Introduction to Archaeological History of India

Introduction to Archaeological History of India

Dilip K. Chakrabarti

Chapter – 1

Harshit Sharma

Alumnus (BHU)

Contact

ANCIENT INDIA: THE IMPORTANCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

A historical study of ancient India cannot fully realize its potential based solely on textual sources alone.
Textual sources, such as the Rigveda, were not meant to be historical records and raise questions about their chronology, geographical applicability, and content.
Except for the history of the kings of Kashmir by Kalhana (twelfth century), there is no proper historical chronicle from ancient India.
H.C. Raychaudhuri and K.A.N. Sastri emphasized the difficulty of basing ancient Indian history primarily on literary evidence.
The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are ancient texts that have served as encyclopedias of national culture but were frequently revised, making it difficult to use them as historical sources.
Very few ancient compositions have a clearly known time and place of origin, and many are full of conventional descriptions rather than factual statements.
The problem extends beyond textual sources to inscriptions, coins, sculpture, painting, and architecture, which often lack chronological and geographical clarity.
Early inscriptions are limited in number and increase only from the tenth–twelfth centuries, particularly in the south.
Coins are mostly found in hoards and often studied only for their design, with limited historical context.
Art and architecture focus more on religious life than issues like authorship and patronage, which would be crucial for historical analysis.
Scholars have mapped out areas of ancient Indian history, but much of it remains a preliminary sketch, with no fine chronological grouping, especially for early Buddhist literature.
Buddhist texts are mostly confined to a broad period from the sixth to second century BC and have limited geographical focus, mainly on the middle Ganga plain.
The lack of detailed sources and the generalization of historical accounts blur the multiple regional strands of India’s history, especially for the early period.
Historical proof is fundamentally reliant on the available sources, and rephrasing historical questions using the social sciences cannot overcome these limitations.
Archaeology can expand the sources of ancient Indian history, revealing new dimensions even in areas with more detailed textual documentation.
Archaeology excels in reconstructing the man-land relationship, which is crucial for understanding historical development in the Indian subcontinent.
The reconstruction of man-land interaction is essential for creating a historical framework acceptable to all segments of India’s population.
The concept of a monolithic, racist past has been inherited from colonialism, where the Aryan conquest and assimilation of indigenous cultures were central themes.
Even if the Aryan conquest theory were true, it is problematic for those outside the Aryan cultural sphere to accept this version of history.
The need for Third World countries, particularly India, is to move beyond colonial theories and develop a historical identity that includes all regional, caste, tribal, and sectarian groups.
The primary sector for such broad participation is the history of the land and its development over time.
Archaeology, particularly with modern scientific techniques, provides the most significant tool for creating a non-sectarian and multilineal image of ancient India.
This approach to archaeology can lead to the concept of an Indian past in which all citizens can share.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE SUBCONTINENT

Early Notices

The early sixteenth century saw the involvement of three groups of people in India: Portuguese residents of Goa, other European sailors, and occasional travelers.
Two main categories of monuments were focused on during this phase: rock-cut caves of west India and south Indian temples.
Rock-cut caves were generally considered too heathenish to appeal to good Christians, but some travelers, like Pietro della Valle, an Italian who visited India between 1623 and 1625, provided objective reporting.
Pietro della Valle drew the ground plans of south Indian temples, marking the first time such plans appeared in European literature.
Among the monuments, Elephanta was frequently described.
In the east, the Black and White Pagodas—the Konark and Jagannatha temples of Orissa—were known as early as the seventeenth century and served as prominent navigational markers on the Orissan coast.
By the middle of the eighteenth century, European familiarity with Indian monuments had become fairly broad-based.

The Middle of the Eighteenth Century

The formal beginning of Indian archaeology can be traced to the middle of the eighteenth century, when academic interest in Indian antiquities began.
This interest is best expressed in the writings of Anquetil du Perron, a French scholar known for his translation of the Upanishads, and Carsten Niebuhr, a Danish engineer who also reported on the archaeology of Arabia and Persia.
Both emphasized the need for a systematic and scholarly study of Indian antiquities.
During this time, J.B.B. D’Anville, a French geographer, discussed the possible location of the famous site of Pataliputra.
Ancient Mediterranean visitors to India, including some who wrote books about India, maintained a memory of the land, which was never lost from the European mind.
By the middle of the eighteenth century, there was a geographical interest to identify ancient Indian cities, known from classical sources, on the ground.
Pataliputra, the ancient Mauryan capital, was described by Greek ambassador Megasthenes.
D’Anville mistakenly identified Pataliputra with Prayag (the confluence of the Ganga and Yamuna), though the importance lies in the fact that such classical references were being reconsidered and sought to be understood in modern terms.
Pataliputra’s correct identification with modern Patna came only in 1788, when the second edition of James Rennell’s book, Memoir of a Map of Hindustan, was published.
James Rennell, along with J. Tieffenthaler (a German missionary) and du Perron, produced a three-volume study of Indian historical geography in 1786–88.
In the second half of the eighteenth century, there was considerable philosophical interest in the antiquity of India in Europe, especially among the philosophers of the French Enlightenment.
Philosophers such as Voltaire and Diderot, seeking to move away from Biblical dogmas, looked towards China and India as centers of civilization and culture.
Voltaire even asserted that everything had originated from the banks of the Ganges.

