The Marshall Albums by Mapin Publishing

THE MARSHALL ALBUMS Photography and Archaeology

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 1

8/26/10 11:04:57 AM

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 2

8/26/10 11:04:57 AM

THE MARSHALL ALBUMS Photography and Archaeology

VIJAYANAGARA Editor Sudeshna Guha

Preface Prof. B.D. Chattopadhyaya

Contributors Sudeshna Guha, Michael S. Dodson, Tapati Guha-Thakurta, Christopher Pinney, Robert Harding

The Alkazi Collection of Photography in association with

Mapin Publishing

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 3

8/26/10 11:04:58 AM

First published in India in 2010 by Mapin Publishing Pvt. Ltd and The Alkazi Collection of Photography with support from Archaeological Survey of India • Commemorating 150th Anniversary of ASI • Simultaneously published in the United States of America in 2010 by Grantha Corporation 77 Daniele Drive, Hidden Meadows Ocean Township, NJ 07712 E: mapin@mapinpub.com and The Alkazi Collection of Photography United Kingdom: London • stephanie.roy@btinternet.com India: New Delhi • rahaab@acparchives.com Distributed in North America by Antique Collectors’ Club T: 1 800 252 5231 • F: 413 529 0862 E: info@antiquecc.com • www.antiquecollectorsclub.com Distributed in United Kingdom and Europe by Marston Book Services Ltd T: 44 1235-465 578 • F: 44 1235 465 555 E: trade.orders@marston.co.uk Distributed in Southeast Asia by Paragon Asia Co. Ltd T: 66 2877 7755 • F: 66 2468 9636 E: info@paragonasia.com Distributed in the rest of the world by Mapin Publishing Pvt. Ltd 502 Paritosh, Near Darpana Academy, Usmanpura Riverside, Ahmedabad 380013 T: 91 79 4022 8228 • F: 91 79 4022 8201 E: mapin@mapinpub.com • www.mapinpub.com

Text and Illustrations © The Alkazi Collection of Photography except by permission of: Archaeological Survey of India (figs. 72, 75, 100, 101, 103) British Library (figs. 59, 60, 62) Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Cambridge (figs. 20, 61, 80, 82) Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge (figs. 24, 25, 30, 33, 36, 44, 51, 73, 74, 76, 83, 84, 85, 88, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116) Sandy Morton (fig. 117) The rights of Prof. B.D. Chattopadhyaya, Sudeshna Guha, Michael S. Dodson, Tapati Guha-Thakurta, Christopher Pinney and Robert Harding to be identified as authors of this work have been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved under international copyright conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any other information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. ISBN: 978-81-89995-32-4 (Mapin) ISBN: 978-1-890206-45-1 (Grantha) LCCN: 2010932792 Copyediting: Shyama Warner, Smriti Vohra / Mapin Editorial Design: Arati Devasher / Mapin Design Studio Production: Mapin Design Studio Processed at Thomson Press, India Printed and bound at Pragati Offset Pvt. Ltd, India The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. Front Cover: Unknown Photographer, Marshall with His Wife, Daughter and her Governess at Eastern Gateway of Great Stupa, Sanchi, c.1912–18, Silver Gelatin Print, 149 x 105 mm. Back Cover: Public Works Department, “Inscription below the 1st Balcony Taken from South”, Qutb Minar, Mehrauli, Delhi, 1908–09, Silver Gelatin Print, Photographer’s Ref. 1811, 98 x 149 mm. Frontispiece: Archaeological Survey of India, Tomb of Iltutmish, Interior View, Qutb Complex, Mehrauli, Delhi, c.1919–20, Silver Gelatin Print, 225 x 210 mm. Front Endpapers: Archaeological Survey of India, Iron Pillar, Qutb Complex, Delhi, c.1910s–20s, Silver Gelatin Print, 155 x 110 mm. Back Endpapers: Excerpt from Letter by John Marshall to a Colleague, 1909, Private Collection.

