The Personality of India: Pre- and Proto-historic Foundation of India and Pakistan c17.s3: Early Historic wares
The Personality of India: Pre- and Proto-historic Foundation of India and Pakistan c17.s3
- Language
- English
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 The forms at Hampasagar (Bellary) and Guntakal were taken from the unpublished thesis of the author.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).