The Establishment of the Asiatic Society in Calcutta

The Asiatic Society was established on 15 January 1784, fitting into the ethos of the period when various ‘societies’ were being formed in Britain.
By this time, the prospect of British ascendancy in India had become clear, creating a need to systematically study the country they were to rule.
There was also a need to relate India to the contemporary European framework of human history.
William Jones, the founder of the Asiatic Society, came to India as a judge of the East India Company court in Calcutta after a career as an oriental scholar and poet in England.
The founding of the Society did not initiate archaeological research in India but acted as a catalyst, providing an institutional focus for the study of antiquities.
Jones was interested in Indian products, including plants, timber, the traditional system of Indian jurisprudence, and the study of Sanskrit literature.
Jones edited the Society’s journal, Asiatick Researches, where his ‘discourses’ were published between 1788 and 1793.
Jones is credited with the first clear statement about the linguistic affinity between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, laying the foundation for comparative philology.
However, the Biblical theory of creation was still the accepted belief in the late eighteenth century, which assumed mutual relationships between human groups descended from Noah’s progeny.
Jones’s primary concern was to relate Indian history to Universal History, as it was then understood, particularly tracing it back to one of Noah’s sons.
Jones linked Sanskrit to Latin and Greek, but also brought in Peruvians and Japanese as having an “immemorial affinity” with the speakers of Sanskrit.
These historical and linguistic ideas were shared by many contemporaries, though not everyone agreed that Iran was the original centre of dispersal. For example, Thomas Maurice argued in his seven-volume study that Brahmins traveled as far west as Scotland, spreading civilization.
Archaeological discoveries were scarce until the 1830s, but certain key publications emerged, including Francis Buchanan’s three-volume report on his Mysore survey in 1807 and his survey of Bengal Presidency in 1816.
Buchanan’s surveys were mainly statistical but contained valuable archaeological information.
Another significant figure of the period was Colin Mackenzie, who began the study of antiquities in south Indiathrough his collection of inscriptions and manuscripts.

The 1830s

By the early 1830s, James Prinsep, Assay-master of the East India Company mint in Calcutta, became the Secretary of the Asiatic Society and played a major role in the initiation of field research in India.
Prinsep is a legendary figure in Indian studies, primarily responsible for the decipherment of the two most important historical scripts of India: Brahmi and Kharoshthi.
Brahmi was used in areas outside the north-western region, while Kharoshthi was prevalent primarily in the north-western region of India.
Initially, Charles Wilkins read ninth-century eastern Indian inscriptions in the late eighteenth century based on his knowledge of medieval manuscripts.
The breakthrough in decipherment came with James Prinsep’s reading of the inscriptions of King Asoka of the third century BC between 1834 and 1838.
The decipherment of Kharoshthi script advanced after the reading of royal names on coins of Indo-Greek kings Agathocles and Pantaleon (c. 1st century BC–1st century AD).
With the decipherment of these scripts, rapid progress was made in epigraphical and numismatic studies, which helped understand the chronology of historical sites.
This period also saw attempts to understand Buddhist legends based on the two Sri Lankan chronicles, the Dipavamsaand the Mahavamsa.
A key discovery was the name Piyadasi or Asoka in these Buddhist chronicles.
The Buddhist stupas, especially in the north-west, gained attention, with Lieutenant Alexander Burnes and Charles Masson excavating the Manikyala stupa in Punjab (near present-day Rawalpindi).
These military men, serving in the Sikh army, excavated sites and acquired ancient Grecian remains, including stupas, coins, and sculptures in north-western India and Afghanistan.
During this time, reports on miscellaneous antiquities began to increase in number.
Markham Kittoe excavated at Kurkihar near Gaya in Bihar and collected ten cart-loads of Buddhist idols in just four days.
Another notable feature of this period was the excavation of megaliths in south India, with barrow-hunting becoming a popular pastime for European officers, especially in the cool of the Nilgiris.
At Jiwarji in the Deccan, Captain Meadows Taylor published his excavation results with sections, which was exceptional for his time.

Alexander Cunningham and His Successors till 1902

Alexander Cunningham, a young military engineer, came to India at 18 and rose to the rank of Major-General. He was deeply inspired by James Prinsep and decided to go beyond individual sites and areas in archaeology.
Two major Chinese pilgrims visited India: Faxian (Fa-Hien) in the 4th-5th century and Xuanzang (Hiuen-Tsang) in the 7th century. Xuanzang‘s itinerary was much more detailed, with accounts of the areas he visited, distances, and directions.
The accounts of these pilgrims were translated into French and published in the 1830s. Cunningham realized their significance in fixing the locations of major archaeological sites.
Cunningham used not only the Chinese pilgrims but also classical writers in the north-west to help identify sites.
By the 1840s, Cunningham formulated his methodology, identifying the ancient site of Sankisa in 1843 and offering a scheme of archaeological investigations to the Government of India in 1848.
Cunningham argued that these investigations would be politically important for the Indian government and religiously significant for the British public, showcasing Brahmanism as a comparatively modern religion and predicting the eventual success of Christianity in India.
The Archaeological Survey of India was formally established in 1861, with Cunningham as its head. He was provided with a budget, staff, and assistants: J.D. Beglar, A.C.L. Carlleyle, and H.W. Garrick.
Cunningham continued his work until 1885, despite a gap between 1866 and 1870 when the Government of India discontinued the Survey. His results were published in a series of volumes that are still essential reading in Indian archaeology.
Cunningham’s goal was to reconstruct the historical geography of India by identifying archaeological sites and monuments, a grand exercise in topographical archaeology.
Cunningham did not conduct detailed excavations but focused on clearance work and deep trenches. His work for Indian archaeology was similar to the Trigonometrical Survey of India for the land mass, providing features and bearings for the field.
Cunningham’s scholarship was vast, covering everything from ancient architecture to medieval coins, and he was highly criticized by contemporaries, often for trivial reasons.
Cunningham worked across India, from the Bengal marshes to the North-West Frontier Province, mostly traveling on horse, elephant, and in a palanquin. His reports were grounded in real-world fieldwork, not just manuscript studies.
Cunningham recommended the discontinuation of a centrally organized Survey before retiring, leading to the responsibility falling to provincial governments, who employed regional surveyors.
James Burgess coordinated these efforts, focusing on architectural surveys and publishing monographs on monuments of west and south-east India.
James Fergusson, an indigo planter, contributed a typological sequence of Indian monuments, especially temples, and his history of Indian architecture was a key contribution to the field.
A separate epigraphist was employed for editing ancient Indian inscriptions, leading to the creation of the Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum and Epigraphia Indica, which had far-reaching academic results.
Significant field-archaeological discoveries during this period include excavations at Kankali Tila in Mathura, explorations in the Nepalese terai, and identifying ancient Pataliputra‘s topographical features.
The work at Pataliputra was not done by a government archaeologist, but by L.A. Waddell, an officer in the Indian Medical Service.

