Sr38 | cuxnENr ANTHRoPoLocY

Explicit archaeological concem with identity has sur-

Ayodhya, Archaeology, and faced again with renewed vigor in the West in the past
Tl
Ioentlty' decade,largely through the efforts of post-processualar-
chaeologists.2Post-processualistshave castigatedthe ar-
REINHARD BERNBECK AND SUSAN POLLOCK
chaeological profession for its hegemonic attitude and
Semin ar f fi r Vor d erasi a ti sch e AIt ertum skun de, Fr ei e dismissal of non-Western, "nonscientific" interpreta-
[Jniversitiit Ber]in, Bitterstr. 8-rz r4195 Berlin, tions of the past. They argue that the past is a positive
Germany / Depaftment of Anthropology, State source of identity for subordinate groups, be they based
[Jniversity of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, on ethnic, gender, or political criteria. Proponents of
post-processual archaeology have advocated "returning
N . Y . r j 9 o z - 6 o o o , U . S . A .2 5 I v 9 5
the past to the people" (Hodder r984| and the support of
The past is not dead nor its meaning singular and indigenous archaeologies(Hodder r986: r57-59; Shanks
decided. It is always precariously perched on the and Tilley ry87btg6-991.
present. While much has been made-and rightly so, in our
ARIUN SINGH/ r 994 view-of the unacceptability of an exclusively Western-
dominated discourse on archaeology and the past and its
The relevance of the past to the present is evident in typically dismissive attitude toward alternative inter-
many facets of daily life: in the news, in advertising, in pretations of subordinate groups, considerably less at-
the history lessons taught to schoolchildren. The past tention has been paid to the problematic aspects of this
is a means through which identities-whether ethnic, position (but see Dietler ry94 for a valuable attempt to
national, religious, or other-can be formed and rein- portray multiple sides of the problem). The post-
forced in the present. In this way, the past plays a legiti- processual position has ignored the complexity of "the
mating role for present groups (or would-be groups) by Other," preferring to hold, at least implicitly, to the ro-
allowing them to trace their roots into earlier times: mantic conceptualization of a monolithic, conflict-free
what has a precedent has a right to exist in the present. Other which has a single, common interest.
Popular acceptance of the past as a source of identity We argue, following the lead of others who have been
remains largely unquestioned (for a few examples, see critical of post-modernist positions (e.g.,Wylie r987,
Bernbeckand Lamprichs r992, Dietler r994, Pollock and r99r; Hirke 1993), that a philosophic framework that
Lutz 19941.In archaeology, however, opinions on this refuses to establish criteria by which to evaluate com-
subject have varied historically. Archaeologists of the peting knowledge claims is unacceptable. In such an ap-
late rgth and the early zoth century were much taken proach, there is no basis on which to challenge those
with the prospects archaeology offered for defining past versions of the past that contain racist, sexist, or other
"peoples" (Kossinna r9r r, Childe r9z5 ). Historical discriminatory interpretations. The unacceptability of
groups were traced back in time using resemblances in such a position extends well beyond the esoteric realm
material remains. Archaeology was used, more or less of academic debate into the "real world," in which it
flagrantly in different countries and at different times, to can have dangerous consequences.We use the example
support nationalist, colonialist, and imperialist claims of recent events in Ayodhya, India, and their repercus-
(Trigger r984), sometimes with horrifying results, as the sions to illustrate our point.
examples of the Nazis or American efforts to disenfran-
chise native Americans make all too clear (Arnold r99o,
AYODHYA AND ARCHAEOLOCY
Trigger r98o).
Western archaeologists gradually became dissatisfied On December 6, t992, the r6th-century Babri Mosque
with an approach that concentrated on the identification in Ayodhya, lJttar Pradesh, was destroyed by Hindu
of culture groups in time and space {though it is debat- militants, acting at least in part at the instigation of
able whether archaeology has ever rid itsel{ entirely of political organizations (Vavrou5kov| r994:r r4-r5 ). The
the pots : people syndrome). This dissatisfaction coin- event/ which was widely reported in the international
cided with the rise of functionalism in anthropology news media, led to bloody riots in India and in neigh-
(Trigger ry8g 2441.In many non-Western archaeological boring Bangladesh, where the majority Muslims sought
traditions, however, a focus on archaeology as a way to wreak revenge on the Hindu minority.3 Hundreds
of tracing past peoples remained predominant (Trigger died in the rioting.a
r 9 8 9 :r 8 r - 8 6 ) .