Contents 7

Preface

Acknowledgements

INTRODUCTION Archaeology, Photography, Histories Sudeshna Guha

CHAPTER 2 The Many Lives of the Sanchi Stupa in Colonial India Tapati Guha-Thakurta

136

CHAPTER 3 Photographs in Sir John Marshall’s Archaeology Sudeshna Guha

178

CHAPTER 4 ‘Buddhist’ Photography Christopher Pinney

202

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 5

CHAPTER 1 Orientalism and Archaeology: Writing the History of South Asia, 1600–1860 Michael S. Dodson

CHAPTER 5 Cunningham, Marshall and the Monks: An Early Historic City as a Buddhist Landscape Robert Harding

232

Appendix A: John Marshall and the Photographic Collections Sudeshna Guha

253

Appendix B: Seminal Excavations Undertaken during Marshall’s Directorship of the Archaeological Survey of India Sudeshna Guha

257

Appendix C: Bibliography

268

Catalogue of Photographs: The Marshall Albums

277

Index

8/26/10 11:04:59 AM

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 6

8/26/10 11:04:59 AM

Preface Prof. B.D. Chattopadhyaya

y none-too-meagre collection of amateur snapshots, taken at a variety of sites, has always been regarded with amused indulgence by my family; in their eyes, my photographic ventures fall far short of expected technical and aesthetic standards. I cannot claim to be a technically sophisticated field archaeologist either. I was therefore both surprised and delighted to receive an invitation to write a Foreword to this sumptuous volume of historical images accompanied by detailed textual analyses. I was very pleased to oblige; in addition, it was too tempting an opportunity to vindicate my interest in photography to sceptical viewers at home.

As a teacher and researcher in the field of ancient Indian history, I have always relied upon photographic material in order to develop my work. India offers an amazingly unique chronologically diverse spectrum of relics of the past, and the scope of archaeological photography has therefore always been extremely rich. The sheer volume of what is available today is simply staggering. Only a fraction of the material excavated and documented by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) prior to Independence was used as visuals in publications of the time; and though the photo archives of the ASI remain a veritable, but sadly neglected, trove of pre- and post-Independence archaeological photographs, one tends to doubt now whether everything that was collected has been retained. I personally do not know whether pre-Partition archaeological photographs are part of institutionalised departments of archaeology in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Randolph Bezzant Holmes Tangi Gorge near Khyber Pass, Photographer’s Ref. No. 72, c. 1910s–1930s, Silver Gelatin Print, 242 x 293 mm

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 7

The bulk of the photographs in this volume are sourced from the Marshall Albums in The Alkazi Collection of Photography. Visuals have also been taken from the 60 volumes of Marshall Albums now divided into two parts under the custodianship of the universities of Cambridge and Durham. Additionally, there are photographs taken from other albums, museum collections and during the tenure of some of Marshall’s predecessors at the ASI. Initially appointed for a period of five years, Marshall had a long tenure at the ASI, first as its Director General (1902–1928) and then as Officer on Special Duty (1928–1934). During his management, the corpus of collected material and its photographic documentation grew enormously. From a historiographic point of view, since there was a general scarcity of authentic written sources, objects fashioned by the “chisels of the country’s ancient sculptors were immeasurably more to be trusted than the pens of her authors”, as has been remarked. But what were the various and particular implications of photography within the demanding discipline of colonial archaeology? Since renderings of the photographed object inevitably altered over time with changes in technology and visual modalities in general, were there specific concerns relating to the manner of imaging of selected archaeological items? Of course, the particular interests of individuals heading the ASI, or of those associated with it, may have varied considerably. In his pioneering tour reports covering an extensive area of north, central and other regions of India, Alexander Cunningham expressed his desire for an “accurate description of sites visited and excavated through illustration, plan, and photograph” – the latter being one of the techniques by which “accurate description” could

8/26/10 11:04:59 AM

Preface

be achieved. Marshall’s own preference was perhaps for the ‘artistic’. In his introduction to the Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India 1902–03, the newly appointed Director General offered an apology for “possible unevenness of language and presentation in the Reports in terms of different authorship”, adding that “pictorial illustrations, the reproductions, the plans and the sketches”, prepared at different places and “therefore of unequal individual qualities” were not to be viewed as a “single artistic whole”. Marshall may have relinquished this initially apologetic position over the years through his forceful and positive personal interventions at archaeological sites, making them more accessible to visitors and photographers. His overall preference for the picturesque and the panoramic, with ‘natives’ strategically placed to highlight the scale of architecture and landscape, was certainly different from the austere, orderly mode of R.E.M. Wheeler, the important colonial archaeologist who had attempted to give a new direction to archaeology in the subcontinent. Regardless of methodological differences, however, a fundamental question remained: was there an overarching/underlying ideological theme manifesting through archaeological photographs, now assuming significance as a crucial modality of visual representation?

