3

Sengupta, Gautam and Sharmi Chakraborty, Archaeology of Early

Historic South Asia, Pragati Publications, New Delhi, 2008, pp. 3-14

Early Historical in Indian archaeology

Some Definitional Problems

B. D. Chattopadhyaya

‘Early historical', used in relation to a cultural phase in Indian

Archaeology, is in vogue today. The seal of approval for the use of this
terminology is available in overviews and syntheses of archaeological material,
authored by archaeologists and historians and read by students and interested
public alike. And yet, there are many points associated with the terminology
which, to one interested in the history of the material culture of early India, have
not been taken up for clarification. Some of the major points would be these:
1. It is not very clear how the use of the term ‘early historical' in the
archaeological context began. A brief discussion on historiography which I
propose to undertake will underline the necessity of clarifying this point.
2. It is not yet clear, if early historical is accepted as a ‘ cultural phase' in
archaeology, how then, in the Indian context will it be distinguished in
relation to the phase preceding and succeeding it.
3. There is also the problem of variations, when one considers the
archaeological cultural context, about how material culture varied from one
region and one area to another. Is one terminology then, adequate to cover
such variations in archaeological cultures throughout the subcontinent? To
illustrate the problem, if sixth-fifth century is taken to mark the beginning of
the early historical phase, will this chronological marker be considered
appropriate to suggest that the early historical phase began in the Deccan
and south India at the same phase?

3
 4

4. To pursue the point raised in question two , when did ‘early historical’
come to an end? Occasionally, one does come across such terms
as ‘historical’, ‘early medieval' in archaeological writings, but a little probe
is likely to reveal that with regard to the ‘pre -Sultanate' phase of
archaeology there is hardly any terminological consensus in whatever brief
reports are available. In any case, if archaeological terminology has to be
derived from the character of material contents of a period as a whole in
relation to other periods, then this is a task which has not gone much beyond
differentiation between phases. Surprisingly, this is a problem which does
not seem to have merited the attention of even those who have written in
detail on the history of Indian archaeology. This brief note is essentially a
critique and does not purport to offer much in the form of definite
suggestions.

A Note on Historiography

Starting with the reports of Alexander Cunningham and his team, one gets a clue as
to how some kind of differentiation, although not strictly in terms of chronological
sequence, was being made from the second half of the nineteenth century by taking
the religious-cultural affiliation of structures at a site into consideration. The
general terms of distinction used were brahmanical and Buddhist, and this criterion
for distinction was found applicable at such sites as Kaushambi, Bhitar, Basar and
so on.[1] In fact, the rational for undertaking the excavation of a site and the use of
a particular terminology comes out in a following statement of F. O. Oertel (1904-
05) in his report on Saranath: ‘It would seem that the first impulse to Buddhist
archaeology was ...Given by a happy accident'. In a way, the search for
archaeological clues in tradition, Brahmanical, Buddhist or something else, by
using evidence of the accounts of Hiuen Tsang for tracing, identifying and
excavating ‘the Buddhist sites' is just one indication among many of the beginning
of archaeologists' dependence on evidence from text. What Oertel called ‘Buddhist
Archaeology' can be traced to Cunningham's enterprise and finds it’s counterparts
in much later enterprises. The reason for raising this point is that this
characterisation of culture of an archaeological site and it’s differentiation from
other cultures adopt a criterion which is not strictly archaeological.

