Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Personality of India: Pre- and Proto-historic Foundation of India and Pakistan c17: Appendix II. The Problem of the Black-and-Red Wares

The Personality of India: Pre- and Proto-historic Foundation of India and Pakistan c17

Language
English

Contents

Appendix II. The Problem of the Black-and-Red Wares

The Problem

c17.s1.1

In this appendix, it is proposed to discuss certain general problems arising out of our recent studies in India regarding this crucial ceramic type, hitherto described loosely as the ‘Megalithic pottery.’ The most characteristic feature of this ware is its method of firing in the kiln. Since it is placed in an inverted position, the interior and a portion of the exterior at the top turn black due to firing under reduction. A pottery with a similar technique, but chronologically very early in Pre-Dynastic Egypt and other parts of Western Asia, is described as the ‘Black-topped ware’. For well over a century, this black-and-red ware, as it is popularly known in Indian archaeological literature, was being exposed or excavated from the hundreds of megalithic burials all over South India and hence it was designated megalithic ware. But within the last five years, and specially after the large scale excavations at Maheshvar-Navda Toli (1952-53), followed by Nagda, Ujjain, Somnath, Nevasa, Bahal, its occurrence with the iron in the Pre-N.B.P. levels, and its occurrence outside the so-called megalithic areas (where megaliths are not known to occur), have given rise to a lively controversy.

c17.s1.2

A second complication was the discovery of a painted variety of this ware in the Chalcolithic levels at Navda Toli again started a new line. Besides by its first recognition at Rangpur, now we know that its epi-centre is in the Chambal basin in Eastern Rajasthan. At Ahar, we have nearly 20 feet deposits of this ware. It was noticed at Nagda and Lothal in the earliest levels under the mud-brick platforms. This discovery gave fresh food for thought and its relation (1) to the local wares of the site, where it occurs in small quantities and (2) to the succeeding Iron Age pottery of the Early Historic period came into lime light. Hence it gave rise to the following questions :

c17.s1.3

1. Whether it is just a resemblance in technique without any other cultural and chronological implications,
2. or, whether the whole ceramic group belongs to a single complex,
3. and if so, the relation of these Chalcolithic to the Historic wares.

c17.s1.4

Before trying to answer these questions, it should be noted, that there are serious gaps in our knowledge about the true character and origin of this pottery. At the last Symposium, held under the auspices of the Department of Archaeology, Government of India, some attention was paid to the Chalcolithic or Proto-historic black-and-red wares. But pending the publication of the entire range of forms and patterns, it will be premature to attempt any dogmatic reply to the problems posed above. In this appendix, the writer expresses his personal views in the matter.

Proto-historic wares

c17.s2.1

For the sake of convenience, we shall discuss this ware first, because of its implications on chronology. A ware with inverted firing resulting in black-and-red, black-and-tan and black-and-grey (probably due to the firing techniques and temperature ranges) has been found associated with the Harappan and the Grey Ware at Rupar, in the Bikaner region with the Grey ware, with the earliest levels of the Harappan at Lothal, and with Post-Harappan cultures at Rangpur, Amra and Lakhabawal, and with the Central Indian chalcolithic sites in Malwa (Navda Toli and Ujjain). The most significant discovery was at Ahar, where in phases Ia and IB it occurs without any other ware and in Ic with the black-on-red painted ware. Recently, Dr. Puri explored a number of sites of this culture in the Chambal and its tributaries in Rajasthan. This is very important in that it provides the evidence, for the first time, since this controversy started, of another independent cultural group within the Late Harappan and Post-Harappan cultures of India.

c17.s2.2

At the last symposium, the differences between the various groups in these Proto-historic wares was sought to be made on the basis of the position of the designs, the relation supposed to exist of the black-and-red wares with the local wares of the relevant site. It was resolved that "there is no absolute identify either in shapes or designs except in two cases where there is a vague resemblance in the form". In view of the fact that it was not possible to compare in detail, all the forms available in the whole range of sites, there need not be any finality about this conclusion. The writer puts forward his views to keep up our efforts at understanding the problem still further.

