CHAPTER 7
The Buddha Remains: Heritage
Transactions in Taxila, Pakistan
Hassan Asif and Trinidad Rico
Abstract This chapter offers a perspective from ethnographic heritage
research on the preservation of Buddhist artifacts in the Muslim community
of Taxila, Pakistan. While this form of heritage preservation practice and art
may be interpreted as paradoxical, we discuss social, institutional, and political
factors that are responsible for the revival and continuation of these heritage
practices. Through the examination of this case study, we discuss a unique
mode of engaging with the negotiation of past and present spiritual identities
that resists the assumption that this is a territory of heritage in conflict.
Keywords Pre-Islamic ! vernacularization ! art ! ethnographic heritage !
Pakistan
SEARCHING
FOR THE
BUDDHAS
The traveler going from Islamabad toward Taxila can notice that the road
is marked by numerous workshops and display centers showcasing items
such as stone vases, lamps, tiles, and other decorative objects: Taxila is
H. Asif (*)
UNESCO Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan
T. Rico
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
© The Author(s) 2017
T. Rico (ed.), The Making of Islamic Heritage, Heritage Studies in the
Muslim World, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-4071-9_7
109
110
H. ASIF AND T. RICO
famous in Pakistan for its traditional stone craft industry. These objects are
decorated using geometric or floral patterns with little or no use of
anthropomorphic or zoomorphic iconographic elements, something that
may be expected in this Muslim region. However, what is not seen in these
displays are the Buddhist statues that the very same stone-sculptors of
Taxila are also creating. This relatively hidden practice is well known in
local circles and owes its continuing existence to Taxila’s history as an
important Buddhist center. As a secret practice, to find an artisan who is
willing to display the “Buddhist side” of his craft is a challenging task.
Earning the trust and gaining access to the experience of artisans who
engage in the making of Buddhist statues in this unlikely contemporary
context is a process that suggests this may be a case study in dissonant
heritage and the challenges involved in its preservation. However, as this
chapter argues, the experience and modes of engagement of these
Muslim artisans with the creation of non-Muslim heritage objects suggests a more nuanced subaltern construction of these heritage practices
that is created in association with and through mediation of specific social
milieus and opportunities.
This discussion begins just off the main road to the Taxila Museum,
where a street spirals through the village of Khan Babar and leads to an
abandoned train station. From there, Raheem took convoluting turns into
other smaller alleys to finally stop in front of a house with a small gate.1 He
passed through the gate and entered a courtyard in which there were a few
chairs, a coffee table, and a pedestal fan. There was nothing out of the
ordinary in this courtyard except for a number of miniature yet conspicuous Buddha statuettes standing on a small table by the fan. Over the
course of this first meeting, Raheem unveiled Buddha statues of all sizes
from behind plant pots in the courtyard, from inside cabinets, and from
storage boxes (Fig. 7.1). Raheem is a practicing Muslim who makes stone
sculptures of the Buddha for a living. Although he is a master sculptor, he
does not openly display or talk about his skills. Like most sculptors in
Taxila, Raheem inherited the craft from his forefathers. In the early
twentieth century, Raheem’s grandfather worked as a contractual laborer
for British archaeologists in Taxila. That is when his grandfather was first
exposed to the Gandharan Buddhist sculptures. Being a stonemason, he
soon realized the economic potential of this craft when he witnessed the
extent to which British archeologists valued the excavated sculptures. In
his time off, he practiced making sculptures with Gandharan characteristics
using the local green schist stone. Raheem asserted that this is when the
THE BUDDHA REMAINS: HERITAGE TRANSACTIONS IN TAXILA, PAKISTAN
111
Fig. 7.1 Buddhist relic caskets placed in front of Islamic calligraphy with “Allah”
inscribed on the stone (left); schist stone lying by the gate of Raheem’s house
(center); Buddha sculpture in the bodhisattva stage, unveiled from behind a plant
pot (right) (Photographs by Hassan Asif, 2014)
Gandharan Buddhist sculpture was revived in Taxila after hundreds of
years. Raheem’s father then learnt the craft after witnessing the high
price paid for his own father’s works. He quit his job to focus solely on
making these replicas.
