 2).





D.B. Spooner, Superintendent; J.F. Blakiston and H. Pandey (1916–17),

Assistant Superintendents72

In 1910–11 the superintendent was still the sole government official of the Circle.

With a division of responsibilities from 1911–12 and the creation of the post of

assistant superintendent in 1912–13, the activities of the Circle were streamlined.73

A lessening of burden for the superintendent also meant that he could be given

additional charges. Accordingly, in 1913 Spooner assumed charge of the archaeo-

logical section of the Indian Museum as the deputy of the director general of

archaeology.74 Conservation received the top priority. Spooner attempted a revision

of the ‘List of Ancient Monuments’, which would enable the government to see at

a glance ‘the comparative worth of any building, whenever proposals for its repair

were received’.75 He intended to bring out initially the Tirhut Division volume of

revised list. If successful, the work would be extended to other divisions of the

province. The preparation of the volume by itself, he realized, was an insurmount-

able task. A team of photographers was appointed under his recommendations in

1913 for five years,76 who were to bring in photographs of monuments that would

help the superintendent judge which required personal inspection. But the actual

compilation of the volume could not be taken up until April 1919 when the assistant

superintendent was relieved of a large portion of his duties.77

The touring programme of the superintendent and later the assistant superin-

tendent contained district-wise listing of monuments, with further specifications

about their locality, name and the denoted number in the official list. Detailed

descriptions of their architecture and sculpture were given with recommendations

for repairs, continuing the tradition begun by Bloch. The items specified for con-

servation in these reports were those that had been earmarked by him. Work con-

tinued in these with an addition of a few more like the Susunia hill inscription,

Bankura district; the temples of Joydev-Kenduli, Birbhum district; the temple of

Ichai Ghose, Burdwan district;78 four temples in Brindaban Chandra Math at

Guptipara in Hooghly; and the temple in the vicinity of poet Chandidas’s mound

at Nannur.79 Spooner dwelt at length on the temple complex at Visnupur, making

detailed notes of architecture, with brief notes on the sculpture at the temples of

Malleswar, Shamrai, Jor Bangla, Kalachand, Madanmohan and others.80 In terms

72 ARASEC (1910–11 to 1916–17).73 Ibid (1908/09: 9).74 ARASEC (1913–14: 1).75 Ibid. (1911–12: 7–8).76 Ibid. (1913–14: 1). 77 Ibid. (1917–18).78 Ibid. (1914–15: 55–57).79 Ibid. (1916–17: 8, 33–34).80 Ibid. (1910–11: 26–32).





of classification of these temples, he suggested a revision of the one suggested by

Bloch. He was critical of the plaster coating at Malleswar temple, the oldest of

the structures. As this was privately owned, the owners were at liberty to renovate

as they wished.

The reports of Blakiston, assistant superintendent, particularly of 1912–13 and

1913–14, show an elaboration of the conservation policy begun by Bloch. Conser-

vation of a monument was guided by certain criteria, chief among which was the

nature of the monument. Buildings not more than 100 years old were considered

to be ‘modern’ and left untouched. This was true for the temple of Bagdevi, in

Bhandarbari, Rangpur district81 and several others. The monuments had to be of

an ‘architectural’ value to justify the expenditure of public funds. Thus, several

monuments were deleted from the list—the temple of Radhanath in Alipore, the

temples of the Great and Little Pataneswari in Patna district,82 the mosque in

Gangaramer Bazar, Lalbagh in Dacca, the Jagannath temple in Ranchi,83 etc. The

government was also advised not to concern itself with monuments beyond repair,

like the mosque in Bara Bazar, Natunhat, Burdwan district.84 Sometimes monu-

ments were chosen for conservation when they happened to be the only items of

antiquity in a district,85 like the dargah of Shah Ismail Gazi in Rangpur district. In

measures undertaken for conservation, Bloch’s policy was continued, ranging

from annual maintenance of structures and eradication of vegetation around them,

to special works of repair.

As before, Spooner and his men did not reserve all responsibilities for conser-

vation for themselves. The involvement of local bodies (like those in charge of a

mosque and temple) in conservation, especially for monuments considered to be

less important than others and in case of petty repairs, was encouraged to continue.86

Local ruling bodies and estates were involved in cases where the Circle could

rely on them. For instance, the nawab of Murshidabad shared the financial re-

sponsibilities with the government for the upkeep of the mosque and tomb of Murshid

Kuli Khan at Katra, which was considered to be a monument of ‘historic interest’.87

The maharaja of Cossimbazar was left with the charges of the Baigunia temples

at Barakar in Burdwan district.88 On the other hand, we have seen how certain

monuments were earmarked as items of prime importance, sometimes even solici-

ting inspection of the director general, as it happened in the case of Sher Shah’s

