The Personality of India: Pre- and Proto-historic Foundation of India and Pakistan c14.s1.t7: The Early Historic Period and the Megalithic Problem

The Personality of India: Pre- and Proto-historic Foundation of India and Pakistan c14.s1.t7

Language: English

The Early Historic Period and the Megalithic Problem

c14.s1.t7.1

As already stated, the occurrence of the black-and-red ware in the so-called non-megalithic areas of Western and Central India has high-lighted this problem, which up to now was taken as pertaining only to South India. But a slight treatment of this problem in its historical aspect is not superfluous. Firstly, South India has been a hunting ground for these so-called 'Scythic' or *Druidal* remains for well over a century and till 1947, no attempt was made to fix up a relative chronology and relate these burials to the people who built them and their material culture. Hence we cannot complain against the older writers who described them as Prehistoric. Secondly, the history of Southern India, based on literary sources cannot take us to a period earlier than the Mauryan at any rate, and is mostly better documented from about the Christian Era. Hence the cultural history of the preceding periods, and particularly the Megalithic phase depends to a greater extent on archaeology. So this lopsided development has to be compensated by large scale excavations at the habitation sites of these Megalithic folk. Thirdly, a lively controversy was started by Prof. Haimendorf when he identified the Dravidians with the Megalith builders.

c14.s1.t7.2

The writer does not claim any startling new discoveries leading us to the problem of the Megalithic culture, Dravidians etc., but an attempt is made in the following pages to remove a few misconceptions, and clear the decks for any intensive attack on this complex problem, in the light of certain new developments in Indian archaeology. The basic facts about this culture may be stated as follows :

c14.s1.t7.3

1. In India, particularly in the South, we have, what one may call a burial-complex varying from simple pit and urn burials upto the most elaborate cists and circles with orthostats and clinostats. Dr. Aiyappan¹ had counted nearly thirty types and V. D. Krishnaswamy has proposed a system of classification and terminology.²

c14.s1.t7.4

¹ KRISHNASWAMY, V. D. "Megalithic types of South India" *Ancient India*, No. 5. New Delhi. 1948.

c14.s1.t7.5

² AIYAPPAN, A. "Megalithic Culture of Southern India"—Presidential Address, Anthropology and Archaeology section, Indian Science Congress, Nagpur, 1945.

c14.s1.t7.6

2. There are certain basic structural affinities with those of Europe, Mediterranean and the Caucasus region. But in the present state of our knowledge, the Indian group is very late when compared to them.³

c14.s1.t7.7

³ "On the coast of Atlantic, the North sea and the Baltic, megalithic tombs exhibit a continuous distribution in space. But they do not disclose a single culture in the usual sense of a complex of traits—similar pottery, tools, weapons and ornaments regularly recurring together in these tombs and not in other sepulchral associations. Only one class of pottery, the so-called Beakers, is at all often found in these tombs all over the province. "He concludes his very provocative summary in", *Ancient India* with the remark, "the quest for any megalithic circle culture is much less promising than for a tomb complex". CHILDE, GORDON, V. "Megaliths", *Ancient India* No. 4, 1947-48. p. 6 & p. 13.

c14.s1.t7.8

The excavations at Brahmagiri gave a tremendous impetus to the study of these problems. While Haimendorf propounded a theory that the megalith builders were Dravidians, because of their coincidence with the present day distribution of Dravidian languages.⁴ D. H. Gordon has discussed the archaeological implications.¹ So we begin with the latter and then discuss the former a little further. Col. Gordon's case may be summarised as follows. The megalithic complex is associated with black-and-red pottery and iron. Prof. Codrington thought, but without stating any particular reasons, that the rock cut tholoi of Malabar (caves) were the earliest. Since Wheeler had dated the megaliths at Brahmagiri to about 200 B.C., Gordon suggested an earlier date for the southern group. As iron appeared to him to be absent in Northern India before 250 B.C., he inferred that iron was earlier in the South. Since Brahmagiri suggested a sudden infiltration of the megalithic folk, Wheeler saw in the collapse of the Mauryan empire, an ideal context for a folk migration into Central Deccan from the South. Accepting the identification of Prof. Haimendorf, Gordon imagined a Chola migration upto the Vindhyas and their rebuff at the hands of the Satavahanas. But the recent evidence does not bear out most of these assumptions. The two crucial criteria of Gordon, viz. the pottery and iron, will be discussed, leaving the more controversial factors.

c14.s1.t7.9

⁴ HAIMENDORF: "New aspects of the Dravidian Problem", *Tamil Culture*, II, 2, 1953.

c14.s1.t7.10

¹ GORDON, D. H., "Early use of metals in India and Pakistan", JRAI, LXXX, 1950.

c14.s1.t7.11

About the pottery, there is no doubt that the one unifying factor of this burial complex of South India is the black-and-red ware. However, the recent work in Central India has made this pottery extremely important for further studies. Hence the writer made a special study of the forms, fabrics, decorations and techniques. (See Figs. 42 & 43). It shows that most of the basic forms are common except the tendency for an elongation and development of pointed bases in the South. Besides its wide distribution in space, it has an equally wide distribution in time—nearly a thousand years. Hence a distinction is sought to be made on the basis of megalithic burials. But the definite chronological priority of this ware in Central and Western India, and such positive affinities in fabrics and forms weakens any assumption of independent origins for the megalithic and non-megalithic black-and-red ware. So the solution to this problem lies elsewhere and the possibility of its being earlier in South India is eliminated by the uniformity of the grave goods and pottery with this entire burial complex. At the present state of our knowledge, the following alternative hypotheses should be explored:

c14.s1.t7.12

1. A people already practising some form of megalithic burial in the South could have adopted this fine burnished ware and iron; and hence its popularity with their graves. In this connection, the extended burial with pots in Br. 17 at Brahmagiri may be considered.²

c14.s1.t7.13

² WHEELER: Ancient India, 4, Fig. 21, p. 228.