Taxila is and was during this period a predominantly Muslim community
in a predominantly Muslim state. There is, therefore, an expectation of
conflict in reference to how Muslim Taxila perceives the construction and
circulation of sculptures of the Buddha, and by association, about the
artisans who have to negotiate their craft between their private spaces and
their public life. To fully appreciate these tensions requires an understanding
of the place of Islam in this specific context and how it is associated with
particular preconceptions with regards to artistic values in the realm of the
arts in Pakistan. On the one hand, the parameters of what constitutes
authorized art have been dominated by discussions of the relative tolerance
of idolatry (De Glopper 2014 on intermediary traders and antique runners;
112
H. ASIF AND T. RICO
Elias 2012; Noyes 2013). A relevant reflection in this discussion is the fate of
the Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001, destroyed by the Afghan Taliban in accordance with ultraconservative Salafist precepts (Hussain 2015). Less well
publicized is the similar case of the Jahanabad Buddha located in Swat,
Pakistan (Rose 2007)—believed to be the largest rock carving of the
Buddha in the world (Khaliq 2016)—whose face was dynamited by the
Pakistani Taliban in 2007. These are the issues that immediately spring to
mind when we consider the construction and stewardship of Buddha statues
by Muslims in contemporary times. On the other hand, local response in
Pakistan toward this type of reaction to Buddhist imagery has been polarized. Officially, the Pakistani government condemned the attack, with then
President Pervez Musharraf sending Lieutenant Moinuddin Haider to prevent the destruction through persuasion (Zaeef 2011). The public reaction
was varied: some supported the Taliban’s action and rationale of erasing
“false idols” from the land, along with ratifying Mullah Omer’s statement
that “all we are breaking are stones” (Stone and Farchakh Bajjaly 2008, 93);
others, especially the literati, mourned the collective loss suffered by humankind (Hussain 2015).
This chapter considers how the creation of Buddha statues in this specific
Muslim contemporary context can be understood to reflect two worldviews:
a dominant heritage approach focusing on identifying and managing any
conflict of values, and an ethnographic approach that reveals individual
negotiations of public and private lives on the part of the artisans themselves.
Therefore, this discussion will highlight the existence of Buddha statues in
Taxila as a reality that reflects the operation of two ontologies: first, a
negotiation of values that juxtapose debates in Islam about representational
art and heritage practices that attempt to mediate different sets of coexisting
values, and second, the practices and attitudes to the construction of
Buddhist art from the perspective of artists like Raheem. The latter emphasizes the significance and contribution of ethnographic approaches to the
study of heritage value, in particular as a strategy for avoiding essentialized
and decontextualized appraisals of any iteration of Islamic values in situ.
REPRESENTATIONAL ART
IN
HERITAGE PRACTICES
OF
TAXILA
It has been extensively argued that heritage values always operate on
multiple conflicting planes, which despite potentially insurmountable differences, can and should be managed to reach consensus and enable
preservation (Kang 2009; Nagaoka 2011; Van Der Valk 2014). Though
THE BUDDHA REMAINS: HERITAGE TRANSACTIONS IN TAXILA, PAKISTAN
113
the challenges faced by such an approach have been oversimplified, it
nevertheless remains central to how events, such as the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, are discussed in heritage debates. A notable
feature of this type of analysis is the legitimization and hierarchization of
certain forms of heritage value ascribed by particular institutions over
other values. In this sense, forms of expertise that engage in this work of
mediation are in a position to potentially create a conflict between values
that may otherwise be stratified and amalgamated in more productive
ways. This chapter suggest, therefore, that we need to consider a correlation between the production of conflicting heritage values and the practice
of expert and institutional heritage preservation, where one ontology has
to give way for the other one to be realized. As it has been argued that
heritage preservation as a practice is in itself destructive of other forms of
engagement with material culture (Karlström 2005; Layton et al. 2001),
we consider that heritage concerns as an ontology may be incompatible
with understanding ways in which artisans like Raheem negotiate their
own lifeworlds. In addition, the creation of Buddha statues is entangled
with a vernacular heritage discourse in which economic, institutional, and
ideological subjectivities are intertwined.
However, because of the dominant concern with destruction in heritage preservation as a field (Rico 2016), entanglements of Buddhist heritage value in Muslim contexts have been mostly articulated in terms of
concerns with iconoclasm. The destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas has
been used as a defining case study in heritage to characterize the problem
of attitudes to idolatry in Islamic contexts and has included concerns with
international law (Francioni and Lenzerini 2003; Mani 2001) and with the
localized construction of such art in the Bamiyan valley (Dupree 2002;
Levi 1972; Reza 2012). When detached from these dominant heritage
debates, the relationship between Buddhist representational art and
Islamic contexts takes a different tone. This relationship has shifted significantly in accordance to changing attitudes through time (Elias 2012),
variations from individual to individual (Flood 2002), and changes in
political regimes (Elias 2007; Flood 2002), in such a way that a consistent
universal attitude to this type of representation cannot be concluded.
In addition to necessary considerations of the spiritual context in which
the Taxila Buddha statues exist, economic transactions of these artistic
objects as they are currently being circulated in Taxila have to be examined. The locally crafted sculptures of the Buddha in Pakistan are part of a
commercial market that is implicated in their conception and continuous
114
H. ASIF AND T. RICO
survival in what could be an ideologically averse milieu. The story of the
origins of Buddha sculptures as an art form that has become part of the
heritage of Taxila is an oddity. The preservation of this art form through
the discovery, revival, and valorization of Buddha sculptures illustrates that
heritage can be preserved without any direct interference on the part of
institutional actors and influences, and even in spite of it. The historical
context in which the Buddha sculptures were incorporated into the heritage assemblage of Taxila informs the complex contemporary state of
preservation and the actors involved in it. Around 200 BC, during the
time of the Indian emperor, Ashoka, Taxila was known as Taksasila—the
“City of Cut Stone.” Taksasila developed into an important hub for
education, where local Buddhist devotees applied their stone-cutting and
carving skills to make the very first anthropomorphic representations of
the Buddha (Khan and Hassan 2003). This was the origin of the stonecarving industry.
Modifications in the sculptures produced were a reflection of the
history of Taxila and the various rulers that came to govern it. For
instance, after the collapse of the Mauryan Empire, the Buddha sculptures produced in Taxila increasingly incorporated various Greek aesthetic influences from the incoming Greco-Bactrian Empire (Dani
1986). This tradition continued until the invasion of the White Huns
around 450 AD, when the carvings ceased to be made. It was not until
the nineteenth century—when the British administrators of colonial
India had Alexander Cunningham carry out archeological excavations,
unearthing sculptures from the Gandharan period near the city of
Peshawar (Marshall 1951)—that the ancient Gandharan art of Buddha
sculpting was revived by the very same stone sculptors in Taxila who had
witnessed the resurfacing of this object as part of a coherent archaeological culture. Today, this art form survives in the region’s characteristic
Gandharan-inspired secular decorative art. Although the Buddhist stone
craft industry is flourishing, it does so clandestinely.
