Independent India faced numerous challenges across all sectors, and archaeology was no exception. Historian Himanshu Prabha Ray and co-author Ajay Yadav document this journey in their new book, "Indian Archaeology after Independence: Amalananda Ghosh and his legacy." They also discuss how artificial intelligence can aid archaeological research.
Decolonisation of Archaeology
Before independence, archaeology in India was largely a colonial enterprise. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), established in 1861, was headed by British officers trained in Greek and Latin until 1948, with only two Indian exceptions: Daya Ram Sahni (1931-1935) and K N Dikshit (1937-1944). These British directors general, such as Alexander Cunningham and Mortimer Wheeler, viewed India's past through a Graeco-Roman lens, either searching for Alexander's legacy or validating the Roman Empire's greatness through trade with India. The primary task of ASI was monument conservation, focusing on structures that highlighted British imperial glory or colonial-era buildings.
In contrast, Indian subordinates of British directors general had expertise in Sanskrit, Tamil, and other Indian languages and scripts, and were eager to uncover India's past for its citizens rather than a European audience. Decolonising ASI thus required two major shifts: first, moving from a Graeco-Roman perspective to one rooted in India's diverse cultural landscapes that evolved from prehistoric times; and second, incorporating the many monuments protected by princely states before 1947 into ASI's conservation budget.
Bhagwanlal Indraji: A Pioneering Archaeologist
Before ASI's formation, Bhagwanlal Indraji (1839-1888) from Junagadh, Gujarat, stands out as one of India's early dedicated archaeologists. He deciphered several Ashokan inscriptions and discovered edicts at Bairat near Jaipur and Sopara near Mumbai. In 1882, Indraji excavated a Buddhist stupa locally known as the Buruda (basket-maker) king's fort west of modern Sopara, uncovering a rich collection of Buddhist relics.
Amalananda Ghosh's Legacy
Amalananda Ghosh served as ASI's director general from 1958 to 1973. His leadership was marked by tact, deftness, and vision, promoting teamwork over personal glory. Unlike many predecessors and successors, Ghosh focused on understanding the cultural context of settlements, such as his survey of Bikaner to study the Ghaggar river system, rather than merely searching for Harappan sites lost to Pakistan after Partition. His vision included engaging with neighbouring countries' archaeology, evident in ASI's participation in UNESCO's salvage expedition to Nubia, Egypt, the 1961 Centenary Celebrations, and the conference on Asian Archaeology.
Bureaucratic Leadership of ASI
After Ghosh's 15-year tenure ended in 1968, leadership became fragmented, though professional archaeologists remained in charge until the early 1980s. From the 1990s, ASI became heavily involved in court-mandated excavations, heritage litigation, tourism management, and World Heritage compliance, leading the government to appoint senior IAS officers as directors general. This shift produced mixed results. The core issue is not the director general's background but the absence of stable, long-term leadership essential for a discipline relying on cumulative knowledge and institutional memory. Each leadership change tends to reset priorities rather than consolidate them.
Challenges for Archaeologists Today
Ghosh identified two enduring challenges: training and employment opportunities. These issues continue to plague Indian archaeology.
AI's Role in Archaeology
Artificial intelligence can aid archaeology in two forms: language-based AI and research or data-driven AI. Language-based AI works with text, helping organise excavation reports, scan archives, and make site records searchable. This could significantly improve access to ASI's vast but underutilised archival holdings and inscriptional treasures. Research-based AI processes numerical, spatial, or visual data, aiding in identifying potential site clusters, tracing palaeo-river systems, or flagging anomalies requiring ground verification. However, AI cannot replace archaeological methods and judgement.