c14.s1.t7.14

2. Or the megalithic culture could have infiltrated by land across the Gneissic areas of Central India into the South, where they have survived for a longer time. The alleged find-spots of megaliths in Northern India—though badly neglected—may be pointed. The close affinities of the pottery from the burials at Bahal and the pottery below the cists at Brahmagiri (already referred to) shows a definite Pre-Iron type of burial, in Central India with the same pottery.

c14.s1.t7.15

About Iron, when Gordon wrote his paper on "The early use of metals in India and Pakistan", the finds of iron from Taxila and Hastinapur were not published. The subsequent excavations at Maheshvar also carry the age of iron to a period about 500 B.C. Hence it is not possible to maintain that iron was earlier in the South. About the typology of the iron tools, most of the types are common to both North as well as South. The only distinctive types being the shaft-hole-adze found at Taxila only, and the adze with a ring fastener supposed to be typically megalithic. But this occurs at Junapani and Thakurghat "barrows" near Nagpur. Thus the evidence tends to show that iron and the Black-and-Red wares came together into South India. Such association of both has been noticed at Timbarva and Somnath in Gujarat and Nasik and Nevasa in Maharashtra.

c14.s1.t7.16

The other relevant issue is the so-called sudden appearance of the megalithic culture at Brahmagiri and the dramatization of Wheeler by comparing the Toda settlements and the city of Ootacamund for the difference between the megalithic and pre-megalithic phases. The evidence of Brahmagiri itself with some of the pots from the Chalcolithic burial in Br. 17 with some of the crude rimless type bowls etc., suggests a slow infiltration. These "significant overlaps", as Wheeler himself described them, were confirmed at Sanganakallu. Certain pottery forms common to both were pointed out by the writer.¹

c14.s1.t7.17

¹ SUBBARAO: *Bellary*, 1948, p. 15.

c14.s1.t7.18

Finally, what about the megaliths in the North? We cannot close our eyes to very responsible but vague accounts which give quite a wide distribution. They are reported from Rajputana,² Uttarpradesh,³ Bihar⁴ and Kashmir.⁵ Cockburn has given us an account of an excavation of a barrow 60 feet in diameter with black pottery and blades, reminding us again of what we now know from Bahal. We have similar accounts from the Nagpur area (Junapani and Thakur Ghat).

c14.s1.t7.19

² CUNNINGHAM, *Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India*, Vol. VI, 1878, pp. 13-15.

c14.s1.t7.20

³ COCKBURN, JOHN: "On flint implements from the Ken ravines of South Mirzapur", *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal*, *Proceedings*, 1894, pp. 21-27. RIVETT CARNAC, J. H., "On stone implements from North western provinces of India", *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal*, LII, 1883, pt. 1, pp. 221-230. " " "Archaeological Notes on Ancient Sculptures on rocks in Kumoon, India similar to those found on Monoliths and Rocks in Europe with other papers, Calcutta, pp. 29-30, 1879.

c14.s1.t7.21

⁴ CUMMING, JOHN: *Revealing India's*, London, 1939, p. 116, also Roy, S. C. *JBORI*, 1, p. 129.

c14.s1.t7.22

⁵ M. R. SAHNI: "Palaeontology, Palaeo-botany and Prehistory in India", *Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India*, 1, 1956, p. 38.

c14.s1.t7.23

Thus the archaeological evidence so far and particularly the pottery, and the occurrence of different and early grave-goods suggest again a southward movement and their longer survival in the Gneissic areas of the South India. The question of its movement straight to South India by sea is not supported by our present knowledge, since none of the megalithic remains can be reasonably dated prior to 500 B.C. But this particular hypothesis needs to be verified.

c14.s1.t7.24

The strongest objection to Prof. Haimendorf's identification is the linguistic one. Burrow¹ has shown that the greatest influence of the Dravidian languages on Sanskrit is in the Post-Rigvedic and Pre-Buddhist period. If this is true, we revert to the earlier hypothesis of a wider distribution of Dravidian languages and their gradual displacement or southward movement and their survival in the South. One of the major structural lines of Indian historical geography follows the edge of the Deccan plateau, abutting against the Indo-Gangetic plains. With the infiltration of the Aryan cultural elements into the South, one sees the remarkable feature of increasing resistance to alien influences. For example, depending on the distance and the length of the thrust, there is a descending order of Northern influences in Maharashtrians, Andhras, Kannadigas and the Tamilians. Tamil preserves its comparative purity due to what Eickstedt has called "the double mountain barrier". Hence it is premature to make any attempt to identify the Dravidians. At one time Heine Geldern suggested the Neolithic people. Then we had the identifications of Dr. Heras with the Indus valley people. Guha attributed the megalithic traits to the Palaeo-Mediterraneans.

c14.s1.t7.25

¹ BURROW : *The Sanskrit Language*, London, 1954, p. 387. "The existence of the last member of the family in Baluchistan, far away from the main concentration of Dravidian, is consistent with the theory that before the Aryan conquest, Dravidian occupied a much greater area including considerable portions of Northern India. We shall see that the extensive influence of Dravidian on Sanskrit, beginning at an early period, also seems to point to this conclusion" (p. 376). "Concerning the date when these words were taken into Sanskrit it may be observed, that majority are Post-Vedic. On the other hand, it is important to note that there is a small nucleus already found in the Rgveda: e.g.: Ulukhala Khala Bala Katuka Danda Bila Kunda Pinda Mayura." "It is evident from this survey, that the main influence of Dravidian on Indo-Aryan was concentrated at a particular historical period, namely, between the Late Vedic period and the formation of the Classical language. This is significant from the point of view of locality where the influence took place. It is not possible that at this period such influence could have been exercised from the South. There were no intensive contacts with South India before the Mauryan period, by which time majority of these words had already been adopted by the Indo-Aryan. If the influence took place in the North in the Central Gangetic plain and the classical Madhyadesa the assumption that the Pre-Aryan population of this area contained a considerable element of Dravidian speakers would best account for the Dravidian words in Sanskrit......The Dravidian language, Kurukh and Malto are preserved even now in Northern India, and may be regarded as islands surviving from a once extensive Dravidian territory. The Dravidian words in the Rgveda attest the presence of Dravidian in North-western India at that period. Brahui in Baluchistan remains the modern representative of North-western Dravidian". p. 387.

