Book review: Richard M. Eaton and Phillip B. Wagoner, Power, Memory, Architecture: Contested Sites on India’s Deccan Plateau

Richard M. Eaton and Phillip B. Wagoner, Power, Memory, Architecture: Contested Sites on India’s Deccan Plateau. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2017, Paperback, 422 pp. ISBN: 9780199477692

Ever the Handmaid? A Consideration of What a Medieval Archaeology in South Asia Might Be

This article shifts discussion of the medieval in South Asia away from conversations about ‘what’ took place towards ‘how’ it is studied. Following a brief review of what defines the South Asian medieval, this article starts with the premise that the entire period has not been studied archaeologically and that there is a great deal of potential in doing so. This potential is explored with reference to recent work in Central India, which has investigated a particular set of developments in which socio-economic histories first located the transition from the ancient to the medieval in South Asia, namely, royal grants of land to Hindu temples in the fourth to seventh centuries ce. Considering these land grants as archaeological objects and situating them in the very landscapes they existed within reveal a great deal of new information about early medieval social formation and the transition to the early medieval in this region. In presenting this research, I demonstrate not only the potential value of an archaeological approach to the study of the period but also the necessity of it. Consideration then turns to the directions and form(s) that a ‘medieval archaeology’ might usefully take in the study of South Asia, which by no means shares the same empirical (text–object) and theoretical (historical–archaeological) relationships as the study of the medieval elsewhere in the world.

Book review: Alfredo González-Ruibal, An Archaeology of Resistance: Materiality and Time in an African Borderland

Alfredo González-Ruibal, An Archaeology of Resistance: Materiality and Time in an African Borderland. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014, pp. 381. ISBN: 978-1-4422-3090-3.

Politics Beyond Imperial Cores: Spatial Production in the Peripheries of Medieval South India

Current scholarship on medieval South India has developed a comprehensive account of the ways in which political claims were constituted by dynasts and their subordinates in a range of contexts, from imperial courts to provinces. It has elaborated the modalities of political claim-making through instantiations of politico-cultural traditions or ‘cosmopolises’, and the integrative processes and social changes associated with them. However, this scholarship largely focused on imperial capitals and secondary urban settlements, which constituted nodes in the political networks of polities and loci of contestation and integration within them. Regions in which cosmopolitan traditions did not inform political practice remain opaque to this historiography. This article investigates one such contest- the ‘contested’ Raichur Doab. It explores the politics of the production of a settlement- MARP-30 and the ways they were negotiated to constitute relations of inclusion and exclusion.MARP-30 is part of the multi-component site at Maski that during the period of MARP-30’s occupation does not evince evidence of cosmopolitan practices. Examining the constitution of socio-political relations in this context will expand our understanding of political practice in medieval South India to include practices inaccessible through texts and under-explored archaeologically, and yet typical of medieval South India given the political and social dynamism that characterize the medieval period.

Matter of Time: Ceramics and Historicity in Medieval South India

This article examines how people formed and negotiated relations to time in routine engagements with materials and places in medieval South India. Questions of history and memory, which have become central to our understanding of precolonial Indian social and political practices, are frequently considered in relation to courtly epigraphical and textual production or monumental building projects. Positing that experiences of time are formed in everyday acts of production, consumption and maintenance, this article problematises the term ‘social memory’ to propose an alternative framework for exploring temporal relations: the concept of historicity. Historicity provides a robust analytical vocabulary for discussing how historical actors inhabited their own present, how they oriented themselves towards pasts and futures, and the kinds of timescales that both framed their actions and were formed in action. Operationalising this framework, I build on an analysis of excavated ceramics from a twelfth- to thirteenth-century settlement at Maski (northern Karnataka) to foreground the diverse ways in which individuals and communities drew upon available pasts and acted with initiative within an intersubjective present world of tasks and activities.