The involvement of international agencies charged with the upkeep of
Taxila’s heritage “authenticity” further obscures the status of Raheem’s
craft. Since Pakistan’s independence in 1947, the federal Archaeology
Department has been a steward of preservation for Gandharan art in
Pakistan. Pakistan’s state-level experimentation with various versions of
national identity based on Islam has tended to put these newly formed
heritage identities as a Muslim nation in opposition to the ancient preIslamic identity of the region. For instance, the pre-Islamic past of the
THE BUDDHA REMAINS: HERITAGE TRANSACTIONS IN TAXILA, PAKISTAN
115
region was sidelined for more “Muslim values” by various governments,
and especially military dictatorships such as Zia ul Haq’s regime in the
1970s, and this was followed by an ardent policy of Islamization in
Pakistan (Devji 2013). Meanwhile, in other areas of Taxila, archaeological
sites are still being excavated, producing more evidence of this historical
period and its survival in the archaeological record. Some of these discoveries formed the basis for the inclusion of Taxila as a World Heritage
Site in 1980 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO). Raheem uses the same criteria to describe the
significance of his craft by drawing on UNESCO’s rhetoric of a universal
significance ascribed to Taxila. However, the emphasis within these criteria
on a particular definition of what constitutes authenticity entangles his
craft with economic networks of transaction. This entails two types of
transactions: Raheem’s sculptures are simultaneously considered to be
authentic and forged. By UNESCO’s standards, the replicas that he
produces are not “authentic.” However, as they enter a process of becoming forgeries, they are made authentic and fall under the protection of the
1970 Convention. A smuggling mafia is involved in this market, made
favorable by the need for sustenance by the artisans who create them. As a
result of this complex relationship with contrasting forms of authenticity,
the heritage value that has developed around this art form involves diverse
forms of “expertise,” all of which exclude and even silence the artisans
themselves (c.f. De Cesari 2010; Smith 2006). It is in this context that this
chapter brings forth the voice of Raheem and other locals engaged in the
Gandharan art industry as stone sculptors and artisans, during the summer
of 2015.
THE ARTISANS
OF
TAXILA
“The Buddha is even mentioned in the Holy Qur’an,” explained Raheem
upon being asked why he was engaged in the production of these statues,
suggesting an immediate understanding of the contradiction that was
apparent between his spiritual affiliation and the product of his work.
Raheem is a humble and highly respected artisan in the networks of the
Buddhist craft and has acquired over 30 years of experience. Simultaneous
with his defense of the craft, he clarified, “I think Buddhist art and making
such art is completely forbidden according to Islamic law. We cannot even
say but in this case.” But Raheem’s paradoxical statements can be better
understood in consideration of the context in which the notion of heritage
116
H. ASIF AND T. RICO
is negotiated in Taxila, through the rhetoric and practices that define
heritage locally, and in line with the economic, institutional, and ideological frameworks that inform it.
It is important to point out that the Buddha sculptures in Taxila are
neither being used for ritual purposes nor owned by Buddhists within
Pakistan, so their heritage value is a negotiation between potential and
actual value, not simply as a negotiation that takes place in a pluralistic
society but also within the same person. This challenging perspective
considers the intricate nuances between diametrically opposed cultural
signifiers that are usually presented as binaries, such as the “Muslim versus
Hindu” and “Muslim versus Buddhist” dichotomies that are pertinent to
the Indian subcontinent. Values attributed to these objects therefore need
to be considered in complex shifting contexts—where do the Buddha
statues go when they leave Raheem’s workshop? They need to reach
their designated destination, be that a Buddhist devotee buyer abroad or
the mafia network that operates in Taxila. Failing this, they risk exposing
Raheem, his craft, and the location where the statues are produced.
Raheem must take care not to leave any evidence, such as schist stone
lying in front or near his house, which could result in social ostracizing on
account of the local mobilization of certain Islamic values, as discussed
earlier. He keeps all of his schist stones in his small garden, guarded from
the unfavorable context outside.
At first, these locally made replicas were not sold abroad, but a foreign
market emerged about 50 years ago when individuals from countries like
Japan and South Korea became interested in Gandharan aesthetics. Since
Raheem became established as an artisan, however, he has witnessed a
decrease in local interest for these sculptures as well as a decline in the
amount of foreign sales owing to persisting security issues in Pakistan.
Aware that a demand for these sculptures continues to exist abroad, the
artists have therefore explored other avenues to reach their customers.