c14.s1.t7.26

Again, on the Dravidian-Megalith equation of Prof. Haimendorf one wonders whether the present distribution of the Dravidian languages and our current inadequate knowledge of the distribution of megaliths, justifies inferences from ethnology and philology.¹ We need not be taken in, either by Wheeler's dramatic parallel of the city Ootacamund and the Toda hills for the contrast between the Neolithic and the Megalithic cultures, or by Haimendorf's question : "if the Megalithic builders did not speak Dravidian, what language did they speak". We can certainly plead for a little more patience. On the question of language of the Megalith builders, we do not know anything at present. *They must certainly have spoken the Dravidian languages, but the more controversial point raised by Prof. Haimendorf, is whether they introduced these languages or not.* Earlier, Heine Geldern doubted it. Besides this raises grave problems which can only be solved by the linguists. If, as is believed, the Dravidian languages and culture influenced the Aryan from the beginning, this late chronology conflicts with these suggestions.² As a general principle, it may be stated, that the adoption of certain aspects of a higher culture need not necessarily imply the adoption of the language. The very survival of the Dravidian languages in India is an obvious answer to Prof. Haimendorf's query.

c14.s1.t7.27

¹ We should remember the caution uttered by Maxmuller. "Confusion has arisen due to mixing up of philology with ethnology. Language and classification of races should be made independently. A race can change its language".......Should we not consider the culture complex as a single whole, specially the social structure etc. At a time when Deccan was comparatively unknown, we find a broad generalization based on the system of marriages. Baudhayana says, that the cross-cousin marriage is prevalent among the southerners. (Dakshinayanam matulasuta parinayanam). As a matter of fact, but for the differences in language, social structure, kinship etc., the whole religious, intellectual and cultural heritage of the whole sub-continent is the same. Even the well-known Early Sangam literature, which is full of references to the megalithic burials, is described by Prof. Nilakanthasastry as a composite culture of the "Aryan and the Tamilian".

c14.s1.t7.28

² SIRCAR, D. C. "The Dravidian problem", *Man in India* XXXV, 1, 1955.

c14.s1.t7.29

Before closing this section on this, I propose to put forward a few suggestions for detailed consideration by scholars.

c14.s1.t7.30

1. It is necessary to separate the pottery and megalithic idea or ritual.

c14.s1.t7.31

2. No more progress can be made in the study of this problem unless we verify and determine the character of the megalithic remains in the North.

c14.s1.t7.32

3. We have to look for a possibility of Megalithic burial complex in the South without this black-and-red ware.

c14.s1.t7.33

CULTURE SEQUENCE IN CENTRAL DECCAN

c14.s1.t7.34

| [Figure: (Drawings of pottery and coins)] | EARLY HISTORIC II (SATAVAHANA) | RUSSET COATED CRISS-CROSS WARE, SATAVAHANA AND ROMAN COINS ROULETTED WARE |
| [Figure: (Drawings of iron tools and burial site)] | EARLY HISTORIC I (MEGALITHIC) | RED-AND-BLACK WARE IN ASSOCIATION WITH IRON AND MEGALITHIC BURIAL COMPLEX |
| [Figure: (Drawings of pottery shards and tools)] | PROTO HISTORIC CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD | SLOW INFILTRATION OF PAINTED POTTERY AND COPPER AND BRONZE INTO NEOLITHIC COMMUNITIES |
| [Figure: (Drawings of stone axes and tools)] | NEOLITHIC | AGE OF POLISHED STONE AXES AND EARLY AGRICULTURAL AND PASTORAL COMMUNITIES. |
| [Figure: (Drawings of microliths)] | LATE STONE AGE | GEOMETRIC AND NON GEOMETRIC MICROLITHIC INDUSTRIES CAMMIADE SERIES IV |
| [Figure: (Drawings of blades and scrapers)] | MIDDLE STONE AGE | BLADE SCRAPER AND BURIN INDUSTRIES CAMMIADE SERIES III |
| [Figure: (Drawings of hand axes)] | EARLY STONE AGE | HAND AXES AND CLEAVERS OF ABBEVILLO-ACHEUL TECHNIQUE CAMMIADE SERIES I & II |

c14.s1.t7.35

4. Is it possible to look for such a contact (pottery and megalithic ritual) in Central India? In Malenesia, the square axe with cut side (Vierkantbeil) is associated with the megalith.¹ It is possible that the meeting of these two traits black-and-red pottery and this megalithic cult took place in Central India about the middle of the 1st millennium B.C. before their movement into South India? This would probably meet the possible objection from linguistic as well as archaeological evidence. But this problem requires very careful investigation and this hypothesis is put forward to stimulate further studies.

c14.s1.t7.36

¹ ALPHONE REISENFELD: *The Megalithic Culture of Melanesia*, Leiden, 1950. p. 642.

c14.s1.t7.37

Leaving all these controversial facts aside, it is proposed to make a few observations about the material culture of these megalithic folk. If one were to look at the enormous size of these cemeteries and even the associated habitation sites like Brahmagiri, Maski, Sanganakallu, one is immediately struck by their implication on the size of the communities and their probable duration. For example, within an area of five miles radius around Brahmagiri (including the sites in the bordering district of Bellary) we have no less than 2000 cists. V. D. Krishnaswamy has noticed the general association of large tank bunds with these cemeteries. E. J. Hunt has also commented on this association. The graves generally occur on the high ground overlooking these tanks, and fields. Their extensive use and fabrication of iron tools and weapons, gold beads, copper and bronze vessels and jewellery (reported from Pondicherry) and beads of semi-precious stones, suggest large scale agricultural and industrial communities. Apart from the literary references, the Emperor Asoka refers to Ratthikas, Pethinias, Andhras, Cholas, Pandyas, Keralaputras and Satyaputras in and outside the southern portions of his empire. Hence there seems to be no doubt that the first urban life in south India started with the settlement and rapid expansion of this true Iron Age Culture, to use a term so well-popularised by Foote. Following Gordon Childe, we may define urban life as being characterized by a surplus of food production, helping to maintain other industrial and craft communities. Where are the thirty walled Andhra towns of Megasthenes, unless they be the large number of early sites in the upper and the lower basins of Godavary and Krishna?