r. @ 1996by The Wenner-Gren Foundationfor Anthropological u. We use the term "post-processualarchaeology"to reler specifi-
Research. oorr-32o4/
All rightsreserved 96l37sup-ooo5$r.oo.We cally to the brand of archaeologythat sharesmany epistemological
thank SvendHansen,Heinrich Hd,rke,Marlies Heinz, Ed Luby, beliefswith post-modernism,especiallythat "all appealsto founda-
HelgaSeeden, andCarlaSinopolifor theircommentson this paper tional, transcontextuallyvalid standards"(Wylie ry9r:4) are chal-
and KathleenMorrison,Martin Schmidt,CarlaSinopoli,Uhike lenged. This approachin archaeologyis best exemplified by the
Sommer,andHenryWrightfor helpingto collectnewspaper arti- work of Hodder {rq84, 1986;but see r99r for a somewhatdifferent
clesand circularsduringthe WorldArchaeological Congress and approach), Shanksand Tilley ltgSza,bl,andBaptyandYates(r99o).
for sharinginformationandviewson the proceedings.This paper 3. It was these events that prompted the Bangladeshiauthor Tas-
fellowship
waswrittenwhile oneof us {S.Pollock)helda research lima Nasrin to write her now-famous book Laiia: Shame.
from the Alexandervon Humboldt Foundationat the FreieUni- +. Only after our completing this paperdid the issue of Intematio-
versitit Berlin. nalesAsienforum (vol. )s, 19941devotedentirely to an analysisof

The Babri Mosque was built in r5z8 by the Mughal
emperor Babur. Some Hindu groups claim that the
mosque was built on the spot where a Hindu temple had
stood.This had been not,ust any Hindu temple but one
that marked the birthplace of Rama, a mythical king
who was a reincamation of one of the major Hindu gods,
Vishnu. According to this version of events, Babur was
responsible for destroying the temple in order to erect
his mosque.
In :1949,shortly a{ter independence from Britain, the
mosque was ritually cleaned and rededicated as a Hindu
temple {Rao r994:r56). Shortly thereafter it was closed,
and it remained so until 1986, when a judge ordered it
opened for Hindu worship. Protests by Muslim groups
followed. Following further conflict between the two
sides, the national government brought them together
in r99o in an attempt to reach a negotiatedsettlement.
The discussion centered around two questions: Had Ba-
bur indeed destroyed a Hindu temple in Ayodhya, and,
if so, had he built his mosque on the same spot? The
negotiations,however, led nowhere. In December r9g2
Hindu militants stormed the mosque, leaving it in ruins.
The day after the destruction, the prime minister of
India, Narasimha Rao, promised that the mosque would
be rebuilt, a promise which he repeatedin August r993.
To date, this has not happened.In 1993 the case was
referred to the Indian Supreme Court. The court refused
to rule on it and returned the case to the government,
in whose hands it cufiently rests.
Archaeology has loomed large in the conflict over Ay-
odhya, in part because the absence of eyewitness or
other contemporary accounts of Babur's activities in Ay-
odhya has precludedresolution of the issue through his-
torical documentation. There have been several archaeo-
logical investigations in the vicinity of the Babri Mosque
in Ayodhya. The first consisted o{ small stratigraphic
s o u n d i n g sc o n d u c t e di n r y 6 9 - 7 o b y R o y { 1 9 8 6 : r 8 - z o ) .
A second and more sustained investigation was under-
taken under the direction of B. B. Lal in the mid-r97os
{Lal r98o, r983). Finally, a number of sculptures were
recovered during construction activities near the
mosque in the summer of :.992,and other obtectswere
reportedly observed by archaeologists present at the
time of the mosque's destruction in December ry92
{Y. D. Sharma et al. n.d., Gupta r994).
