An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9.s1: 4.1 General Observations
An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9.s1
- Language
- English
4.1 General Observations
v1.c9.s1.1
‘Archaeologists classify the objects of their study not only by function into knives, axes, huts, tombs and so on, but also into different “types” of knives, axes, dwellings and graves. The several types of knife or tomb each fulfil roughly the same function; the differences between them repose upon divergences in the social tradition prescribing the methods of their preparation and use. In each functional class archaeologists can distinguish a variety of types current over a restricted area at a given period in archaeological time. The totality of recognized types current simultaneously in a given area is termed “culture”. ‘Archaeology is liable to become a study of cultures rather on of culture’ (Childe, 1942, p. 19). Such an itemwise study would not surely give a total picture of the life of the people of a particular culture, which is ‘more than the sum of its component items—as a wall is more than a thousand bricks’ (Krober, 1963, p. 23). But as the archaeologist studies objects left by ancient man, with reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, he has to content himself with whatever material remains are available. It must be admitted that his resources are limited.
v1.c9.s1.2
It goes without saying that archaeological cultures must be studied under regions and periods (cf. Childe’s ‘a restricted area at a given period’, quoted above), the former particularly true for a vast country like India with its diverse physical features and the latter for the length and variety of human occupation thereof. The following two subsections [4.1.1, 2] deal with the regions and periods under which the subject ‘culture’ has been dealt with in this work. They are not authoritative discourses on the principles of regionalization and periodization but merely explain the system followed here.
v1.c9.s1.3
Childe, V.G., 1942, *What Happened in History*, Harmondsworth Krober, A L., 1963, *An Anthropologist Looks at History*, Berkeley & Los Angeles.—A. GHOSH
v1.c9.s1.4
*4.1.1 Regions.* Spate, 1957, divides the subcontinent into 35 regions of the first order, 74 of the second order and about 225 subdivisions of these, admitting that the scheme is empirical. Political factors have also played their part: in his regionalization Tamil Nadu and Kerala have each been treated as a region of the first order in spite of their physiographic variations. The system of Spate *et al.*, 1967, however, has the merit of defining the nuclear areas of attraction and areas of relative isolation, which had their full play in the formation of archaeological cultures (cf. Subbarao, 1958; Malik, 1968). But this can be true only of the post-Stone Age periods, for the area of the greatest attraction, the Indo-Ganga valley (see map, Spate *et al.*, 1972, p. 176, and Subbarao, 1958, p. 26), had hardly any importance in the Stone Age cultures.
v1.c9.s1.5
How far the areas of languages, their cousins, cross-cousins, daughters, granddaughters, etc., were conterminal with archaeological cultures form an interesting study. Says Childe: ‘Linguistic divergences may be first as old as the cultural divergences traceable directly in archaeological record’ (Childe, 1942, p. 21). This point has also been touched upon by some in the Indian context (Subbarao, 1958, p. 27; Malik, 1968, p. 165). But all over the world political conquests and spread of foreign cultures have obliterated or modified many a language and the present-day distribution of languages may not have much bearing on ancient cultures. In India, for example, the widespread distribution of the Indo-Aryan languages does not allow us to correlate the pre-Aryan languages with any corresponding cultures. The rise of the new Indo-Aryan languages, the distribution of which is well-mapped, is too late to equate them with the earlier cultures.
v1.c9.s1.6
Cultures have been dealt with in this work under some pragmatically convenient regions. It has been found that it is not always practicable to separate these regions from the present-day political divisions of the country, variable though they are. Many Indian archaeologists, while retaining their extra-territorial interests, specialize in the archaeology of their own (political) states, seldom coinciding with natural regions, and are reluctant to go out of the sphere of their activity. As such there has to be a compromise between natural and political regions. Some cultures may transcend the limits of political states; others may be confined only to parts thereof.
v1.c9.s1.7
With all this in view, cultures in this work have been generally dealt with under: n.-w. region (roughly Jammu and Kashmir); n. region (Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh); w. region (Rajasthan and Gujarat); middle Ganga region (Bihar); lower Ganga region (W. Bengal); e. region (Assam and the adjacent states or Centrally administered territories); c. region (Madhya Pradesh); n.-e. Deccan (Orissa); upper Deccan (Maharashtra); s.-e. Deccan (Andhra Pradesh); lower Deccan (Karnataka); s. region (Tamil Nadu); and s.-w. region (Kerala). Special regions, such as the Vindhyan and Chota Nagpur, have been dealt with separately when a culture so demands; otherwise they have been treated as parts of the nearest larger units, even though physiographically they are distinct units.