c14.s1.t7.38

We are well within the Early historic period and this Megalithic phase overlaps in the Central Deccan with the Andhra or the Satavahana period. (Fig. 33)

c14.s1.t7.39

Tamilnad

c14.s1.t7.40

Now we pass on to the eastern littoral or Tamilnad, comprising the valleys of Palar, Kaveri and Tamraparni. Unfortunately very little systematic exploration has been carried out in this region. The excavations of Wheeler¹ and Casal at Arikamedu,² and those of K. R. Srinivasan and N. R. Banerji³ at Sengamedu, Sanur and Pallavamedu give us the first glimpses. All the excavations stated above, except the last, have revealed two main phases, the earlier one being the Megalithic and the latter one characterized by the Roman contact resulting in the occurrence of Rouletted ware and belonging to the first few centuries of the Christian era. The Pre-megalithic phase in this part of the country is still obscure. If we accept the influence of raw material, we can very well account for the absence of the Neolithic cultures south of the river Kavery. The largest single group of diorite polished axes occur in the Shevroy hills in the Salem district, where there are five very large dykes of basalt north of the Shevroy mountains. According to Sir Edwin Pascoe,⁴ "the dykes under consideration are extremely rare in Tinnevelly, and very few are seen in Madura, Pudukkotai State, South Trichinopoly, Salem and South Arcot." The earlier systems have been covered by the cretaceous and later systems. Very significantly, few celts have been reported south of Salem and none south of Kevery by Foote.

c14.s1.t7.41

¹ WHEELER, R. E. M. "Arikamedu—An Indo-Roman trading station on the East coast of India", Ancient India No. 2, July 1946.

c14.s1.t7.42

² CASAL, Fuilles de Virmpatam—Musee Guimet, Paris. CASAL J. M. and CASAL, TA. Site Urbain et sites Funeraire des environs de Pondicherry, Presse Universitaires de France. Paris, 1956.

c14.s1.t7.43

³ I am very much obliged to K. R. Srinivasan for this information; also see: Archaeology in India 1953-54.

c14.s1.t7.44

⁴ PASCOE, E. 1950. p. 469-83

c14.s1.t7.45

This fact attains some significance if we look at Ceylon. From the published accounts of Weyland,⁵ Noone⁶ and Deraniyagala,⁷ no polished axes have been found and we learn that a Microlithic culture more or less survived into the Early Historic.⁸ The existence in Tamilnad of a microlithic culture of considerable antiquity is well-attested by the chain of Teri sites in the Tinnevelly District. Whether this culture, based on a primitive hunting economy, survived till it was displaced by the Megalithic folk requires investigation. But such a possibility is not ruled out by the evidence of Arikamedu and Sengamedu.

c14.s1.t7.46

⁵ WAYLAND, "Outlines of the Stone Ages of Ceylon", Spolia Zeylanica, XI, p. 185.

c14.s1.t7.47

⁶ NOONE, N. A. and H. V. V. "Stone Implements of Banderwala" Ceylon Journal of Science, Vol. III, pt. 1, Nov. 1940. pp. 1-23.

c14.s1.t7.48

⁷ DERANIYAGALA, P. E. P. "The Stone Age and Cavemen of Ceylon", Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch. Vol. XXXIV, No. 92, 1939.

c14.s1.t7.49

⁸ The Prehistory of Ceylon, particularly the later phases have not yet been studied properly. But Deraniyagala's Balgonda culture, no doubt possesses a number of heavier tools like perforated mace heads and "pecked picks". But the most interesting feature is a number of pitted stones. Such types are rare in India and the writer can recall only the material from the Kolar District, lying unpublished in the store rooms of the Department of Archaeology, Mysore State. There are a few in the Cunningham collection in the British Museum coming from the "Kaimur ranges". But the absence of chipped and ground axes, chisels etc., is quite significant in view of the extensive work carried out by Dr. Deraniyagala. DERANIYAGALA, "Some Aspects of the Prehistory of Ceylon—Part III. The Balgonda culture." Spolia Zeylanica, 27, 1. 1953. pp. 126-131.

c14.s1.t7.50

We have already discussed the material culture of the Megalithic folk. But there seem to have been a strong additional stimulus, provided by the rapidly expanding kingdoms of the Gangetic basin, immediately succeeding the first impacts of Hinduism and the Sanskrit language (symbolized in the early Tamil literature by traditions of Agastya and Parasurama). In the wake of the proselytizing Buddhism and Jainism, the Mauryans carried their imperial sceptre to the borders of Mysore. These must have provided a great stimulus and impulse towards literary pursuits into the completely free and independent kingdoms in the south.¹ Another important factor was the discovery of monsoons and the Roman trade. The concentration of the hoards of Roman coins in the south (Fig. 41) and the ware houses at Arikamedu are too well-known to need a repetition. It is no wonder that this great era of prosperity coincides with the historic third Sangam, whose extant works are dated to the early centuries of the Christian era.²

c14.s1.t7.51

¹ " . . . . . the language of the short Brahmi inscriptions of the third century B.C. was Tamil, still in its formative stages, with an admixture of words of clearly Sanskritic origin. In the poems of the Sangam anthologies, the Tamil language has reached maturity and begun to serve as a powerful and elegant medium of literary expression, and has already received and assimilated many words and ideas from Sanskrit sources". NILAKANTHA SASTRI, K. A. *A History of South India*, Madras, 1955 p. 112.

c14.s1.t7.52

² NILAKANTHA SASTRY, K. A. *K. Cholas*. Vol. I, 1935, p. 36.