Consequently, the way in which these objects move from the workshop to
the buyer has undergone enormous transformation. It now involves a mafia
network that aids the smuggling of these replicas out of Pakistan—an
unlikely steward of preservation for objects that seems to be strategically
deployed as both art and heritage, though not to the artisan’s advantage.
Due to the current economic pressures and a dearth in local buyers, Raheem
expressed hesitation at whether he would pass this skill onto his children.
The mafia actors entered the network of production as a response to
local legislation and international conventions that hindered the transport
THE BUDDHA REMAINS: HERITAGE TRANSACTIONS IN TAXILA, PAKISTAN
117
of these replicas abroad. Government officials use the 1975 Antiquity Act
to harass artisans, and there are reports that state that officials have often
attempted to extort money from artisans in return for allowing them to
continue making the statues. As a result, Raheem, like others, limits his
public exposure. Section 25 of the Act forbids dealing in antiquities unless
the artisans obtain a license from the Director General of Archaeology
(The Antiquities Act 1975). Over the course of his career, Raheem has
tried to obtain this license to export antiquities (available under Form “D”
of the 1975 Act) without success. A closer examination of this issue with
key stakeholders at the Taxila Museum and the Punjab Small Industries
Corporation (PSIC)—a government initiative with the slogan, “Caring for
the heritage”—confirmed that in practice this license does not exist. In
addition, sections 15–17 of the 1969 Customs Act also prohibit the
transport of valuable antiquities (The Customs Act 1969). Despite the
fact that Raheem’s art is not “antique,” these clauses nonetheless affect his
work and business model. The smuggling mafia, by virtue of its role as an
intermediary in the construction of the statues’ value, is a catalyst for the
value transformation of statues from “replica” to “antique.”2 According to
Raheem, the physical “antique-making process” involves the application
of a paste made from mixing liquor together with chuna (calcium carbonate) powder and a powder from an older kanjoos (black earth from
ancient sites), after which the statue is buried underground for a few
days for it to acquire the look and feel of an antique. Raheem, now an
accomplice in the deceitful collapse of historical authenticity, expressed
immense confidence in this technique, claiming that no laboratory in the
world could detect the counterfeit. His art, perhaps intrinsically contested
in value, assumes extrinsic heritage value far from the privacy of his workshop. However, the sculpture’s true value lies in its ability to sustain the
artisan. As long as it provides this, Raheem can reconcile the rest.
Like Raheem, Saqib, a fellow sculptor, now works exclusively on commissioned orders. Saqib expressed his intention to leave the craft altogether due to a lack of profit and close his shop, “Gandharan Art,” located
in the government-funded artisan village at Lok Virsa Museum in
Islamabad. This is one of the few initiatives taken by the Pakistani government to make these artists visible. Though they are both sculptors, Saqib
and Raheem have selected different business models for their livelihood:
While Raheem relies on the smuggling mafia to sell his sculptures, Saqib
sells his Buddhist relic caskets in the commercial market. Unlike Raheem,
Saqib is able to sell his work on the open market due to the lack of
118
H. ASIF AND T. RICO
anthropomorphism in the relic caskets. As a result, he is able to strip the
caskets of any Buddhist/non-Islamic values as might be perceived by the
casual local Muslim shop visitor. He chooses to decorate the relic caskets
with floral patterns of the lotus flower, which is iconic in Buddhism.
Another important point is that while Saqib does make Buddha sculptures,
he does not sell them in his shop for fear of offending local Muslim
visitors. He has a table in his shop where he works on the relic caskets.
He does this openly without any fear of offending locals, because as long
as he is not making anthropomorphic representations, he can publicly
engage in this craft. Interestingly, he also makes Islamic art using
Gandharan stone, such as decorative tiles with Islamic calligraphy. This
is perhaps one of the ways in which he can subvert any conflict in values
and continue practicing his craft via appropriation of icons and symbols
that are relevant to (and at the same time placate) the Muslim public
sphere in which he operates.