The Role of Indians in Indian Archaeological Studies till the Close of the Nineteenth Century

Early western scholar-administrators in India relied on native ‘pundits’ (traditional scholars) for expertise in diverse branches of Indian learning to connect it with the framework of western knowledge.
Antiquarian research in the western sense had to wait for the general dissemination of western ideas, which was only possible after the introduction of an effective system of English education in 1835.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, several Indians became prominent in the field of Indology:
- Babu Rajendra Lala Mitra: Edited Sanskrit manuscripts for the Asiatic Society, published articles on inscriptions, and researched the antiquities of Orissa and the ruins of Bodh Gaya under government patronage.
- Ram Raz: A native judge of Tanjore who wrote a manual on the principles of Indian architecture in the middle of the nineteenth century.
- Bhau Daji of western India: Published inscriptions from the region.
- R.G. Bhandarkar: Wrote on the antiquity of sites like Sopara and Kolhapur in Maharashtra.
- P. Mukherji: Explored the Nepalese terai and published a report on it towards the end of the century.
The emerging sense of the ancient Indian past significantly affected the consciousness of the English-educated Indian élite in different parts of the country.
Modern research in this area is virtually non-existent and could be a rewarding field of study.

Some Operative Forces in the Study of Ancient India

The sense of the Indian past in the nineteenth century and later was shaped more by textual scholarship than by archaeological discoveries (including inscriptions and coins).
Language studies were prioritized due to their importance for the East India Company administration to understand Hindu religion, philosophy, jurisprudence, etc., making colonial rule more acceptable to the masses.
Three extraneous factors influenced the development of Indology:
1. Romantic Movement in early nineteenth-century Germany: Associated with the comparative study of languages and the reconstruction of a master race called the Aryans, which promoted the study of Sanskrit and comparative philology in European universities.
2. The concept of race and its association with both language and culture: Racial classifications became widespread, with the Aryans placed at the top of the hierarchy. These classifications often involved a belief in a superior/inferior racial order.
3. Dichotomy between ancient India and modern India: Ancient India was seen as a degraded Aryan civilization, and its rejuvenation could only occur under British rule, which was presented as a modern Aryan rule.
The idea of the Aryan affiliation of the Indian upper castes allowed them to claim a cousinship with their British rulers, thus offering legitimacy to British colonial rule.
The German Romantic interest in ancient Sanskrit literature and philosophy obscured the belief that major changes in Indian culture and society came only from external sources.
This model of studying the past of ancient India mirrored the approach to the study of Black Africa, where Africans were seen as passive recipients of outside influences.
Socio-political factors heavily influenced how the past was reconstructed at any given time, and this issue is especially significant in the context of Indian archaeology.
As long as the old model of the ancient Indian past prevails, the archaeological approach to India’s history is unlikely to have a significant impact.

Indian Prehistoric Studies till the End of the Nineteenth Century

The most significant milestone in the study of Indian prehistory was achieved by Robert Bruce Foote, a geologistfrom the Geological Survey of India, who discovered a handaxe from the lower palaeolithic stage in a gravel pit at Pallavaram near Madras in 1863.
This discovery came four years after the Royal Society of England accepted the prehistoric antiquity of man.
Foote’s discovery inspired other geologists across India, leading to reports of palaeolithic and other prehistoric tools from different regions.
Foote continued to make discoveries in Andhra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Gujarat.
His collection was eventually housed in the Government Museum in Madras, and the two volumes of the catalogueof his collection, published posthumously in 1914 and 1916, shaped the study of Indian prehistory.
The association between palaeoliths and Pleistocene extinct fauna in India was established by geologists in the second half of the nineteenth century.
By the end of the nineteenth century, geologists also highlighted the occurrence of various types of rocks and minerals used by prehistoric Indians.
During this period, A.C.L. Carlleyle, an assistant of Alexander Cunningham, discovered mesolithic remains not only in the Kaimur hills section of Uttar Pradesh, but also along the Ganga river between Ghazipur and Banaras.

Indian Archaeology at the Turn of the Twentieth Century and the Impact of Lord Curzon

The tentative footsteps of Indian archaeology can be traced from the early sixteenth century to the closing years of the nineteenth century, with a dominant focus on ancient Indian historical geography.
Sites, inscriptions, coins, sculpture, and architecture all played a part in this framework.
By the dawn of the twentieth century, a definite archaeological shape of India’s ancient past had emerged.
However, several important considerations need to be acknowledged:
- The government’s role in archaeology was brief and limited.
- The Archaeological Survey of India was established as late as 1861, and faced interruptions in 1866–1870 and after Burgess’s retirement in 1889 when there was no central leadership.
- Efforts to preserve Indian monuments were half-hearted, with the creation of the post of Curator of Ancient Monuments in 1880 lasting only for three years.
- Responsibility for conservation then passed to provincial governments, and ultimately to the Public Works departments.
- There was no policy of systematically excavating ancient historic settlements; excavations were haphazard and of marginal significance.
- The government’s approach to archaeology in the late nineteenth century was limited to a province-wise listing of monuments and sites.
The viceroyalty of George Nathaniel Curzon marked a significant development in Indian archaeology:
- After the Boer War, a crisis of confidence in the Empire led to a stronger emphasis on its civilizing mission.
- The period also saw the rise of the first Conservation Movement in Britain, influencing Curzon’s policies.
- Curzon implemented a centralized government direction for archaeology in India, focusing on conservation, exploration, excavation, and epigraphy.
- Curzon believed in a comprehensive approach: dig, discover, classify, reproduce, describe, copy, decipher, and conserve.
Curzon also opposed Western ‘Oriental scholars’ trying to dominate Indian archaeology:
- He rejected the idea of establishing an International Association for Archaeological Research and an Indian Exploration Fund.
- Curzon did not consider oriental scholarship essential for the post of Director-General of the Archaeological Survey.
- He criticized philologists who promoted the ideas of Max Müller and exaggerated the superiority of Western Civilization.
John Hubert Marshall, with a First Class Classical Tripos and a First Class Archaeological Tripos from Cambridge, was appointed to the post of Director-General over Vincent Smith, who had written on the inferiority of Indian art.
Marshall formally accepted the post on 20 November 1901 and arrived in India in February 1902.