Interpretations of these archaeological data vary
widely. In a brief report published shortly after the exca-
vations, Lal claimed that the medieval occupation (post-
dating the rrth century e.n.) was "devoid of any special
interest" (Lal r98o:53). However, in r99o Lal wrote an
article in which he claimed that he had found under the
mosque remains of a columned temple (Lal r99o:r5).
Asked whether this alleged finding indicated that a
Hindu temple marking Rama's birthplace existed un-
der the Babri Mosque, he is quoted as saying, "I am
not saying so. But my spade is" (Malhotra and Sehgal
r 9 9 2 : 8r ) .
Lal's reinterpretation of his data has been challenged
the Ayodhya conflict come to our attention. It contains detailed
reports and analysesrelevant to discussionof Ayodhya.
Volume j7, Supplement, February t996 | Sr39
by other scholars who have reevaluated the stratigraphic
information (available from a single published photo of
his excavation trench, which illustrates the purported
columned room [Mandal ry93 fig. r, pls. r-3]).s Several
scholars have also contended that the features identified
as column basescould not have supported a structure of
the sort envisioned by Lal (Mandal 1993, R. S. Sharma
et al. r99z). As for the subsequentfinds of sculptures,
one group has maintained that they come from an r rth-
century temple (Y. D. Sharma et al. n.d.), while another
disputes this claim on the basis of both date and undocu-
mented archaeological context (R. S. Sharma et aI. r99z).
The conflict spilled over into the recent meeting of
the World Archaeological Congress that took place in
Delhi December 4_lz, r994.6 Not least of the reasons
for this was that the second anniversary of the destruc-
tion of the Babri Mosque fell during this week. The main
Indian organizational committeeT included two parti-
sans of the Hindu side in the conflict: B. B. Lal, the
principal person to excavate near the Ayodhya mosque,
and S. P. Gupta, an archaeologist known for his close
associations with an extremist Hindu paramilitary orga-
. nization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Lal served
as president of the congress,while Gupta acted in the
capacity of liaison between the Indian organizers and
the congress'sinternational executive committee. Some
Indian archaeologistsand historians of the "other side"
chose to boycott the congress in protest against what
they considered to be the misuse of archaeologyfor divi-
sive political purposes. Others preferred to participate
on the ground that only by taking part could they bring
the topic before an international forum for debate.
Hopes for an open debate were shattered even before
the congress began. fust a few days before the official
opening, the president of the international executive
committee, |. Golson, issued a statement-reportedly
under pressure, although neither the source nor the par-
ticulars of the pressure were divulged-saying that there
was to be no discussion of the Ayodhya issue in any
forum at the congress.nWhat ensuedinstead of an open
5. After repeatedrequestsby scholarsfor accessto his field notes,
Lal reported that, apart from this single photograph,the original
documentationon the excavationcould no longer be found {Mural-
i d h a r a nr 9 9 4 : r o o ) .
6. For a comparisonof the initial goalsof the Worid Archaeological
Congressas an organizationand the events at the recent congress
in Delhi, seeBernbeckand Sommer{r994).
7. The World ArchaeologicalCongressis an international organiza-
tion with a permanentexecutivecommittee consistingof members
from r4 world regions and representativesof indigenousgroups.
For eachcongress/however,there is a specialcommittee consisting
of scholarsfrom the host country. Lal and Gupta were members
of this latter committee.
8. "The WAC Executive is making it known that it supportsthe
view of our Indian colleaguesthat there should be no papersor
discussionwithin the Congressprogrammenor resolutionsor dis-
cussion at meetings of the Executive Committee/Council and in
the Plenary Sessronon the politically and communally sensitive
Ramjanmabhoomi-BabriMasjid IMosque]issue.The Executrverec-
ognises that the practical consequencesof discussingthis issue
would be beyond the Executive'scontrol" lThe Pioneer,December
5, 1994).This is tust one of four versions of Golson's statement
that found their way into newspapersor circulars.Although there
are someinteresting differencesamong the versions,the basicmes-
S r 4 oI c u n n E N T A N T H R o P o L o c Y
debate was daily newspaper coverageeo{ the conference
proceedings and a barrage of back-and-forth statements
and resolutions issued by the proponents of the two
sides and passedout to conference participants or offered
to the press. Two examples suffice to illustrate their
tone and content:
The circular which e{fectively bans a {ree and lair ac-
ademic discussion of issues arising from vandalism
at Ayodhya and the role played by certain archaeolo-
gists and historians is reprehensible. [Issued by a
group of Indian historians; cited in The Pioneer,
December 5, rgg4]
People have discussed this topic [Ayodhya] for two
years now and have still not reached any conclusion.