81 Ibid. (1912–13: 35).82 Ibid., pp. 36, 38.83 Ibid. (1913–14: 32, 38).84 Ibid. (1912–13: 28).85 Ibid., p. 35.86 Ibid., pp. 28, 37–38.87 Ibid., p. 34.88 Ibid. (1913–14: 31).





tomb in Sassaram.89 However, ownership of the past was a tricky question, and

colonial authority sometimes resorted to careful balancing of both sides for the

sake of protection of the monument/antiquities concerned. In 1912 Spooner was

instructed by the government to transfer (to the Indian Museum) three of the five

metal images found from Rungpur in Bengal, thus trying to pacify the local

populace who were keen to retain at least part of their heritage.90 In 1916 the

assistant superintendent, H. Panday, maintained a cautious stand vis-à-vis the

temples in Bhubanesvar, Orissa, especially the Lingaraj temples. These temples,

considered to be fine examples of art of the seventh to eleventh century A.D.,

needed to be protected immediately by the government. While the local pujaris

of the Lingaraj were too poor to maintain their places of worship, they were

unwilling to hand them over to the government for fear of loss of their religious

claims. Panday tried to secure the entry of non-Hindus (or the British) to the

temple premises by laying down certain rules—the latter would be debarred from

the sanctums. By this measure, local sentiments could be kept at bay while the

work of conservation could continue.91 However, in 1918 most of these temples,

which were still in private ownership, were struck off from the list of protected

monuments, as no agreement could be reached on them.92 Surveying officers

sometimes expressed their disapproval when they felt the government was

compromising its own power of reclaiming ancient monuments from misuse of

the public.93 Side by side with conserving the colony’s heritage, efforts were also

made to create the colonizer’s space in erection of memorial monuments. Thus, a

Buxar memorial was desired at the site of Buxar, in honour of the gallant British

soldiers who had died fighting.94

The reports also focused on treasure troves, which were documentations of coin

hoards, sculpture pieces and inscriptions, thereby building an archive of provincial

history. For instance, Spooner recommended the acquisition of a copperplate in-

scription from Belabo, Dacca district, which established the historicity of the line

of the provincial Varmma kings.

89 Ibid., p. 39.90 Ibid. (1912–13: 2).91 Ibid. (1916–17: 52–53).92 Ibid. (1918–19: 6).93 This is in reference to the Madan Gopal temple, Visnupur, where cooking had continued, un-

interrupted, for forty years in the temple premises. The local district magistrate, in order to stop this

practice in the main temple, had ordered the building of a cook-house, much to the angst of the assi-

stant superintendent, H. Panday, who felt this needed to be stopped totally (ibid. [1916/17: 51]).

Lord Curzon was the most vehement of all in reacting to religious practices that were considered to

be a menace for conservation and hence derided. ‘We were not going to hand them [the monuments]

back to the dirt and defilement of Asiatic religious practices’. This statement of Curzon has been

cited in Metcalf (1998).94 Ibid. (1913–14: 39).





Excavations

Spooner’s term as superintendent was significant from the point of view of ex-

cavation as well. Two historically important sites were chosen for excavation—

modern Patna, which was believed to be the Mauryan capital of Pataliputra, and

Nalanda, the site of the Buddhist monastery. Excavation was resumed at Basarh95

as Spooner wished to expose older levels of occupation by deeper digging, which

he felt had not been undertaken by Bloch. An extensive collection of pottery was

recorded along with clay figurines, wheels of clay carts, terracotta plaques and,

most importantly, according to the excavator, clay seals. The report carries detailed

descriptions of these seals, believed to throw light on the political, religious and

artistic aspects of the history of ancient India.

The excavation of Pataliputra96 was made possible by financial endowments

from Ratan Tata who wished to explore the promising buried sites of India.97 This

provides the first instance of collaboration between the government and a private

body in archaeological activities of the Circle. Pataliputra was chosen for its alleged

Persian connection—it gave Tata his Persian roots, while it gave the Circle, and

hence the Archaeological Survey, the opportunity to continue with the quest for

‘monumental’ remains of the Indian past. Looking for a Persian connection was,

however, not Tata’s prerogative only; to the British Oriental art meant Egyptian

and Persian art. This needs to be situated once again in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-

century developments in art and architecture in Europe.98 With Curzon’s plan of

Persepolitan monuments in hand, Spooner set about to discover close parallels

between Mauryan architecture and that of Persepolis, the ancient Achaemenian

seat in south-west Persia. Following Waddell’s99 footsteps excavations100 were

concentrated chiefly in Kumrahar and Bulundibagh. Spooner believed that he could

find similarity between the ground plan of the Mauryan pillared hall and the Hall

