An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9.s1.9

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).