The Personality of India: Pre- and Proto-historic Foundation of India and Pakistan c11: III. Terminology

The Personality of India: Pre- and Proto-historic Foundation of India and Pakistan c11

Language: English

III. Terminology

c11.1

In the West, where modern archaeology developed, its scope was more or less limited to Prehistory and for the later periods more copious works of a historical character are available to confine the scope and function of archaeology. But, due to various reasons, archaeology in India has come to cover what may briefly be called the material culture of extinct historic and prehistoric peoples. Besides, right from Cunningham onwards, the archaeologists in India have concentrated more on the monuments of the Historical period. As Sir John Marshall explained, the itineraries of Fa-hien and Yuan-chwang, led Cunningham into investigating the old routes and towns visited by him, resulting in his classic studies of Ancient Indian geography, and the light shed on Buddhist art and architecture by him and his colleagues. The general scarcity of historical or even semi-historical literature of a reliable type for constructing the history of Ancient India also justifies the expanded scope of archaeology to include Pre-historic and Historic periods. Hence we can define archaeology as the study of the material relics of past people and the conceptual integration, in time and space, of their material relics.

c11.2

With the invention of writing, Man had developed the unique power of transmitting his ideas and his intellectual achievements to his contemporaries as well as his successors. Hence, the story of mankind after the invention of writing has been designated "History" to differentiate it from that of Pre-literate societies called "Prehistory". As the diagram shows (Fig. 11), literature, contemporary inscriptions (Epigraphy), and coins (Numismatics) lend a greater precision to the story of the Historic periods. Yet, as already pointed out, the nature of our extant ancient literature introduces a greater complication, as they incorporate a large body of uncorroborated data and ill-recorded traditions making a historical and chronological treatment difficult. Hence we have the odd feature that our well-corroborated history begins about 600 B.C., in the North and slightly later in the South. Secondly, even the application of these two definitions lands us into difficulties, when we take up the question of the Indus Valley civilization. Those people had practised writing of a type preserved on their seals, but we have not yet succeeded in deciphering the script satisfactorily. Several attempts have been made by Father Heras, Prananth, Hunter, Hronzy, Ramachandran and other writers, but these heroic efforts can neither be proved nor disproved unless some bi-lingual seals are discovered. Hence for the present, we have to leave this civilization out of both the categories of History and Prehistory. But the existence of a vast body of legends of an unhistorical character forces us to recognize the sub-division called "Proto-history" to cover the transitional period between Prehistory and History. For the present, we may include the Indus Valley civilization in this category.

c11.3

After these very broad periods, the next important problem is that of an independent generic and specific terminology.¹ Upto now this problem has not received the attention it deserves. As far as Prehistory is concerned, the European terminology is being adopted and adapted. Remembering that things which may have the same name in Prehistory are not necessarily the same in time or content, we may try to avoid the pitfalls into which European and African developments have landed. In Europe, after the brilliant generalization of Thompsen, his Three Age scheme has been so much systematized and garnished with sub-divisions that it is impossible to see the wood for the trees.² But the more intensive studies both in Europe, as well as in Africa, have shown that Western Europe itself has a provincial character of its own, on account of its location on the periphery of the Old World. Childe has recently demonstrated how the geographical and environmental differences in Europe itself have lead to what he calls, "culture cycles" which consist of a series or groups of cultures which are linked, but yet have an individuality of their own.³ As Lowe put it, "the dangers of a universal or a wide application of cultural terms, founded on typological similarities, are too obvious to need stress. On the other hand, the universal application of terms used to describe techniques has few dangers." Hence the classic tradition, either of Europe or Africa, should not intrude into India. But we should gradually evolve our own terminology, as fresh investigations are carried out. Hence our approach should be the isolation and correlation of persistent associations of archaeological types and not splitting preconceived groupings of human remains. This system has the other advantage of avoiding the confusion and mis-understanding, due to the projection by implication, of the total cultural and chronological associations of two far-fetched areas, belonging to two entirely different physical environments. Besides, the large environmental diversity and overlaps of cultural phases make any system very difficult to apply in practice.