of a Hundred Columns at Persepolis, which was supposed to have been the throne

room of Darius. He claimed that this was one of the oldest structures in India, and

its recovery would add to the knowledge of ancient Indian architecture. Strangely,

at times Spooner did not seem so confident. ‘These resemblances may after all

prove purely accidental.... [I]t would be unpardonably rash to claim that we have

really proved as yet that any Mauryan replica exists...further excavation is

95 Ibid. (1911–12: 43–52).96 I have discussed Spooner’s methodology in another paper entitled ‘Pataliputra: The Changing

Perceptions of a Site’ (Basak, forthcoming).97 Ibid. (1912–13: 55–56).98 Mitter (1977: 140).99 Waddell (2000).

100 ARASEC (1912–13: 55–61; 1913–14: 45–74; 1914–15: 45–55; 1915–16: 29–34).





imperative before we know for certain’.101 This is the only instance of self-doubt

expressed by the excavator; otherwise the entire report is full of laudable claims

about the supposed linkages.

The existence of these structures is surmised from such fragmented and scanty

evidence as wooden platforms, polished stones, etc. The presence of a building

similar to the house of Xerxes at Persepolis, a terrace and a flight of steps are the

other associated structures that are surmised from remains at the site. Spooner

even went as far as conjecturing about a series of artificial hills that the Mauryan

monarch might have built in imitation of the natural hills bounding the site at

Persepolis. The existence of an exact counterpart of one of the most famous sculp-

tures at Persepolis was likewise surmised from the remains at the site. Uncovering

of the structures makes up bulk of the reports. Other finds like terracotta fragments,

seals, sealings, coins and pottery are only briefly mentioned. Apart from Persian,

Egyptian elements were also read in the style and design of antiquities. Spooner

conjectured about a fire that finally destroyed the palace, arriving at such conclu-

sions without any scientific investigation.

At Nalanda excavation began in 1915–16,102 funded jointly by the Royal Asiatic

Society of Great Britain and Ireland, and the maharajah of Hathwa. Digging was

concentrated not only at the monastic site, but also at the Vihara site opposite

to this monastery. A temple plinth was uncovered too. Apart from architecture,

which was given insurmountable importance, detailed accounts of sculpture and

other minor finds also made their way in the reports. In the description of art ob-

jects parallels were drawn with their Egyptian counterparts; a South-East Asian

influence was also seen in a few cases (‘Very fancy birds much like the Phoenix

or Ho-o in the art of China and Japan’). With this excavation India would regain

‘an ancient monument of real importance’.103

The Imperial grant-in-aid was not a regular affair. In the years 1912–13 and

1913–14 no grant was forthcoming, possibly due to the outbreak of war. In these

cases the money was sanctioned by the provincial government, and the amount

spent was much less than before, varying between Rs 15,000 and Rs 20,000.

In summary, conservation under Spooner continued in the lines begun by Bloch.

While the latter’s reports provide an all-encompassing integrated study of the

past, Spooner’s observations were more confined to structures and monuments,

elaborating on their architectural details. It was James Fergusson who was perhaps

responsible for initiating an interest in architectural studies as a means to understand

ancient Indian history.104

101 Ibid. (1913–14: 74).102 Ibid. (1915–16: 34–38, 1916–17: 40–47).103 Ibid. (1915–16: 38).104 See Guha-Thakurta (1997) for an enlightening discussion on this.





K.N. Dikshit and V. Natesa Aiyar (for a Brief Period in 1920–21),

Superintendents; H.N. Panday and Hirananda Sastri,105

Assistant Superintendents106

Dikshit took up charges of the Circle in July 1917 in the absence of Spooner.

Conservation continued, a few more items of importance being added to the list,

like the brick temple of Bahulara in Visnupur107 and the Husaini Dalan in Dacca.108

The Dalmadal gun was mounted at Vishnupur at the instance of the governor of

Bengal.109 Progress was made in the field of epigraphy by the preparation of

impressions of important inscriptions in Bihar and Orissa.110 Excavations and

conservation of excavated structures continued at Nalanda.111 Lesser stupas, a

building of possible monastic nature along with verandas, cells and flight of steps,

were some of the new structures that were opened up. New finds included inscribed

seals, plaques, coins, pottery fragments, statuettes of Mahayana iconography, as

well as a stone lingam of Siva and an image of Ganesa. Accounts of iconography

carried, as before, the influence of a Western idiom.112 Excavation was also resumed

at Bulundibagh.113 Trial excavations were conducted at Belwa, Saran district, the

entire cost being borne by Maharaja Bahadur of Hathwa. Ruins of a large temple

with smaller shrines attached to it were unearthed. These were dated to the late

medieval period on the basis of sculptures and other datable antiquities.114 Dikshit’s

