In this methodological paper, field and archival data standing in a dialectical relationship in the wider context of the contributions and limitations of the subaltern school of history in India and the recent methodological innovations of anthropologists towards multi-sited ethnography have been viewed.1 Accordingly, the complementary role of archival materials and field observations, in the form of a multi-sited ethnography, has been explored. Methodologically, the description revealed the pluralism of anthropology. At the theoretical level, society and culture existed not only in space but also through time, and what has been in the field could be related with the records which human beings preserved, used and manipulated in the archives. It is concluded that ‘field’ and ‘archive’ were cultural artefacts and their underlying unity could be discovered by placing them in a broader context of policy and politics.
BurmanJ.J. (1996). Encroachment of forest department into the development field.Mainstream,12October.
6.
ChatterjeeP. (2012). After subaltern studies.Economic & Political Weekly, 35(XLVII), 44–49.
7.
CohnB. (1987a). An anthropologist among the historians: A field study. In CohnBernard S. (Ed.), An anthropologist among the historians.Delhi: Oxford University Press.
8.
CohnB. (1987b). History and anthropology: The state of play. In CohnBernard S. (Ed.), An anthropologist among the historians.Delhi: Oxford University Press.
9.
ComaroffJ. & ComaroffJ. (1992). Ethnography and the historical imagination. Boulder, CO: Westview.
10.
DirksN.B. (1987). The hollow crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
DirksN.B. (2001). Castes of mind: Colonialism and the making of modern India.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
12.
DirksN.B. (2006). The scandal of empire: India and the creation of imperial Britain. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
13.
DirksN.B. (2015). Autobiography of an archive: A scholar’s passage to India. New York: Columbia University Press.
14.
DubeS. (2004). Postcolonial passages: Contemporary history-writing on India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
15.
DubeS. (2007). Introduction. In DubeS. (Ed.), Historical anthropology. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
16.
FullerC.J. & BénéïV. (2000). For an anthropology of the modern Indian state. In FullerC.J. & BénéïV. (Eds), The everyday state and society in modern India. New Delhi: Social Science Press.
17.
GadgilM. & GuhaR. (1992). New forest policy: For genuine friendship.The Hindu Survey of the Environment, pp. 26–29.
18.
GuhaA. (2001). Land Acquisition Among the Cultivators of Rural Medinipur, West Bengal: An Anthropological Appraisal. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation). Midnapore: Vidyasagar University.
19.
GuhaA. (2007a). Peasant resistance in West Bengal: A decade before Singur and Nandigram.Economic & Political Weekly, 37(42), 3706–3711.
20.
GuhaA. (2007b). Land, law and the Left: The saga of disempowerment of the peasantry in the era of globalization.New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.
21.
GuhaA.PradhanA. & MondalK. (2000). Joint forest management in West Bengal: A long way to go.Journal of Human Ecology, 11(6), 471–476.
22.
GuhaR. (1987). Introduction. In CohnBernard S. (Ed.), An anthropologist among the historians.Delhi: Oxford University Press.
23.
KhareA. (1991). Utopia and myopia.Wastelands News, 7(2), 2.
24.
Land Acquisition Department. (1996). Report on the Hearing of Objections for Land Acquisition for Century Textiles. (Unpublished). Midnapore: Office of the Land Acquisition Department.
25.
LevienM. (2013). The politics of dispossession: Theorizing India’s ‘Land Wars’.Politics and Society, 41(3), 351–394.
26.
MalinowskiB. (1922 [1961]). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
27.
MarcusG.E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography.Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.
28.
MathurS. (2000). History and anthropology in South Asia: Rethinking the archive.Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 89–106.
29.
MukherjeeN. (1995). Forest management and survival needs community experience in West Bengal.Economic & Political Weekly, 49(30), 3130–3132.
30.
NielsenK.B. (2009). Farmers’ use of the courts in an anti-land acquisition movement in India’s West Bengal.Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 59, 121–144.
31.
OrtnerS.B. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the sixties.Comparative Studies in Society and History,26(1), 126–166.
32.
Principal Agricultural Office. (1995). Report on the yield rate of cereals (Unpublished), Midnapore (West).
33.
SinhaS. (1959). Bhumij-Kshatriya social movement in south Manbhum.Bulletin of the Department of Anthropology, Calcutta University, VII(2), 9–32.
34.
SivaramakrishnanK. (1995). Situating the subaltern: History and anthropology in the subaltern studies project.Journal of Historical Sociology, 8(4), 395–429.
35.
StolerA.L. (2002). Colonial archives and the arts of governance.Archival Science, 2, 87–109.
36.
TarloE. (2000). Paper truths: The emergency and slum clearance through forgotten files. In FullerC.J. & BénéïV. (Eds), The everyday state and society in modern India. New Delhi: Social Science Press.
37.
WhiteleyP.M. (2004). Why Anthropology Needs More History.Journal of Anthropological Research, 60(4), 487–514.
38.
ZeitlynD. (2012). Anthropology in and of the archives: Possible futures and contingent pasts. Archives as anthropological surrogates.Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 461–480.
