8 Public Archaeology and Salvage Archaeology
V. N. Prabhakar
1. Introduction
Archaeology is a discipline, which helps in understanding the past human cultures, lifeways, interactions, and others, through the material remains. Understanding the human past in many ways helps us in reinventing ourselves to plan for a better future. Archaeology may be fascinating to elites, who keep their private collections of amusements and artistic objects, which were later converted into places of public displays, i.e. museums. The best example in this regard is the Salarjung Museum, Hyderabad. The Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya (formerly Price of Wales Museum) is an example of creation for the visit of an elite. Even though the subject of archaeology is practiced and followed largely by the archaeologists themselves and scholars in the field, it deals with the people and the society, who are directly related to the past, unearthed by the archaeologists. It is their association with this past, which makes them relevant, as the present day local populations use certain lifestyles, customs, and traditions, which have been transmitted from generation to generation. It is, therefore, relevant to the archaeologists also to educate the public and masses on the nature of activities they are performing and answer questions like, what they are unearthing? How it is relevant to the present day population? Why do we study the past history and archaeology of bygone ages even in the midst of less economic resources?
In this regard, the role of archaeologists in spreading the message of past history through various activities including display of exhibitions, important finds from excavations, museum display, educational tours for the school children and making films and documentaries, is very important. Further, in the midst of large-scale developments including irrigational projects and urban explosion, more and more archaeological remains are being affected. Large-scale irrigational projects and construction of dams and reservoirs causes submergence of vast areas on both sides of rivers, which houses entire cultural landscapes and archaeological sites including built heritage. It is also relevant for the archaeologists to convince the developers and planners on the importance of cultural remains that are threatened by these developments, and how to adopt a middle path to save our past and simultaneously allowing the developments to take place. In this regard, cultural resource management and salvage archaeology play a crucial role, in not only documenting the landscapes for archaeological remains, but also help in unearthing potential sites for understanding the past, which may also include transplantation of heritage buildings under unavoidable circumstances.
In this module, we will discuss on the importance of educating the public on the relevance of the past and also on issues related to salvaging the cultural heritage in the event of developmental activities.
2. What is Public Archaeology?
The term “Public Archaeology” was first used by McGimsey with an objective of defining the necessity to make aware the public of their past without any prejudice and biasness. Thomas F. King (1983) describes that the use of the term ‘public archaeology’ was inclusive and quotes the following in support of this:
There is no such thing as “private archeology.” Knowledge of (the) past . . . is essential to our survival, and the right to that knowledge is … a human birthright…. It follows that no individual may act in a manner such that the public right to knowledge of the past is unduly endangered or destroyed.
Matsuda and Okamara (2011) summarizes the meaning of public archaeology in the 1980s as ‘it primarily meant archaeologists’ efforts to record and preserve archaeological remains that were being threatened by development works, on behalf and with the support of the public.” Initially, public archaeology was associated with Cultural Resource Management (CRM) undertaken in public interest, particularly in the USA. In the context of USA, CRM was identified with public archaeology, and it involved engagement of non-professionals also, for investigation of development led areas for understanding the potentiality. This was understood as a means to make the developers and legislators to understand the importance of heritage and archaeology and convince them for their protection (Merriman:
2004). Merriman (2004) also traces the later developments during which the professionalism of archaeology led to the lesser and lesser participation of non-professionals, and the professionals themselves were imparting the roles related to CRM.
It is also understood that gradually the necessities of public interest is being catered to by the steps taken by the professionals, for example, in India, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and State Departments of Archaeology, takes steps through legislations and executive orders to document, conserve and protect the cultural remains, and there is very less public participation. However, the role of public participation cannot be ruled out in the preservation and documentation of our cultural heritage. As India is enormously rich and diverse in terms of the cultural vestiges, it is not possible for the governments alone to fulfill the task. It is with the engagement of Universities, Research Institutions and NGOs, this enormous task can be undertaken with the help from governments, both regional as well as central. The transformation of the concept since its initial days has been summed up by Matsuda and Okamara (2011) as could be observed in the list of themes addressed in the first issue of the journal on Public Archaeology as “…archaeological policies, education and archaeology, politics and archaeology, archaeology and the antiquities market, ethnicity and archaeology, public involvement in archaeology, archaeology and the law, the economics of archaeology, and cultural tourism and archaeology.”
