Reinhardt Bernbeck and Susan Pollock went over some this ground in a 1996 Current Anthropology piece. As I recall, there has already been archaeological activity at the site, and questionable (and questioned) claims for the prior existence of a Hindu temple. At this moment, court-ordered archaeology looks like political theatre.
Peter.

Bernbeck, Reinhardt, and Susan Pollock
1996 Ayodhya, archaeology, and identity. Current Anthropology 37(Supplement):138-142.

Sarah Cross wrote:

[log in to unmask]">

Dear All,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,908247,00.html

A court in India yesterday ordered archaeologists to excavate the site of the
demolished Ayodhya mosque to determine whether a Hindu temple ever existed there.


************

I find myself puzzled by this story.  A part of me is pleased to see archaeologists
contributing to something that is clearly of import to people about their past
- but a much larger part is concerned that we should be the arbiters of truth
in the matter - if archaeologists find a temple then the Hindus are right?
If they don't then the Muslims are?  But what does finding a temple mean?  Especially
given the results have to be given in six weeks?

If anyone closer to the situation is in the group I'd love to hear more about
it.  Does anyone think
 that there's a dangerous misunderstanding about what
archaeology is for - is it something we need to explain to our own governments
that this is beyond what can be expected of archaeology.  Or does anyone think
its good news?

thanks
Sarah

*************************** ADVERTISEMENT ******************************
Text NISSAN to 57502 for UR chance 2 Win a Brand New Nissan Micra.
Txt costs EUR2 (op charges may vary).
http://interactive.iol.ie/mymobile/html/competition/comp.html

--
Peter Whitridge
Assistant Professor
Archaeology Unit, Department of Anthropology
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF A1C 5S7
tel: (709) 737-2394
fax: (709) 737-2374