c14.s1.t7.53

Gujarat

c14.s1.t7.54

Among the areas of relative isolation, Gujarat is very typical and its geographic position has secured for it, its place in Indian archaeology. This area has been subjected to a series of intensive studies by the Departments of Archaeology, of the Baroda University and the Governments of India and Bombay. Gujarat really speaking consists of three natural sub-divisions: Anarta (North Gujarat and portions of Rajputana), Saurashtra (the peninsula of Kathiawad) and Lata (South Gujarat and Konkan). This difference is very significant, since Anarta more or less corresponds to the semi-arid loessic zone, and Lata is coextensive with the fertile coastal strip and Konkan. This story is not belied by archaeology.

c14.s1.t7.55

Discussing one of the major lineaments of Indian History, Spate¹ points out that one of the basic structure-lines "runs slantwise from about Muttra on the Jumna above Agra, along the Aravallis to the Gulf of Cambay". This line is very important and it marks the eastern limit of the Indus Valley Civilization, limit of the Achaemenid and Greek influences. Even in the historical periods, except for short periods of large States and empires, it was always a major boundary (See Figs. 34 & 35). On account of the dissected jungly country that separates Gujarat from Malwa, and its position under the shadow of the Rajputana desert, Gujarat was a major shatter zone, "as shown by numerous States and Statelets (down to a population of 96 and areas of a square mile!)"

c14.s1.t7.56

¹ SPATE, op. cit., p. 604.

c14.s1.t7.57

The Bombay Gazetteer sums up the whole history of Gujarat:

c14.s1.t7.58

"The richness of Mainland Gujarat the gift of Sabarmati, Mahi, Narbada and Tapti and the goodliness of much of Saurashtra the Goodly Land have from before the beginning of history continued to draw strangers to Gujarat both as conquerers and refugees".

c14.s1.t7.59

"By sea probably came the half-mythic Yadavas (B.C. 1500-500); contingents of Yavanas (B.C. 300-A.D. 100) including Greeks, Bactrians, Parthians and Scythians; the pursued Parsis and the pursuing Arabs (A.D. 600-800); hordes of Sanganian pirates (A.D. 900-1200); Parsi and Navayat Musalman refugees from Khulagu Khan's devastation of Persia (A.D. 1250-1300); Portugese and rival Turks (A.D. 1500-1600); Arab and Persian gulf pirates (A.D. 1600-1700); African, Arab, Persian and Makran soldiers of fortune (A.D. 1500-1800); Armenian Dutch and French traders (A.D. 1600-1750); and the British (A.D. 1750-1812)".

c14.s1.t7.60

By land from the north have come the Scythians and the Huns (B.C. 200-A.D. 500), the Gurjaras (A.D. 400-600), the early Jadejas and Kathis (A.D. 750-900), wave on wave of Afghan, Turk, Mughal and other northern Musalmans (A.D. 1000-1500), and the later Jadejas and Kathis (A.D. 1300-1500): From the north-east the Pre-historic Aryans till almost modern times (A.D. 1100-1200) continued to send settlements of Northern Brahmins; and since the 13th century have come Turk, Afghan and Moghul Musalmans; From the east have come the Mauryans (B.C. 300), the half-Scythian Kshatrapas (B.C. 100-300 A.D.), the Guptas (A.D. 380), the Gurjjaras (A.D. 400-600), the Moghuls (A.D. 1530) and the Marathas (A.D. 1750): And from the South the Satakarnis (A.D. 100), the Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas (A.D. 650-950), occasional Musalman raiders (A.D. 1400-1600), the Protugese (A.D. 1500), the Marathas (A.D. 1660-1760) and the British (A.D. 1780-1820)".¹

c14.s1.t7.61

¹ A. M. T. JACKSON. Bombay Gazetteer Vol. I. Pt. I. pp. 1-2.

c14.s1.t7.62

GUJARAT AND THE ADJACENT AREAS PHYSICAL FEATURES

c14.s1.t7.63

GEOLOGY

c14.s1.t7.64

SOILS

c14.s1.t7.65

RAINFALL

c14.s1.t7.66

What a brilliant commentary on the history of Gujarat! Before the advent of the Solankis, the first strong political power rooted in Gujarat, it was part of the conflicting empires to its north, south or east. The Maitrakas before them gave a semblance of unity, but they never ruled the whole of Gujarat. It was the long rule of the Solankis, followed by the Sultanate of Delhi, and then of Gujarat, that gave political homogeneity to this relatively isolated area.

c14.s1.t7.67

A very fine example of how the movement of the Muslims and the establishment of their power in the nuclear regions of Northern India affected the regions like Gujarat is discussed by Dr. Goetz.² "The Muslims had merely a limited control over India, content with smashing the power centres and life nerves of the Hindu Society, by massive expeditions from a few strategic bases. Fleeing from the Muslims, the Rajaputs and Brahmins wandered in search of new kingdoms and strongholds and threw themselves on the more backward independent feudatory States and Tribal communities in the Thar desert, the Central Indian hills and the Himalayan ranges." For example the Chahamanas migrated from Bagardesa, Delhi and Ajmer to Nirmana, Ranthambor, Sirohi and finally Pavagadh-Champaner, Chota Udaipur and Devgadh Baria. The Rathors turned up in Marwar and the Bundelas overthrew the Chandelas. The Tomaras migrated to Nurpur in the Beas valley. Thus these major incursions into the main focal regions set in a sort of radial migration resulting in a chain of movements.

c14.s1.t7.68

² GOETZ, HERMANN. "The role of Gujarat in Indian Art history", Bulletin of the Baroda Museum and Picture Gallery. III. pt. 1. 1945-46. pp. 1-12.