The John Marshall Era in Indian Archaeology, 1902–44

John Marshall retired from his post in 1928, and was succeeded by H. Hargreaves (1928–31), D.R. Sahni (1931–35), J.F. Blackiston (1935–37), and K.N. Dikshit (1937–44) before Mortimer Wheeler took over in 1944.
The period from 1902–44 is regarded as the Marshall era, with his influence persisting in the archaeological traditions set during this time.
By 1906, the Archaeological Survey of India was established on a permanent footing, with its administrative shapebeing divided into branches and circles, with the Director-General’s office at the top.
Marshall laid down the basic principles of conservation in a manual first issued in 1907, emphasizing the preservation of the originality of structures.
Exploration and excavation were prioritized, with Marshall’s officers playing an increasing role in fieldwork, while Marshall himself focused on Taxila from 1913 onward.
Marshall’s focus was on early historical cities of north India, including the stupa and monastic sites:
- Excavations at Rajagriha (1905–06) and Bhita (1911–12) marked the first significant work on the early historic urban past of north India.
- His work at the religious site of Sanchi remains a monumental achievement.
A major discovery during Marshall’s tenure was the Indus civilization:
- Mohenjodaro and Harappa were excavated in 1922 and 1921, respectively, revealing the archaeological significance of these long-known sites.
- Harappa was severely damaged by railway contractors, making Mohenjodaro the major focus for horizontal excavations, culminating in a publication edited by Marshall.
- Marshall’s assessment of the Indus civilization and its key aspects has stood the test of time.
- Marshall understood the implications of the discovery and initiated exploration programmes, including those by Aurel Stein in Baluchistan.
Aurel Stein’s discovery of buried Buddhist ruins in Central Asia (1900–1, 1906–8, 1913–16) was done on behalf of the government of India, with Marshall’s Survey claiming credit for the last two expeditions.
Despite this, Stein’s early work was more related to British diplomacy and involved the loot of Buddhist antiquities and manuscripts from places like Dun Huang, representing a form of archaeological brigandage backed by Western powers.
A major strength of Indian archaeology under Marshall was the initiation of the Annual Reports series, documenting the Survey’s work from 1902 onward until 1935–36.
Specialized Memoirs were published on different themes during Marshall’s tenure.
The post-Marshall years (1928–44) saw continued work, particularly at Indus civilization sites like Mohenjodaro, Chanhudaro, and Harappa, as well as Ahichchhatra (an early historic site).
However, this period was marked by economic cuts, leading to stagnation in the Survey’s activities.
In 1938, the government of India invited Leonard Woolley, a Mesopotamian specialist, to report on the Survey, and he criticized the excavation standards since Marshall’s time.
Woolley’s report led to the appointment of Mortimer Wheeler as the new Director-General for the period 1944–48.

Mortimer Wheeler and the Archaeological Survey, 1944–48

Wheeler criticized the lack of stratigraphic methods in the excavations under John Marshall and his successors, overlooking their emphasis on the total excavation of sites, floor by floor.
Although earlier excavations may have been careless about the succession of certain structures and objects, they provided a total image of a site, necessary for understanding India’s ancient past.
Mohenjodaro remains a major epitome of the Indus civilization, despite later scientific excavations, including Wheeler’s own work at Mohenjodaro in 1950, which remain unpublished in detail.
Many later excavations, including Wheeler’s, were not wide enough to yield anything beyond stratigraphy.
Indian archaeologists were introduced to Wheeler’s methods at a training school established by the Archaeological Survey of India at Taxila and through his excavations at Harappa, Arikamedu, and Brahmagiri.
Stratigraphy principles were emphasized in these excavations, published in the Ancient India series.
Wheeler stressed that archaeology should be both an academic subject and a craft.
- As an academic subject, it had to be problem-oriented and not limited to a government department.
- As a craft, archaeologists needed to be skilled in both stratigraphy and the practical details of running an excavation camp.
Wheeler advocated for taking archaeology to universities and applying natural-scientific techniques, which influenced the development of archaeology after Independence.
He also created a separate branch for prehistoric studies within the Archaeological Survey to ensure an uninterrupted archaeological history of India, covering all phases of human development.
Wheeler played a crucial role in the modernization of Indian archaeology.

Archaeology in Post-Independence India

Archaeology in British India was a marginal activity, largely a vocational pursuit undertaken by a government department with limited support.
Before John Marshall (pre-1902), archaeology in India was primarily followed by a few members of the ruling class, with little government support.
Post-Independence, government support to archaeological research increased significantly, with a larger scale of operations compared to pre-1947.
The central Archaeological Survey remains structurally the same, but its scale has grown significantly in terms of manpower, budget, and the number of ‘circles’ and ‘branches’.
State governments now share responsibility for archaeological research and conservation, distributing power between central and state authorities.
The Indian University Grants Commission (UGC) contributed substantial funds to establish archaeological research units in universities across the country.
The number of archaeological museums and related organizations has grown considerably.
Post-Independence, there has been a sharp increase in prehistoric and protohistoric research, along with expanded exploration and excavation data in the historical field.
Natural-scientific techniques have been introduced in major archaeological fields, and more diverse questions are being asked of archaeological data.
Indian archaeology is still primarily historically oriented, with anthropology, geology, and geography contributing components, but multi-disciplinary approaches have yet to fully advance due to constraints in the Indian university system.
Despite significant progress, two major issues continue to obstruct archaeological progress in India:
- The Indological framework of ancient India, based on race, language, and culture, continues to influence archaeological thinking. This framework leads to the archaeological concept of groups like the Aryans and Dravidians and supports Vedic archaeology and Aryan archaeology, which is criticized for its racist and ethnically-driven approach.
- Archaeology in India developed primarily as a government activity, dominated by provincial and central bodies, with a bureaucratic, authoritarian structure that hinders academic freedom.
The bureaucratic control over archaeological research has prevented the field from becoming a free academic discipline, as seen in other areas of study.
Archaeological bureaucracy has not adapted to the evolving demands of modern archaeological research, nor has it adequately addressed the destruction of archaeological sites due to population pressure.
The progress made by Indian archaeology in the post-Independence period was due to individuals who could look beyond personal and regional interests, contributing to the development of a national archaeological policy.
This policy has since faltered due to an increasingly politicized and factional academic environment.
A positive development is the growing awareness of archaeology as an academic discipline among the general educated population.