4
 5

It is not that chronological sequencing of culture at an archaeological site and

comparison between sites in terms of the spread of cultural traits and markers had
to await Wheeler's strictly ‘stratification’ archaeology. The broad sequence at
varieties of sites, be it chalcolithic Mohenjo-Daro or historic Takshashila, could be
ascertained, using several archaeological traits, by John Marshall and his team.
However, greater precision in the technique of excavation arrived with Wheeler,
and, the team trained by him, and this is where the beginning of current
archaeological terminology may be located.
Searching for the use of the term ‘early historical’ in the context of Indian
archaeology, a few samples may be sited. Detailed report on Ahichchhatra near
Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh was never published, but whatever little was published
appears important now for what we are considering. Although the brief report does
refer initially to the north Panchala kingdom of the Mahabharata in which
Ahichchhatra was located, it also carries the categorical statement (Ghosh and
Panigrahi, 1946): ‘Excavation did not yield anything prehistoric, and any attempt
to connect the city with the Ahichchhatra of the Mahabharata must be regarded as
pre-mature'. Whether the authors intended to suggest that the epic Ahichchhatra
may be looked for in prehistoric archaeology, absent at excavated archaeological
site, is not clear. What was excavated revealed a succession of ‘strata’, and each
stratum is presented in terms of cultural deposits and structures, the main basis
for dating being ‘latest coins found in each'. Altogether nine strata were identified,
the earliest or the ninth stratum being dated before 300 BC and devoid of any
structures, and the sequence extending to c. 850- 1100. There is no use of the term
‘early historical' or ‘historical’ in the report . B. B. Lal's report on Hastinapura,
near Meerut, also in Uttar Pradesh, although using the term ‘early historical times'
at the start, mainly brought back the agenda of tradition into archaeology.
Providing the rationale for choosing the site for excavation, a detailed report on
which is available (Lal, 1954-55). Lal remarked on the necessity of bridging the
gap between Late Harappan phase and the fourth-third century BC, marked by
such historical figures as Alexander and Asoka; more importantly, ‘it appears that
some time in the beginning of this gap the Vedic Aryans were in occupation of the
fertile plains of the south Punjab and now desiccated northern Rajasthan, and that
as time passed, they moved eastward into the Ganga basin’. If this were true, one
might reasonably expect, Lal argued, the remains of their settlement in these areas.
With a view to locating such remains, Lal started examining a few sites mentioned
in early Aryan literature, among which Hastinapura was

5
 6

chosen for excavation. Although one of the major thrusts in Lal’s attempt to bridge
the gap between late Harappan and the period of such historical figures as
Alexander and Asoka, was tracing the archaeology of ‘Aryan’ movement in India.
His Hastinapura report divides the cultural sequence of the site, extending from
pre-1200 BC to early fifteenth century AD, with a substantial gap between the late
third century AD and the late eleventh century AD, into five ‘periods'. There is no
use here of any historical terminology. Only in relation to period IV, it is remarked
that material from the period ‘generally characterizes Sunga- Kushana level of
north Indian sites. Lal’s remark suggests that there was certain measure of
acceptance of historical dynastic labels for particular types of archaeological
artifacts. However the two reports by Indian archaeologists, writing in the forties
and fifties of last century that I have cited, are historiographically important in that
they pre- date large- scale usage of terminologies such as ‘early historical’,
‘historical’, ‘early medieval’, ‘medieval’ and so on. This is not to suggest that
these reports represent the only method of reporting on the cultural sequence at a
site. To cite another example the contemporary report of K. G. Goswami (1948) of
‘trial diggings’ at Bangarh during three seasons (1938-39 to 1940-41) uses a
combination of archaeological, historical, and religious terminology. The
chronological span of the cultural sequence at the site extended for several
centuries ‘beginning with the age of the Mauryas or Sungas down to the time of
‘the Muslims’ (p.5). The structures were divided in five strata (the latest yielding
those of the ‘Muslim’ period and ‘ruins of the late Hindu period); the ‘antiquities’
or artefacts are reported as being of Sunga, Gupta, late Gupta or Pala affiliations.
[2]
From the forties and fifties of the last century to the present, the change
towards a new archaeological terminology is obvious in common uses of such
terms as ‘Early Historical’, in relation to artefacts, to a cultural phenomenon like
urbanization and to an entire archaeological cultural phase. A. Ghosh’s The City in
Early Historical India (1973), G. Erdosy’s Urbanization in Early Historic North
India (1989) and F. R. Allchin, ed. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia
(1995) are some examples of this.