The Supreme Court also could not reach any conclu-
sion. So, why waste time on it? If we have time after
all the papers,we will see what we can do. [B. B.
Lal, quoted in The Asian Age, December 7, r9g4l
In brief, archaeology and archaeologists found them-
selves at what appearedto be the nerve center of a con-
flict that goes well beyond academic squabbles,one that
reached the Supreme Court of India and has cost hun-
dreds of lives. What are the implications for archaeologi-
cal practice in such circumstances?
IMPLICATIONS FOR ARCHAEOLOGY
The case of Ayodhya throws into sharp relief some of
the problematic aspects of using the past for identity
building. In particular, it makes clear that the use of
the past for identity building is by no means a neutral
enterprise. Nor is it possible to say that becausethe prin-
cipal actors in the Ayodhya drama are all members of
a non-Western nation they can be viewed as a single
subordinated Other whose specific proiects to create a
past for itself should be wholeheartedly endorsed.
Identity building has become a major theme in the
contemporary world with the resurgence of nationalist
and ethnic conflicts in the past few years. A number of
commentators have argued that the situation is a re-
sponse to political instability and the break-up o{ ex-
isting hegemonic powers that had held at least overt
conflict in check (Friedman r992, Hobsbawm r994). In
situations of a changing world order, ethnic or national
identities are no longer self-evident. Disputing identities
is always a serious matter becauseit undermines a fun-
damental element of a group's self-esteem and thus
poses a threat to the very existence of a collectivity.
This existential fear in turn breeds an aggressivestance
toward other groups (Burmeister ry94; cf. Fox r99o). As
Friedman notes {r992:837),identity building is a poten-
tial source of strife and devaluation of others, because
sage-that Ayodhya would not be discussedat the congressbe-
causeof Dressurefrom the Indian side-remains the same.
9. In an iniormal and unsystematic searchthrough the daily En-
giish-language papersduring the week of the conference,we assem-
bled more than r 5 articles, some of them quite iengthy, dealing
with the specific question of Ayodhya and its relationship to the
proceedingsat the Worid ArchaeologicaiCongress.
the creation of identities takes place not in a vacuum
but in previously occupied space; each newly created
identity impinges upon others as it makes room for
itself.
The use of the past to build present identities often
involves the ideological manipulation of time. Kus
(1989)has drawn attention to this in her discussionof
the historian Delivr6's concepts of ascending and de-
scending anachronisms. An ascending anachronism is
an event that is pushed farther back in time, away from
the present. Pushing something back in time confers le-
gitimacy upon it in the present by demonstrating that
it has an ancient precedent: "old equals best" (Creamer
r99o:r33). Descendinganachronisms,in contrast, bring
events forward in time and therefore closer to us,
allowing people in the present to claim particular inno-
vations as their own. In other words, through ascending
and descending anachronisms histories are written {or
told) in which events are moved around in time in order
to serve the interests of particular groups in the present.
In what Hirke lrggll, drawing on the work of Levi-
Strauss and others, has called a "mythical" concept o{
history, little or no separation exists between the past
and the present. Mythical history stressesthe continuity
of past and present: the past was really just yesterday.In
some ways this concept is similar to that o{ descending
anachronisms-the past is moved forward, closer to the
present. However, in mythical histories the aim is not
to demonstrate the innovativeness of a present group
but rather to permit response to a historical situation as
if it had happened "just yesterday."