AIMS AND STRUCTURE

The aim of the volume is to offer an archaeological history of the Indian subcontinent from prehistory to the early historical stage.
Even in regions with rich textual sources, such as Greece and Italy, a purely archaeological history is considered valuable; this is particularly important for ancient India where textual sources are minimal.
In the vastness of the Indian subcontinent, a broad archaeological sweep covering all regions is essential to demonstrate what archaeology can offer beyond textual history.
The focus is on assessing the available knowledge at every step, integrating the different components and phases of the land’s long-term settlement history.
The land will remain central to the narrative, reflecting the perspective of Dharitri or the earth as a mother in the Indian tradition.
The narrative structure is straightforward, beginning with an introduction to the land mass, major geographical parameters, and concepts that influence the study of archaeology and ancient history.
The Palaeolithic sequence is rich in regional details, but the focus is on what is known in absolute historical terms, not on typological or stratigraphic successions.
Mesolithic data is more detailed with a more marked continuity of tradition.
The transition to food-production is a significant issue post-Mesolithic, with a focus on the wheat-barley-cattle-sheep-goat farming tradition in the north-west and its role in the development of the Indus civilization.
The archaeological issues related to the Indus civilization will be closely examined.
Attention will then shift to the growth of agricultural settlements outside the Indus region, discussing the interactionbetween the Indus civilization, advanced hunter-gatherers, and marginal agricultural producers, which contributed to the formation of an agricultural base.
This agricultural base laid the foundation for the subsequent early historic urban growth in the Ganga plains and other regions.
The archaeological dimensions of early historic India will be discussed, focusing on key features rather than detailed exploration.
Finally, general issues concerning the exclusively archaeological history of the land will be considered.

THE LAND MASS

Geographical Preliminaries

The Indian land mass is a well-defined geographical entity located between 8°N and 36°N latitudes, extending from Cape Comorin in the south to the K-2 peak in the north.
The total area of Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Bhutan is about 4.4 million sq km, slightly less than Europe’s 4.72 million sq km, with a combined population well above one billion.
The name India is derived from the Greek “Indos,” which itself comes from the Sanskrit Sindhu, referring to the Indus river.
Bharatavarsha is the ancient Indian name for the land, with boundaries defined in the Vishnupurana between the Himalayas in the north and the sea in the south.
Jambudvipa is another term in Sanskrit for the land mass.
The subcontinent’s geography includes three geomorphological components: the Extra-peninsular Mountain System, the Indo-Gangetic Alluvial Plain, and the Peninsula.
The Himalayan mountain-building system is still active, beginning in the geologically young Tertiary period.
The Indo-Gangetic Alluvial Plain was formed from mountain-building debris, while the Peninsula is an ancient, stable block of the earth’s crust.
The geological baseline is formed by Archaean deposits in the Peninsular block, including granites, gneisses, Dharwar, and Aravalli formations (early pre-Cambrian).
The Cuddapah rocks and Delhi Quartzites form the younger pre-Cambrian period.
The Vindhyan rocks from the Cambrian to Ordovician period are found in Madhya Pradesh, with the Vindhyan range as a prominent outcrop.
The Gondwana group spans from the Permian to Triassic periods, associated with coal seams in rivers like Godavari, Mahanadi, and Damodar.
The Deccan lava formation is from the late-Cretaceous and early-Tertiary periods, covering about half a million square kilometers with basalt deposits.
The coastal alluvium and the Narmada and Tapti basins represent the youngest geological stage in the Peninsula.
The Extra-peninsular Mountain System includes the Karakoram and Hindukush, with other ranges like Ladakh, Zaskar, and Patkai.
The Indus system includes the Indus and its five tributaries: Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej.
The Indus flows for about 2900 km, and the Jhelum and Chenab unite before meeting the Ravi.
The Yamuna and Ganga systems also dominate eastern India, with the Ganga flowing for about 2500 km, joined by tributaries like Ghaghra, Kosi, and Son.
The Brahmaputra originates in the Tibetan plateau, joining the Ganga and Meghna in Bangladesh.
Major rivers in eastern India include the Suvarnarekha, Mahanadi, Godavari, Krishna, and Kaveri, forming deltas in various regions.
The Narmada, Tapti, Banas, Chambal, and Luni are significant rivers in western and central India.
The monsoon is the most important climatic factor, with the north-east and south-west monsoons defining the pattern of rainfall, varying across regions.
The traditional soil classifications in India include alluvial, black cotton, red, and lateritic soils, each with variations.
Vegetation in India varies with rainfall, from evergreen forests in areas with over 80 inches of rain, to thorny scruband semi-desert in areas with under 50.8 cm of rainfall.
The wildlife in India, once abundant, now survives mainly in sanctuaries.
Geographical regions of India are difficult to define rigidly, but major areas include Baluchistan, NWFP, Kashmir, Punjab, Ganga valley, Assam, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, and various mountainous areas.

