Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T01:24:39.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeology and identity in colonial India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Nayanjot Lahiri
Nayanjot Lahiri*
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Delhi (South Campus), Benito Juarez Road, New Delhi 110-021, India. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘How is it that your countrymen steal our gods?’ asked a Brahmin of the Baptist missionary, John Chamberlain who noted the details of this conversation in his diary on 20 November 1817 (Davis 1997: 164):

‘Sir, a gentleman whose name I do not remember, came to me to let him take the image of Lukshinee away, which stood on the point where the river and rivulet meet; and he said he would give me a sum of money if I could consent to it. I told him that I could not take any money for it; that she was worshipped by all the people around, and that several times a year the people assembled from the country at a distance to see the goddess, and to bathe: at which time much was offered to her’. The gentleman persisted. He returned four or five times, offered ample remuneration and even took the brahmin by boat to see the assemblage of gods in his Calcutta house, but still the brahmin refused to sell. Finally, the gentleman ‘got his people together, and took away the goddess by night. There the tree stands, Sir, but the goddess is gone!’

Keywords

IndiaAsiaidentityantiquarianismcolonization
Type
Special section
Information
Antiquity , Volume 74 , Issue 285 , September 2000 , pp. 687 - 692
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bloch, T. 1904. Letter of 7th March, 1904 from T. Bloch to J. Marshall, File No. 46, Serial nos. 1–61. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, D.K. 1997. Colonial Indology: sociopolitics of the ancient Indian past. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.Google Scholar
Cunningham, A. 1854 (1997 reprint). The Bhilsa Topes. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.Google Scholar
Cousens, H. 1905. Report to Marshall. File No. 26, Serial nos. 1—11. May 1905. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Curator. 1882. Reports by the Curator of Ancient Monuments in India on the preservation of National Monuments in Madras, Bombay, Rajputana and Kalburgah, Proceedings of the Home Department (Archaeology and Conservation of Ancient Monuments. New Delhi: National Archives of India.Google Scholar
Curzon & Council. 1902. Despatch to George Hamilton dated 18th September, Proceedings of the Revenue and Agriculture Department (Archaeology and Epigraphy). A. New Delhi: National Archives of India.Google Scholar
Davis, R.H. 1997. Lives of Indian images. Princeton (NI): Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Despatch. 1867. Secretary of State for India to Governor General of India in Council. 9th December, Proceedings of the Home Department (Public)-A-May 28th 1870, nos. 88/89. New Delhi: National Archives of India.Google Scholar
Fergusson, J. 1876. History of Indian and eastern architecture. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Fisch, J. 1985. A solitary vindicator of the Hindus: The life and writings of General Charles Stuart (1757/58–1828), Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1: 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, A.B. 1902. Letter of 31st July to Goswamis Gobardhan Lal and Keshori Lalji, File No. 40, Serial No. 27. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Jacob, S. 1903. Note after inspection of the Old Tower of Fame at Chittorgarh on 22nd January 1903, File No. 79, Serial No. 1025, November 1902. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Jain, Digambar Prantik, Sabha. 1903. Letter from President, Jain Digambar Prantik Sabha, Bombay to C.H. Pritchard, Proceedings of the Department of Revenue and Agriculture (Archaeology and Epigraphy), January 1904-A-No. 13. New Delhi: National Archives of India.Google Scholar
Lahiri, N. 1998. Coming to grips with the Indian past: John Marshall’s early years as Lord Curzon’s Director-General of Archaeology in India - Part 1, South Asian Studies 14: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, N. 1999. Bodh-Gaya: an ancient Buddhist shrine and its modern history (1891–1904), in Insoll, T. (ed.), Case studies in archaeology and religion: 33–43. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Macdonnell, R.G. 1905. Letter to Viceroy’s secretary. File No. 27, Serial Nos. 1–3, June 1905. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Marshall, J.H. 1902. Restoration of the Palace Garden Hayat Bakhsh (Life-Giver) in the Delhi Fort. File No. 129, Serial No. 21, November 1902. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Marshall, J.H. 1907. Letter of 6th March to Commissioner, File No. 106, Serial Nos. 1–15, May 1907. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Marshall, J.H. 1908. Letter to John Hewett, 9th August. File No. 183, Serial Nos. 1–2, August 1908. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Mitter, P. 1977. Much maligned monsters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roy, S. 1953. Indian archaeology from Jones to Marshall (1784–1902), Ancient India 9: 4–28.Google Scholar
Vogel, J.P. 1902. Memorandum on the preservation of archaeological material in the Peshawar District, File No. 86, May 1902. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Vogel, J.P. 1908. Letter of 3rd March to John Marshall, File No. 96, Serial Nos. 1–49, March 1907. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar