A Critical Reflection of Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Challenges in the Archaeology of Sindh
- In contrast to the broader South Asian region, which has increasingly adopted decolonized and problem-oriented archaeological approaches, Sindh continues to operate within a framework reminiscent of the British imperial model
- Despite extensive fieldwork, there are no comprehensive reports, detailed analyses, or site publications; only preliminary notes on selected materials, such as pottery, have been released. For a site of global significance, this lack of transparency is a cause for serious concern.
- Even more alarming are the quantities of material being removed from the site.
By Aizaz Peerzado
Archaeology in Sindh currently faces significant challenges. In contrast to the broader South Asian region, which has increasingly adopted decolonized and problem-oriented archaeological approaches, Sindh continues to operate within a framework reminiscent of the British imperial model. The persistence of these colonial-era attitudes has resulted in the marginalization of local scholars, unaccountable foreign missions, and the ongoing destruction of valuable heritage sites under the pretext of research.
Colonial Archaeology in the Sub-continent
Extensive scholarship has addressed the colonial manipulation of archaeology in the Indian subcontinent, where excavations during British rule prioritized political prestige and exploration over scientific inquiry. Local communities were excluded from engaging with their own history, while external scholars constructed narratives shaped by imperial interests. Despite thorough critique and documentation of these patterns, they continue to influence archaeological practice in Sindh today.
Continuing Colonial Practices in Sindh
The French Archaeological Mission at Chanhu-jo-Daro exemplifies these ongoing challenges. After nearly a decade of excavation, the research objectives and specific questions guiding their work remain unclear. Despite extensive fieldwork, there are no comprehensive reports, detailed analyses, or site publications; only preliminary notes on selected materials, such as pottery, have been released. For a site of global significance, this lack of transparency is a cause for serious concern.
Even more alarming are the quantities of material being removed from the site. During their most every excavation season of 45-day project, the excavation reportedly produced more than 1,000 artifacts per day, and on some days as many as 3,000 (according to those students who have participated and registered the artifacts on their forms). This raises serious questions: How much material has now been extracted in total? What portion of it has been properly documented or scientifically studied? And if such research exists, where are the results? Vast quantities of antiquities are being stored without clarity, oversight, or public reporting, placing this cultural material at significant risk of smuggling, theft, or irreversible loss. These concerns strike at the heart of responsible archaeological practice.
Equally concerning is the absence of any conservation plan. Indus Valley sites are extremely fragile, constructed mainly of mud bricks and salt-affected baked bricks that deteriorate rapidly once exposed. Yet at Chanhu-jo-Daro, structures are unearthed season after season without proper protection, making their destruction inevitable. When excavation itself becomes a source of damage, the very purpose of archaeological work is called into question.
The Mission’s recent public engagements also raise serious concerns. Seminars held in Islamabad and Nawabshah were presented with high protocol but deliberately excluded Sindhi archaeologists, researchers, and students. The Nawabshah event was held at a university without an archaeology department, suggesting the venue may have been chosen to avoid critical academic scrutiny. Meanwhile, students from other provinces—many of whom lack familiarity with Sindh’s history, culture, or geography—have been granted training opportunities that have consistently been denied to Sindhi students for almost a decade.
These practices reflect a colonial pattern of excluding indigenous scholars and centralizing authority among external actors. It is notable that, even in 2025, the study of Sindh’s ancient heritage proceeds without substantive involvement of Sindhi researchers.
Institutional Weakness and Administrative Failure
The situation is worsened by the state of Sindh’s archaeological Department. After the 18th Amendment devolved archaeology to the provinces, no archaeology graduate was selected for key posts. Instead, many officials now occupying important positions have no academic background in archaeology—some even lack basic educational qualifications. Political patronage has replaced merit, leaving the Government department of archaeology unable to protect sites, develop research agendas, or oversee foreign missions responsibly. When individuals “unaware of even the A of archaeology” control the system, heritage conservation becomes impossible.
During the 2023 excavation season, the discovery of more than a dozen skeletons, including those of children, represented a potentially significant archaeology discovery. However, no detailed bio-archaeological analysis has been published, ethical guidelines have not been addressed, and scientific results have not been disseminated to the public. The lack of transparency surrounding this discovery recalls the early excavations at Mohenjo-daro under Sir John Marshall and Mortimer Wheeler, whose expedited methods and incomplete documentation continue to challenge contemporary scholarship.
The Silence of Sindh’s Academic and Cultural Voices
The lack of response from Sindhi scholars, historians, nationalists, and cultural stakeholders is also a matter of concern. It is important to consider why individuals who advocate for identity and culture remain silent regarding the management of their heritage. The absence of support for young archaeologists to seek accountability further exacerbates this issue. Without active engagement in preserving their past, the people of Sindh risk losing both their material heritage and their academic future.
Moving Forward
India provides a notable example of successful indigenization and strengthening of archaeological practice. Robust academic programs, transparent research policies, community engagement, and well-defined conservation strategies have enabled Indian scholars to assume stewardship of their heritage. Comparable reforms are urgently required in Sindh. Excavations at sensitive sites should be suspended unless they are guided by clear research questions and supported by conservation plans. Foreign missions should operate transparently, collaborate with local scholars, and offer training opportunities to Sindhi students. Most importantly, archaeological departments in Sindh should be staffed by qualified professionals selected on merit rather than political affiliation.
Conclusion
Chanhu-jo-Daro requires protection, conservation, and a research framework grounded in scientific integrity and local participation, rather than further excavation. Continued reliance on outdated colonial practices, presented as modern research, is both detrimental and unsustainable. The archaeological heritage of Sindh should not serve as a platform for external missions or as a means for unqualified officials to advance their careers. It is essential for Sindh to assert ownership of its archaeological heritage and ensure that its history is studied with dignity, responsibility, and respect.
Read: Historic Treasures Crumble Amid Apathy
_________________
Aizaz Peerzado is resident of Village Balhreji near Mohen Jo Daro, District Larkano Sindh. He has graduated in Archaeology and did M.Phil. in fast vanishing heritage sites in the province of Sindh