Geographical Issues

India in Relation to the Rest of Asia and Africa

India is isolated from the rest of Asia by a mountain rim, extending from Baluchistan in the northwest to the Chittagong coast in the southeast.
This isolation has allowed India to develop a distinct identity, particularly in terms of climate, but it is not absolute.
Mountains have not acted as complete barriers; in fact, they have sometimes acted as cultural saddles, supporting similar cultures on both slopes.
For example, Pushtu-speaking people live on both slopes of the Hindukush mountains, and Central Asia influences areas like Hunza and Gilgit.
Ladakh in the north-east is referred to as “little Tibet,” showing the cross-border cultural linkages between India and Tibet.
Myanmar‘s influence is visible along India’s eastern frontier, especially in the Arunachal Pradesh region.
Mountains have defined human movement, not as barriers but as guiding lines for cultural and trade routes.
In Baluchistan, both Pakistani and Iranian regions are connected, and key communication routes pass through areas like the Kej valley and Chagai hills, linking Iran and Baluchistan.
The British colonial period saw the construction of a railway line between Zahidan in Iran and Quetta in Pakistan, which became part of the Hippie trail in the 1960s.
Bolan Pass, a major entry from Afghanistan to Pakistan, marks an important defile and is one of the key passes in the north-western mountain rim.
Gomal Pass, located further north, marks a defile of the Gomal River, connecting Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Khyber Pass, one of the most famous routes, connects Afghanistan to Pakistan and is known for its role in British colonial history and its romanticized portrayal in Rudyard Kipling’s stories.
Swat defile skirts the Khyber Pass, and routes through Peshawar and Chitral lead to the Pamirs, historically connected to Central Asia.
The Karakoram Highway, connecting Hunza and Gilgit, is a modern tourist attraction but follows ancient trade routes.
The Silk Route, linking China to Rome, passed through these mountain corridors, spreading Buddhism to Central Asia and beyond.
Famous Buddhist sites like the Bamiyan Buddha statues and Begram ivories mark the route of merchants, monks, and pilgrims.
During the early centuries AD, the Kushana dynasty dominated the region stretching from Central Asia to Gangetic India.
Moving east, the Himalayas provide limited access to Tibet through routes like Shipki La, Niti Pass, and the Chumbi Valley.
Tawang and Bomdila in Arunachal Pradesh provide another point of contact between Tibet and India.
Sadiya in the east provides a historical route to Yunnan in China, dating back to the 10th-12th centuries AD.
Myanmar is connected via several routes, including the Manipur valley, which led to Bhamo, a trade hub in the 19th century.
The Chittagong coast also maintained significant links with Myanmar.
India’s central position in the Indian Ocean facilitated key trade routes across the region, particularly through the Indus delta and the Gujarat coast.
Ancient maritime trade connected India with East Africa, evident in the discovery of Kushana coins in Ethiopia and Axumite coins from Ethiopia in India.
The Roman trade further expanded India’s role in the Indian Ocean trade, linking India to Mediterranean and South-East Asian trade networks.
Major ports along the Indian coast played a crucial role in this trade, with the river mouths of Narmada, Kaveri, and Ganga being especially significant.
Geography ensured India’s cultural and archaeological distinctiveness, maintaining a strong historical identity in trade and culture.

Frontiers and Boundaries

The boundaries of modern nation-states are products of various historical situations and are shaped by political forces rather than purely geographical factors.
For example, the Durand Line (India-Pakistan boundary) was delimited only in 1893, and the McMahon Line (India-Tibet boundary) was defined in 1913–14.
Geography is not always the primary determinant of political boundaries; the Radcliffe Line dividing Bengal in 1947 had little to do with geography.
The term ‘frontier’ in archaeology refers to a broader concept, denoting a transitional zone between two geographical areas where cultural and geographical influences from both areas have historically operated.
Frontiers are interaction zones, areas of geographical and cultural transition, present along the north-western, northern, north-eastern, and eastern political boundaries of the subcontinent.
Of these, the north-western frontier is the most historically significant, as it marked the meeting point of the political and cultural worlds of Iran, Central Asia, and India.
The northern frontier abuts the Tibetan plateau, which did not significantly impact the political history of India except for religious kingdoms and trans-Himalayan trade.
The eastern frontier, especially the Chittagong-Arakan sector, holds historical significance due to the existence of a kingdom in Arakan by the 4th century AD, which used Sanskrit and had a prehistoric fossilwood industry.
The north-western frontier interaction zone is wide, covering southern Central Asia, the eastern rim of Iran (from Meshed to Zabul), Afghanistan, and the Indus valley and Kashmir in India.
This interaction zone was politically unified under the Kushanas in the early centuries AD, and during other periods, it was politically fragmented due to influences from both South Asia and Central/West Asia.
The Mauryan kingdom extended from Patna to the southern flanks of the Hindukush, with its northern side influenced by Greek control following Alexander the Great’s conquest.
This zone was the origin of many pre-Islamic and Muslim invasions of India, with invaders often belonging to this broader interaction zone, thus part of the South Asian mosaic.
Economic interaction also ties this zone together, with Powindah traders regularly moving goods between Afghanistan and Pakistan, reflecting ongoing trade across the region.
Historically, the Hindu bania mercantile network spread widely across this interaction zone in the 19th century and earlier, facilitating trade throughout the region.
Archaeologically, this stretch from the Oxus to the Indus is significant, as the distribution of artefacts often suggests trade routes and the movement of goods rather than the movement of people or diffusion of culture.

India as a Geographical Entity

The geographical diversity of the Indian subcontinent is well-known, and some have argued that India as a unified entity did not exist historically, but is instead a result of European dominance.
Modern nation-states are products of modern political forces, and many European countries did not take shape as nation-states until the 19th century, a pattern that applies to India as well.
What is relevant to understanding India as a geographical entity is the historical and cultural understanding that India has had an identity as a unified landmass since ancient times.
Ancient texts, such as the Vishnupurana, refer to the land between the Himalayas and the sea as belonging to the descendants of the mythical king Bharata, suggesting an early notion of a unified land.
The concept of an universal emperor, or Chakrabarti-Kshetra, is also referenced in ancient political texts, describing the total subcontinental landmass as an ideal domain for political unity.
While this ideal of political unity existed, it was only infrequently achieved throughout history.
Hinduism is deeply rooted in the Indian landscape, with certain religious practices underlining the pan-Indiangeographical frame.
Major centres of Shakti worship (worship of the female principle) span from Hinglaj in Baluchistan to Sitakundanear Chittagong in the extreme southeast, indicating a broad cultural unity.
Major centres of Saivite pilgrimage stretch from Pasupatinath near Kathmandu to Rameshwaram in the deep south, further connecting the Indian subcontinent geographically.
Pilgrims performing the ritual for their ancestors at the sacred site of Gaya on the Falgu River are identified as coming from a land with many rivers, including the Indus and the Kaveri, reinforcing the idea of a unified land.
These references support the notion of Bharatavarsha, as described in the Vishnupurana, as a historical and geographical reality.

Major Geographical Lineaments of Indian History and Archaeology

India’s historical geography includes several major divides that help understand the geo-political forces at play.
The first major divide is the line joining Delhi, the Aravalli Hills, and the Gulf of Cambay, marking an area of influence of both the Indus-Oxus interaction zone and the Ganga Valley.
This region is a marchland, where influences from both the Ganga Valley and the Indus-Oxus stretch have operated.
The second major divide is the line of the Vindhyas and the Satpuras, representing a north-south divide in India.
To travel south from the Gangetic plains, one would have to cross this divide, except when traveling via the Orissan or Konkan coasts.
The third major divide is the terai belt, separating the northern hills from the plains below, which was historically swampy and jungly.
The terai was not cleared on a large scale until the commercial needs for timber and tea plantations arose.
A historical example of geo-political forces is seen in the movements of the Satavahanas and the Marathas.
Both empires had their epicentre in the upper Godavari valley, providing several geographical expansion opportunities.
The Satavahanas and Marathas could expand towards the Gujarat coast for maritime wealth, or through Malwa to gain access to the Ganga plains.
Another possible expansion direction was towards Vidarbha from the upper Godavari valley.
Southern Deccan control and expansion towards the Konkan coast and Tamil Nadu and Andhra were also important strategic moves.
The success of these expansions depended on the political situations in these areas, but the geographical choices were clearly defined.
Comparing the political movements of the Satavahanas and Marathas shows similarities, as both were shaped by the same geographical options available to them.
It is important to consider not only macro-geopolitical choices but also smaller terrain features, such as routes, agricultural pockets, and resource areas.
These smaller geographical features played a significant role in shaping Indian archaeology and history over time.

Areas of Attraction, Relative Isolation and Isolation: A Critique of the Idea

The scheme classifies different areas of the land based on population, agriculture, and the frequency of historical kingdoms.
In F.J. Richards’ system, there were four ‘areas of attraction’: the Ganga plain, the south, the Krishna-Godavari delta of Andhra, and Gujarat.
This simple classification was expanded in the writings of O.H.K. Spate and B. Subbarao.
In Subbarao’s scheme, the areas of attraction include Punjab, the Indo-Gangetic divide, Ganga basin, Malwa, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu.
Areas of relative isolation included Sind, Marwar, Gujarat, Saurashtra, Konkan, Kerala, and Assam.
The Aravallis, the central Indian highlands, and similar forested areas were considered areas of isolation.
The classification aims to provide a geographical framework for understanding multilineal cultural development in India.
These classifications may be historically inaccurate at times.
The forested areas of the subcontinent, labeled as areas of isolation, have been resource-bearing areas, contributing to the productive forces of the subcontinent.
An example is Gujarat, which was labeled as an area of relative isolation but was at the forefront of India’s maritime enterprises and economic development.
Geographical categories and divides are important, but their historical dimensions must always be considered.

PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES: THE BASIC CLASSIFICATORY FRAMEWORKS

The geographical diversity and homogeneity of India have been discussed, and now the focus shifts to its people and languages.
The elements of diversity are a major theme in this context, but understanding the conceptual frameworks of these diversities is crucial.
The challenge lies in the correlation between the biological attributes of human groups, their language, and their archaeological and historical past.
For a long time, this correlation was a cardinal, almost axiomatic assumption in archaeological and historical studies.
This approach formed the basis for judging history in terms of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ ‘races’.
Many still believe in this approach, even in the modern world.
There is a voluminous literature on this topic specifically in the context of the subcontinent.
No student of Indian archaeology or history can avoid encountering the various classificatory schemes proposed for Indian people and languages.

Recent Approach of the Anthropological Survey of India

The People of India project by the Anthropological Survey of India (1985-1992) identified approximately 4635 communities, covering all states and Union Territories of modern India.
If extended to other areas of the subcontinent, this number may increase substantially.
Several volumes of the data have been published, including the methodology and conceptual framework behind this classificatory exercise.
The central concept of the project is ‘community’, defined by territoriality, the ‘we’ feeling, and a partial social system.
The project considers community a better term than caste or tribe, as traditional features of these categories are breaking down in modern India.
Community is seen as a dynamic category, constantly redefining itself and its relationship with other communities and environments.
Four types of communities were identified:
- Large categories like castes and minorities.
- Major linguistic and cultural categories, such as Assamese, Bengali, Oriya.
- A few communities not meeting the three criteria of endogamy, occupation, and perception.
- Communities such as Adi Dharma, Adi Karnataka, etc., which arose after constitutional reforms in the 1920s and 1930s.
Of the 4635 communities, 2209 main communities and 586 segments were identified, with their total number rising to 4635 when distributed across states and Union Territories.
Occupations, places of origin, and religious affiliation often define communities, e.g., Sapera (snake catchers), Bansfors (bamboo basket makers), Kanpuria (people from Kanpur), Kabirpanthis (followers of Kabir).
Even mendicants like Aghoris, Bairagis, and Fakirs form communities.
Distinctive dress, ornaments, and body markings also denote communities, e.g., the Lingayat community in south India.
Food habits reveal that about 20% of communities are vegetarians, with most males being non-vegetarians. Alcohol is consumed by 2469 communities, with 1106 using it regularly.
Linguistic homogeneity is prevalent, but bilingualism occurs in 64.2% of communities. The number of scripts is in flux, with 11 scripts used for scheduled languages.
Some communities are re-inventing ‘lost’ scripts for distinct identity, e.g., Santal script of Ol Chiki.
Genetic and morphological traits vary more within communities than between them.
Social organizations vary widely, including clan organizations, marriage patterns, and symbols.
The varna system affects the social hierarchy, though only 68.5% of communities are aware of it, with tribals often outside the system.
Dual varna categories exist in 104 communities, and Muslim and Christian communities also recognize their place in the varna system.
Hierarchical divisions within communities are diminishing as political associations form, and religious affiliations are fluid.
Occupational groups like Chamars (leather-workers), Jogis (mendicants), Kumhars (potters), Kalus (oil-pressers), and Nais (barbers) have widespread distribution but are not static.
Despite diversity, society is not perceived as fragmented; it is viewed as a ‘honeycomb’ where communities interact and share space, ethos, and cultural traits.
Earlier Anthropological Survey of India studies on material traits like village forms, cottages, diets, and tools suggest a degree of regionalism, but this is independent of language or physical types.
Kinship exists across India, seen in peasants, weavers, and potters of various regions sharing similar material traits.
Social organization is more similar across castes and linked productive organizations, with differentiation occurring in finer aspects.
As one rises in higher spheres like laws, faiths, or art, the material distinctions fade, replaced by a unity of beliefs and aspirations, giving Indian civilization a distinct character.
Indian unity is structured like a pyramid: greater differentiation at the material level and progressively less as one moves higher.

