by
Ajay Pratap
Reader
Department of History
Faculty of Social Sciences
Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi
In the light of already existing analyses of the application of anthropological methods in third world contexts (see Barnes, Fahim, Asad, Banaji, Beteille) it is the purpose of this article to examine the fundamental differences in anthropologist-informant(s) relations in third world contexts, with particular reference to India.
It is suggested in this paper, that it is not all right for western anthropologists to assume that the relations between white anthropologist and subaltern informant is likely to be replicated in toto where third world anthropologists/archaeologists are concerned. It is pertinent to state the latter since, in my personal experience of interacting with western archaeologists/anthropologists, I have often found it implicit in their assumptions of the third world archaeologists' work, the extent to which they (the third world anthropologists) have been able to replicate the western situation in their fieldwork.
I could state ethnographic work to study hunter-gatherer behaviour, or that of shifting cultivators or pastoralists or tribal craftspersons; or indeed in the study of rock-art. Taking the latter as a case in the point, we know, for example, that in North America and Australia there exist indigenous informants who see rock-paintings clearly as their heritage (the work of their ancestors) and may read a rock-painting, and explain its probable meaning and significance to their group. That, however, and unexplicably so, is not a situation prevailing in india.
I quote below from Bednarik, 2006, pp. 19 (see bibliography): "More specifically it is not the role of the scientist to determine or pronounce what is depicted in the art. Controlled experiments (which have only been possible in Australia) have shown that scholars are incapable of identifying rock art motifs correctly in most cases (e.g. Macintosh 1977). Where they maintain their postulated identifications this is only possible because these are incapable of being refuted. I cannot emphasize enough that it is in most cases irrelevant what archaeologists think is depicted in an ancient rock art. The only exception would be if one wanted to study the cognitive perception of archaeologists. Other than that, real scientists are not interested in anyone's pronouncements about the iconographic content of very early rock art, if this is what they feel inclined to do....Consequently L. Wittgenstein's dictum applies: whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent".
What then is the nature of this relationship? How does it influence enquiry in field-contexts? If an Indian anthropologist sets about doing fieldwork, then, what are his presuppositions about an indigenous group, and therefore the likely relationship with a member of indigenous community in modern Indian context? Is the divide between him and the native informant as wide as the (experiential gap in terms of language, customs, landscape and lifestyle generally) gap between a white western anthropologist and an indigenous informant? Assuming that such a gap would exist, how would this translate in terms of fieldwork practice? Finally, how is this transformed anthropologist-informant(s) relationship likely to produce archaeologies/anthropologies different from the first situation?
Such complexities of fieldwork in third world locations, by third world archaeologists, leads me to suggest that Robert's view above is clearly ethnocentric. I have already stated that we are aware that Australia does have indigenous informants of rock art and hence his point of view about "controlled experiments". His insistence that a scientific study of art, even rock-art, could never be based on motif identifications, is most perplexing. Is it implied that, for one, countries that do not have indigenous informants and cannot carry-out "controlled experiments", should shut-up? Relatedly, and more interestigly, countries like India where iconography is taught as a specific skill in M.A. courses, given our rich tradition of sculptures, temples etc. from about 6th century B.C. are upto no good, because according to him "real scintists are not interested in iconographic pronouncements".
I put to you this proposition. To the best of my knowledge there is no temple or sculpture (in stones) tradition that I know of in the New World, and neither in Australia, and hence iconography never developed as a science in these locales. Even the great Carl Jung in his Memories, Dreams and Reflections speaks of the grandeur and significance of the temple and sculptures of Konarak (Orissa) and Khajuraho, in quite iconic terms, and tries to explain their relevance to ancient and contemporary society. Thus in India with its plethora of sculptures (in different media) and temples, iconography is serious business. Thus when Indian archaeologists approach rock art, beacause of their cultural and academic programming they tend to say things like: "Oh, that's a cow, tha's a bull, that's a deer, that's a rhino". What indeed is wrong with that?
Another is the issue of gender depictions in rock-art. Western academic archaeologists well into this millenium are dead-certain that human-figure depcitions in rock-art are genderless. The term anthropomorph (in neuter gender) is uses widely to characterize human figure depictions even at a time when feminist archaeologists are trying to write-off most of western archaeology as androcentric, and attempting to identify gender-bias in archaeology. As Indian archaeologists, and as one who has worked on Indian rock-art, I have felt no problems at all, except in a few cases where human forms are depicted as stick-figures, in being able to tell the gender of the human figure, following a simple iconographic, nay biological principle, often used by other Indian archaeologists as well: anatomically, if there is shown a protrusion from between the legs of an anthropomorph, then it is a male figure, and if protrusions, like breasts are depcited on a figure, then it is a female.
This question also assumes significance in the light of the fact that in our Indian schools of anthropological pedagogy, no specific manuals exist to train Indian anthropologists in non-western methods, especially for fieldwork in their own, local, contexts. Herein lies and assumption and unmindful adopting of such pedagogy that the relationships between western anthropologists (and informants) and non-western-anthropologists and informants should be the same. Needless to say, such a situation is not, even theoretically, acceptable; even if Indian anthropologists, since independence, have not spent any time whatsoever pontificating such issues. With the help of field anecdotes, from my fieldwork in the Rajmahal Hills, Santhal Parganas, this brief article tries to shed light on such issues.
Bibliography
Bednarik, R.G. 2006.A global perspective on Indian Palaeoart. in Chenna Reddy, P. (Ed.). Mahasenasiri. Riches of Indian Archaeological and cultural studies (A Felicitation Volume in Honour of Dr. I.K. Sarma) Sharada Publishing House, Vol. I. Delhi.
Beteille, A. 1998. The idea of Indigenous People. Current Anthropology, Vol 39, No. 2 (Apr. 1998), pp. 187-191.
Ajay.