Thus, the scope of public archaeology is enormous, in terms of laying down policies for the conservation, preservation, documentation and management of archaeological heritage, education and dissemination for the general information of the public and scholars at large, spreading awareness among the public on the necessities of preserving the past and their importance, managing the various activities related to the enormous public opinion emerge out of certain excavations and thoughts of our past. Further, it also deals with the laws and legislations concerned with the protection and safeguarding of our past, the tourism related aspects that are directly involved with cultural tourisms, the benefits the society reap in due to the influx of tourists to historic places, and also the politics involved in the glorification of certain select events from our past.
On broader terms, it can be understood that the history and past is related to the public and in this regard, there is a necessity to safeguard the heritage and other vestiges of the past for posterity, through the participation of professionals, individuals, research institutions and NGOs. In the modern context, ‘public’ means diverse ethnic and religious population, whose idea and meaning of the past may vary enormously. It is also a necessity to maintain proper balance to cater to the sentiments and beliefs of diverge population groups during the management and dissemination of the past.
As Trigger (1996) puts forth, “…the interpretation of archaeological evidence has been influenced by social, economic and political considerations.” Trigger (1996) further adds, “Archaeological interpretations are colored by gender prejudices, ethnic concerns, political control of research and publishing, generational and personal conflicts among researchers, and the personal idiosyncracies of charismatic archaeologists. They are also influenced by the analytical models that are offered by the physical, biological, and to a still greater degree the social sciences.”
3. Cultural Resource Management
As mentioned above, public archaeology in the USA was associated with cultural resource management (CRM) of archaeological remains undertaken in public interest. This can be understood on the basis of the legislative measures taken since 1904 in the USA. A brief of the legislative measures undertaken in this direction is given below (Renfrew & Bahn 2000):
CRM, as seen above, enabled through legislations, for protection of archaeological heritage threatened by federal and state projects and also funded projects. As Renfrew & Bahn (2000) points out, the above legislations, however provides no protection of archaeological sites located on private property. The CRM enabled several large projects, the most important among them Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Project, which brought to light 682 sites out of which 27, affected by the project. One of the largest sites identified in the project, Lubbub Creek was excavated to identify the evolution of cultures related to Mississippian Culture (c. 900 – 1450 CE). However, as pointed out by Renfrew & Bahn (2000) the publication output of many of the CRM projects were unsatisfactory, and a serious drawback.
Nevertheless, the CRM, in USA, empowered by suitable legislations enables compulsory investigations of areas affected by central and state projects for identification and preservation of archaeological heritage.
Countries like Britain, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand also follows more or less similar model developed in USA regarding archaeological heritage threatened by developmental projects. Registers, recording sites of importance have also become a norm, as they will be helpful in identifying the already known location of sites, which help in planning a suitable developmental project, taking into account of the heritage.
In the Indian context, the Bengal Regulation XIX of 1810 and Madras Regulation VII of 1817 made provisions empowering the government to protect public buildings from misuse. These two regulations however, were silent on buildings under private ownership. The Religious Endowment Act of 1863 (Act XX of 1863), while repealing parts of XIX of 1810 and VII of 1817, enabled for the repair and preservation of religious establishments. A directive of the government in 1867 not only recognized the conservation of monuments that were already located, but also encouraged exploration activities for discovery of more such monuments. Another directive of 1873 instructed the provincial governments for the conservation and preservation of all buildings and monuments of historical and architectural importance.
