{"title":"法庭考古学:阿约提亚案和混合知识的形成","authors":"Rachel A. Varghese","doi":"10.1177/14696053231190374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 1 August 2002, the Allahabad High Court in India, adjudicating the Ayodhya Case, ordered archaeological excavations by the central government agency Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at the site of the demolished mosque Babri Masjid in Uttar Pradesh. The order marked a new moment for the convergence of law and archaeology in India, with archaeological knowledge being produced on judicial demand as evidence in a civil dispute. This paper argues that this marked the emergence of a hybrid episteme of archaeology-as-legal-evidence which redefines archaeology within the framework of law. It traces these tendencies by a close reading of three documents: the judgements of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya Case and an order issued by a lower court in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh on 8 April 2021 in the GyanVapi Case. I argue that the new role that archaeology is assuming in courtrooms in India is destabilising the standing of the ASI as the authority of archaeological knowledge and the protector of the nation’s material past. It has also produced a category of assertive public that successfully demands production of archaeological knowledge towards ideological ends.","PeriodicalId":46391,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Archaeology for the courtroom: the Ayodhya Case and the fashioning of a hybrid episteme\",\"authors\":\"Rachel A. Varghese\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14696053231190374\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On 1 August 2002, the Allahabad High Court in India, adjudicating the Ayodhya Case, ordered archaeological excavations by the central government agency Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at the site of the demolished mosque Babri Masjid in Uttar Pradesh. The order marked a new moment for the convergence of law and archaeology in India, with archaeological knowledge being produced on judicial demand as evidence in a civil dispute. This paper argues that this marked the emergence of a hybrid episteme of archaeology-as-legal-evidence which redefines archaeology within the framework of law. It traces these tendencies by a close reading of three documents: the judgements of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya Case and an order issued by a lower court in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh on 8 April 2021 in the GyanVapi Case. I argue that the new role that archaeology is assuming in courtrooms in India is destabilising the standing of the ASI as the authority of archaeological knowledge and the protector of the nation’s material past. It has also produced a category of assertive public that successfully demands production of archaeological knowledge towards ideological ends.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social Archaeology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social Archaeology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14696053231190374\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Archaeology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14696053231190374","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Archaeology for the courtroom: the Ayodhya Case and the fashioning of a hybrid episteme
On 1 August 2002, the Allahabad High Court in India, adjudicating the Ayodhya Case, ordered archaeological excavations by the central government agency Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at the site of the demolished mosque Babri Masjid in Uttar Pradesh. The order marked a new moment for the convergence of law and archaeology in India, with archaeological knowledge being produced on judicial demand as evidence in a civil dispute. This paper argues that this marked the emergence of a hybrid episteme of archaeology-as-legal-evidence which redefines archaeology within the framework of law. It traces these tendencies by a close reading of three documents: the judgements of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya Case and an order issued by a lower court in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh on 8 April 2021 in the GyanVapi Case. I argue that the new role that archaeology is assuming in courtrooms in India is destabilising the standing of the ASI as the authority of archaeological knowledge and the protector of the nation’s material past. It has also produced a category of assertive public that successfully demands production of archaeological knowledge towards ideological ends.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Social Archaeology is a fully peer reviewed international journal that promotes interdisciplinary research focused on social approaches in archaeology, opening up new debates and areas of exploration. It engages with and contributes to theoretical developments from other related disciplines such as feminism, queer theory, postcolonialism, social geography, literary theory, politics, anthropology, cognitive studies and behavioural science. It is explicitly global in outlook with temporal parameters from prehistory to recent periods. As well as promoting innovative social interpretations of the past, it also encourages an exploration of contemporary politics and heritage issues.