c11.4

¹ I am very much obliged to Dr. and Mrs. Allchin and Dr. A. H. Dani for the very valuable discussions on some of the problems of terminology. A few of our ideas have been adopted here.

c11.5

² DANIEL, GLYN, E., *Three Ages—An essay on archaeological methods*. Cambridge, 1943, p. 58.

c11.6

³ CHILDE, GORDON V., *The Prehistory of European Society*, Pelican book, London 1958.

c11.7

In India, Robert Bruce Foote readily adopted the Three Age concept and his brilliant generalization still holds the field.⁴ Yet, as we shall see, we have not been able to evolve a satisfactory correlation of Palaeolithic cultures, in different parts of the country. For the North-western India, we have a fine sequence based on the correlation of pleistocene glaciations, Siwalik fauna and human cultures.¹ In the peninsular India, various sub-divisions between "Wet" and "Dry" periods have been attempted by Cammiade, Burkitt² Zeuner,³ and Sen.⁴ But it still lacks a stratigraphic basis and typology creeps into it at every stage. Not that it is wrong, but what we need is other independent criteria. The most important result of all this is the undoubted existence of a Pebble-Chopper-Complex in the Sohan and a widespread Peninsular Hand-axe and cleaver groups in the Middle and Upper Pleistocene. But in the two areas, where they have been systematically studied (Madras and Sohan), the tendency is for the appearance of a Levallois or prepared-platform technique in the later stages of both these industries. The second distinct group is the Geometric and Non-geometric Microlithic industries spread all over the country. In between two distinct assemblages, what one may call as "Early" and "Late" Stone Ages, we have an equally well-distributed blade, scraper and burin industry with distinct "Levallois" and Mousterian technique. All over the country, we see a switch-over to the fine-grained stones like agate, chert, jasper etc. The stratigraphic position of this industry between the Early and Late is indicated at Narsinghpur,⁵ Bombay⁶ and Maheshvar⁷ area. Hence for greater clarity, we may call this as "Middle Stone Age" industry.

c11.8

⁴ FOOTE, R. B., *Indian Prehistoric and Proto-historic Antiquities, Notes on Ages and Distribution*. Madras, 1912.

c11.9

¹ DE TERRA, H. and PATERSON, T. R., *Studies on the Ice Age in India Associated human cultures*. Washington, 1939.

c11.10

² CAMMIADE, L. and BURKITT, M. C. "Fresh light on the Stone Ages of South India", *Antiquity*. 1930.

c11.11

³ ZEUNER, F. E. *Stone Age and Pleistocene Chronology in Gujarat*, Poona, 1950.

c11.12

⁴ SEN, DHARANI. *Presidential address of the Archaeology and Anthropology section*, Indian Science Congress, Hyderabad. 1954.

c11.13

⁵ DE TERRA and PATERSON. *op. cit.* p. 320.

c11.14

⁶ TODD, K. R. U. "Palaeolithic Industries around Bombay" *Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute*, 1939.

c11.15

⁷ A detailed report of the latest studies of the terraces of the Narbada and the tools is under preparation.

c11.16

This need not surprise us, since the Upper Palaeolithic is "a phase of regional specialization".⁸ All over the Old World, the Lower Palaeolithic industries have a much greater affinity in technique and evolution, but not in the Upper. The cultures of these later phases in Europe, Africa, Palestine and even Iran show divergences. Similarly in India, it is possible, if not probable, that the Levallois flake industry slowly develops into a microlithic facies as in Africa. *Just at present, Indian sequence does not fit into any mould, European or African. Let us discover our own pattern by intensive stratigraphic studies of more localities, and rely less on typology.*

c11.17

⁸ HUZAYYIN, S. A. "New light on the Upper Palaeolithic of Egypt" *Proceedings of the first Pan-African-Congress of Pre-history*, 1947, p. 202.