Conflicts over the heritage values bestowed upon these art forms are
also exacerbated through institutional practices. A conversation with
Farooq Ali, Managing Director of PSIC, revealed a specific PSIC initiative
for the revival of Taxila stone art. Interestingly, he confessed that during
initial planning he had made it clear that they would not “deal with this
side [Buddhist art] of Taxila sculptures because of the complexities.” This
can be understood as a subtle move to encourage artisans to consider
creating more marketable items. Instead, PSIC is mainly focusing on
developing tiles and other utensils for use in the garden or as materials
for construction. But one has to wonder what other institutional mechanisms or lack thereof allow the craft to flourish or perish. Widespread,
institutionalized corruption in local governments—largely considered a
result of the recent devolution of administrative responsibilities from
federal to provincial levels—further obscures the role of institutional
machineries responsible for the preservation of heritage in Taxila (Gould
et al. 2013). The expectation that this creates, from the perspective of
artisans such as Raheem, is that the instruments of government are working intentionally against their work. The ambiguity surrounding the question of whether this craft is legal or not itself complements the ancillary
systematic corruption that allows for the mafia to smuggle artifacts out of
the country. This also perhaps refocuses the tensions surrounding the
Buddha statues of Taxila away from more familiar public debates over
the relative place of non-Muslim representational art in Taxila’s heritage
assemblages.
THE BUDDHA REMAINS: HERITAGE TRANSACTIONS IN TAXILA, PAKISTAN
DISCUSSION
AND
119
CONCLUSION
Given his engagement with the black market for antiques and its inherent dangers, Raheem keeps to himself. However, and perhaps surprisingly, he remains undeterred, deferring to the blessings of God as the
instrument that helps him overcome all the perils of his craft. Returning
to the question that motivated this research, one of the expressed
justifications for participating in this craft that recurred in various conversations with Taxila artisans was the recognition of Buddha as a saint.
By citing a contested reference about the Buddha in the Qurʾan,3 they
dilute any dissonance of their work, as the Buddha is justified by the
verse: “No community but that a warner (prophet) has passed in it”
(Qurʾan: 35:24). Some, of course, reject this view based on the argument that Buddhists are not part of Ahl al-Kitab (People of The
Book; Tabrizi 2012). Nonetheless, the uncertainty provoked by the
appeal to this Qurʾanic verse is instrumental in two ways. First, as long
as there is ambiguity over the Buddha’s status in Islam, the production
of Buddhist sculptures can evade socioreligious censure in a context
where other representational art—such as Hindu iconographic art—is
rarely tolerated. Second, the artisans deploy a carefully crafted discourse
to navigate the traditions of Islam and Buddhism strategically. Saqib
justified his participation in the craft precisely in this manner, explaining,
“If you look at the character of the Buddha, he was a saint like our saints
and should be revered instead of being shunned.” Such a rhetorical
strategy is used by the artisans to nullify any internal conflict involved
in crafting idols while remaining followers of Islam. Ultimately, these
sets of verbal justifications also aid the artisans as they parse through
other ideologically tumultuous terrains.
For instance, at the time of fieldwork, Raheem was working on replicating
a Greco-Bactrian plate depicting a homosexual act. While explaining the
narrative of this plate, Raheem acknowledged, “Muslims do not believe in
this and some even shun it.” He then added, “We have no interest in the
story; our job is just limited to the scope of art and to just carve out the story
from stone.” There is a similar method of ideological regulation in operation
extending beyond the private toward the public ideological practices of
Taxila artisans. Raheem explained that religious locals taunt and threaten
him to stop creating sculptures of the Buddha, but he responds, “If I am
doing the sin, why are you bothered? And if there is any sin in this [making
sculptures], then I will be held responsible not you. But also remember that
120
H. ASIF AND T. RICO
the One [God] above is so great and forgiving that there are no limits for
that. I am just working through His favor and He is helping me throughout.” Not only does Raheem evince an internal logic to his practice but also a
hierarchy of ideological nominal structures that can be employed with flexibility according to social context. The rhetoric the artisans use in the privacy
of their artistic engagements deploys the Buddha’s appearance in the Qurʾan
in order to placate their individual anxieties. However, they remain aware
that a mobilization of this association could prove inadequate when faced
with the Muslim public sphere. In this context, the artisans do not frame
the sculpture as the entity of concern, but rather, their craft. They equate
the abstract principles of the craft with the elusive nature of the Islamic God
(see also discussions in George 2010).
