Key Pages:

Home

Discussion Questions

Posted at Nov 02/2011 10:42PM:
tucker: Now that the Babri Mosque is demolished, unrelated to whether that was right or wrong, why don’t archeologists find out exactly what is below in the ground to stop all this controversy?If they did do this, I would be interested to see if the issue would be resolved. Would the Hindu’s step back if the structure underneath the Mosque was not a Hindu place of worship and not where Rama was born according to archeological findings? I think even with this information the conflict would not be resolved, which raises the question can this conflict be fixed at all?

Where do you think the line in religion in politics should be drawn? If it all?

Posted at Nov 02/2011 10:43PM:
Anna Ghublikian: Throughout the semester we have been discussing memory as a construct which can, at times, be problematic. This, however, is generally not considered an issue because there is a line, however fuzzy, between history and memory. For me, this week's readings illuminated the problems that can exist within history and other disciplines such as archaeology that, in many ways, shore up our conception of history. The subject of Ayodhya is a particularly interesting case through which these principles arise. What is the role of archaeology in a situation where what one actually finds (the proof, in other words) is not very relevant to the issues at stake? Furthermore, what is truth/Truth in a situation where identity is rooted in a past based on claims and (perhaps long-standing but certainly very strong) beliefs? Were we to find the Truth (supposing it exists), is it any more truthful than the beliefs to which people hold fast? And finally, while this quetsion is unanswerable, I found myself asking it a lot while reading this week's texts: What is the relationship of material (proof) and non-material (truth)?

Posted at Nov 02/2011 10:46PM:
sean yancey: As Srinivas and Heitzman point out in their commentary on Ratnagar's essay, "Cultural approaches remind us that even archaeological narratives (including the “history” of anthropology) are also forms of collective memory and are open to contest or resistance." Is there a way to escape this? If as it seems we cannot escape ideology, how should archaeology best embrace it? Clearly, the case of Ayodhya is special because of its multiplicity of meanings and use as a symbol rather than mere site. It begs the question of what role archaeology and archaeologists should play in a situation in which the past is used to support identity claims in the present? Additionally, even if archaeology could prove definitively one thing or another, would it matter to hard-line fanatics? Shaw presents us with the problem of communicating archaeology and presenting the multivocality of the past, but would it really make a difference? How does one bridge the gap between proof and persuasion? When does belief become truth and where do the lines of truth in archaeology have to be demarcated? So the big question I ask is: can materiality ever trump imagination?

Finally, Ratnagar argues that Indian archaeology focuses too narrowly on an imagined Indianness. Is this really a problem to be rectified however? Should we also accuse others of narrowness who have chosen to remember one thing and not another? Is the only difference that the conflict at Ayodhya became politically and religiously charged?

Posted 11/3/2011 12:00 AM:

Jordan Edmonson: Ratnagar notes that “it is often in the process ofdelineating the past that societies construct their identities” thus “archaeologicalinterpretation is prone to … politicization”. Michael Dietler adds that theprocess of archaeological excavation is both politicizing and politicized. Whenpeople define themselves and their cultural heritage based upon history (bothfactual and mythical), the discovery and study of this past holds acontemporary power. Is it possible for archaeology to be separated frompolitics? The history of a people is often deeply tied with that peoples’cultural identity. How can conflicts which arise when archaeological/historicalevidence contradicts contemporarily held belief be resolved?

Seekay: (two questions)

Shaw claims that "the possibility of constructing a single version of Ayodhya's past is both immpossible and unrealistic," and this is part of where the conflict stems from.  On one hand, this makes sense since the site has a contested and/or mythological past, but on the other hand, only one 'True' thing could have happened at the site.  Is it really impossible to reconstruct this true past?  If so, how do we deal with the fact that we can only have multiple stories?  If not, why not?  

Nelson & Olin's claims about the varying stratigraphy of the column bases seem to debunk the possibility of a temple being located at the Ayodhya site, but it seems like so much has happened at this site and so many claims have been made about it that it will be near impossible to convince people one way or the other.  In reality, I think both sides will continue to believe whatever they already believe, regardless of whatever new findings may emerge.  It seems that the real issue here lies not in archaeology, but in religious politics, and both sides are just using archaeology to justify their claims.  With all this in mind, what role does archaeology play in this situation?  Is it even possible for archaeologists to produce irrefutable evidence?  If archaeology can't solve this conflict, what will?