The first major attempt in protecting the artefacts was in the form of The Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878, which for the first time ‘treasure’ in terms of historical or archaeological importance was understood and the procedures to be adopted if such a treasure was found and retrieved. Another important decision was taken in 1886 during the tenure of James Burgess during which the government barred excavation without the prior permission of Archaeological Survey of India and also disposal of antiquities without its permission (Channabasappa 2015).
The revival of Archaeological Survey of India in 1902 happened with the appointment of John Marshall during the tenure of Lord Curzon as Viceroy. Marshall was instrumental in enacting a comprehensive act, known as The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, which for the first time included various aspects of protection, preservation and conservation of monuments and sites and also antiquities. The act enabled “…for the preservation of ancient monuments, for the exercise of control over traffic in antiquities and over excavation in certain places, and for the protection and acquisition in certain cases of ancient monuments and of objects of archaeological, historical or artistic interest.” This act also defined various terms like ‘ancient monument’, ‘antiquity’ in a detalied manner.
The definition of ‘antiquity’ was further elaborated, taking clue from Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, by The Antiquities (Export Control) Act, 1947, which was later repealed by The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The purpose of the Antiquities (Export Control) Act was “…make better provision for controlling the export of objects of antiquarian or historical interest or significance.”
In 1951, The Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act was enacted after independence to enable the amalgamation of monuments and sites from areas ruled by the British and Princely States. This act, while re-declaring the ancient monuments declared protected by Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, also added 450 monuments and sites from Part B states, and some more monuments and sites were declared protected under the States Reorganization Act, 1956.
The first major and comprehensive act after independence was the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act 1958, which further elaborated the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904. The AMASR Act enabled “…for the protection of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance, for the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and other like objects.” The AMASR Act defined ‘ancient monument, ‘antiquity’, ‘archaeological site and remains’. This act enables protection for the monuments and sites declared under the provisions of this act, but no provisions have been made for the unprotected monuments and sites, or their listing. However, in 2007 the National Mission for Monuments and Antiquities was launched for maintaining a National Register Built Heritage, Sites and Antiquities, setting up a state level database, promote awareness programmes on the importance of heritage, training facility and capacity building to state governments, NGOs, institutions, research bodies and communities. It is also observed that the AMASR Act does not specifically mentions about the underwater cultural heritage, which, however is covered under the present Act itself along with the other Acts like The Indian Navy Act 1958 and The Coast Guard Act 1978, even though in the notion of archaeological remains.
This AMASR Act was further amended in 2010 for defining various roles related to maintaining a ‘prohibited area’ and ‘regulated area’ up to 100 m from protected area and between 100 & 300 m from protected area respectively, the means to regulate re-constructions, repairs, renovation in this area. The amendment was a major attempt to regulate all activities of constructions, repairs and renovation near the protected areas, due to the large-scale urbanization, developmental activities that were threatening the protected areas.
Another major act towards regulating the illegal smuggling and theft of antiquities and art treasures was enacted in 1972 in the name of The Antiquities and Art Treasures (AAT) Act 1972. The AAT Act enabled “…to regulate the export trade in antiquities and art treasures, to provide for the prevention of smuggling of, and fraudulent dealings in, antiquities, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of antiquities and art treasures for preservation in public places and to provide for certain other matters connected therewith or incidental or ancillary thereto.” This Act defines ‘antiquity, ‘art treasures’ and describes the process for registration of antiquites and also regulate their movement and trade on them.
In the Indian context, even though the Acts do not specifically mention about the CRM aspects, it is a general practice that any developmental activities by the government also prescribed for a clearance from the archaeological point of view. The most important project in this regard is the construction of Nagarjunasagar Dam across River Krishna in Andhra Pradesh during the 1950s, which threatened to submerge vast areas consisting of archaeological remains dating from the palaeolithic times onwards. The large-scale investigations carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India enabled the survey, documentation, excavation and salvage operations to transplant a few important remains to safer locations, in an outstanding example in this regard. The creation of national and state level registers under the National Mission for Monuments and Antiquities is also an important step to locate and document innumerable cultural vestiges across the country, which can be used as a database whenever future developmental projects are undertaken.
