The Dilemma of ‘Science’: ‘Tradition’ and Archaeology in Early Twentieth-century Bengal

Abstract

The study of history as a genre became important not only as an academic concern but to recover the lost pride and dignity of the indigenous people in a colonized land. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Bengal, the study of the past assumed prime importance in the context of nationalism to counter the disdain of colonial historians and revive national pride. History as a ‘scientific’ discipline functioned as a tool in this regard, where the vernacular emerged as the principal medium of communication. Individuals from diverse backgrounds debated whether a more rigorous understanding of the past through Western ‘scientific’ methods could supplant the information from traditional texts and legends. Material culture or ‘hard’ evidence considered more suitable for a ‘modern’ objective historical account gained precedence over the traditional texts, dismissed as imaginary and mythical. A heated debate emerged between two groups, the archaeologists who believed in the objectivity of material evidence and the traditionalists who subscribed to the view that classical literature was not irrelevant to understanding the past. However, this division remained nebulous, and both groups remained in a liminal interstitial space engaging and contesting with their notions of ‘tradition’ and ‘science’. It was from this contested space that emerged an ambivalent archaeological method which formed an important characteristic of Indian archaeology in the post-Independence era.