report of 1920–21 contains descriptive notes115 on some of the important sites of

ancient and medieval Bengal, which were going to engage the attention of scholars

in the next few decades. These were Mahasthangarh; mounds at Gokul, Bogra

district; Kotalipara, Faridpur district, and the place of discovery of the Faridpur

copper plates, an important source for Gupta history in Bengal; Paharpur, Rajshahi

district; Isvaripur, Khulna district, the old capital of Raja Pratapaditya, who was

a contemporary of Akbar and Jehangir; and Rangamati, which was identified with

Karna Suvarna, on the basis of textual evidence of Hiuen Tsang’s account. Excav-

ations were recommended solely for exploring this identification. In his study of

ancient sites Dikshit followed the earlier tradition of using local history and legends

for reconstruction.

105 1919–20.106 ARASEC (1917–18 to 1920–21).107 Ibid. (1917–18: 10).108 Ibid. (1918–19: 5).109 Ibid. (1919–20: 3).110 Ibid. (1918–19).111 Ibid. (1917–18: 4–5, 39–43, 1918–19: 4–5, 1919–20: 34–39).112 Ibid. (1919–20: 38).113 Ibid. (1918–19, 1919–20).114 Ibid. (1918–19: 25–27).115 Ibid. (1920–21: 25–35).





A new section on museums was introduced from 1918–19,116 with short notes

on the museum of the Varendra Research Society at Rajshahi and their exploration

and excavation activities, the Dacca museum and the Patna museum.

The grant-in-aid during these years varied between approximately Rs 12,500

to about Rs 19,000, showing a decrease in the expenditure of the Imperial govern-

ment towards archaeological work.

Organizationally, it was in 1920–21 that the old Eastern Circle with its head-

quarters at Patna was separated from the Eastern Circle at Calcutta. The reasons

for this separation are not specified anywhere, but it may be surmised that this

was done for more in-depth work. In the very same year it was declared that the

archaeology department would list and preserve only those monuments that were

declared as protected under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act. Therefore,

the Act came to be regarded as sacrosanct in these matters. Significantly, archaeo-

logy became an Imperial charge in the same year. Henceforth funds were given

by the government of India, and provincial governments no longer held sway.

While on one hand this signalled the establishment of archaeology as a central

subject, on the other it meant curbing of powers of the provinces and perhaps a

loss of autonomy. Separate publication of reports from the provincial circles came

to a halt.

Therefore, what clearly emerges from a discussion of the activities of the Eastern

Circle is the thoroughness of the documentation project, with special emphasis

on conservation, that formed the cornerstone of the Imperial policy towards

archaeological objects. Within the framework of the colonial project interesting

insights are offered by the methodology pursued by each surveyor, sometimes

differing in their approach, but overall reflecting an intense passion in studying

the past.

The Archaeological Survey of India Annual Reports, 1922–23

to 1936–37: Any Deviation from the Colonial Project?

After dissolution of the separate status of the Eastern Circle and emergence of

archaeology as a central subject, Bengal featured in a limited way, along with

other provinces, in these reports. Scholars associated with archaeological activ-

ities during this period and the writing of these reports, including Raibahadur

K.N. Dikshit, N.G. Majumdar and T.N. Ramchandran. Exploration of old as well

as a few new sites was undertaken.117 An obsession with the ‘monumental’

remained, as exemplified by their enthusiasm for structural sites like Paharpur,118

116 Ibid. (1918–19).117 ASIAR (1922–23: 107–15, 1923–24: 74–80, 1924–25: 90–94).118 Ibid. (1925–26: 41, 1926–27: 140–49, 1927–28: 101–11, 1928–29: 38–39, 97–98, 1929–30:

43–44, 1930–31, 1931–32, 1932–33, 1933–34: 113–128). Paharpur was first noticed by Buchanan

Hamilton in the early nineteenth century. Much later Cunningham visited the site and made his





Mahasthangarh,119 Rangamati,120 and Gokul.121 The reports consist of structural

details of mounds, walls and fortifications of these sites, with ground plans and

in-depth studies of Buddhist and Hindu iconography as represented in the vari-

ous sculptural pieces and notes on coin hoards, inscriptions and sculpture frag-

ments as and when discovered. Parallels were now drawn with South-East Asian

art, as ancient Bengal was believed to have had cultural links with that region.

Although antiquities like coins, seals, beads, terracotta plaques and pottery were

documented in the excavation reports, these received less attention. Conservation

still got paramount importance, to which the lion’s share of funds was devoted.