4. Education and Awareness as a means of Public Archaeology
In order to protect and preserve the vast cultural heritage in a country like India, general awareness among the public is the most crucial aspect. Without a proper awareness and the basic understanding of the richness and importance to preserve their own heritage, the public may not appreciate its own past. The awareness needs to start from a very early stage, say, start from the school education. If the children are imbibed with the importance of preservation of our heritage from their very young ages, they can nurture and develop it into their thought process. This will help them develop into responsible citizens and also prevent others from causing any destruction.
The awareness program organised by Archaeological Survey of India, in particular on the occasion of World Heritage Day on April 18 and World Heritage Week from 19-25 November of every year is an important aspect in this regard. This program is essentially targeted towards the school children to enable them to understand our righ heritage. The school children are invited to the monuments and sites, and educating them by engaging them in participating in general cleanliness, initiating them to participate in drawing, elocution, debate competitions with themes revolving around heritage and monuments and sites, helps them to connect themselves with the heritage and the importance to preserve them. Heritage walks are also organised by the field offices of ASI to enable the community to participate in understanding their heritage.
Heritage walks are being organised across several locations in the country by many NGOs to spread awareness among the public. One example in this regard is the Heritage Walk popularly known as ‘Mandir to Masjid’ organised by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in association with an NGO named as CRUTA Foundation, since 1997, which started on the occasion of World Heritage Day. This walk starts from Swaminarayan Temple in Kalupur and terminates at the Jama Masjid, and hence the name ‘Mandir to Masjid’. This heritage walk is very popular among the public and large groups participate in understanding the heritage of Ahmedabad city, as it covers localities known as ‘Pols’ which are self-contained neighbourhoods, housing considerable number of population. Heritage walks have become so famous; a lot of information about such events in many cities across India can be obtained from the Internet.
These events helps the community in developing an ownership and connecting themselves with the past, which helps in better preservation of our heritage and also their participation in awareness programs and prevents any destruction of such heritage in the future. Education has thus, emerged a potent tool in the preservation of our past. Further, connecting ancient technologies like the step wells of Gujarat and water conservation in Rajasthan with the present day communities, enables their participation and appreciation towards the efforts of our ancestors, who through their vast experience and observing the nature enabled construction of such resources in drought and less rainfall prone areas. Similarly, appreciating the location and presence of large number of tanks and reservoirs in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh is a stark reminder on the ancient water management system in the rain shadow region. The presence of megalithic habitation and burial sites near important reservoirs like Kunrattur helps in understanding their history also. Linking this technological innovation with the present day water crisis will help appreciating the importance and the need to preserve them to cater to the present day needs and crisis.
5. The Role of Museums in Public Archaeology
Museums at present encompasses a wide variety of subjects ranging from art, history, archaeology to even automobile, entertainment, just to name a few. The basic role of museum to display objects of a particular category for education and dissemination of knowledge cannot be denied. In the Indian context, even though we have evidence of display of objects of a certain category from historical literature like Ramayana and later periods, in the context of Bharata visiting a devakula (Statues Gallery) and the death of his father, Dasaratha was revealed to him in the form of his portrait, the earliest museum in the modern sense is that of ‘Imperial Museum’ later ‘Indian Museum’, which was set up at the Asiatic Society in 1814 at Calcutta. In the international context, the earliest museum is attributed to Ptolemaic mousieon at Alexandria (Vergo: 2006) consisting of “…study collection with library attached, a repository of knowledge, a place of scholars and philosophers and historians.”