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 8

In his Annual Report of 1902–03, Marshall explained that “current archaeological operations”, which during the initial years of his directorship rested on shaky foundations, related “first and principally to Conservation, secondly to Exploration and Research, and lastly to Epigraphy… its [the Survey’s] duty will therefore be to place before European Scholars for elucidation rather than to attempt elucidation on its own account”. Evidently it did not matter to the British administration that a number of Indian scholars were then engaged in studies of archaeology and its various branches, and that alternative historiographies were being conceived for connecting the past and the present as a nationalist agenda. All archaeological material was to be prepared, in the form of reports and visuals, for interpretation – and canonisation – by Europeans. The meticulously researched analyses and critical narratives in this volume remain sensitive to colonial intent and methodology, even as they focus on the complexities of decoding the elusive yet enduring themes embedded in archaeological photographs. They suggest that historical images are neither disciplinary constructs nor self-revelatory truths; rather, they are equivocal objects that resist fixed frames and predictable trajectories. Ultimately, the responsibility for ‘meaning’ devolves upon the viewer, for photographs are no more – and no less – than what we make them out to be.

8/26/10 11:05:00 AM

Acknowledgements Sudeshna Guha

t is with great pleasure I thank Mr Ebrahim Alkazi for granting me the opportunity of editing this volume. My biggest debt of gratitude is to his curators who have gone beyond their call of duty to guide the project to a successful completion. In particular, I thank Sophie Gordon, former Associate Curator of The Alkazi Collection of Photography, who informed me of the Marshall albums in the Collection, invited me to plan a book around them and subsequently sorted and negotiated relevant details. I am immensely grateful to Shyama Warner for her linguistic flair, meticulous eye for detail, and the time she invested in copy editing the book with me, and to Professor B.D. Chattopadhyaya for writing the Preface. I am thankful to Stéphanie RoyBharath, Esa Epstein and Pramod Kumar for cheerfully meeting all my demands; Smriti Vohra for her careful reading of the chapters; Anita M. Jacob for listing the photographs; Arati Devasher for the book’s design; and Rahaab Allana for his input and good humour in dealing with disagreements. The institution I would like to acknowledge in particular is the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Cambridge. For it is while documenting the Museum’s extensive holdings of ethnographic and historical photographs that I became interested in relationships between photography and archaeology, and archaeological evidence and its visual representations. I am indeed

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 9

very grateful to Gwil Owen for the reproductions of the Museum’s photographs in this book; to Alex Nadin, Anita Herle, Mark Elliott, Wendy Brown, and Jocelyne Dudding for supporting the project in many ways; and to the Getty Foundation for facilitating my research on historical photographs from South Asia. I take this opportunity of recalling the generosity of the late William Morton who enlightened me on littleknown aspects of Harold Hargreaves’s archaeological career in India, and thank his son Sandy Morton for the photograph of Hargreaves reproduced in the Appendix. At the Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, I thank R.N. Kaw and V. Bakshi for always facilitating my access to the Survey’s photographic and documentary archives, and Kishan Singh for drawing the map for this book. I thank John Falconer for the photographs from the British Library that are reproduced here; Ian Piggott for information on John Marshall in the archives at Dulwich College; and Karen Exell for allowing me to browse at leisure the Marshall Collection in the Oriental Museum at Durham University. I am grateful to the contributors for meeting all deadlines, and for their minimal demands. My own chapter, I hope, reflects some of my intellectual debt to Elizabeth Edwards, who first alerted me to the power and authority of photographs.