c14.s1.t7.69

The most interesting area is Kathiawad. On account of its proximity to the Indus basin, we find the direct penetration of the Indus Valley cultures of the III Millennium B.C. The earlier excavations of M. S. Vats,¹ G. S. Ghurye,² H. D. Sankalia and M. G. Dikshit³ at Rangpur have been followed by large-scale work of S. Ranganatharao.⁴ Now there is no doubt about the Harappan affinities of the site, with the further excavations at Lothal,⁵ where systematic town-planning was brought to light in addition objects, including seals, typical of the classical Harappa.⁶ Thus it represents the southernmost extension of this culture known so far. *At Lothal and the earlier site of Rangpur, Harappan and its derivative Post-Harappan cultures are seen in isolation.* Fortunately we are in a better position to correlate these cultures in a general framework of regional chronology of Kathiawad, as a result of extensive explorations carried out by P. P. Pandya⁷ and the excavations carried out by the writer jointly with Pandya, at Somnath, Amra and Lakhabawal⁸. These excavatons at Somnath, continued by Pandya,⁸ have thrown further light on the culture sequence. Hence an attempt will be made now to construct such a sequence for Saurashtra with Somnath providing the main framework. (Fig. 35)

c14.s1.t7.70

¹ VATS, M. S. Annual report of the Archaeological survey of India, 1934-35.

c14.s1.t7.71

² GHURYE, G. S. "Excavations at Rangpur"—Journal of the University of Bombay, Vol. VIII, No. 3, July 1939, pp. 3-11.

c14.s1.t7.72

³ DIKSHIT, M. G. "Excavations at Rangpur", Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, Vol. XI, No. 1, 1951.

c14.s1.t7.73

⁴ Archaeology in India, 1953-54.

c14.s1.t7.74

⁵ Indian Archaeology, 1956-57. p. 1.

c14.s1.t7.75

⁶ PANDYA, P. P. "Archaeological explorations in Halar and Sorath districts", Journal of the M. S. University, III No. 2. Oct. 1954.

c14.s1.t7.76

⁷ Indian Archaeology, 1955-56. p. 7.

c14.s1.t7.77

⁸ Indian Archaeology, 1956-57. p. 16.

c14.s1.t7.78

We have also discussed the Langhnaj Microlithic Culture of the Late Stone Age and it can claim certain considerable antiquity, on account of its association with "a buried soil" marked by a wetter climatic conditions. At Langhnaj itself, we have the continuation or survival of microlithic elements. The map, (Fig. 18) shows again a widespread distribution of microliths in all the main river systems, confined to the slopes of the hills to the east of Gujarat. Similarly Foote found a number of microlithic sites in the Dhari prant of Amerli District, Saurashtra. Since we have not yet found a full-fledged Neolithic culture (and it is very unlikely in view of the factors discussed elsewhere), one has very good reasons to suspect a survival of the Late Stone Age hunting communities in Gujarat. They might have learnt pottery and even primitive agriculture from their neighbours. Fortunately rough limit of this culture is available. They were found in a gravel lens below the Proto-historic occupation.

c14.s1.t7.79

The next phase is marked by the appearance of Harappan settlements at Lothal and probably Rangpur too. The latter has not been explored properly and hence all the confusion that [Figure: SHOWING ● MICROLITHIC SITES (LANGHNAJ MICROLITHIC CULTURE) ◎ PROTO-HISTORIC SITES ▲ EARLY HISTORIC SITES]

c14.s1.t7.80

PHYSICAL MAP OF GUJARAT

c14.s1.t7.81

[Figure: SOILS MEDIUM BLACK SOIL DEEP BLACK SOIL COASTAL ALLUVIUM SHALLOW SANDY SOIL SANDY LOAM (AREA OF FOSSIL DUNES)]

c14.s1.t7.82

has arisen. But it must be said to the credit of M. S. Vats¹ that he touched the structural levels in his trenches A and B. He reported typical Harappan bricks, as also mud brick structures. In view of the brilliant discoveries of S. R. Rao at Lothal, we know more about them now. Owing to the fact that only short accounts have been published so far in *Indian Archaeology* it is not proper for us to go into any details of structures or other antiquities. Yet, it may be pointed out that Lothal is an extensive outpost of the Harappa Civilization on the south-east coast of Kathiawar. But without anticipating the discussion on chronology, it is appropriate to quote the opinion of M. S. Vats:

c14.s1.t7.83

¹ M. S. Vats ARASI, 1934-35. p. 35.

c14.s1.t7.84

"Despite these, however, the highly developed shapes, ........... certain dishes with or without stands and realistic paintings all representing the acme of the potter's art, point to a phase which must undoubtedly be later than the *Early* or *Intermediate* periods of Mohenjo-Daro or Harappa. Provisionally, it may be taken to correspond with the *Late* period of the Indus valley sites or perhaps intercalated between that and the date of Cemetery-H at Harappa "²

c14.s1.t7.85

² The whole range of Indus valley pottery forms and designs is being studied by one of my pupils and colleagues Shri P. P. Pandya.

c14.s1.t7.86

Thus at least, we have to state that there was an overlap of the lowest levels of Rangpur with Lothal, considering the pottery published by Vats Pl. XIII and XIV. At Lothal, the most significant pottery type, which marks the advent of a new tradition is the black-and-red ware with paintings. Naturally, the new technique was applied to the older and known forms of the local Harappan, but, the bowl with a slightly everted rim and the bowl with an incipient beaded rim have no parallels at all in any of the Harappan forms. Both the types are associated at Amra.³

c14.s1.t7.87

³ At the symposium held at Delhi in September 1957, all the available forms were not displayed and hence could not be discussed.

c14.s1.t7.88

The next phase shows a wider distribution in space in Saurashtra, and by this time we have a large number of sites covering the entire peninsula of Kathiawad. At Rangpur, the Harappan survives in a modified form and is described by the excavator as IIB. At Somnath, however, the earliest phase is characterized by the occurrence of corrugated or broadly incised ware with a typical blade industry of agate, chalcedony, with crested ridges. On account of the thinness of the deposits, and the general resemblance of these incised decorations with the painted designs on the Late Kathiawad Harappan (Rangpur IIB), this has been provisionally described as Somnath Ia.⁴ Somnath Ib, is characterized "by the appearance of painted pottery in profuse quantities. The shapes and painted patterns comprised two distinct traditions—the one represented by the late Harappan ceramics of Gujarat consisting of the dish-on-stand, sauce-pan handle, etc., and the other by the round bowl with an incurved and bevelled rim distinctively painted with panelled patterns somewhat similar to the motifs on the Chalcolithic painted pottery of Central India.¹ For convenience this can be described further as "Prabhas Ware". Further, a few sherds with paintings in brown, black or violet on a white or creamy slip resemble those from Ahar as well as Navdatoli. At Lakhabawal, on the north coast of Kathiawad, the lowest phase belongs to Somnath Ib, though a very few sherds of the Prabhas ware were found.