As Merriman (2004) points out the role of museums as, “…housing of archaeological evidence, and demonstration of a legitimating presence in the landscape that links past with present have then been the principal social roles demanded of the archaeological museum.” The Archaeological Museums in ASI is an example of linking the artefacts displayed in them with the education and public, thereby creating awareness. The concept of Archaeological Museums in ASI was summed up by Hargreaves, former Director General of ASI as, “…it has been the policy of the Government of India to keep the small and movable antiquities, recovered from the ancient sites, in close association with the remains to which they belong, so that they may be studied amid their natural surroundings and not lose focus by being transported.” This is a key concept in understanding the relation of artefacts recovered from excavations kept in close association and nearby the site, so that the public may correlate them in a better manner, instead of transporting them far away and kept in some museum in a city or town. A few of the earliest Archaeological Museums of ASI are Sarnath (1904), Agra (1906), Ajmer (1908), Delhi Fort (1909), Bijapur (1912), Nalanda (1917) and Sanchi (1919).
These museums are also centres of education to the public in general and school children in particular. On important occasions like World Museum Day on May 18, events are organised for the benefit of school children to create awareness of the heritage and importance of preserving them. The online digital resources have also emerged as a major tool in imparting information to the public. In this regard, the National Museum, Delhi is a good example which has an online exhibition on various subjects. This online resource helps in reaching to the public located even in the remote locations and hence a powerful tool.
6. Excavation and Public Archaeology
In the past, excavation of an archaeological site was only restricted to professionals and archaeologists and scholars who engage themselves with serious research and interpretations, unearth the objects and other antiquities, transport them to some distant locations for study, research and display in some museum. However, recently this exercise is a better opportunity to not only educating the local population about their rich cultural past, but also engaging the school children from nearby places for understanding the importance of preserving the past. Small onsite exhibitions while the excavation is under progress, with display of unearthed finds along with brief descriptions, often bilingual, is an effective tool for the public to appreciate their past and feel proud.
An example in this regard may be cited from the excavation of a Harappan site at Karanpura, district Hanumangarh in Rajasthan. At this site, during the excavations from 2012-2014, educational trips involving the local schools were organised, explaining the students on the findings and the relevance of studying archaeology and history to not only the past but to understand its importance. A photo exhibition of the findings and correlating them with the other Harappan sites was also organised, which was inaugurated by the Village Sarpanch (elected village representative), provided an ideal opportunity for involving the local community, who were not only proud of their village reaching international attention, but also concerned about the destruction of heritage. The archaeological site at Karanpura itself faced destruction due to the expansion of agricultural activities, with a major thrust provided by canal irrigation, and large portions of the mound were cleared to reach the level of canal to facilitate better irrigation. The excavation at the site, involving the local public and exhibitions, helped not only in sensitising them, but also making them to understand not to further cause any damage to the archaeological site.
7. Salvage Archaeology
The necessity of ‘salvage archaeology’ has been described by Hester (1968) in the context of ‘salvage anthropology’ as, “…direct result of the initiation of numerous large scale area development projects involving construction of reservoirs; building of power plants, roads, and transmission lines; the levelling of land for irrigation; etc.” With the economic boom and rapid urbanization happening in many countries including India, more and more land is acquired for development of irrigation projects and construction of dams; special economic zones, expansion of highways, which are seriously threatening the very existence of archaeological remains. The effectiveness of salvage archaeology is presented by Brew (1961) as, “Archaeological salvage, carefully planned and executed, neither denies or impedes progress.” Salvage archaeology started in Egypt due to the construction of Aswan Dam and operations on two occasions, the first during the first construction of the dam in 1905 and later when the height of the dam was increased in 1929, inundating large swaths of land containing archaeological remains as far as the border of Sudan (Brew: 1961). The first operation was directed by Prof. G.A. Reisner of Harvard University, the results of which have been published. The second salvage operation was directed by Prof. Walter B. Emery, University College, London which included survey and excavation during 1929, 1930 and 1931 (Brew 1961). Later, the new high Aswan dam on River Nile in 1960s threatened a large number of important archaeological sites extending from Palaeolithic to Coptic period in Egypt and Sudan. The operations include transplantation and relocation of important monuments like Abu Simbel temple on an artifical hill in 1968.