v1.c9.s1.8
Childe, V.G., 1942, *What Happened in History*, Harmondsworth. Malik, S.C., 1968, *Indian Civilization: The Formative Period*, Simla. Spate, O.H.K., 1957, *India & Pakistan*, London. Spate, O.H.K., & Learmonth, A.T.A., 1967, *India & Pakistan*, London; 1972, same title, New Delhi. Subbarao, B., 1958, *Personality of India*, Baroda.—A. GHOSH
v1.c9.s1.9
*4.1.2 Periods.* The simplest and universally accepted primary division of archaeological periods is ‘prehistoric’ and ‘historical’. In the former relics left by the illiterate man form the sole source of information; in the latter written or unwritten but reliable sources augment the relics and add to their precision, chronological and otherwise. A hazy dividing line between the two is inevitable, at least in the Indian context: for example, even though the Harappa culture [4.9] was fully literate, with its script still remaining undeciphered [20.4.1] nobody would call it a historical culture. An intervening period called ‘protohistoric’ has been postulated. In Indian archaeology this term was perhaps first used by Foote, 1914, 1916. From the early 50s the ASI started using it extensively (cf. *Archaeology in India*, New Delhi, 1950; *AI*, 9, 1953), and Heras, 1953, used it in connection with the Harappa culture. Thence the term has received wide acceptance. But it is a very ill-defined term (Ghosh, 1979, pp. 3-5) and has different connotations to different writers. Thus, while Allchin, 1968, p. 27, would accept the relevance of the term to the culture represented by the Vedic literature (and not earlier), Sankalia, 1974, pp. 7-8, 15, would include in this category the motley of cultures that followed the Holocene Mesolithic [4.5], adopting the minimum definition of prehistory as comprising the various Stone Ages but not including the Neolithic [4.6], which he classes as protohistoric. All this is confusing enough and cannot be dismissed by saying that ‘the problem of terminology has been unduly magnified in Indian prehistoric studies’ (Agrawal and Chakrabarti, 1979, p. xiv). It has therefore been thought best to avoid the term altogether in this work (except in quotations).
v1.c9.s1.10
Any account of archaeological cultures has to begin with the early phases of the Stone Ages, but here again comes in the question of terminology. When Stone Age research began in India, naturally the European terminology—Lower Palaeolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic—was adopted. Sankalia, 1956, pp. 35-52, used the terms Series I, II and III for the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (Microlithic) for his finds at Nevasa. These terms were widely used for other sites also. In the meantime Subbarao, 1958, proposed Early, Middle and Stone Ages for these three industries.
v1.c9.s1.11
The (First) International Conference on Asian Archaeology held in New Delhi in 1961 set up a committee to consider Stone Age terminology and, with one member (R.J. Braidwood) dissenting, recommended the terms already proposed by Subbarao—Early, Middle and Late Stone Ages—for the food-gathering stages, retaining the term Neolithic for the food-producing stage. This classification was followed for over 10 years, but in published reports the term ‘microlithic’ (perhaps not always Mesolithic) was extensively used.
v1.c9.s1.12
Subsequent discoveries, particularly in the BELAN valley (Sharma, 1973, p. 108), produced a blade-and-burin industry stratigraphically intervening between the Middle and Late Stone Ages. This has necessitated a fresh appraisal of the situation and the present trend is to revert to the terms Lower Palaeolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, the succeeding Neolithic remaining unaltered. This latest (but resuscitated) terminology has been followed in this work, but for individual sites included in vol. II the ‘translation’ of the old into new terms may not have been always correct. Unless the impossible task of re-examining all the collections, particularly microlithic, is undertaken such a shortcoming will inevitably remain.
v1.c9.s1.13
The warning of Thapar (*IAR 1975-6*, preface) is worth repeating: ‘It is not intended that prehistoric cultures of India present a similar succession of technological and chronological stages of Europe. There are obvious pitfalls in the wide application of the cultural terms, especially in view of the environmental diversity and the size of the country, which may show different “culture cycles”, and phases of regional specialization. For example, the blade-and-burin industry, grouped under the Upper Palaeolithic of India, is not necessarily to be correlated to the Würm glaciation as its counterpart in Europe. A standardized sequence for Indian prehistoric cultures can only be built through intensive stratigraphic studies in various regions, including those relating to the fluctuations of the sea-level. Till then the terminology of European prehistory, which indeed has wormed its way deeply in the literature, a fivefold division, Lower Palaeolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic, is being adopted [in the publications of the ASI]. ‘Caution has to be exercised even in its application, for all microlith-using communities need not be Mesolithic.’ This warning forebodes yet another or more revisions of terminology, adding to the confusion in a situation which lacks clarity, particularly in the Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic-Microlithic phases.
v1.c9.s1.14
After the Neolithic [4.6], marking the termination of the Stone Ages, one would naturally expect the Chalcolithic cultures, characterized by the simultaneous use of both stone and copper artefacts. Instead, however, in this work the Neolithic is followed by the Copper/Bronze Age cultures [4.7-13]. The reason is the consideration of chronology. The Harappa culture [4.9], the Bronze Age culture *par excellence* in the subcontinent, is earlier than any Indian Chalcolithic culture though the earliest ones of the latter may at best be a late contemporary of the Harappa; the later ones come down even to the 1st millennium B.C. This is a sufficient justification for according the Harappa culture and all those Copper/Bronze Age cultures that follow a priority of treatment over the Chalcolithic cultures. (The previous practice of regarding the Harappa culture itself as Chalcolithic, mainly on account of the occurrence therein of long parallel-sided chert blades, has now been rightly given up.)