c14.s1.t7.89

⁴ This sub-division and diversification of Ia and Ib at Somnath was repeated at Rojana in Madhya Saurashtra. Information kindly supplied by Shri P. P. Pandya.

c14.s1.t7.90

¹ *Indian Archaeology*, 1956-57, p. 16.

c14.s1.t7.91

A large number of sites yielding this mixture of Harappan and Prabhas ware, were found by Pandya in Sorath and Madhya Saurashtra, but, we are not yet in a position to find out its origin. It is very important for comparative stratigraphy, as it provides a sure link with Central India and Rajasthan and also helps us in fixing the Kathiawad Harappan in its proper context. It also strengthens the possibility of Rangpur marking an isolated pocket of late Harappan elements, due to an isolated survival of Harappan ceramic without the new elements as in the rest of the Kathiawad peninsula.

c14.s1.t7.92

The next phase marks the advent of a new element into Kathiawad. At Somnath, as well as at Amra, we see the appearance of a new technique of surface treatment, consisting of bright red, highly burnished surface, almost giving a mirror like polish. This belongs to phase II at Somnath and phase I at Amra. The most distinct form is the carinated bowl and other late Harappan forms. Even at Rangpur IIC and III, we have the appearance of the new tradition or technique and naturally it becomes dominant in III.

c14.s1.t7.93

But it is very necessary to recall an elementary principle of culture dynamics, that if a new trait appears in a culture more mature or developed than the intruding one, we see in the resulting mixture, the dominance of the resident trait i.e. Harappan in the case of Rangpur. Similarly at Somnath, some of the decorative patterns on the Prabhas ware occur on the lustrous red ware. At Somnath, a subdivision was made of Phase II. The other decorative motifs were more sophisticated, and include loops with hatched lozenges, hatched columns with volutes, antelope etc. There were rubble structures and pavements associated with this phase.

c14.s1.t7.94

The third phase at Somnath marks the end of the Proto-historic sequence, and the beginning the Early Historic period with black-and-red ware and Iron. Of its four sub-periods, N.B.P. appears in the 2nd and gives a fairly solid datum, as it can be ascribed to the Mauryan expansion into Kathiawad. This sequence neatly ties up with that at Timbarva in Gujarat¹ and Ujjain and Maheshvar and a number of minor antiquities also supports this comparative stratigraphy (500-100 B.C.).

c14.s1.t7.95

¹ MEHTA, R. N. Excavations at Timbarva, 1958. M. S. University Archaeology series. 2. Baroda. 1955.

c14.s1.t7.96

The fourth phase is characterized by the absence of the black-and-red ware, which is replaced by a coarse gritty ware in association with plain red, black and grey un-slipped wares. This ties up with Vadnagar,² where it is found in association with a punch-marked coin, and also at Timbarva. This can be dated to 100 B.C. to 100 A.D.

c14.s1.t7.97

² SUBBARAO AND MEHTA, op. cit.

c14.s1.t7.98

The fifth phase belongs to the Kshatrapa, Gupta and Maitraka and is characterized by large quantities of Red Polished ware, Gupta and Maitraka coins (nearly 200 found in the first season) and can be provisionally dated to the period from 100 to 600 A.D. This sequence ties up with a number of other excavations—Amreli, Vasai, Amra, Lakhabawal in Saurashtra and Vadnagar, Baroda, Timbarva and Variav in Gujarat.³

c14.s1.t7.99

³ SUBBARAO B., Baroda through the Ages, M. S. University Archaeology series No. 1. Baroda. 1953. Appendix I. p. 56.

c14.s1.t7.100

Thus within the framework of a comparative stratigraphy based on the excavations at Lothal, Rangpur, Somnath, Rojana, Amra and Lakhabawal, we have a fairly continuous sequence of cultures beginning with the Harappan. Let us discuss the chronology—relative as well as absolute. (Fig. 36).

c14.s1.t7.101

In terms of a relative sequence the earliest is the pure Harappan at Lothal and probably Rangpur IIa. While the Harappan continues in a modified or decayed condition into Rangpur IIb and IIc, we see a new admixture of these late Harappan traits with an equally widespread Prabhas ware, thus equating Rangpur IIb with Somnath IB and Lakhabawal I. Phase II at Somnath is equivalent to phase IIc and III of Rangpur. In passing, it may be observed, that where there are no structural remains, the thickness of the deposit in itself becomes very risky as a criterion of dating.

c14.s1.t7.102

About the absolute chronology, we have already pointed out the danger of accepting any single arbitrary date—be it based on Sargonid link or Bahrein link. (See section on chronology). We will be ignoring culture dynamics by using one single date for the Harappan from the foot hills of the Himalayas to the south coast of Kathiawad. Hence much depends on the true epi-centre of this civilization and then we have to provide for its spread in time and space. The possibility of Kathiawad being such a centre is remote.

c14.s1.t7.103

PROVISIONAL RELATIVE SEQUENCE OF PROTO-HISTORIC CULTURES OF WESTERN AND CENTRAL INDIA

c14.s1.t7.104

Fig. 36.

c14.s1.t7.105

On the other hand, we can use our relative stratigraphy for this purpose. The appearance of iron and the associated dominance of black-and-red ware over such an extensive region covering Central India and the Deccan peninsula, and now its extension into coastal Gujarat, as well as Kathiawad, is of great significance. Even if we assume the beginning of iron about 500 B.C., a reasonable time scale would be to allot about a thousand years to the whole range of Proto-historic cultures beginning with a Harappan. This would allow for the large number of inter-links or contacts between the Pre-N.B.P. Chalcolithic cultures of Central India and the Deccan, with Grey wares on the one hand, and the late Harappan sequence of Kathiawad. Recalling the dates suggested by Fairservis for the end of the Harappa in their peripheral zones, we can at best treat the Harappan cultures of Lothal as a younger contemporary of the Cities of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, if they do not represent a southward displacement of the culture, after the advent of the Aryans.