Examples of salvage archaeology can be quoted from (i) discovery of the Boylston Street fishweir during the construction of a street car subway in Boston in 1913 (USA), (ii) survey and excavation of archaeological sites affected by the reservois of the Tennessee River Drainage in 1930s (USA), (iii) Inter-Stage Archaeological Salvage Program in 1945 (USA) to survey, document and retrieve archaeological remains affected by some 108 dams on the Missouri basin. These kind of salvage operations ultimately led to the development of CRM in USA as explained above.
In the Indian context, the post-independence era saw large-scale irrigation projects that were necessary for boosting the agricultural produce. This also threatened the rich archaeological remains. Examples in this regard are (i) Nagarjunasagar Project on River Krishna, (ii) Srisailam Project on River Krishna, and (iii) Narmada Sagar and Sardar Sarovar Project on River Narmada. Another example in this regard may be cited the excavation at Karanpura, Rajasthan and Chandigarh. Even though these sites were not threatened by any dam or irrigation projects, agricultural activities at Karanpura and urban development at Chandigarh caused serious threat.
7.1 Nagarjunasagar Project on River Krishna
Nagarjunakonda or Nagarjunadurgam (160 31’ N; 790 14’ E) is located in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh and consisted of a large number of archaeological sites, which was discovered in 1926 by Rangaswamy Saraswati, Telugu Assistant to the Government Epigraphist of India. The discovery was also possible due to the antiquarian interest of several educated locals. The preliminary investigations in the valley concentrated mainly on the epigraphical finds, which were studied by A.H. Longhurst, Hirananda Sastri and Vogel. Longhurst explored the valley between 1927 and 1931 and discovered a large number of remains like monasteries, apsidal temples, stupas, inscriptions, coins, relics, pottery, statues, over 400 bas-reliefs in the Amaravati style, besides remains of many structures. T.N. Ramachandran excavated a stupa and vihara during 1938-40.
On the course of the construction of a huge reservoir at this site, extensive explorations and excavations were carried out between 1954 and 1961 by the ASI. The prehistoric remains were brought to light during the course of this project only. More than a hundred localities consisting of prehistoric and historical period remains were excavated and most important ones were transplanted.
A small hillock known as Nagarjunakonda was chosen for relocating a few important monuments and an Archaeological Museum was also constructed to house the innumerable excavated remains. The relocated monuments include megalithic burials, stepped pavilion, stupa and monastery remains of Ikshvaku dynasty.
7.2 Srisailam Project
The Srisailam Project on the River Krishna nearly two decades after the Nagarjunasagar Project again threatened archaeological remains of a large area, which prompted the survey and salvaging between 1962 and 1972. The survey operations also continued after 1975 to carry out a village-to-village survey to document the archaeological remains. This exercise enabled the identification of nearly 26 important sites for intensive exploration and excavation along the Rivers Tungabhadra, Krishna and Banavasi. While a groyne wall was recommended to be constructed for Alampur group of temples, 20 important temples were transplanted to safer locations, after thorough documentation, dismantling stone by stone from the top, stacking them, transporting the stones, selecting a suitable site for transplantation and reconstruction. Excavation at the temple sites was also undertaken to document the construction strategies adopted by the original constructors and the same was reproduced while transplantation.
The two most important temples that were transplanted under this project include (i) Kudaveli Sangameshwara temple and (ii) Papanasi group of temples.
The Kudaveli Sangameshwara temple is located at the confluence of Rivers Krishna and Tungabhadra, which consists of a garbhagriha, antarala and mukhamandapa with ornate prakara and other small shrines. The temple was transplanted near the Alampur group of temples.
The Papanasi group of temples consists of 23 temples of various proportions and located on the banks of River Tungabhadra. The temples have a typical pattern of stepped pyramidal superstructure identified with the Kadamba nagara style of architecture. The group of temples dates from 9th to 13th centuries CE. Here again, extensive documentation of the temples was carried out along with numbering them individually before dismantling. After the dismantling and stacking of the architectural members, excavation was carried out to understand the construction process. The transplantation work was carried out after laying RCC foundation and following the same pattern of ancient construction.