c11.18

This nomenclature has the merit of being very simple and in view of certain stratigraphic and chronological complications, which will be explained at a later stage, it can be modified and adapted as our knowledge progresses. Besides, its similarity with the African need not deter us. After all, let it be recognized, that the Indian Middle Stone Age, in particular, has much closer affinities to the African, and similarly it is also a Levallois-derivative. Even in the Early and the Late, we have very significant divergences with those of Europe, inspite of the apparent affinities. For example, no industry exposed so far in India, can compare technologically with the Upper Acheulean of Europe in its perfection. Besides, in the ‘Lower Group’ of Narbada, with a so-called “Mid-pleistocene” (Upper Siwalik Fauna) we have an Acheulean industry. This anomaly was pointed out by De Terra himself.¹ Now with Pravara yielding ‘Bos Namadicus Falconer’² with a typical Middle Stone Age assembly, one wonders whether there is no need for a fresh examination of the Palaeontology of the Tropicals and we are justified in extending the Siwalik dating to Central and Southern India. These are not easy problems to solve, and need a good deal of further study and research. It is for this very reason, we have to devise a system that avoids probably misleading analogies in technique and chronology.

c11.19

¹ DE TERRA and PATERSON, op. cit. p. 320.

c11.20

² SANKALIA, H. D., “Animal-fossils and Palaeolithic industries from the Pravara Basin at Nevasa” Ancient India No. 12, 1956, pp. 35-52

c11.21

The last phase of the Stone Age in India is characterized by the occurrence of polished stone axes. In the Central Deccan, we have more or less stratigraphic evidence to show that this succeeded the ‘Late Stone Age’. We have also clear evidence to show that these people were widespread agricultural and pastoral communities with a preference for upland or hilly type of terrain. This may be called the Neolithic or the New Stone Age. F. R. Allchin has made a nice attempt to justify the use of this term.³

c11.22

³ A paper read at the All India Oriental Conference XVIII session held at Annamalai, Dec. 1955.

c11.23

Then after these four phases of stone age, we have naturally transitional communities, who were acquainted with the metals, but not yet sufficiently to alter the economic character of their societies. The stone still dominates their raw materials for tools. These may be called ‘Chalcolithic’ for convenience. In India in particular, till the advent of Iron, it is very interesting to note that the distribution of the Chalcolithic cultures has a definite relation to the proximity to the regions where copper is available in large quantities. For example, since the ‘Grey Ware’ folk succeeded the ‘Copper Hoard’ cultures (Vide Hastinapur)⁴ Gangetic valley Proto-historic cultures were technically in a Copper-bronze Age. In Malwa and Deccan, we have a very highly developed stone Blade industry⁵ to supplement their scanty supply of copper tools. In view of the technological and cultural divergences in the Proto-historic period of Indian history and archaeology, we may use the safer term ‘Proto-historic period’ to cover the entire range of cultures between the Pre-Harappan, Harappan and Post-Harappan and the succeeding Early Historic cultures of about 500 B.C. A rough sequence, within this whole range of Proto-historic, can be derived from the three 'cycles' of cultures described in Chapter VI.

c11.24

⁴ LAL, B. B. “Excavations at Hastinapur”, Ancient India No. 10-11, 1954-55.

c11.25

⁵ SUBBARAO, B., “Chalcolithic Blade Industry of Maheshwar” Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, XVII, 1955, Poona. In the latest excavations (1957-58) five large copper celts were found in the excavation in the lowest levels of the Chalcolithic culture.

c11.26

In the Historic period, our problem is somewhat difficult. Usually the historians have got over this difficulty by designating a period by the most important and epoch-making king or dynasty. But, let it be admitted, that this is very unsatisfactory because of the diverse regional political histories. The extension of these terms for archaeology and their projection on the basis of typology, technique and style has greater dangers since it ignores chronology and local sequence. Yet, for convenience we may retain them to keep it in tune with the normal designation followed by the Indian historians. A more safer method seems to qualify these dynastic labels with the names of the area under consideration. Here further thought is necessary and the writer will be grateful, if a better system can be devised.