The Meaning of ‘Early Historical’

There are many ways in which ‘Early Historical’ has been attempted to be defined.
Again, let us cite some examples. Writing on Historical Archaeology of India
(1999), M. K. Dhavalikar started with a statement such as this: ‘The

6
 7

beginning of the historical period in India is generally placed in ca. 600 BC

because the great religious leaders Buddha and Mahavira, whose historicity has
been established, lived in that period’. Obviously, Dhavalikar is not alone in using
the historicity of major personalities as a marker also for cultural chronology. The
position that he takes in later publications, while appearing to reaffirm this, in fact
substantially modifies it: ‘… it is highly likely that this date [i.e. c. 600 BC] may
go back further into antiquity if the events recorded in our Epics and the Puranas
can be corroborated by archaeological evidence. This is now in the range of
possibility (italics added) because it is generally agreed that the Painted Grey Ware
culture, dated to c. 1000 – 600 BC represents the culture of the Mahabharata (MB)
period’. (Dhavalikar, 2002)

The oscillating mood of Dhavalikar notwithstanding there seems to be a

consensus among archaeologists, as indeed there is among historians, in taking the
middle of the first millennium BC as marking the beginning of the early historical
period. While admitting that it is difficult to pinpoint ‘the precise or even the
approximate time of this change’, A. Ghosh (1973) traces the beginnings of change
to a number of historical and archaeological elements not present in north India
and middle Ganga valley earlier: the emergence of kingdoms under late Vedic
chiefs comprising local population; coinage; extensive use of iron; structures of
kiln-burnt brick; urban centres with rich archaeological remains; a diagnostic
pottery- Northern Black Polished Ware- which spread practically all over India;
and a few other cultural components such as terracotta. In a sense, what, to Ghosh,
seemed to characterize the early historical period was ‘a semblance of cultural
uniformity over large parts of the country in the initial part of the period (Ghosh,
1989).

Definitionally and chronologically at least, the position taken by F. R.

Allchin is substantially wider: ‘we shall use a definition of archaeology that is
rather wider than is common today, but one which has emerged over the past two
centuries of research on early India. This definition accepts as ancillary party of
early historical archaeology such subjects as : domestic architecture, city planning
and the construction of secular and religious monuments; the development of
various branches of art including sculpture and painting; epigraphy and the use of
writing in South Asia; the standardization of weights and measures and the use of
coinage. We accept all these as relevant to our subject and as contributing to
building up a balanced picture of early historic Indian civilization’. In this
definition, thus, ‘early historic archaeology in South Asia becomes interchangeable
with the term ‘early historic Indian civilization’. (Allchin, 1989)

7
 8

I have been citing several select major publications to understand the patterns of
congruity as well as variance in the meaning of the use of ‘early historical’ in the
context of Indian archaeology in the positions taken by various authors. Whatever
the points of congruity and variance, they suggest three areas for further probing to
a general reader.

1. Without accepting it in clear terms, archaeologists seem to follow a

scheme of periodization in historical and art historical terms and not in
purely material culture terms. Even if one discounts the various attempts
made by historians and archaeologists alike to find archaeological
counterparts of texts in archaeological records, the increasing historicity
of personalities and events in literary evidence also has been persistently
at the back of archaeologist’s mind. This and no so michthe totality and
nature of artefactual assemblage – which induced comparison with other
phases or search for precise set of independent variables – which led
Ghosh, Allchin and Erdosy to delve into later Vedic and Pali literary
texts – to seek explanation for certain archaeological phenomenon like
urbanization. Methodologically, the point I like to make is that in
working out the profile of the early historical period, there has not been
much difference between the works of such historians as D. D. Kosambi
and R. S. Sharma and those of Ghosh, Allchin or Erdosy in the context of
North India. I am not at all suggesting that within limits this is not a
valid, permissible way of looking at literate periods of the past, whether
in India or elsewhere; my point would be about terminological and other
problems that still need to be sorted out with regard to ‘early historical’.
2. Archaeologically, what distinguishes ‘historical’, of which ‘early
historical’ would be the first chronological segment from what preceded
it? Was it the ‘Dark Age or Continuum’ which followed the civilizational
phase of Harappa? But, then, decline in the quality of material culture
cannot be sufficient criterion for beginning to use historical terminology
from a certain kind of change in the quality of material culture onward. In
other words, if, Taxila, Kausambi, and Ujjayin were ‘early historical’,
why should Mohenjodaro, Harappa, Kalibangan and Dholavira be
considered representatives of a proto-historic civilization? Despite the
dubious, enigmatic nature of Harappan writing, change in metal
technology or the absence or presence of coinage alone cannot be
considered sufficient archaeological traits of distinction between

8
 9

proto-historic and historic cultures, because all the ingredients of complex societies
– some form of state and authority structure, social hierarchy, complex and multi-
tiered settlement pattern, craft specialization – are present at Harappa.
Archaeologists will therefore have to consider whether, taking ‘early historical’ to
be applicable to sub continental archaeology, it is the crystallization and continuity
of a literate tradition which will ultimately remain the clinching criterion for
advent of the ‘historical’.