8/26/10 11:05:00 AM

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 10

8/26/10 11:05:00 AM

Introduction

ARCHAEOLOGY, PHOTOGRAPHY, HISTORIES Sudeshna Guha

uring their formative years in the nineteenth century, archaeology and photography made substantive contributions to the historical method. Perceived as field practices capable of rendering fairly objective accounts, the authority that was invested to both derived from the understanding that they allowed reality to be ‘captured’ in an unmediated fashion, and offered a relatively objective means of documentation. However, the knowledge that was established through archaeological investigation and its photographs also acquired many different values through their diverse usages. The five chapters in this volume present analyses of this phenomenon through an exploration of the histories of early India that were archaeologically created during British rule of South Asia. They offer seminal references for archaeology’s

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 11

Archaeological Survey of India John and Florence Marshall with Officers and Staff of the Archaeological Survey, Simla, 25 April 1925 Silver Gelatin Print, 212 x 283 mm

8/26/10 11:05:03 AM

Sudeshna Guha

emergence as an authoritative science and photography’s agency within the construction of historical narratives of India’s pre-colonial past. One objective of this volume is to draw attention to the ways in which historical evidence is often negotiated and fixed as irrefutable fact through archaeological work. The other is to create an awareness of the materiality of vision and the ways in which photography, photographs and photographic collections are used for establishing disciplinary epistemologies and archaeological knowledge. The intention here is to demonstrate that neither the historical realities that are archaeologically established nor their photographic representations can be assured for perpetuity as phenomena with ‘fixed’ meanings. The volume derives inspiration from a personal collection of photographs of, perhaps, the most reputed British archaeologist of India, Sir John Marshall, who was also the longest serving Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (1902–28) (fig. 1). The Survey was newly reinstituted in 1902 with Marshall as its head. His appointment was spearheaded by the then Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon (1899–1905), who wished to enhance the ‘merits’ of his government’s rule by adding to its visibility through archaeological excavations and restorations of India’s monumental heritage. At the age of 26, and with no experience of India in terms of either scholarship or previous visits, Marshall was brought from England to head archaeological projects within British India (see Appendix A, Part I in this volume). The Archaeological Survey of India had a long and chequered past. First established in 1861, just three years after Britain had formally acquired India, the Survey initially had only an Archaeological Surveyor as its staff. This ‘organisation’ was disbanded in 1866, when the Surveyor (who in effect was the Director), Alexander Cunningham, completed what

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 12

he reckoned were four ‘intensive’ archaeological surveys of the Upper Gangetic plain of northern India. The Survey was reinstituted in 1871 with Cunningham now designated as Director General (1871–85). The colonial will to preserve India’s monumental heritage emanated from the field surveys of its historic architecture and their subsequent ‘listing’. Embarked upon, albeit in a desultory fashion, from as early as 1847 by the East India Company,1 such architectural surveys of India became an essential aspect of ‘archaeological’ documentation, and remained integral to the archaeological work that was undertaken by Marshall’s Survey. The documentations were often accomplished through detailed photography, and one of the most enduring aspects of the nineteenth-century archaeological projects within India are the extensive collections of architectural photographs and drawings, the bulk of which at present are in the British Library in London. The British Raj officially proclaimed the restoration of India’s monuments as its ‘enlightened duty’ in 1878, and initiated a shortlived curatorial responsibility, between 1881 and 1883, for preserving the historical heritage of its native subjects. As a centralised institution, the Archaeological Survey of India ceased to exist in 1889 with the tenure of its second Director General, the architectural historian James Burgess (1885–1889). Marshall’s appointment in 1902 heralded its reinstitution, but with an extensive reorganisation of its administration. Although like its nineteenth-century counterparts this ‘new’ Survey was conceived as a temporary organisation with a life span of five years, it was mandated with a focused work plan and given ‘headquarters’ at Simla in the Gorton Castle Secretariat (see Appendix A, Part II, Section 1 in this volume). The proposals for the Archaeological Survey of India’s redevelopment, which were implemented in 1901, also

