Organizer, Chair and Discussant: Deborah L. Stein, University of California, Berkeley

Colonial definitions of sacred spaces as historical monuments have shaped the material culture of many archaeological sites. This panel probes the tension between archaeological and ritual uses of sacred spaces in South Asia. From Nepal to Tamil Nadu, renovation often refers to building anew rather than to repair. This model of regeneration conflicts with the desire for permanence that the archaeological model elicits. To conserve history becomes a choice, between the physical residue of generations past and the living traditions of the present.

This interdisciplinary panel reveals the how ritual and renovation in South Asia have fueled nationalism, tourism, and the construction of tradition. Alex von Rospatt argues for continuity between ancient ritual texts and current ritual performance in Nepal. Carol Henderson turns our gaze to the sacralization of places associated with colonial strife by British travelers in the 19th century. She examines continued tourism to these sites and their reinscription in a Nationalist context. Sam Parker’s indigenous model of renovation from Tamil Nadu questions the authority of modernist practices of "museumization" and conservation. Deborah Stein documents the tension between ritual and archaeological use during the reconsecration of a goddess temple in southern Rajasthan in 2002. Joanna Williams' fieldwork on recent consecrations and constructions of Hindu temples in Orissa will inform her interpretation as discussant.

University of California, Berkeley

The talk explores the treatment of jrnoddhara in a wide array of ritual literature of Shaiva, VaiÒÆava and Buddhist provenance. I will argue that in accordance with its literal meaning, the term jrnoddhara refers originally to the taking out (uddhÁra) of what has become decrepit (jrna), i.e. to the removal of a lingam, image or other sacred man-made object that is marred and no longer fit for worship. The texts prescribe how the uprooted object is then to be discarded and replaced by an equivalent duplicate. Since the need of replacement is implied by the act of removal, the term jrnoddhara comes to acquire by extension its generally accepted meaning of "renovation."

Continuity between the removed object and its substitute is guaranteed by the transferal of the divine essence from the former to the latter. According to this conception of renovation, there is no need in conserving the materiality of the icon. By contrast, the divine essence is best renewed by placing it in an entirely new receptacle. However, there are also hints in the ritual texts that point to a certain reluctance to divorce the sacredness of an icon from its materiality in such a consequent and radical manner, and in particular circumstances the texts do allow that defective object be repaired (rather than replaced) and thereby restored to their original state. It thus seems that the above sketch of jrnoddhara represents an intellectually rigorous but somehow artificial position that is in conflict with common sentiments and not stringently implemented in practice.

Carol Henderson, Rudgers University

British mass death in the war of 1857-58 in India was followed by the development of colonial memorial complexes, which became loci of sacralized meaning. The transformation of spatial practices from secular to sacred uses of these sites, and the variety of ways in which they valorized memory is seen, by the late Victorian period, to lead to their construction as tourism destinations and subsequent commodification in "Mutiny tourism." This appears to have been a major element of late 19th century and early 20th century tourism in India. Practices and meanings associated with these sites have become more complex in post-Independence India, including both the reinscription of meaning within Nationalist frameworks, the reframing of space and the sacred at these sites, along with a continuation of "Mutiny tourism."

Samuel Parker, University of Washington, Tacoma

According to widely accepted (but rarely followed) convention, Tamil temples are supposed to be renovated every twelve years, following the cycle of the planet Kuru (Jupiter). If an image has been irreparably damaged or polluted, or if it is a temporary icon made for a specific festival period, other conventions are invoked to govern its disposal. Practices of renovation and disposal indicate ways of seeing and knowing reality that are at odds with modernist practices of museumization and conservation. Is there a solid basis in reason--which is to say, beyond raw power--why the latter should systematically prevail over the former? Are the cosmological foundations of conservation more realistic and reasonable than renovation and disposal? What does this disagreement tell us about the nature of South Indian images and the sometimes competing versions of reality they are deployed to represent?

Deborah L. Stein, U.C. Berkeley  

Despite the rhetoric of continuity, many archaeological sites have been reconsecrated only recently, after long periods of disuse. The most famous, and the most violent example, is Ayodhya, where the archaeology is contested as fuel for communalism. Much of this violence arises from temple praxis. Temple use leaves permanent visual residue. The performance of ritual at sacred sites becomes a form of speech. In 2000, the main icon was stolen from the ancient Ambika temple in southern Rajasthan and sold on the international art market. For two years, locals from Jagat and the surrounding villages collected funds to install a new icon. In the shadow of violence in Gujarat in 2002, the installation of this twenty-first-century goddess icon into a tenth-century temple suggests the power of archaeology to incite violence, to affirm identity, to fight globalization, to define nationalisms, to draw tourism, and to capture the imagination of many different audiences.