v1.c9.s1.15
The Chalcolithic cultures [4.14], being heterogeneous, have been treated regionwise and not chronologically. After all they are all regional cultures, if with links with each other.
v1.c9.s1.16
The next section [4.15] deals with the PGW culture. To name any culture after a ceramic industry is theoretically questionable but is a well-established archaeological practice, particularly as along with the diagnostic pottery there are some recurring industries. It is with the PGW 'that one treads on a culturally secure ground in the upper Ganges valley . . . . The basic importance of this level is that it provided the immediate background to the early historic period.' (Chakrabarti, 1972, pp. 216-17.) Not only that, the pottery has, in addition to its distinctive colour, fabric and paintings, its own background in the black-and-red ware [4.13] and black-slipped ware [11.13] of the upper Ganga valley which precede and are invariably found mixed up with it at all excavated sites (cf. Tripathi, 1976, pp. 69-92). It is essentially an Iron Age culture, though recent discoveries at such sites as Bhagwanpura, where it co-occurs with the late Harappa pottery [11.4], may suggest its pre-Iron Age antecedents, the only justification for the section on Iron Age [4.16] following it in this work.
v1.c9.s1.17
The Megalithic cultures [4.17] again follow a regional treatment, with an insignificant deviation in one case from the names of regions enumerated above [4.1.1]: the megaliths in e. Maharashtra, which should have been regarded as belonging to the upper Deccan, have been placed under c. India. As the term 'c. Indian megaliths' has been widely current (perhaps as a hangover from the name of the British province of C. Province), it has been thought expedient not to disturb the prevailing nomenclature.
v1.c9.s1.18
The megaliths of n.-w. and n. India [4.17.1, 2] are isolated and inadequately studied; those of Chota Nagpur and e. India [4.17.4, 5] have an additional disadvantage in that megalithism is still a living tradition in these regions. Those of the Vindhyan region [4.17.3] do not present a uniform picture in that some have been regarded as Chalcolithic and others as belonging to the Iron Age. The c. Indian megaliths [4.17.6] have vague links with those of the Deccan and s. India [4.17.7-10], which are the main zone of the Megalithic culture in the 1st millennium B.C. References to megalithism in early Tamil literature (Srinivasan, 1946, pp. 9-16) lend it a historical aspect in its dying phase, but the major part of its life falls in the realm of prehistory.
v1.c9.s1.19
While the Deccan and s. India were in the grip of the Megalithic culture, n. India and the middle Ganga region witnessed the beginnings of the early historical period [4.18] in the middle of the 1st millennium B.C. The first half of the period saw the rise of large kingdoms and distinct changes in the life-style of the people. Gradually it spread to the rest of India, supplanting or modifying the existing cultures and sometimes breaking new grounds. From the 2nd century B.C. the establishment of foreign kingdoms in n.-w. and c. regions and the upper Deccan resulted in trade with the Mediterranean world and this added affluence to the towns; it also affected art. In the s. maritime trade developed ports, emporia and consequent prosperity, though how much of the life of the non-urban people was affected is not known. The end of all this also marks the end of the early historical period, to be followed by the late historical period [4.19], of which not much archaeological material is available, though religious edifices, sculptures and inscriptions are plentiful.
v1.c9.s1.20
Agrawal D P., & Chakrabarti, D K., ed , 1979, *Essays on Indian Protohistory*, Delhi. Allchin, B. & R., 1968, *Birth of Indian Civilization*, Harmondsworth. Chakrabarti, D.K., 1972, in *Jour. Economic & Social History of the Orient*, 15. Foote, R.B , 1914, *Foote Collection of Indian Prehistoric & Protohistoric Antiquities in the Government Museum, Madras*; 1916, *Foote Collection etc., Catalogue Raisonné*, Madras. Ghosh, A., 1979, in Agrawal, D.P., & Chakrabarti, D.K., *Essays in Indian Protohistory*, Delhi. Heras, H , 1953, *Proto-Indo-Mediterranean*, Bombay. Sankalia, H.D., 1956, in *AI*, 12, pp. 35-52, 1974, *Prehistory & Protohistory of India & Pakistan*, Poona. Sharma, G.R., 1973, in Agrawal, D.P., & Ghosh, A., *Radiocarbon & Indian Arch.*, Bombay. Srinivasan, K.R., 1946, in *AI*, 2. Subbarao, B., 1958, *Personality of India*, Baroda. Tripathi, V., 1976, *Painted Grey Ware, an Iron Age Culture of India*, Delhi.—A. GHOSH