c17.s2.3

The minor divergences in shapes and fabrics, when we are dealing with such a vast region and the differences in the nature and size of the excavations need not be a great obstacle for establishing contacts between the various sites of the period. Naturally, when a new technique emerges, it is sought to be copied and resemblances to the local forms is much less significant than the divergences. They mark the contacts and association with other sites. For example, the bowl with an everted lip and one with slight incipient beaded rim, which occur at Lothal and Amra, do not fit into any ceramic form associated with Harappa. Finally the existence of an independent ceramic tradition at the heart of this region and with geographic contiguity to the other cultures, weakens any assumptions of an independent origin of this technique at each of these sites.

c17.s2.4

So the writer pleads for a more comprehensive study of a large volume of material.¹

c17.s2.5

¹ For example, the so-called differences between the Chalcolithic cultures of Nagda, Navda Toli and Nevasa, Nasik and Jorwe are appearing to be more insignificant than the common affinities. Similarly the distribution of select crucial types in the black-on-red painted wares has brought out the affinities in time and space of these wares of the Post-Harappa period.

Early Historic wares

c17.s3.1

In view of the above discussion, it is necessary to treat this ware separately. Here we have the additional advantage, that this pottery belongs to a similar culture complex. Only the Bahal has been given here, but its position is special, in view of the link it provides between Central India and Brahmagiri.² For the sake of this comparative study, all available forms from Maheshvar, Timbarva, Bahal, Rangpur, Nasik, Sisupalgarh, Brahmagiri, Sanganakallu, Hampasagar, Guntakal and Porkalam were classified into various shapes. The chart (Fig. 42) gives a synoptic morphology of these forms and brings out the relations between the various groups of pottery. Their distribution is indicated on the map in the left hand corner. Now it is proposed to discuss the following issues :

c17.s3.2

² I am very much obliged to Shri S. N. Chowdhary, the present Tutor in the Department for helping me in tracing and classifying the pottery. The forms at Hampasagar (Bellary) and Guntakal were taken from the unpublished thesis of the author. Shri M. N. Deshpande graciously permitted me to reproduce the forms from Bahal. Since these have a great bearing on the relation between the Central Indian and South Indian wares. For the latest material see Indian Archaeology 1956-57.

c17.s3.3

1. Fabrics
2. Forms and decorations
3. Distribution and chronology.

c17.s3.4

We have already described its distinctive method of firing. Taking the entire area, there is a wide range of coarse and fine wares at any site. But there is a tendency towards the appearance of thinner wares as one moves southwards. As regards the surface treatment, all these wares have burnished slips. The archaeological chemist of India thought that the sherds from Arikamedu were subject to salt glazing as there was "the characteristic crackled surface or 'crazing' under the microscope".³ This effect results from the difference in the coefficient of expansion between the body and the slip, and in itself, does not provide evidence of salt-glazing. Actually, if this criterion were accepted, the pottery from Timbarva (Gujarat) and Maheshvar shows definite evidence of crackling. Dr. Wheeler, in trying to compare this pottery with the N.B.P., also asserted that the Brahmagiri wares were made on a 'slow wheel'. But this term is Fig. 43. Painted decorations on the Black-and-red ware from Perumbair and Madura. The numbers refer to those in the Madras Museum catalogues.

c17.s3.5

³ WHEELER, R. E. M. "Arikamedu...." Ancient India No. 2 1946. See the chemist's note on p. 93.

c17.s3.6

997

c17.s3.7

471

c17.s3.8

996

c17.s3.9

433

c17.s3.10

434

c17.s3.11

441

c17.s3.12

438

c17.s3.13

and also with it. Since the N.B.P., in its peripheral areas has to be dated slightly later than in its focus, we can easily date the beginnings of this black-and-red ware with iron to the 5th and 6th century B.C. The best evidence, to date, comes from Ujjain and Maheshvar. According to the tradition the last of the Haihayas, Punika, was defeated by Chanda Pradyota and Ujjain was made the capital of Avanti. Hence we are on safe grounds in dating the beginning of iron to the 6th century B.C.