c14.s1.t7.106

The most remarkable feature of Gujarat is its bifurcation into two distinct ceramic zones based on the absence or presence of a strong black-on-red painted tradition. In North Gujarat, Vadnagar shows a survival of a rich painted pottery right into the early centuries of the Christian era. This is very significant in view of the similar evidence from Bhinnamal and Rangmahal in Bikaner. On the other hand, the excavations conducted at Baroda, Timbarva, Variav, do not yield any painted pottery in the same Kshatrapa levels associated with Red Polished ware and Kshatrapa coins, which are common to both South and North Gujarat.

c14.s1.t7.107

This evidence was carried further into Kathiawad by the excavations already referred to at Amra, Lakhabawal and Somnath. While there is a rich painted black-on-red ware with the Red Polished ware on the N. coast of Kathiawad, there is not a trace of it in Somnath in Period IV. Thus North Gujarat shows a sequence which is very similar to that of the northern half of the Kathiawad peninsula.

c14.s1.t7.108

In southern Kathiawad, with its wider coastal alluvium and the Black soil in the centra part of the peninsula, we find more extensive settlements suggesting a migration from across the peninsula to the richer environments capable of sustaining larger populations. Naturally, this area of Saurashtra plays a vital role and shows contacts with South Gujarat across the Gulf of Cambay. Thus the reported discovery of Post-Harappan sites on the banks of the Narbada (Mehgam and Telod)¹ is very significant, as also the link of Period III at Somnath with Period I of Timbarva in South Gujarat, both associated with N.B.P. and iron.

c14.s1.t7.109

¹ Indian Archaeology, 1956-57, p. 1.

c14.s1.t7.110

CULTURE SEQUENCE IN GUJARAT

c14.s1.t7.111

c14.s1.t7.112

Fig. 37.

c14.s1.t7.113

In the semi-arid areas, we find, on the other hand, the survival of a primitive stone age economy, which definitely preceded the Harappan at Rangpur. In a gravel and sand lens exposed below the natural soil in the trench at Rangpur were found a few microliths. But this culture got isolated at the eastern and southern fringes of the desert of Rajaputana. These microlith using communities lived happily on the wind blown dunes on the banks of rivers or groups of dunes surrounding natural ponds. They were using hand made pottery (always found in very small fragments). The excavations at Vadnagar the ancient "Anartapura" have shown that the settlement started on one of these groups of dunes surrounding a pond about the beginning of the Christian era or slightly earlier. It grew into an extensive township in the early centuries of the Christian era, under the aegis of the Kshatrapas.¹

c14.s1.t7.114

¹ SUBBARAO, B. and MEHTA, R. N. "Excavations at Vadnagar", Journal of the M. S. University, Vol. IV, No. 1, 1955.

c14.s1.t7.115

Curiously this story repeats itself with a slight variation in the coastal belt of South Gujarat. Here, we have a narrow strip of land between the saline wastes on the west and the hills in the east, with a number of Early Historic sites mostly of the Kshatrapa period. A few late Harappan sites have also been reported from the coastal strip. In a very interesting inscription, we find reference to a series of Brahmin settlements along the fords across the rivers of South Gujarat mentioned by Ushavadatta in his Nasik inscription. The possibility of the penetration of Central Indian influences through the Narbada and Tapi valleys is indicated by the ancient settlements of Broach on the Narbada and Kamrej on the Tapi. Near the hallowed town Kayavarohana of Lakulisa, the founder of the Lakulisa sect of Saivism, an excavation was conducted by Shri R. N. Mehta of the Baroda University at Timbarva.² Here the earliest phase is characterized by the N.B.P. and the black-and-red ware, and it underlay the deposits of the Kshatrapa period.

c14.s1.t7.116

² MEHTA, R. N. "Excavations at Timbarva", M. S. University Archaeology series 2, Baroda, 1955.

c14.s1.t7.117

But the whole area shows a very rapid development with the acceleration of the sea trade in the Kshatrapa period. For the first time, we can link up the whole area of Gujarat and Kathiawad by the widespread occurrence and use of a distinctive Red Polished ware, showing a technical affinity to Roman Red wares. Curiously this influence is also attested by the circumstantial association of Graeco-Roman antiquities like a fine cameo from Karvan,³ the bronze handle with the figure of Eros from Baroda etc.⁴

c14.s1.t7.118

³ MEHTA, R. N. "A cameo from Karvan", Journal of the M. S. University, Vol. III.

c14.s1.t7.119

⁴ DESAI, MAGANBHAI. "Some Roman antiquities from Baroda Museum", Bulletin of the Baroda Museum and Picture Gallery, VII, 1951.

c14.s1.t7.120

In conclusion it is very interesting to note that in Gujarat, as in the other littoral provinces separated from the mainland by difficult communications, the maritime influences have kept the window open and enabled a local or provincial development. Even the earlier Harappan element seems to have penetrated by sea from Cutch and Sind. This province again comes into lime-light with the Kshatraps and Sassanian contacts.

c14.s1.t7.121

To sum up the position, the archaeological sequence in Kathiawad does not belie its history and its function in the historical geography of India. Hence this long story of survival and deterioration fits into the geographic picture of Gujarat, as an area of relative isolation from the rest of the sub-continent, and a simultaneous window to the influences from across the seas. Further work will be necessary to confirm this hypothesis and, more than anything, an independent absolute date for the Lothal is a great desideratum. Thus it will be seen that the so-called "Dark Age" ceases to be dark already!

The Personality of India: Pre- and Proto-historic Foundation of India and Pakistan c14.s1.t7: The Early Historic Period and the Megalithic Problem

The Early Historic Period and the Megalithic Problem

Linked texts (22)