Apart from the sites excavated, other sites that formed the chief items of con-

servation were the Ichhai Ghosh temple at Gangarampur, Burdwan, the Adina

mosque at Pandua, and the Vishnupur temples. The exploration programme threw

light on sites revealing the ancient and medieval past of Bengal—Gosanimari,

the brick temple at Bahulara, Tamluk, etc. Tamluk was chosen as a site of historical

importance for excavation in 1940 and 1954–55.122 The only instance in which

the Survey went beyond its preoccupation with the historical past of Bengal was

the excavation of Birbhanpur, a microlithic site123 that till date remains the only

prehistoric site to be excavated in Bengal.

No striking contrast is apparent between the methodology adopted by these

scholars and their British predecessors from these reports. The same focus on

conservation remained along with concentration on structural sites. Art, architec-

ture and iconography still received the paramount importance as compared to

pottery, which constitutes an essential element of material culture of any site for

throwing light on habitation patterns. Reconstructing Bengal’s ancient and medi-

eval past was an important priority, but as such no ‘nationalist’ or ‘regionalist’

agenda can be read into these works. It would be interesting to see the writings of

observations. It came into the hands of the archaeological department after being declared as a protected

monument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act in 1919. The first preliminary attempt at

the excavation of this site was made in early 1923, at the initiative of Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy of

Dighapatiya, founder and president of the Barendra Research Society in Rajshahi, who offered to

cooperate with the Archaeological Survey department and gave a grant for the work at Paharpur. In

1922–23, under the direction of D.R. Bhandarkar, professor of ancient Indian history and culture,

University of Calcutta, excavation was carried out for a month at the south-western corner of the

monastery enclosure. The work was next resumed by R.D. Banerjee. K.N. Dikshit took over from

1926–27. See Dikshit (1938) for an elaboration on this.119 Ibid. (1928–29: 97, 1929–30: 142, 1930–31, 1932–33: 128–29, 1936–37: 51–54). Westmacott

and Beveridge made initial observations on the site in 1878, followed by Cunningham a few years

later (Goswami 1993–94: 4–5).120 Ibid. (1928–29: 99–100).121 Ibid. (1935–36: 67–69).122 See Goswami (1993–94) and Chakrabarti (1988) for an account of the activities of the Survey.123 Lal (1958).





these scholars outside the confines of these official reports, which, however, remain

beyond the scope of this article.

The Beginnings of an ‘Academic’ Archaeology in Bengal:

The Role of Calcutta University

In his convocation address in 1911, the vice-chancellor, Asutosh Mookerjee, re-

gretted the absence of any systematic study of ‘our ancient history and culture’:124

‘I take the term History,’ he stated, ‘in its widest sense as inclusive not only of

political history and history of external relations, but also history of culture, of

literature, of philosophy, of arts, and of the sciences. That Indian history in this

sense has a special claim on Indian learned institutions will hardly be contested.’

Thus, the University became a parallel arena for giving people a sense of their

past. Sir Asutosh was also the first person to realize the importance of anthropolog-

ical studies in a country like India with its diversity of race, language and religion.

Therefore, the department of anthropology was instituted in 1920.125 Prehistoric

archaeology as a branch of study developed within its auspices as part of an in-

quiry into the ‘unrecorded’ chapter of human evolution and in the study of race,

which had engaged scholars ever since the time of the enlightenment movement.

This is important to understand the emergence of the discipline outside the confines

of art, aesthetics and history. This department became the first in the country to

undertake prehistoric explorations as well as the excavation of a pre-historic site

under two scholars of the department, D. Sen and N.K. Bose.

However, archaeology was yet to be regarded as a discipline in its own right.

During the tenure of Sir Asutosh Calcutta University established the Chair of

Carmichael Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture, and the subject was

introduced in the curriculum of postgraduate studies. In 1917 archaeology and

numismatics were considered as special subjects, which could be taught by persons

who did not necessarily have to be engaged in educational endeavours. In 1919

an M.A. degree was instituted in this subject. In 1932 a separate department of

ancient Indian history was formed. Indian epigraphy, numismatics, fine arts and

iconography constituted segments of the syllabus.126 Another segment constituted

of the historical geography of ancient India, which may be seen as a continuity of

the tradition of studying the past with the aid of classical texts. South-East Asia

and India’s contact with the latter in the ancient times was a theme that was

highlighted to a great extent at this time.

