Prehistoric India to 1000 B.C. c10.27

c10.27

This, then, gives a handy method of reference to the sequence, Roman numerals being used after the type-site name, so that one has Sialk I, Sialk II, and so on as names for successive occupations. A form of subdivision is necessary when we find that there are successive levels of rebuilding by the same group of people on the site, but where there is no sign that the continuity has been broken, and this can be done by using IIa, IIb, and so on. A new Roman numeral should indicate a new group of people living on the site, a letter after a numeral that there has been no change of population, but that the existing folk have rebuilt their town. Unfortunately this method of numbering has not been uniformly adopted by excavators in the Orient, so that certain sites are numbered ‘backwards’ - their latest occupation is I and their earliest may be XX or so. It is impossible to renumber these sites without causing untold confusion, so the reader must be on his guard, and remember for instance that Giyan V is early but Sialk IV is late in the general sequence.∗