The Classificatory Systems Based on the Concept of Race

A well-known and deep-rooted approach to the study of Indian people is the system of racial classifications, primarily associated with H.H. Risley, who first published his all-India scheme of races in 1901 as part of the Indian census report.
The concept of race is based on the study of human physical characteristics, including skeletal and surface features such as skull shape, nose shape, hair form, skin colour, eye colour, teeth, and body proportions.
Cephalic index, or the proportion of breadth to the length of the head, has long been central to racial classifications, with categories such as brachycephalic (broad-headed), mesocephalic (medium-headed), and dolichocephalic (long-headed).
The relationship of the nose breadth to height classifies people into platyrrhine (broad-nosed), mesorrhine (medium-nosed), and leptorrhine (narrow-nosed) groups.
The concept of race often mixes language elements, and racial classifications have historically carried a tone of superiority and inferiority, with an inherent hierarchy of races.
Such racial ideas reached their peak in Nazi Germany and influenced modern political and social contexts.
Biological anthropologists increasingly reject race as a meaningful concept, as demonstrated by the Indian Statistical Research Institute study in 1990, which found that the people of India cannot be classified into fixed ethnic categories based on anthropometric data.
By the end of the 19th century, racial classification was accepted in Europe and began to be applied in India, primarily to serve imperial interests and the British policy of divide and rule.
In 1886–88, Risley conducted a survey in Bengal, Bihar, UP, and Punjab, publishing his findings in 1891, which laid the foundation for the later People of India project.
Risley’s racial categories for the Indian population were:
1. Turko-Iranian: Includes Baluch, Brahui, and Afghans from Baluchistan and NWFP, characterized by tall stature, fair complexion, and broad head.
2. Indo-Aryan: Includes Rajputs, Khatris, and Jats from Punjab, Rajputana, and Kashmir, with fair complexion, dark eyes, and long head.
3. Scytho-Dravidian: Includes Brahmins in Maharashtra, and Kunbis and Coorgis from western India, medium stature, fair complexion, and broad head.
4. Aryo-Dravidian: Found in UP, Rajasthan, Bihar, and Sri Lanka, with lower stature, broad nose, light brown to black complexion.
5. Mongolo-Dravidian: Includes Brahmins and Kayasthas of Bengal and Muslims from Eastern Bengal, with dark complexion, medium to broad nose, and plentiful facial hair.
6. Mongoloid: Found in the Himalayan belt and Brahmaputra valley, characterized by small stature, yellowish complexion, flat face, and broad head.
7. Dravidian: Found in the Peninsula, with examples like Paniyans and Santals, broad nose, dark complexion, and short stature.
Risley’s classification was based on his perceptions of Indian history and languages, and he correlated race with occupation and caste.
The Indo-Aryans were considered the highest race in Risley’s hierarchy, leading to claims of Aryan lineage among upper-caste Indians.
R.P. Chanda challenged Risley’s theory, claiming that the Bengali upper castes were not of Mongoloid descent but had Aryan origins.
A significant modification of Risley’s classification occurred in the 1931 census, where B.S. Guha and J.H. Huttoncontributed to the racial history of India.
Guha’s racial types included categories based on cranial features and identified aboriginal populations and their racial history, including Mongoloid and Armenoid influences.
Hutton’s racial history of India was more culturally oriented, describing early migrations from regions like Palestineand Mediterranean influences, followed by Indo-European migrations around 1500 BC.
By 1994, the anthropological view still included ethnic classifications and racial history based on ancient migration theories.
The Linguistic Survey of India (1903–1927) by G.A. Grierson identified four main language families: Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austric/Austro-Asiatic, and Tibeto-Burman, with the majority of people speaking Indo-Aryan languages.
Modern India recognizes 845 languages and dialects, with the majority speaking Indo-Aryan languages, followed by Dravidian and Tibeto-Burman languages, and various regional scripts derived from the ancient Brahmi script.
The 1951 census reflected this linguistic diversity, with around 11 major scripts in use today.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The chapter focuses on the academic and physical context for understanding the book’s subject matter.
Archaeology is primarily concerned with the story of human cultural growth in the physical context of land.
The land cannot be separated from the general academic milieu of its study, which is why the two contexts are integrated.
Geography plays a major role throughout the discussion of India’s evolution from the Palaeolithic to the early historic period.
The analysis emphasizes the geographically multilinear character of the subcontinent’s archaeological development.
Archaeologists are required to take a long-term view of history at the grassroots level due to the nature of archaeological data and the time-span it covers.
French historian Braudel’s view is invoked, stating that history is about the relationship between humans and the earth, which persists over time.
This “dialogue” with the earth, according to Braudel, is ongoing and enduring, tenaciously repeating itself, even as it changes superficially.
The passage emphasizes the importance of this long-term perspective in archaeological study throughout the volume.