Platform perspective regaining next generation of archaeologists

A literal English translation
of a speech delivered by
Sudharshan Seneviratne
Professor of Archaeology, University of Peradeniya, Director Archaeology, Jetavana Project

Co-Director, Anuradhapura Citadel Archaeology Project at Abhayagiriya, to the Archaeology Graduates Association of the Central Cultural Fund celebrating the launching of their research journal, WELIPILA.

Continued from Yesterday

Platform perspective regaining the next generation of archaeologists

Literal English translation of the speech delivered By Sudharshan Seneviratne (2005)

Professor of Archaeology. University of Peradeniya, Director Archaeology, Jetavana Project

Co-Director, Anuradhapura Citadel Archaeology Project, on September 01, 2005 at Abhayagiriya to the Archaeology Graduates Association of the Central Cultural Fund celebrating the launching of their research journal, WELIPILA

(First part of this article appeared yesterday (21)

Intellectual space 

An archaeologist is a humanist who develops a philosophy of life through our prescribed profession. Thus, an archaeologist is most certainly not an individualist. Archaeology is essentially a team-based profession. We must therefore recognize that time and space in our profession must be based on a vision and philosophy. This philosophy is absorbed into our purview through an intelligent vision because we have essentially the need to create an intellectual space for ourselves. Our primary scientific and professional task is to recognise the manner in which past human beings thought and behaved in their ecological niche. Since it cannot be a fantasy or an imaginary situation, it is imperative that we read that past in an objective manner. Our intellectual space must be structured to read ancient material culture and appreciate its cognitive values. To practice this, the professional archaeologist must necessarily possess the required freedom of thought within his or her intellectual space.

This is augmented to a great extent by dialectics and dialogues in archaeology. This dialogue must be carried out not only among ourselves but also as a ‘dialogue with the past’ in order to grasp the dynamics of the ‘dialectics of the past’. This is why freedom of thought becomes an essential ingredient in this process of reading the past in an objective manner. The one who seeks the truth must essentially shed various shades of biases, prejudices, fears and ignorance, was the sublime message given to humanity some 2500 years ago by Siddhartha Gautama. An archaeologist who seeks the past must therefore be free of such fetters. This is the ultimate factor that determines and defines the professional status of the archaeologist.

Research space

 his particular aspect has a direct bearing on the University Departments of Archaeology, Central Cultural Fund and the Archaeological Department of Sri Lanka. The research agenda is an integral component of professional archaeology. Archaeology devoid of research is unthinkable. Archaeology directors administering their respective sites must secure proper cadre positions for the research programme. We must structure our agenda towards problem-oriented and issue-related archaeology and endeavour to provide the required research atmosphere.

 If there are archaeology-related institutes that oppose or downplay the value of the research they may want to revert to the PWD work of the Colonial period. In this connection, I wish to lend a word of caution to the managers of the Central Cultural Fund. The very survival of the CCF will be undermined if you oppose or dilute the Training and Research agenda engraved in the 1980 Act of the Central Cultural Fund. We had on several occasions drawn your attention to the highly productive research centres that could be founded at each site, as we possess sufficient resources for that purpose. It is essential that we utilise the existing intellectual resources in order to facilitate the broad basing of the research infrastructure for the junior archaeological officers. In this regard, there is a large responsibility resting on the shoulders of the Directors of the CCF in making this effort a reality. While there is a mysterious process underway to isolate the archaeologist from the archaeological site, there is also a bizarre policy of undermining research at the heritage sites. We had suggested research programmes emanating from heritage sites that could ultimately provide us with the bigger picture of the regional history of the north-central province. It is now the responsibility of the Archaeological Directors to reverse this pathetic situation at heritage sites and be research facilitators and not feudal lords within a small mud hole.

Archaeology and contemporary political realities

 his is an extremely complex and volatile topic. In general, most Sri Lankans hold political views and are sensitive to political ideologies. Politics is organically linked to the social, economic and religious realities of the land. Politics also has a direct bearing on the study and practice of archaeology. Since the Colonial period, the archaeological agenda of this country was determined by the political reality. This need not continue to be so. We cannot accept the long arm of the politician or the administrator to interfere with archaeological research. Archaeologists must possess an independent workspace in order to preserve their intellectual and professional hegemony.

 Within this highly volatile political structure, archaeologists must conduct themselves as scientists. In the process of interpreting the past, that task must be executed devoid of distortions. If we, as archaeologists, consciously distort and subvert the past we have then wilfully undermined our professional dignity and the right to be identified as professional archaeologists. The reality of the situation is the tremendous amount of political interference that has come to play in the field of archaeology. How do we maintain our intellectual and professional independence in this situation? Ultimately, we must decide the status quo about our professional independence.

 How must the archaeologist perform his or her professional tasks? We cannot divorce ourselves from the social realities of this country. While we are aware of the prevalent ethnic and racial tensions, we must also be able to either cultivate or negate them. Archaeologists must face and question the realities of identities and racism. The burning issue of racism in the north and the south is slowly pushing this country towards fascist alternatives. Distinguished humanists such as Lakshman Kadirgamar were denied the gentle breath of their valued lives by such forces of fascism.  Precisely due to such reasons we must make every effort to read the past and understand history with a balanced mind. Be it an excavation, field reconnaissance or analysis, the ensuing interpretation cannot be based on pre-conceived notions shaded by biases, prejudices or fears.

 The archaeologist must come to terms with the multicultural reality of this country and grasp the essentials of the diversity that prevailed in Sri Lanka in the past. At Anuradhapura Jetavanarama, there is ample evidence to establish multi-cultural and multi-religious vestiges. In addition to Mahayana remains there are Hindu statues and Islamic pottery unearthed at this site. A balanced interpretation of this material is called for while taking into account the past community as stakeholders of a pan-island culture. The prevalence of a multi-cultural inclusive society as our pan-island culture in the past is one way of challenging the parochial exclusive social image projected by terrorists or by the State. We as professionals reading the past must break the shekels imposed by Orientalists who believed this island was populated by a single ‘race’ that professed a single belief system. Archaeological investigations carriedout in the past three decades have conclusively contested these notions.

The Sri Lankan archaeologist and the overseas archaeologist

The whole it is necessary to situate the professional basis of the Sri Lankan archaeologists vis-à-vis the overseas archaeologist. It is slow but a definite thrust made by western archaeologists towards south Asia. The professional body must take into account its line of work in Sri Lanka. Critical aspects such as the role of overseas archaeologists in this country? Who their local partners are? What are the modalities of monitoring their work? These are some valid questions that must be raised in relation to overseas archaeologists.  If these issues are not resolved, Sri Lankan cultural sites may face the same situation as Pakistan, an international ‘killing field for archaeology’. This is more a reason why the Heritage sites coming under the purview of the CCF must be transformed into high-profile research sites. For this purpose, young archaeologists must develop state-of-the-art cutting-edge research techniques and also gain proficiency skills in international languages. Parallel to this, they must also develop skills in the Classical South Asian languages. Today archaeology is recognized as a skill-based profession. Dissemination of skills has to be carried out through awareness programs and discourses. A major time investment by the senior archaeologists as facilitators is now called for. If this is carried out with all earnestness, there is a possible chance of averting the anarchy that is slowly but surely seeping into the profession of archaeology. The need to develop a professional platform regaining the next generation of archaeologists must be understood in the above context. (Concluded)