Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T10:18:09.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sir Alexander Cunningham (1814–1893): The First Phase of Indian Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Abu Imam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years some admirable attempts have been made to offer a connected story of the development of the science of archaeology in various parts of the world in the last hundred years or so. No comparable account is available of its development in India. Archaeology developed in Denmark, in the Aegean, in Egypt and in Cranborne Chase — as it were, so many laboratories in which the methods and techniques of the new discipline were perfected. The question naturally arises in the mind as to why these methods did not grow in India, where literally hundreds of sites were at the archaeologists' disposal. What circumstances prevailed in the Indian archaeological scene to account for the remarkable delay in introducing developed concepts and techniques? To answer this question we must examine the phase when archaeology in India was dominated by Cunningham and Burgess.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 95 , Issue 3-4 , October 1963 , pp. 194 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 196 note 1 ‘Verification of the Itinerary of Hwan Thsang through Ariana and India, with reference to Major Anderson's hypothesis of its modern compilation’, JASB., 1848, Pt. I, 476–488 and Pt. II, 13–60.

page 196 note 2 ‘An Account of the Discovery of the Ruins of the Buddhist city of Samkassa’, JRAS., 1843, 241 ff.

page 196 note 3 ‘Opening of the Topes or Buddhist Monuments of Central India’, JRAS., 1852, 108 ff.

page 196 note 4 Op. cit., JRAS.,1843, 246–7.

page 197 note 1 ‘Proposed Archaeological Investigation’, JASB., 1848, 535–6.

page 198 note 1 Foě Kouě Ki ou Relation des Royaumes Bouddhiques, par Abel Rémusat, Klaproth et Landresse. Paris, 1836Google Scholar.

page 198 note 2 ‘Account of the Foe Kúe Ki, or Travels of Fa Hian in India, translated from the Chinese by Rémusat’, JRAS., 1839, 108–140.

page 198 note 3 Mémoires sur les Contriées Occidentales. Paris, tome I, 1857Google Scholar; tome II, 1858.

page 199 note 1 For this and the related matters the most handy reference is Volume I of Cunningham's reports.

page 202 note 1 Cunningham, Report V, pp. 126–129.

page 203 note 1 Mahâbodhi. London, 1892Google Scholar.

page 203 note 2 JASB., 1864, pp. 332 and 333.

page 204 note 1 ‘Sketch of Archaeological Research in India during Half a Century’, JSBRAS., 1905, p. 140.

page 204 note 2 Ibid., p. 141.

page 204 note 3 ‘Some Notes on Past and Future Archaeological Explorations in India’, JRAS., 1895, p. 655.

page 204 note 4 Report on the Excavations at Pataliputra (patna). Calcutta, 1903, p. 27Google Scholar.

page 205 note 1 The Place of Archaeology in Indian Studies, London, 1949, p. 8Google Scholar.

page 206 note 1 ‘Extract of a letter from Capt. Kittoe’, JASB., 1848, p. 539.

page 207 note 1 Antiquities of Chamba State. New Imperial Series, Vol. XXXVI, Part I, Calcutta 1911, p. iGoogle Scholar.