It is just such a manipulation of time that is at work
in the case of Ayodhya. Only by employing a mythical
conception of history can the Muslims of India today be
held responsible for the alleged injuries wrought by their
ancestors(Gandhi ry92 291.The r99z destruction of the
mosque becomes a direct response to a perceived wrong
of 5oo |ears ago; bringing the past very near to the pres-
ent helps to legitimate revenge for past injuries. Ironi-
cally, Muslims living in India today are in many cases
not even the descendants of the Mughal invaders of the
Middle Ages but rather members of low Hindu castes
who have converted to Islam. Conversion, whether to
Islam or to some other religion, is one possibility open to
members of low castes to attempt to better their social
position (McDonald r 994).
In the case of Ayodhya, not only descending but also
ascending anachronisms are at work. Until the 5th cen-
tury A.D., Ayodhya was called Saketa. With the shift
of the capital o{ the Gupta dynasty from Pataliputra to
Saketa, the place was renamed Ayodhya, which, ac-
cording to the epic tale the Ramayana, was the birth-
place of Rama. To further strengthen the connection
with the Ayodhya of the Ramayana,King Skanda Gupta
took a title that symbolized his close connection to
Rama. As Rao ft994:591points out, the symbolic equa-
tion of this place with the mythical Ayodhya is today
taken as a factual one (seeLal 1985-86). In this way,
the place which today bears the name Ayodhya can be
connected to purported events of much earlier periods.
 Volume 31, Supplement, February 1996 | St4t

What are the consequencesfor archaeological practice be the single, dominant, legitimate source of knowledge
of the use of the pasifor identity building? We cannot about the past {Ucko 1989),it is also pointless and in-
simply say that it is all ideological and dismiss it. deed detrimental to renounce entirely our claims to the
Rather, as anthropologists we are in a position to ar- production and evaluation of knowledge (cf. Wylie r987,
gue-and to demonstrate-that groups and the identi- r99r). Indeed, the notion that we should abandon such
ties that go along with them are always fluid and histori- claims may be a peculiar product of our modern, West-
cally changeable.Identities, both in the past and in the ern, commodity-oriented culture, in which we are
present/ move and change as groups interact with each trained to accept the consumer's wishes as the standard
other, a process of borrowing and modification that against which to judge the worth of the product (Hirke
takes place on all sides {Blakey r99o). Furthermore, the r993:9i Rieff r994:56). We run the intellectual risk of
reference points in the past that groups adopt as sym- trying to support claims that run counter to our system
bolic referencesin their processesof identity formation of logic (archaeology)rOand the human risk of finding
are invariably selective rather than natural: they are ourselves supporting ethically unacceptable agendas.
chosen to achieve certain goals. For example, Dietler
(r994) discussesthe French choice of the Gauls as their C O N C L U S I O N
past referent for modern identity formation, contrasting
it with the pre-r789 use of the Franks as the focal point The case of Ayodhya forces us to confront the questi.on
of identity for the French nobility. One could also ask, of what role archaeology and archaeologists should play
Why not the painters of Paleolithic cave art? The selec- in a situation in which the past is used to support iden-
tive use of the past in identity formation has a long his- tity claims in the present. To put it somewhat crassly,
tory. SargonII, who reigned in Assyria in 7zz-7o5 2.c., even if it can be argued on conventional, "scientific"
took his name from Sargon of Akkad, who lived more grounds that a Hindu temple existed under the Babri
than r,5oo years earlier. Mosque and was destroyed by Babur, does this justify
By demonstrating the fluidity and changeability oi the destruction of the mosque in r99zl Or is the destruc-
identities in the past, archaeologistscan work to counter tion of the mosque to be regardedas part of an unaccept-
the popular notion that groups and identities are fixed able attempt to rewrite the history of India in a way that
and stable,both in the past and in the present(Hall r99r, excludes any but negative contributions by Muslims?