c17.s3.14

In this wide range of distribution in space and time, is it possible to draw a dividing line between the pottery? Such a possibility was discussed by N. R. Banerji.¹ His reasons were: (1) difference in the outer colour, (2) use of fast and slow wheels, (3) use of salt glazing, and (4) differences in form and chronology. Most of these points have been disposed off already. The border where the line can be drawn is arbitrary, if we bear in mind the distance between Maski (belonging to the Southern Megalithic area) and Nevasa (belonging to the Northern group). If the distinction is sought to be made on the system of burials, our knowledge is too meagre at this stage about megaliths in Northern India. We have already put forward a suggestion that iron and black-and-red ware might have been adopted by the megalithic people or the vice-versa. Bahal burials (Tekwada) seem to indicate a sort of connection.

c17.s3.15

¹ Minutes of Symposium held on the 19th to 21st September 1954 and circulated by the Director General of Archaeology in India, New Delhi.

c17.s3.16

The definite chronological priority of this ware in Central India also weakens any assumption that two completely independent ceramic groups, but with such positive affinities, could remain isolated in space. Besides, we have as yet no palpable evidence for very early dates for the megalithic burial complex (see ch. VI).

Relation between the Proto-historic and Early Historic wares

c17.s4.1

This relation requires a more detailed investigation, as to how exactly the Proto-historic pottery lost its tradition of painting and yet retained remarkable affinities in forms. One should have a look at the forms published by Dr. Puri in *Indian Archaeology* 1956-57. Similarly the relation between the forms of both the phases at Navdatoli vaguely suggests certain continuity. The burial pottery at Tekwada (Bahal) belonging to 'Ib' acts as a link and probably we should look for more links. One of the possibilities is a technological revolution and with the advent of iron these communities in the Eastern Rajputana seem to have acquired mobility and strength. But the only snag in the evidence is our ignorance of the intervening gap between Periods Ic and II at Ahar. Probably more exploration and excavation of one or two different sites may help us, to see whether any new cultural element emerges at this time.

c17.s4.2

Finally one point which requires investigation is the vast spread of this area and the emergence of this pottery at Sonepur, Orissa etc. Does it suggest a movement into Magadha along the foot-hills of the Vindhyas?

Conclusion

c17.s5.1

The foregoing discussion, as well as some of the issues raised in the main text, call forth greater and intensive studies. But at the present, it may be stated, our knowledge supports a hypothesis of this ceramic fabric belonging to a single complex and its relation to the associated cultures remains to be ascertained by further excavations in certain crucial areas. The desiderata may be stated as follows:

c17.s5.2

1. The distribution of the black-and-red wares in the North and their stratigraphic relation to the Chalcolithic cultures of the Indus basin including Bikaner and the Punjab, and Kathiawad, Central India and Northern and Central Deccan. Besides their relation to the Grey wares is to be ascertained by excavations in the Bikaner area. (Fig 39)

c17.s5.3

2. The distribution of megaliths north of the Vindhyas and a fresh excavation of Junapani and Thakurghat stone circles near Nagpur.

c17.s5.4

3. The general question of the typology of iron tools in the North and the South. Most of the types are common, the only distinctive and exclusive (at the present stage of our knowledge) being the shaft-hole⁶ axe at Taxila and the adze with a ring fastener, supposed to be a megalithic type. But the later occurs at Junapani. The former occurs in the Mauryan period and hence does not pre-suppose any independent origin, but only a general spread from Western Asia. Hence more elaborate studies are needed so that the co-ordination becomes easy. Since the movement of other associated material objects like painted pottery and blade technique can be demonstrated, this becomes all the more important.

c17.s5.5

⁶ According to Dr. H. D. Sankalia, a shaft-hole axe was found at Nevasa in their Phase II which is contemporary with the N. B. P. I am grateful to him for this information.