124 Ray and Gupta (1961: 171).125 Ibid., pp. 191–93.126 Ibid., p. 172.





The department of archaeology was established in 1960. A perusal of the con-

tents of its syllabus, which has remained unchanged till date, shows that despite

the formation of a separate department, the discipline still remained a source for

studying ancient Indian history. Thus, palaeography, epigraphy, art and architec-

ture, numismatics, iconography and historical geography, which form a portion

of the syllabus of ancient history, found a place here. One of the founders of the

department, Professor Niharanjan Ray, who was also instrumental in forming the

syllabus, later regretted that to scholars of ancient Indian history, numismatists

and epigraphists, archaeology has been a source for their ‘source materials’, their

dependence being more on the discipline of philology and linguistics. Archaeology

was regarded ‘more as an illustrative commentary on the texts’ and ‘therefore,

identical with or subordinate to art or philology’:127

We are yet to admit that an art-historian or an epigraphist or a numismatist is

not necessarily an archaeologist in the modern sense of the term, though an

archaeologist may specialize, if he chooses, in art or epigraphy or numismatics,

to enable him interpret his finds more competently than otherwise.

This aptly defines the status of the discipline, particularly in the period I am

dealing with. The notions of archaeology as a modern discipline were, thus, slow

in gaining ground in Bengal. Yet an enthusiasm for field activities was not miss-

ing among scholars and enthusiasts as seen in the next few years. Scholars like

R.D. Banerjee, N.K. Bhattashali, N.G. Majumdar and K.G. Goswami, who taught

in the ancient history department for some time, also made pioneering contributions

in the spread of this discipline. Stapleton and S.K. Saraswati undertook field investi-

gations in the districts of Malda and Dinajpur to study the Muslim monuments

and Hindu remains found in these districts.128 Saraswati’s work brought to light

numerous sculptural relics of the early medieval period. This was necessary for

an understanding of the stylistic representations of art in that period. However, no

understanding of what constituted an archaeological site could be derived from

his works.129 Yet the importance of his work cannot be ignored as this provides us

with a useful index of the intellectual backdrop to the development of archaeology

in Bengal.

Perhaps the most significant event in the development of this discipline was

the establishment (under the auspices of the university) of the Asutosh Museum

of Indian Art in 1937.130 This is an example of how museum-building activities

were entwined with the growth of archaeology. The museum’s primary objective

was to collect and preserve objects belonging to different phases of India art, with

127 Ray (1962–63: 222–23).128 Goswami (1993–94).129 Panja (1995/96).130 Ray and Gupta (1961: 219–23).





special emphasis on Bengal. A perusal of the history of the museum illustrates

how the collection of a museum can develop largely with the help of private

donations, with very limited financial assistance from the government. In this

collection archaeological artefacts like stone axes found from different parts of

Bankura, Bangarh and Tamluk were seen as representations of the cultural history

of Bengal. This is an interesting evidence of how archaeology was used to ap-

preciate the cultural history of a region.

Under the auspices of the museum, Calcutta University became the first uni-

versity in the country to undertake excavations at Bangarh in 1938.131 In his fore-

ward to this report, K.N. Dikshit, the then director general of archaeology, men-

tioned Sir Asutosh’s initiative in this endeavour. Archaeological excavations,

according to the vice-chancellor, were to form an integral part of the university

programme of all-round learning in general, and of the postgraduate programme

of teaching ancient Indian history in particular. The excavations continued till

1941 under K.G. Goswami, who was the excavation officer of the Museum. Bangarh

was a landmark also because this excavation followed the amendment of the

Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1932, which threw open the work of

archaeological excavations to non-government bodies. Interestingly, the excavator

mentions the aim of undertaking this excavation as being to give field training to

students and teachers, and to replenish the Museum with ancient relics.

Bangarh revealed an occupation from the third century B.C. to the medieval period.

Following Bangarh, excavations were undertaken in Nanoor,132 Birbhum in 1945,

and in Tilda, Midnapur, in 1955. Excavations were started in Chandraketugarh,

Berachampa, in 24 Parganas, which continued for the next eleven seasons. Intensive

explorations brought to light many early historic sites in the Bhagirathi delta like

Harinarayanpur, Boral and Atghara in 24 Parganas, and Tamluk and Panna in

Medinipur.133

Thus, the Museum played a very significant role in laying the ground for arch-

aeological activities of the future. Besides, a museum training course was revived

in 1956. It was also involved in educational activities, such as: providing lectures

to students, scholars and interested persons; holding temporary exhibitions of

different aspects of Indian art housed in the museum; representing the past through

charts, models, photographs, introductory notes and pamphlets; publishing mono-

graphs, catalogues and post cards; and constituting a seminar library with a refer-

ence and photography section.134

131 Goswami (1948).132 Ibid. (1950).133 (Indian Archaeological Review 1954–55: 19–20; 1955–56: 23; 1956–57: 30–31, 81; 1957–58:

51–53; 1958–59: 55–56; 1959–60: 50–52; 1960–61: 39–40). In lieu of exclusive reports, these are

the only documentations of these small-scale excavations.134 Roychoudhury (1967: 87–88).





Archaeology in the ‘Official’ and ‘Academic’ Sphere: Any Distinction?