Ephemeral Traces: Archaeology of a Medieval Rural Settlement

For a considerable span of human history, following the adoption of agricultural economies but prior to the emergence of settlements that we label as ‘urban’, small permanent communities or ‘villages’ were the main types of settlements, as also were places intermittently occupied by mobile, nomadic groups. The context of these, however, differed from those small or rural settlements that existed within an integrated network of centres in urban and state societies. A third scenario is the case of small-scale rural settlements that may exist at the margins of complex societies and, hence, outside state/political control but could still be socially and economically networked with other centres. Thus, the concept of ‘rural’ needs to be situated and interrogated within specific political, social and economic contexts. While archaeological research has addressed village settlements in pre-urban periods, once urbanism and the state societies emerged, urban settlements became the focus of attention. Even though surveys have shown the distribution of settlements of varying sizes, we do not seem to know much about early historic and medieval villages, in terms of settlement layouts, domestic spaces, crafts, if any, or even subsistence practices. It is this lacuna that we are trying to address through our work at a small, rural settlement in the Upper Ganga-Yamuna Doab. Some of the questions that we raise in this article deal with terms like ‘urban’, or ‘rural’, whether these should be viewed as binaries, or whether it may be more fruitful, as others have suggested, to see settlements in a continuum.

Archaeological Context and Archival Content: Historical Archaeology and Medieval Period Donative Practices on the Raichur Doab, Southern India

Definitions of ‘historical archaeology’ frequently imply the use of documentary sources to contextualise the archaeological record and aid interpretation of its content. In this article, I underscore the importance of a complementary process of using the archaeological record to enrich interpretations of epigraphical sources from the medieval Deccan. Going beyond others’ critical calls to evaluate how interpretations of these inscriptional sources are shaped by biases in research practices, I will suggest that the substantive content of politicised donative stelae on the Raichur Doab was related to shifting material contexts of agricultural land use and the dynamic assemblages of cultigens, soils and water that facilitated production during the period. By contextualising inscriptional records and donative practices within an archaeologically documented landscape of changing production activities, one has a stronger epistemological basis for evaluating the social and political significance of the inscriptional archive and the historiography that it affords. In this case, it allows for the re-evaluation of historiographical tropes of the Raichur Doab’s value as ‘fertile’ agricultural space and provides a richer interpretation of how newly emergent social relationships and distinctions evident in eleventh–sixteenth-century inscriptions articulated with landscape histories.

Between Archaeography and Historiography: Unsettling the Medieval?

Do archaeology and history refer to the same real past? Their relationship has been understood primarily as epistemic, as one of the distinct techniques for knowing different aspects or epochs of the past. When archaeologies of more familiar, historical, medieval pasts are conducted, why do these accounts enthusiastically find and lose, provoke and distress, their specialist kin; or why do historiography and archaeography relate uneasily? This article argues that it is useful to think of archaeography and historiography as two sensibilities, two activities, and following de Certeau, as two operations. Each operation is governed by distinct protocols of generalisation, different aspirations of synthesis, distinct poetics that govern their texts and the account they wish to give of their subjects. Appreciating these differences, this article focuses on the foreclosures shared by both operations with reference to the tangle of the medieval. It asks, what comes to count as evidence and how, which questions arise and why, and what aspects of pasts termed medieval appear familiar, alien, or interesting. From these questions it builds an account of what archaeology can disclose about shared modern historicist commitments to the medieval and those uneasily kept out of its scenes. This article grounds these questions through an engagement with South Asian medieval historiography on the theme of settlement. First, through a genealogy of settlement it examines the reasons for the concept’s centrality to accounts of medieval life, (modern) politics and the state. Through examples drawn from research in Mewat, it examines what these commitments to thinking about settlement disable and enable, the questions its assumptions exclude. It demonstrates how archaeologies of settlement bring into view questions of anteriority, and how attention to spatial relations of remove and accrual reverse figure and ground in accounts of dwelling. In light of these disjoinders, it asks, must we continue to close our operations, to write our medieval, in the manner we do?