In conclusion, the conflict concerning the Buddha sculptures of Taxila
is not what it first appears to be. A form of conflict between the artisan’s
private practice and the public sphere is both inevitable and necessary
for the continued existence of the Taxila sculptures. This chapter has
suggested that what is needed in order to characterize Taxila’s heritage is
a more nuanced understanding of the economic, institutional, and ideological practices of those involved in the construction of this art form
embedded with heritage value. In proposing this, we seek to problematize the idea that heritage value can simply be bestowed on suitable
objects through the examination of local agency, independently of global
“patterns of exclusion and symbolic meanings” attached to heritage
constructs (Bianchi and Boniface 2002). Rather than addressing the
relative merit of “pluralism,” this type of enquiry places the emphasis
and exercise of hierarchy making on non-institutional actors, and considers the negligence and complicity of the state in the construction and
the failure of preservation efforts throughout.
NOTES
1. Due to the ambiguous and contested public perception of the work of
Taxila, we have chosen to anonymize the real names and locations of the
artisans throughout this chapter.
2. For more information on intermediary traders and antique runners see, for
instance, Jerome Levi, “Commoditizing the Vessels of Identity:
Transnational Trade and the Reconstruction of Rarámuri Ethnicity” and
Christopher Steiner, “African Art in Transit.”
3. The contested reference is usually sourced in the identification of the
Prophet Dhu’l Kifl (Al Anbiya 85 and Sad 48).
THE BUDDHA REMAINS: HERITAGE TRANSACTIONS IN TAXILA, PAKISTAN
121
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1969. “The Customs Act 1969.” Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Accessed June 15, 2016. https://kcci.com.pk/Rnd/Tax%20Docs/Pakistan%
20Customs%20Act%201969,%20updated%2030%20June%202015.pdf.
1975. “The Antiquities Act 1975.” International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) Accessed June 15, 2016. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/down
loads/antiquities_act_1975.pdf.
Bianchi, Raoul, and Priscilla Boniface 2002. “Editorial: The Politics of World
Heritage.” International Journal of Heritage Studies no. 8 (2): 79–80.
Dani, A. H. 1986. The Historic City of Taxila. Tokyo: Centre for East Asian
Cultural Studies.
De Cesari, Chiara. 2010. “World Heritage and Mosaic Universalism: A View from
Palestine.” Journal of Social Archaeology no. 10 (3): 299–324.
De Glopper, Charlotte. 2014. “Review of The Politics of Iconoclasm: Religion,
Violence and the Culture of Image-Breaking in Christianity and Islam.”
Politics, Religion and Ideology no. 15 (3): 479–480.
Devji, F. 2013. Muslim Zion: Pakistan as a Political Idea. Routledge.
Dupree, Nancy Hatch. 2002. “Cultural Heritage and National Identity in
Afghanistan.” Third World Quarterly no. 23 (5): 977–989.
Elias, Jamal J. 2007. “(Un)making Idolatry: From Mecca to Bamiyan.” Future
Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism no. 4
(2): 12–29.
Elias, Jamal J. 2012. Aisha’s Cushion: Religious Art, Perception, and Practice in
Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Flood, Finbarr B. 2002. “Between Cult and Culture: Bamiyan, Islamic
Iconoclasm, and the Museum.” The Art Bulletin no. 84 (4): 641–659.
Francioni, Francesco, and Federico Lenzerini 2003. “The Destruction of the
Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law.” European Journal of
International Law no. 14 (4): 619–651.