Sir Asutosh’s convocation address, particularly his stress on ‘our history’, may be

interpreted in nationalistic terms, giving foremost role to the university in promot-

ing this knowledge. Opening up the study of past to organizations outside the

Archaeological Survey, like the university, was something that was strongly recom-

mended by Wheeler, and taken up by his successors like A. Ghosh and K.N. Dikshit.

The latter encouraged Calcutta University to take up the excavation of Bangarh.

Building up a cultural history of Bengal, as Asutosh Museum was intent on doing,

may be situated in the context of the development of regional histories in post-

independent India.135 Elements of the ‘national’ and ‘regional’, which were slowly

entering into the practice of the discipline in the academic arena, implied a different

agenda from that of a state-sponsored ‘official’ archaeology pursued by the Eastern

Circle, engaged in a totalizing mission of documenting the past and conservation.

On the other hand, the division between the official and the academic may not

have been so complete. R.D Banerjee was at one time an official employed with

the Survey, a teacher in the university as well as a man who was engaged in creat-

ing a popular imagination around an archaeological monument in vernacular.136

These bring out the several complexities that remain in the evolution of a discipline,

but are left unattended in an overall historical framework.

Archaeology within the university framework survived more as a handmaid of

ancient Indian history. In practice, scholars like K.G. Goswami gave more import-

ance to stratigraphic sequence of cultures than observed in the Eastern Circle re-

ports or those of the Archaeological Survey, possibly for its utility in constructing

a regional history. The sites chosen did not contain colossal remains of the past as

observed in Pataliputra or Rajgir. The nature of sites in the Gangetic plain of

Bengal was quite different, where structures may not always be preserved due to

riverine activities. The tradition of noting structural details wherever they existed,

or describing sculpture pieces as important indices of art and iconography, and

seals and coins for their value in throwing light on the particular historical period,

continued. But other important constituents of material culture like pottery were

receiving greater consideration than before. Local traditions and textual sources

remained useful tools in studying archaeological sites. The reports of the excavation

and exploration activities (excepting the Bangarh and Nanoor excavations) of

Asutosh Museum survive in fragmentary form, a sharp contrast to the archive-

building enterprise of the Eastern Circle. Thus, there were some departures in the

study of the past within the university infrastructures, but some elements of con-

tinuity remained between the two spheres.

135 Panja (2002).136 Guha-Thakurta (1998).





Aftermath

After independence, when the Constitution came into existence in 1950, the issue

of division of responsibilities between the state and the centre came up again. The

focus now shifted to the ‘national’—a ‘national’ as conceived by the government of

the nascent state. The Union retained the right over ‘ancient and historical monu-

ments... and archaeological sites and remains’, which were considered to be of

‘national importance’,137 while the states dealt with those ancient and historical

monuments that fell outside the purview of the former. Besides these, both the

Union and the states had concurrent jurisdiction over archaeological sites and

remains that were not declared by the law to be of national importance. In these

circumstances a need was felt for a state-level organization, and accordingly the

State Directorate of Archaeology was constituted in 1958.

Concluding Remarks

The emergence of archaeology in Bengal may be situated in its three institutional

locations, the Eastern Circle, and later the directorate constituting the official

sphere and the university forming the academic. The development of archaeology

was not only confined to these two spheres. A vast body of local, vernacular ini-

tiatives, constituting the third, have been left outside the confines of this article.

Also, in tracing this history I have concentrated chiefly on official reports. Personal

correspondence of these scholars and officials may be looked into for offering

more insights into the development of the discipline.

References

Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey, Bengal Circle (ARASBC) (1900–01, 1901–02, 1902–03,

1903–04), Calcutta.

Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey, Eastern Circle (ARASEC) (1905–06, 1906–07,

1908–09, 1909–10, 1910–11, 1911–12, 1912–13, 1913–14, 1914–15, 1915–16, 1916–17,

1920–21), Calcutta.

Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey Eastern Circle (ARASEC) (1917–18, 1918–19), Patna.

Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey, Eastern (now Central) Circle (ARASEC) (1919–20),

Patna.

Archaeological Survey of India Annual Reports (ASIAR) (1903–04, 1905–06, 1922–23, 1923–24,

1924–25, 1925–26, 1926–27, 1927–28, 1928–29, 1929–30, 1930–31, 1931–32, 1932–33,

1933–34, 1935–36, 1936–37, 1990 [reprint]), New Delhi.

Ball, V. (1880), Jungle Life in India, London.

Basak, Bishnupriya (1995–96), ‘Microlithic Sites in the Kharsoti and Subarnarekha Valleys: Some

Observations and Comments’, Pratnasamiksha, Vol. 4&5: pp. 1–19.