Hobsbawm rggz,Lentz r995). Such a project should aim Answers to these questions depend upon one's concepts
to expose the interests of all parties concerned (includ- of time, history, and identity.
ing archaeologists)in defining and shaping identities in Because the past is frequently employed in identity
the way that they do (again, see Dietler 1994 Ior a good building and assertion, those studying aspects of the
example). past, among them archaeologists,become-willingly or
In urging archaeologists to focus on critiquing all not-directly implicated in such enterprises. It is more
identities and histories, we do not wish to imply that than of passing interest in this regard to ask why archae-
archaeologists should remain aloof {rom disputes con- ological evidenceis so often appealedto by nonarchaeol-
cerning the use of the past. For example, archaeologists ogists. Why, in a case such as Ayodhya, in which many
sympathetic to the grievances of Native American Hindu partisans are firmly convinced that a temple did
groups may well choose to support their claims for repa- exist under the mosque regardlessof any "proof" and/or
triation of artifacts or reburial of skeletal material with that the place is a holy one for Hindus, is archaeological
archaeological evidence of plausible cultural continuity. evidence necessary?We suggest that archaeological tes-
We do, however, maintain that supporting plausible timony is primarily a tool to be used to try to convince
claims neither requires nor should be taken as an argu- other, more skeptical audiences (for example, the Indian
ment for accepting an equation of a self-defined modern Supreme Court) because it provides tangible evidence
group with a past one. Applying this argument to Ay- such as the physical remains of a building interpretable
odhya, one could challenge a fundamental but tacit as- as a temple.
sumption behind the rhetoric of Hindu extremist groups As engaged members of society, archaeologists must
that Muslim groups in India today are equatable with find ways to argue against the use of the past for racist,
Muslims in India in the r6th century. At the same rime, sexist, and other oppressive purposes. Simply ceding the
any such identity claims by partisan Muslim groups stage to those Others who are rarely in powerful posi-
wishing to turn them to their own purposes would have tions does not work, as we have tried to illustrate with
to be greeted with similar skepticism. the example of Ayodhya. Although we have no easy an-
We contend that archaeologistsshould not indiscrimi- swers to offer, we suggest that one potentially fruitful
nately support all claims of subordinate groups to inter- approach is to emphasize the fluidity and changeability
pret the past for themselves simply on the grounds that of all groups and identities, to insist that all histories-
they are subordinate. By taking such a position we fall whether written or told by archaeologists,religious orga-
into the trap of viewing "the Other" as a uniform entity nizations, or Fourth World groups-must be open to
without internal, conflicting, and hierarchically ranked
ro. Althoughtherearemanydi{ferentapproaches
interest groups (c{. Kohl r986, O'Regan r99o). Further- porary within contem-
archaeology, it is probablyfair to saythat theyall, or virtu-
more, while it is certainly a salutary lesson for Western ally all, sharea certainseto{ conventions, for exampie,abouthow
archaeologists to accept that we can no longer claim to stratigraphy is to be interpreted.
S r a zI c u n n E N T A N T H R o P o L o c Y
critique, and to expose the interests of the groups
responsible for creating and championing them.
ReferencesCited
A R N o L D , B E T T T N N A . r 9 9 o . T h e p a s t a s p r o p a g a n d a :T o t a l i t a r -
ian archaeology in Nazi Germany. Antiquity 64:a,64-78.
BApry, r., AND T. yATEs. Editors. r99o. Archaeology after
s truatur alisrn. London : Routledge.
B E R N B E C KR, E I N H A R D ,A N D R O L A N D L A M P R I C H S 1. 9 9 2 .
Museen, Besitz und Macht: Wohin mit den Altertiimerni Das
Altertum 38:rog-24.
B E R N B E c K ,R E T N H A R D ,A N D u L R T K E s o M M E R . r q q + . P o l i t i k ,
Mythos und Archiologie: Der World Archaeology Congress 3
rn New Delhi r994 und Ayodhya. Ethnographisch-
Ar chiiologische Z eitschrif t I 5 : 47 5-98.
BLAKEy, MTcHAEL. r99o. "American nationality and ethnrcity
in the depicted past," in The politics of the past. Edited by Pe-
ter Gathercole and David Lowenthal, pp j8-48.London: Un-
win Hyman.