George, Kenneth M. 2010. Picturing Islam: Art and Ethics in a Muslim Lifeworld.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gould, William, Taylor C. Sherman, and Sarah Ansari 2013. “The Flux of the
Matter: Loyalty, Corruption and the ‘Everyday State’ in the Post-Partition
Government Services of India and Pakistan.” Past and Present no. 219 (1):
237–279.
Hussain, Zahid. 2015. “Destruction of the Past.” DAWN Accessed May 25, 2016.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1168714.
Kang, Xiaofei. 2009. “Two Temples, Three Religions, and a Tourist Attraction.”
Modern China no. 35 (3): 227–255.
Karlström, Anna. 2005. “Spiritual Materiality: Heritage Preservation in a Buddhist
World?” Journal of Social Archaeology no. 5 (3): 338–355.
122
H. ASIF AND T. RICO
Khaliq, Fazal. 2016. “Abandoned Heritage: In Jahanabad, World’s Biggest
Buddha Sculpture Awaits Tourists.” The Express Tribune Accessed May 15.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/349610/abandoned-heritage-in-jahanabadworlds-biggest-buddha-sculpture-awaits-tourists/.
Khan, Ashraf, and Mahmood Hassan 2003. “Buddhism and Its Influence on the
Cultural Heritage of Pakistan with Special Emphasis on Gandhara.” Journal of
Asian Civilizations no. XXXI (1): 55–59.
Layton, Robert, Peter G. Stone, and Julian Thomas eds. 2001. Destruction and
Conservation of Cultural Property. London: Routledge.
Levi, Jerome M. 1992. “Commoditizing the Vessels of Identity: Transnational
Trade and the Reconstruction of Rarámuri Ethnicity.” Museum Anthropology
no. 16 (3): 7–24.
Levi, Peter. 1972. The Light Garden of the Angel King: Journeys in Afghanistan.
London: HarperCollins Publishers.
Mani, V.S. 2001. “Bamiyan Buddhas and International Law.” The Hindu: Online
Edition of India’s National Newspaper Accessed 21 May. http://www.the
hindu.com/2001/03/06/stories/05062523.htm.
Marshall, John. 1951. Taxila: An Illustrated Account of Archaeological
Excavations Carried Out at Taxila Under the Orders of the Government of
India Between the Years 1913 and 1934. Cambridge: England University Press.
Nagaoka, Masanori. 2011. “Buffering Borobudur for Socio-economic
Development: An Approach Away from European Values-Based Heritage
Management.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable
Development no. 5 (2): 130–150.
Noyes, James. 2013. The Politics of Iconoclasm: Religion, Violence, and the Culture
of Image-Breaking in Christianity and Islam. New York: I.B. Tauris.
Reza, Said. 2012. “Destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas: Taliban Iconoclasm and
Hazara Response.” Himalayan and Central Asian Studies no. 16 (2): 15–50.
Rico, Trinidad. 2016. Constructing Destruction: Heritage Narratives in the
Tsunami City. London: Routledge.
Rose, Mark. 2007. “Pakistan’s Heritage at Risk.” Archaeology—A Publication of
the Archaeological Institute of America Accessed May 25, 2016. http://
archive.archaeology.org/online/features/pakistan/.
Smith, Laurajane. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London and New York: Routledge.
Stone, Peter G., and Joanne Farchakh Bajjaly eds. 2008. The Destruction of
Cultural Heritage in Iraq. Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: The Boydell Press.
Tabrizi, Taymaz G. 2012. “Ritual Purity and Buddhists in Modern Twelver Shi’a
Exegesis and Law.” Journal of Shi’a Islamic Studies no. 5 (4): 455–471.
Van Der Valk, Arnold. 2014. “Preservation and Development: The Cultural
Landscape and Heritage Paradox in the Netherlands.” Landscape Research
no. 39 (2): 158–173.
Zaeef, Abdul Salam. 2011. My Life with the Taliban. 1 ed. London: Hurst.