8/26/10 11:05:04 AM

Introduction

included plans for the creation of unique collections and archives of books, photographs and administrative records. The Central Archaeological Library and the Photographic Collection of the DGA (Director General of Archaeology), instituted in 1903 and 1904 respectively at Marshall’s behest, together with the Survey’s documentary archives developed at its headquarters from 1902, have come to represent the three most valuable resources for the early-twentieth-century history of archaeological practices within India and Burma. The official archives remain a distinguishing aspect of Marshall’s administration of Indian archaeology (see Appendix A, Part II, Section 6 in this volume). This volume, which draws on the Survey’s archives to a considerable extent, hopes to create an awareness of their value as historic sources and the urgency of preserving them. At present both the library and the documentary and photographic archives in New Delhi are in a precarious state, and the Survey’s continued neglect of their proper conservation will only lead to their premature extinction. Mindful of the many recent publications on the nineteenthand early-twentieth-century history of Indian archaeology and British archaeologists of colonial India, including Marshall,2 a conscious effort has been made here to abstain from narrative histories of South Asian archaeology. Instead, a thematic and chronological space that extends beyond Marshall and his times is reviewed, to explore the ways in which we can analyse relationships between archaeological evidence and its representation, critique the propagation of ‘scientific archaeology’ for nurturing partisan politics, and explore the importance of receiving monuments, antiquities and their photographs as socially salient objects. This introduction sets the referential frame for the chapters that follow by providing an overview of the politics, relationships and collaborations through which Marshall

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 13

directed the archaeology of India, and strengthened the position of the Survey. It also offers a glimpse of his conservation efforts, not detailed elsewhere within the volume, through photographs. Since the main objective here is to present the ‘Marshall Albums’ of photographs (see Appendix A, Part III in this volume) omission of details on excavations, explorations and restorations that Marshall and his officers planned, initiated, supervised and completed, and the myriad museum collections they aided in establishing, is unavoidable (see Appendix A, Part II, Section 6, and Map in Appendix B in this volume). This omission, however, reflects the strength of the unique albums that lucidly present the archaeological work that Marshall reserved for himself.

The Marshall Albums The John Marshall albums contain many views of the Marshall family during their stay in India. As can be expected, this reference to the personal is absent within the Survey’s extensive official archives, both documentary and photographic. The photographs of shikar and family holidays in Kashmir, including the bungalow where the Marshall family stayed and which they called their ‘hut’, reflect the lifestyle of senior British officers in India (figs. 2, 3, 4, 5). These photographs when juxtaposed with those that directly present the Survey’s activities, widen our perspectives on Marshall’s archaeological practices and policies. One example is a series that Marshall titled as “The Prince at Taxila” (figs. 6, 7). The Prince of Wales, later King Edward VIII, visited Marshall at Taxila on 9 March 1922, the day before he attended the Military Review held in his honour at Rawalpindi (fig. 8). He was shown around the extensive excavations through

8/26/10 11:05:04 AM

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 14

Sudeshna Guha

Above Unknown Photographer Marshall with Tiger, c.1902â&#x20AC;&#x201C;28 Silver Gelatin Print, 106 x 80 mm John Marshall (attrib.) Marshall Family at Dal Lake, Srinagar, c.1910 Silver Gelatin Print, 91 x 105 mm

8/26/10 11:05:04 AM

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 15

8/26/10 11:05:06 AM

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 16

Sudeshna Guha

John Marshall (attrib.) View of ‘Tinkothi’, the Bungalow Marshall Mentioned as the Family’s ‘Hut’, Gulmarg, c.1910–33 Silver Gelatin Print, 125x 192 mm

8/26/10 11:05:09 AM

Introduction

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 17

Unknown Photographer John, Florence and Margaret Marshall Fishing, with Others, Kashmir, c.1911â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1920s Silver Gelatin Print, 111 x 152 mm

8/26/10 11:05:10 AM

Sudeshna Guha

which Marshall had by then historically established the ancient Greek city of Sirkap, which to date remains one of the best-known excavated examples of Bactro-Greek site (fig. 9). The Prince ended his half-day visit to Taxila with lunch at the Marshalls’, followed by a game of croquet. It is not surprising that Marshall was able to attract the Prince of Wales and other British dignitaries, such as the viceroys of India, to Taxila, a site he was to excavate for over 20 years, and which he rightly believed had the potential of yielding amazing finds. Archaeologists, including those of an earlier generation than Marshall, such as Arthur Evans

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 18

and Mathew Flinders Petrie, tended to sensationalise their finds, and Marshall was no exception. By encouraging ceremonial visits, archaeologists ensured for themselves media attention and public support, and in a field reliant on vast sums of money, both often supplemented the historic credentials of large-scale excavations. From this perspective, Marshall’s personal photographs of the Prince and the Viceroy are documents of a ‘methodology’, namely, the ‘showing off’ of excavations. Hence, series of this kind within the albums, including “Dad and Viceroy” (fig. 10), offer references for a practice Marshall instituted in India for excavations he considered ‘historically’ important.