3. If the middle of the first millennium BC is taken as roughly the beginning

of this phase in north India, how are its manifestations to be seen, both in
terms of chronology and cultural profile, in different spatial segments of
the subcontinent? Allchin appears to bypass this dimension of the
problem by simply equating ‘early historical archaeology’ with urbanism,
while Dhavalikar takes care of the problem by simply documenting finds
from various sites across different regions of the subcontinent. The
possibility that the early historicalin the Deccan, as indeed in other parts
of India, has to be seen in terms of recognizable distinct phases, by using
diagnostic pottery and other artefactual items, is suggested by different
entries in Ghosh’s Encyclopaedia. For example, if the beginning of the
‘early historical’ in peninsular India is seen as represented by significant
overlap between iron and Black and Red Ware using megalith-builders,
then within the same chronological phase of the overlap, the beginning of
‘early historical’ archaeology started taking shape. Unlike in the north,
this beginning of the ‘early historical’ diagnosed in the form of writing,
coinage, limited circulation of NBP Ware, construction of stupa
architecture, and of course also in the form of emergence of a number of
urban centres across the peninsula, can be located between the third and
the second centuries BC. The gradual transition to ‘early historical’ is not
diagnosed by referring to anytextual tradition, although there are
incidental references to Tamil Sangam anthologies. Several phases in the
‘early historical’ have some times been envisaged for peninsular India,
and they do coalesce in the end with dynastic nomenclature, as in the
case of the Satavahanas and the Khatrapas, but as yet it seems there has
been no attempts to label any distinct ware or art objects after the Colas,
Pandyas or the Cheras of the south. Second, in Ghosh’s scheme,
peninsular India has been seen as constituted, in the early historical

9
 10

phase, by several zones such as southern Deccan, eastern Deccan and south
and south-western zone, suggesting the construction of further zones like
central Deccan, northern-western and south-western Deccan.

Admittedly, further chronological and other points need to be explored.

The megalithic phase, with its long chronological span between pre-1000 BC
and the early centuries of the Christian era, had its own distinct sub-phases and
its continuity into a culturally distinct new phase necessitates some
geographical comparisons and generalizations. In other words, is the
distribution pattern of early historical centres largely limited to the localities in
general in which megaliths and the overlap occur, or is ‘early historical’ much
more extensively spread? More importantly, megalith-building being suggestive
of mobilization of both labour and other kinds of resources and of social
hierarchy, the congruence of a particular sub-phase of the megaliths and the
emergence of the ‘historical’ with its incipient urban nuclei is a distinct
possibility.

Since by the last phase of the megalithic, ‘early historical’ was already
distinctly present, perhaps a sub phase preceding it may be considered a
significant chronological span in the evolution towards peninsular ‘early
historic’. It has been suggested elsewhere (Chattopadhyaya, 1987) that there are
distinct sub-phases of the ‘early historic’ even before the Satavahanas appeared
on a vastly changed archaeological scene; so, apart from the chronology of non-
local pottery such as NBP, Arretine Ware, Rouletted Ware and so on, many
other items, particularly for the Deccan, may be profitably used as markers of
different sub-phases of the ‘early historical’. As has been mentioned above, in
early historical archaeology of the Deccan and the south, textual traditions and
dynastic labels are not conspicuous in marking out cultural sub-phases and
variations; in designating post-Satavahana archaeology, terms like Ikshvaku
phase, Kadamba phase or Kalabhra phase have not been in use so far.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Before I sum up what I have been deriving at, let us have a look at the scheme of
sequence of ‘cultures’ as offered by A. Ghosh (1989) in his Encyclopaedia.
Beyond ‘Late Harappa’, his list has the following sequence: Copper Hoard; Ochre
Coloured Pottery (OCP); Black and Red Ware – Upper Ganga Valley;