7.3 Narmada Sagar and Sardar Sarovar Project
The Narmada Dam Network Project envisaged 30 major, 135 medium and 3000 minor dams (Ota: . The two-mega dam projects on the River Narmada, namely Narmada Sagar and Sardar Saroval Projects necessitated survey and documentation of extensive areas by ASI, State Department of Archaeology and other institutions. Under the Narmada Sagar Project, the exploration carried out in 112 villages brought to light archaeological remains from prehistoric to medieval periods, including temple remains, iron smelting sites, stray sculptures and memorial pillars. The exploration of the submergence area falling under Sardar Sarovar Project brought to light the remains of several chalcolithic sites in the districts of West Nimar and Dhar of Madhya Pradesh. A few sites were also excavated by the ASI to understand the nature and potentiality of these sites, as for the first time the presence of chalcolithic sites in this region was reported. The sites excavated by ASI are Utawad, Pipri, Chichali, Nawarakheri, Khaparkhera. The sites excavated by State Department of Archaeology, Madhya Pradesh are Chhalpaka, Khedinema, Maruchichli in district Barwani, Brahmangaon in Khargone district, and Karondiya, Ekalbara, Kalyanpura, Pagara, Khalghat, Katnera and Kavathi in district Dhar.
7.4 Excavation at Karanpura, district Hanumangarh, Rajasthan
The large-scale leveling operations at Karanpura caused irreparable damage to the archaeological remains belonging to early and Harappan phases. The villagers have reported the removal of nearly 1.5 m of archaeological deposits. The salvage operations at this site by ASI during 2012-13 an 2013-14 brought to light the remains of early and Harappan phases of Harappan civilization, with evidences of mud brick fortification, house plans, street network, ceramic complex, artefacts indicating trade networks, seals, weights and faunal remains indicating both domestic and wild animal exploitation. The radiocarbon dates from this site indicate a time bracket of c. 3000 – 1900 BCE. During the excavation itself, it could be observed that the villagers were leveling new areas and causing damage to the archaeological remains.
7.4 Salvage excavation at Chandigarh
The construction activities in Sector 17 of Chandigarh brought to light the remains of a Harappan cemetery (30°44’16.77″ N; 76°47’5.08″ E) and later a habitation site (30°44’19.70″ N; 76°47’9.80″ E) at a distance of 100 m east-northeast of the cemetery site. The chance discovery of burial remains was made in 1969 during the construction of a multi-storied building and a salvage operation by University of Punjab brought to light the remains of a Harappan cemetery. The burials were found below an alluvial deposit of nearly 1.5 m, which also prevented any large-scale analysis of the surroundings. Subsequently, another construction activity for an underground parking area brought to light the remains of habitation area, and the Archaeological Survey of India and Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Punjab carried out a salvage operation.
- Summary
A discussion on the public and salvage archaeology above indicates the importance of participation of public in understanding the rich cultural heritage, the need to preserve them for posterity. Several national and international examples have been reviewed to understand the potentiality of such practice. The various legislative measures adopted by several countries including India have also been discussed. However, the education and awareness programs for the community and schoolchildren are of utmost importance. The education may even start at the school curriculum to inculcate a sense of pride among the younger generation towards our cultural heritage. The role of museums in this regard is also of immense importance as they provide a direct link between the present and past through the original objects displayed. The Archaeological Museums of ASI are examples of linking the present with the past, as they are located closer to the excavated sites and create a direct impact among the public in terms of creating awareness and education. The salvage archaeology or the CRM of USA is an attempt to retrieve and safeguard archaeological remains as much as possible that are threatened by developmental projects. In India and elsewhere, many important monuments have been relocated to safer locations due to rising water level caused by construction of mega dams.
Web links
- http://www.asi.nic.in
- http://english-heritage.org.uk
- http://whc.unesco.org
- http://nps.gov/archaeology