——— (forthcoming), ‘Pataliputra: The Changing Perceptions of a Site’, in G. Sengupta and

S. Chakrabarti, eds, Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia, Kolkata.

137 Ghosh (1953: 46).





Beglar, J.D. (1994), Archaeological Survey of India Report of A Tour Through the Bengal Provinces

in 1872–73. Vol. VIII, Delhi.

Bloch, T. (1990), ‘Excavations At Basarh’, Archaeological Survey of India Annual Reports 1903–4,

New Delhi, pp. 81–106.

Chakrabarti, D.K. (1988), A History of Indian Archaeology, New Delhi.

Cohn, Bernard S. (1997), Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge, New Delhi.

Dirks, N.B. (1993), ‘Colonial Histories and Native Informants: Biography of an Archive’, in C.A.

Breckenridge and P. van der Veer, eds, Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives

on South Asia, Philadelphia, pp. 279–313.

Dikshit, K.N. (1991, reprint) Excavations at Paharpur, Bengal: Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey

of India No. 55, 1938, Delhi.

Edney, Matthew E. (1997), Mapping an Empire, New Delhi.

Ghosh, A. (1953), ‘Fifty Years of the Archaeological Survey of India’, Ancient India, No. IX,

pp. 29–52.

Goswami, K.G. (1948), Excavations at Bangarh, Calcutta.

——— (1950), ‘Excavations at Chandidas Mound, Nanoor, District Birbhum’, Calcutta Review,

March, pp. 222–34.

Goswami, Niranjan (1993–94), ‘Archaeological Activities in Bengal till 1967’, Pratnasamiksha,

Vol. 2&3, pp. 3–4.

Guha-Thakurta, Tapati (1997), ‘The Museumised Relic: Archaeology and the First Museum of Colonial

India’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol. 34:1, pp. 23–51.

——— (1998), ‘Tales of the Bharut Stupa: Archaeology in the Colonial and Nationalist Imaginations’,

in G.H.R. Tillotson, ed., Paradigms of Indian Architecture: Space and Time in Representation

and Design, Surrey, pp. 26–58.

Indian Archaeological Review (IAR) (1954–55, 1955–56, 1956–57, 1957–58, 1958–59, 1959–60,

1960–61), New Delhi.

Lahiri, Nayanjot (1998), ‘Coming to Grips with the Indian Past: John Marshall’s Early Years as

Lord Curzon’s Director-General of Archaeology in India—Part I’, South Asian Studies, Vol. 14:

pp. 1–23.

——— (2000), ‘Coming to Grips with India’s Past and Her “Living Present”: John Marshall’s Early

Years (1902–06)—Part II’, South Asian Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 89–107.

Lal, B.B. (1958), ‘Birbhanpur: A Microlithic site in the Damodar Valley, West Bengal’, Ancient

India, No.14: pp. 4–48.

Marshall, J.H. (1939), ‘The Story of the Archaeological Department in India’, in J. Cumming, ed.,

Revealing India’s Past, London, pp. 1–33.

——— (1975), Taxila, Vol.I: Structural Remains, Delhi.

Metcalf, T.R. (1995), Ideologies of the Raj, New Delhi.

——— (1998), ‘Past and Present: Towards an Aesthetics of Colonialism’, in G.H.R. Tillotson, ed.,

Paradigms of Indian Architecture, Surrey, p. 18.

Mitter, P. (1977), Much Maligned Monsters, Oxford.

Panja, Sheena (1995–96) ‘The Archaeology of “Early Medieval” Settlements in North Bengal: A

Preliminary Study, Pratnasamiksha, Vol. 4&5: pp. 106–50.

——— 2002, ‘The “Third Space”: The Creation of Archaeological Knowledge in Post-Independence

India’, Studies in History, Vol. 18:1, pp. 1–22.

Ray, Niharanjan (1962–63), ‘Archaeology in India Today’, Ancient India, Nos. 18&19: pp. 222–29.

Ray, N and P.C. Gupta (1961), Supplement to Hundred Years of The University of Calcutta, Calcutta.

Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn (2001), Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, London.

Richards, T. (1993), The Imperial Archive: Knowledge and the Fantasy of Empire, London, pp. 1–9.





Roychoudhury, C.R. (1967), ‘Educational Activities of Asutosh Museum’, Bulletin of the West Bengal

Headmaster’s Association, Kolkata, pp. 87–89.

Singh, U. (2004), The Discovery of Ancient India: Early Archaeologists and the Beginnings of Archaeo-

logy, New Delhi.

Trigger, B.G. (1989), A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge.

Waddell, L, A. (2000), Report on the Excavation at Pataliputra (Patna): The Palibothra of the Greeks,

New Delhi.



Documents

In Pursuit of the Past