10
 11

Chalcolithic; Painted Grey Ware (PGW); iron age; early historical; late historical.
The significant point about this scheme as well as other schemes is the
terminological amalgam they offer of the type site, technology, diagnostic pottery
and historical terminology in designating different cultures within a broad, general
framework. The problem essentially is of correlation, of bringing comparable
cultural sequence of an individual site into relationship with other sites. The
intrusion of historical terminology, it is suggested above, marks a historiographical
signpost in Indian archaeology and poses a new challenge: that of correlating
strata, layers or periods in excavated sites with historical phases. The intrusion of
historical terminology was hailed by R. S. Sharma, as a positive improvement upon
earlier periodization : in Indian Archaeology 1982-83: A Review the terms ‘early
historic’, ‘early medieval’, ‘late medieval’ have been used. This is certainly an
advance on previous attempts at periodization, and brings archaeology closer to
history’. Sharma, of course, was cautious to suitably modify this enthusiasm by
admitting: ‘… what these terms mean by way of chronology, concept and content
of material culture remains to be clarified’ (1987: p. 3).

The actual problems of correlating strata or periods in excavated sites with

the historical schemes of periodization are many. First, apart from the absence of
consensus regarding the time spans of the proposed periods, opinions as to what
qualifies to be ‘early historical’ and what for ‘early medieval’ would vary. If to A.
Ghosh (1989: p. 151) ‘Early Historical is followed by ‘Late Historical’ which is
dominated by ‘religious edifices and sculptures falling within the ‘realm of art
history’, to R. S. Sharma ‘early medieval’ following ‘early historical’, is
archaeologically represented by a long span of urban decay, extending from c.300
to c.1000 AD. Further, within these broad historical phases, further divisions are
mainly done with reference to major dynasties, and thus continues the practice of
curious amalgams. For example, the terms like Maurya, Sunga, Sunga-Kushana,
Saka-Kushana, Gupta, and so on referring to the sequence at Hulas, Saharanpur
district, Uttar Pradesh (IAR 1978-79), are all associated with both ‘early historical’
sub-phases and artifact styles, then the beginning of ‘early historical’ was marked,
not by a dynasty but by Northern Black Polished Ware, its diagnostic ware,
according to Ghosh (1989). There is increasing use in north Indian context of the
term ‘Rajput’ to designate the archaeology of the period preceding what is called
‘Muslim’ or ‘Islamic’.[3] These terms seek to to offer alternatives to ‘early
medieval’ and ‘medieval’. The terms are neither

11
 12

material culture specific nor dynasty specific, but are impositions of the construct
of Rajput-Muslim conflict of historiography on archaeology. In other words, when
historical terms such as ‘early historical’, ‘early medieval’ or ‘late historical’ are
used in Indian archaeology, there is always the possibility of stretching the terms
beyond the concerns and technicalities of archaeology.

Two concrete examples may be cited for illustrating the problem I am

talking about of correlating ‘periods’ of archaeology to historical terminology.
Ropar, in Ropar district of Punjab, had a long cultural sequence, extending from
the mature Harappan onward for about three millennia, with noticeable breaks in
between (Sharma, 1953). Period IV at the site is reported to have yielded ‘Sunga
type terracotta, coin of Soter Megas assigned to 100 AD, coin hoard of Kushana
King Vasudeva assigned to the second century, gold coin of Gupta King
Chandragupta, and inscribed sealings of c. 500-600. Put between c. BC 200 and
AD 600, a long span of eight centuries, to which historical phase would this
archaeological period correspond, ‘early historical’, or ‘Gupta’ or ‘early
medieval’? The other example would be that of Kudavalli, Mehbubnagar district,
Andhra Pradesh, located at the confluence of Krishna and Tungabhadra (IAR
1978-79: 37-41). Of the two-fold cultural sequence of the site, Period I
corresponded to the beginning of the fourth century AD to the sixth century AD.
Of the two sub-phases into which Period II is divided, the first (IA) is reported to
have corresponded to eighth-eleventh century and IIA to thirteenth-sixteenth
century. How would these periods be historically labelled: ‘early historical’, ‘early
medieval’, and ‘medieval’? To say the least, that would be arbitrary and may not
be found applicable to other excavated sites of the region.