8/26/10 3:36:56 PM

Introduction

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 19

Left Archaeological Survey of India The Prince of Wales at Taxila, 9 March 1922 Silver Gelatin Print, 140 x 81 mm Above John Marshall (attrib.) The Prince of Wales Playing Croquet, 9 March 1922 Silver Gelatin Print, 43 x 63 mm Facing page John Marshall View of Parading Troops, Rawalpindi, 10 March 1922 Silver Gelatin Print, 115 x 174 mm

8/26/10 3:37:02 PM

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 20

8/26/10 11:05:15 AM

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 21

8/26/10 11:05:17 AM

Sudeshna Guha

Under Marshall’s supervision the archaeological restoration of monuments began to accommodate a reorganisation of their surroundings, to allow the buildings to return to some of their former glory. Photographs of the Marshalls’ residential gardens at Simla and Taxila (figs. 11, 12), which we may classify as ‘personal’, depict Marshall’s own passion for gardens – a passion he subsequently and successfully assimilated within his archaeological conservation projects. Of all the gardens that were restored during Marshall’s directorship of the Survey, the most extensive undertaking was the Hayat Baksh within the Red Fort, Delhi. On Curzon’s orders, this exclusive garden, literally the ‘life giver’ of the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan’s fort, was handed over to the Archaeological Department by the army, which had occupied

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 22

Preceding pages 20-21 Archaeological Survey of India Stupa in Block G from West after Restorations, Shrine II, Sirkap, Taxila, 1913–14 Silver Gelatin Print, 113 x 156 mm

Below 10. Unknown Photographer Captioned “Dad and Viceroy”, Taxila, 1922, Silver Gelatin Print, 39 x 62 mm Facing page 11. Unknown Photographer View of Bungalow and Garden with Marshall, Taxila, c.1910 Silver Gelatin Print, 132 x 201 mm

8/26/10 11:05:18 AM

Introduction

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 23

8/26/10 11:05:20 AM

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 24

8/26/10 11:05:20 AM

Introduction

it since the Mutiny of 1857. The restoration work, which began in 1903, took 10 years to complete and involved the conservation of approximately 200 yards of the Hayat Baksh, and the associated five standing buildings within the precincts: the Zafar Mahal, the Hira Mahal, the Sawan and Bhadon pavilions, and the marble pavilion fronting the Shah Burj (figs. 13, 14). The devastation of this garden and the associated palaces during the occupation by British troops following their overthrow of the last Mughal ruler, Bahadur Shah Zafar, has provoked many graphic descriptions. The Shah Burj served as armourers’ shop; the Bhadon pavilion had become the wash house that was technically built behind it; cooking houses and latrines lined the space between the Rang Mahal and the Naqqar Khana; and the former, walled, whitewashed, and separated from the Khwabgah with iron railings, was spatially transformed into a modern room. All connecting roads within the area were destroyed, and several buildings fronting the Hayat Baksh were blown up during the Mutiny. The “dirty, lonely and wretched” but once beautiful Hayat Baksh that Bishop Reginald Heber saw on 31 December 1824, with “very old orange and other fruit trees, with terraces and parterres on which many rose bushes were growing, and even a few jonquils in flower,”3 was buried deep in debris by the turn of the century. Marshall’s notes on the manner in which the garden was to be restored are one of his earliest dictates on conservation, and make an impressive read. Although he flouted many aspects of the Mughal plan, it is fair to say that he “endeavoured to make the ancient buildings show to their advantage and mask the modern structures as much as possible [while] preserving the symmetric and rectilinear character of the original outlay.”4

12. Unknown Photographer Lawn at Ridgewood Place, Simla, c.1902–1920s Silver Gelatin Print, 135 x 198 mm

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 25

8/26/10 11:05:22 AM

Sudeshna Guha

13. Archaeological Survey of India View of Restored Hayat Baksh, Sawan and Bhadon Pavilions, Red Fort, Delhi, c.1911 Silver Gelatin Print, 138 x 197 mm