B U R M E T s T E R ,H A N S - n E T E R .t 9 9 4 . Z u m K r i e g i n E t r o p a . L e t t r e
lnternational 27:go-g r.
c H r L D E , v . c o R D o N . t 9 2 5 . T h e d a w n o f E u r o p e a nc i v i l i z a t i o n .
London: Kesan Paul.
cREAMER, H. r99o. "Aboriginal perccptions of the past: Thc im-
plications for cultural resource management in Australia," in
The politics ot' the past. Edited by Pcter Gathercole and David
Lowenthal, pp. rto-4o. London: Unwin Hyman.
D T E T L E R /M T c H A E L . r 9 9 4 . " O u r a n c e s t o r st h e C a u l s " : A r c h a e o l -
ogy, ethnic nationalism, and the manipulation of Celtic iden-
tity in modern Europe. American Anthropologist 96:584-605.
Fox, RTcHARD. r99o. "Hindi nationalism in the making, or The
risc of the Hindian," in Nntjonalist ideologies and the produc-
tion of national cultures. Edited by Richard Fox, pp. 63-8o.
Amcrican Ethnological Society Monograph z.
F R T E D M A N ,I o N A T H A N . r 9 9 r . T h e p a s t i n t h e f u t u r e : H i s t o r y
and the politics of identity. American Anthropologist
94:837-59.
cANDHr, R. r992. "Attention plcasc, Mr. Advani!" in The
Babri-Masiitl Rami anmabhoomi controversy runs riot. Edited
by AIi Asghar Engineer, pp. 28-30. Delhi: Aianta Publications.
cuprA, s. p. r994. Government sitting tight over clinching ar-
c h a e o l o g i c a l c v r d e n c e ? O r g a n i s e r 4 6 ( r 8 ) :j .
HALL, sruART. r99r. "Old and new idcntities, old and ncw eth-
nicrties," in Cuhure globalization and the world-svstem. Ed-
ited by A. D. King, pp. 4r-68. London: Macrnillan.
HAnrr., HErNRrcH. r991. "Vergangenheit und Gegenwart," in
Macht der Vergangenheit-Wer Macht Vergangenheitl Edited
by Sabine Wolfram and Ulrike Sommer, pp. l-rI. Wrlkau-
Hasslau: Beier and Beran.
H()BsBAwM, ERrc. r992. zd cdition. Nations and nationalism
since r78o: Programme, mvth, reality. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
r994. Barbarei, ein Leitfaden: Die Ruckkehr der Foltcrer
und das Anwachsen der Gewalt. Lettre Inte.rnational 2,7:31-\7.
H o D D E R , r a N . r 9 8 4 . A r c h a e o l o g yi n I 9 8 4 . A n t i q u i t y 5 8 : 2 5 - j 2 .
-. r986. Reading the past: Cufient approaches to interpreta-
tion in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-. r99r. Interpretive archaeology and its role. Amefican An-
tiquity S6:7-r8.
K o H L , K A R L - H l r u z . r 9 8 6 . E n t z a u b e t t e rB l i c k : D a s B i l d v o n t
Guten Wilden untl die Erf ahrung der Zivilisation. Frankfurt
a.M.: Suhrkamp.
KossrNNAT cusrAV. rgtr. Die Herkunft der Germanen. Leip'
zig: Kabitzsch.
KUS, susAN. 1989. Time is on my side. Paper presented at the
Wenner-Gren Foundation symposium "Critical Approaches in
Archeology: Material Li{e, Meaning, and Power," Cascais, Por-
tugal, March r7-25.
LAL, B. B. r980. Excavations at Ayodhya, District Faizabad. In-
I
dian Archaeology, r976-77: A Review, pp. S2-53.
r983. Excavations at Ayodhya, District Faizabad. Indian
Archaeology, t979-8o: A Review, pp.76-77.
r985-86. Ayodhya and the Valmiki Ramayana: An ener-
gizing debate on its identiffcation. Pwatattva 16:79-84.
r99o. Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites Project. Man-
tftan, October, pp. 9-2r
LENrz, cARoLA. r995. "Tribalismus" und Ethnizitlt in Afrika:
Ein Forschungsiiberblick. Lev i athan r / r 99 S'.r t S* 4 S.