The point which the note has sought to make is that there cannot be any
simple way of labelling of archaeological material in historical terms through easy
correlations, since historians themselves do not have any consensus on how
historical periodization can be viewed with regard to different spatial and cultural
components of the sub-continent. There can be no uniformity either. Despite all the
warnings of caution, however, historical periodization has had a reasonably long
sanction among archaeologists and is here to stay. In a sense this has perhaps been
necessary. Since no site is unique or a unit in isolation, the need to synthesize and
generalize on a vast mass of material within a chronological span and separate it
from other chronological spans is at the back of any periodization. The separability
of the datable

12
 13

archaeological material from the middle of the first millennium BC, with its
suggestion of the beginning of a new kind of complex society and network and its
chronological correspondence with historical characters, is at the back of ‘early
historical’ in both historical and archaeological periodization. How the historical
terminology in archaeology will be used or abused – will depend on the refinement
– or crudity – which we bring to bear upon it.

Notes
1. For sample of Cunningham’s method of recording and reporting see vol. 10 of his Report of
Tours in Bundelkhand and Malwa in 1874-75 and 1876-77 (reprinted, Delhi, 1994), passim.
2. Ghosh, A. (1989). An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology, Vol. 1, Contents.
3. For example the use of the term ‘Rajput period’ for excavated terracotta finds at Purana Qila,
New Delhi, Indian Archaeology 1972-73: A Review (New Delhi, 1978) p. 9; for the sequence
at Raja Karna ka Qila, Kurukshetra, Haryana, the term used are early historical, early
medieval and medieval, pp. 12-14. In the brief report of excavation at Ghuram, Patiala
district, Punjab, the term ‘early Muslim’ seems to have been used as an equivalent of a sub-
phase of ‘early medieval’, Indian Archaeology 1976-77: A Review, (New Delhi, 1980), pp.
44-45.

References
Allchin, F. R. (1995). The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities
and States. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Chattopadhyaya, B. D. (1987). “Transition to the Early Historic Phase in the Deccan: A Note” in
B. M. Pande and B. D. Chattopadhyaya, ed. Archaeology and History: Essays in the Memory of
Sh. A. Ghosh, vol. II. New Delhi, Agam Kala Prakashan. Pp. 727-32.

Dhavalikar, M. K. (1999). Historical Archaeology of India. Books and Books, New Delhi.

Dhavalikar, M. K. (2002). “Historical Archaeology in India” in K. Padaya, ed. Recent Studies in

Indian Archaeology. Indian Council of Historical Research Monograph series 6. Munshiram
Manoharlal Pblishers Pvt. Ltd., pp. 216-47.

Erdosy, G. (1988). Urbanization in Early Historic India. BAR international Series. 43 rd.
Oxford.

Ghosh, A. and K. C. Panigrahi (1946). “The pottery of Ahichchhatra, District Bareily, U. P.’’.
Ancient India. No. 1: 37-59.

Ghosh, A. (1989). An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology. New Delhi, Munshiram

Manoharlal.

Goswami. K. G. (1948). Excavation at Bangarh (1938-41). Asutosh Museum Memoir No. 1,

University of Calcutta, Calcutta.

Indian Archaeology: A Review (IAR). 1978-79: 37-41, 61-68.

13
 14

Lal, B. B. (1954-55). “Excavation at Hastinapura and Other Explorations in the Upper Ganga
Sutlej Basin 1950-52”. Ancient India. Nos. 10-11: 5-151.

Oertel, F. O. (1904-05). (Reprinted, 1990). Sarnath. Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey
of India, 1904-05. 59-108. Swati publications, New Delhi.

Sharma, R. S. (1987). Urban Decay in India, (c.300-c.1000). New Delhi, Munshiram

Manoharlal.

Sharma, Y. D. (1953). “Exploration of Historical Sites”. Ancient India. No. 9: 123-126.

14