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 26

8/26/10 11:05:23 AM

Introduction

14. Archaeological Survey of India View of Restored Hayat Baksh with the Diwan-i-Khas, Red Fort, Delhi, c.1911 Silver Gelatin Print, 137 x 195 mm

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 27

8/26/10 11:05:24 AM

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 28

8/26/10 11:05:25 AM

Introduction

Apart from the Taj Mahal, where Curzon took decisions on the exact ways in which the mausoleum’s gardens were to be restored (fig. 16),5 Marshall initiated the reconstruction of most other Mughal gardens within India, in many cases also within the princely states, and recreated their orchards, water supplies and architectural features (figs. 15, 17). He involved the horticultural departments in this work, and often used photographs of restored specimens for disseminating the potentials of archaeological conservation. Conveying his disapproval and anger after seeing photographs of the “long and ragged lawns”, bare flower beds “covered with weeds” and the “sparse and improperly trimmed shrubberies” at the restored gardens of the deposed Burmese king Thebaw’s palace at Mandalay, Marshall berated his superintendent Charles Duroiselle: … if you do not possess good photographs of the gardens at Delhi or Agra, please let me know and I will have some sent to you, so that you may be able to appreciate the great gulf which separates them from the gardens at Mandalay. We do not want the gardens of the Palace to challenge comparison with the second rate bungalow. They ought to be of a character compatible with the dignity of the palace itself.6 Marshall’s comparison of gardens, in terms of their domestic and imperial display of splendour, provokes us to take note of the “second rate bungalow” garden he created in his residence at Taxila. To initiate the process of establishing this residential garden, Marshall had to undertake a limited excavation of the Bhir mound in 1912 to satisfy himself that

15. Archaeological Survey of India Humayun’s Tomb with Restored Tank and Gardens, Delhi, 1923–24 Silver Gelatin Print, 207 x 278 mm

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 29

8/26/10 11:05:27 AM

Sudeshna Guha

no archaeological remains existed within the compound.7 Judging by the photographs, the Marshalls’ bungalow at Taxila seems to have been frequently visited by family, friends and colleagues (fig. 18). Marshall’s august contemporary and colleague Aurel Stein (fig. 19), who came to Taxila in 1928 to seek his permission to visit China, found the garden “in full spring glory”. Twelve years later during his archaeological exploration of the Upper Hakra valley, which occasioned a visit through Taxila, Stein wrote to say that he was “still enjoying the peace of this bungalow which the Marshalls [had] left so comfortably furnished.”8 The core of the Marshall albums comprises photographs of the Survey’s archaeological work during Marshall’s tenure. Taken by staff photographers, and occasionally by officers of the Survey, they fully complement the extensive official documentary archives from this period that bare all too well the petty colonial politics, government injunctions, personal and professional rivalries and short-term strategies through which the Indian past was archaeologically created and preserved. Many photographs originate from the context of the archaeological restoration projects and offer references for works considered diligently and satisfactorily performed (fig. 20). Many others are of excavations and explorations (fig. 21). The photographs should not be read as interpretations of the ‘colonial gaze’. Rather, they ought to be perceived as artefacts of archaeological practice that endowed archaeology with the values of a unique disciplinary science.

16. Archaeological Survey of India Taj Mahal Viewed from Top of Entrance Gateway, after Removal of “Superfluous Trees and Shrubberies”, Agra, 1915–16 Silver Gelatin Print, 102 x 140 mm

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 30

8/26/10 11:05:28 AM

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 31

8/26/10 11:05:30 AM

Marshall Aug 2010-tp.indd 32

8/26/10 11:05:32 AM

“For anyone interested in the history of Indian archaeology, this book is a ‘must.’”

—World Archaeology

PHOTOGRAPHY THE ALKAZI COLLECTION OF PHOTOGRAPHY

The Marshall Albums

Photography and Archaeology Edited by Sudeshna Guha 288 pages, 119 colour photographs 9.45 x 10.8” (240 x 275 mm), hc ISBN:978-81-89995-32-4 (Mapin) ISBN: 978-1-890206-45-1 (Grantha) ₹3500 | $75 | £45 2010 • World rights