MC.DoNALD, HAMrsH. t994. Die Rebellion der Kasten. Der
U berblick lol+):t o-t +.
MALHoTRA, I., AND R. sEHGAL. t99z. "The Ayodhya contro-
versy: Digging into the past to change the present," in The
B ab r i - Masi i d Rami onm abh ootni conLt ov ersy runs rjot. Edited
by Ali Asghar Engineer, pp. 8r-84. Delhi: Ajanta Publications.
MANDAL, D. 1993.Ayodhya: Archaeology after demolition. a
critique of the "new" and "frcsh" discoveiles. New Delhi: Ori-
ent Longman.
MURALIDHARAN, s. r994. Questions of ethrcs: World Archaeo-
logical Congress,Delhi. Frontline r r(:,5):99-ror.
o'nncaN, srEpHEN. r99o. "Maori control of the Maori hcri-
tage," rn The politics of the past. Edited by Peter Gathercole
and David Lowenthal, pp. 9s-106. London: Unwin Hyman.
p o L L o c K / s u s A N T A N D c A T H E R T N EL U T z . r 9 9 4 . A r c h a c o l o g y
deployed for the Gulf War. Criticlue of Anthropology
t4:263-84.
RAo, NANDTNt. rgg4. "Interpreting silences: Symbol and his-
tory in the case of Ram fanmabhoomi/Babri Masjid," in Social
construction of the past: Representation ol power. Edited by
G. C. Bond and A. Gilliam, pp. r54-64. London: Routledge.
RErrF, DAVTD. r994. Triumphe der Massenkultur: Der globale
Erfolg des amerikanischen Kultur-Mix. Lettre International
26:51-56.
Roy, T. N. r986. A study of Northern Black Polished Ware Cul
ture. New Delhi: Ramanand Vidya Bhawan.
s H A N K S ,M I c H A E L , A N D c H R I s r o p H E R T I L L E y . t < 1 8 7 aR. e -
constructing archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Universrty
Press-
tc187b. Social theory and archaeology. Cambridgc: Polity
Press.
SHARMA/R. S,,M. ATHAR ALI, D. N. IHA/ AND S. BHAN.
r992. "Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid: A historians' report to
the nation," in The Babri-Masiid Ramianntabhoomi contro-
versy runs riot. Edited by Ali Asghar Enginccr, pp. l5r-7r.
Delhi: Ajanta Publicatrons.
S H A R M A ,Y . D . , K . M . S R I V A S T A V AS, . P . C U P T A , K . P . N A U .
T I Y A L , B . R . C R O V E R /D . S . A G R A \ I r ' A LS/ . M U K H E R J I /A N D
s. MALAyyA- n.d. Ramajantna Bhumi: Ayodhya, new archaeo-
logical discoveries. n.p. [New Delhi:] "Historian's Forum."
TRrccER, BRUCE. r98o. Archaeology and thc rmagc of the
American Indian. American Antiquity 45:662-7 6.
r984. Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colonialist,
imperialist. Man ry:35 5-7o.
r989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridgc:
Cambridge University Press.
ucKo, pETER I. r989. "Foreword," in Archaeologica) ap-
proaches to cuhural identity. Edited by Stephen Shennan, pp.
ix-xx. London: Unwin Hyman.
vavnou5rovA, sraNIstavA. r994. Hindi communalism:
A study in the dynamics o{ violence. Archiv Orientttlni
6z:to7-zz.
w y L r E , A L I s o N . r 9 8 7 . T h e p h i l o s o p h y o f a m b r v a l e n c e :S a n d r a
Harding on the science question in feminism. Canadian lour-
n a l o f P h i l o s < t p - h ys, u p p l . r 3 : 5 9 - 7 3 .
r 9 9 r . " G e n d e r t h e o r y a n d t h e a r c h a e o l o g i c a lr e c o r d : W h y
is there no archaeology of gender?" in Engendering archaeol-
ogy: Women and prehistory. Edited by foan Cero and Margaret
Conkey, pp. 3r-54. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.