Archaeology of South Asia

Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only.Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use.

This article was originally published in the International Encyclopedia of the Social& Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy

is provided by Elsevier for the author’s benefit and for the benefit of theauthor’s institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including

without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specificcolleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator.

All other uses, reproduction and distribution, includingwithout limitation commercial reprints, selling orlicensing copies or access, or posting on open

internet sites, your personal or institution’s website orrepository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission

may be sought for such use through Elsevier’spermissions site at:

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial

From Sugandhi, N., 2015. South Asia, Archaeology of. In: James D. Wright(editor-in-chief), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences,

2nd edition, Vol 23. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 50–57.ISBN: 9780080970868

Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.Elsevier

Author's personal copy

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial

South Asia, Archaeology ofNamita Sugandhi, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA

� 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.This article is a revision of the previous edition article by G.L. Possehl, volume 22, pp. 14612–14622, � 2001, Elsevier Ltd.

Abstract

This article outlines the major cultural periods that have been archaeologically documented in South Asia. Beginning with thePaleolithic and Mesolithic eras, the sequence of cultures from the Neolithic/Chalcolithic, Iron Age, Early Historic, andMedieval periods is presented, with some attempt to characterize the significant regional variation that is seen throughouttime.

Nearly two and a half centuries of archaeological research inSouth Asia have uncovered rich and diverse traditions ofprehistoric and early historic cultures spanning millennia. Datafrom excavation, survey, ethnoarchaeological work, andexperimental research have provided a wealth of knowledgeabout the South Asian past that would be impossible toexhaustively detail in this short article. Although many havecritiqued the practice of adopting a periodization scheme basedon the European sequence or assumptions of social evolution,the chronology of South Asia is still conventionally dividedinto stages based on technology, typology, and subsistenceregime – though absolute dating techniques also provide someanchors. This article will follow a roughly chronologicalsequence from prehistoric to modern times, and will outlinemajor regional traditions associated with each period.

The Paleolithic

The Paleolithic is divided into Lower, Middle, and Upperphases, although other terms such as Pre-, Early, and LateAcheulean are also used. Stone tools associated with all threephases have been reported from across the Indian subconti-nent. Many tools occur as surface finds but artifacts have alsobeen recovered from stratified contexts. Many sites haveextremely long sequences, though there is also discontinuity,indicating the transient and shifting nature of habitationduring this time.

Early evidence for hominin activity across South Asia issporadic until the early Middle Pleistocene, though there areclaims that date back as early as 2.2 Ma at Riwat and the PabbiHills in the Siwalik deposits of northern Pakistan (Chauhan,2009a). The earliest evidence consists largely of chopper andcleaver Oldowan or Mode 1 pebble tools that are found atseveral locations across the Indian subcontinent. The LowerPaleolithic is divided into core-flake and Acheulean industries.Early Acheulean assemblages dated prior to 400 kya aredominated by biface hand axes and choppers and distributedacross the subcontinent, from northern Pakistan to Nepal,Karnataka, and in the Kortallayar valley in Tamil Nadu. LaterAcheulean sites are more numerous, particularly in central andpeninsular India, and are identified by a greater percentage offlake tools and use of prepared cores such as the Levalloistechnique (Ghosh, 1989).

The Late Acheulean–Middle Paleolithic transition is poorlyunderstood as prepared core techniques persist into theterminal Pleistocene. Middle Paleolithic assemblages havebeen dated to between 125 kya and 40 kya, and are distin-guished by a shift toward smaller tools and increasing use ofsiliceous raw materials such as chert, chalcedony, and jasper.Although only a few sites such as Nevasa in Maharashtra andSamnapur in the Narmada Basin are well stratified, MiddlePaleolithic assemblages have been recovered from a wide rangeof ecological zones from the high-altitude environments of theHimalayan and sub-Himalayan regions at sites such asSanghao cave near Peshawar in Pakistan, the Alakananda valleyin Northern India, and Arjun 3 in Nepal, to the semiaridenvironment of the middle Krishna valley and Shorapur Doabin South India (Chauhan, 2009b).

The archaeology of the Paleolithic eras has mostly focusedon the identification of stone tool types and understanding ofsubsistence. By the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic,evidence for more symbolic behavior is demonstrated byornamental objects such as ostrich shell beads and circularstone platforms indicating possible ritual activity (Ghosh,1989). Stone tool assemblages show a prevalence of parallel-sided blades and burins, and tools of other materials such asbone are also found. Important Upper Paleolithic sites includeBaghor II in the Son Valley, Patne in Maharashtra, and Kurnoolcaves in Andhra Pradesh (Raju and Venkatasubbaiah, 2002).Hundreds of other Upper Paleolithic sites and finds have beendocumented across the Indian subcontinent, and showevidence for long-term but intermittent occupation. At the siteof Bhimbetka, located in the Vindhyas, a series of occupationsfrom the Lower Paleolithic onwards has been documented, andincludes some of the earliest cave paintings in South Asia, datedto 30 000 BP (Chakrabarti, 1999).

The Mesolithic

The Pleistocene–Holocene transition is often associated witha ‘Mesolithic’ phase, which may be identified stratigraphically,or in terms of technology and subsistence. Like many transi-tional periods the South Asian Mesolithic is difficult to delin-eate and define (Chakrabarti, 1999). This phase is associatedwith the adoption of a wider spectrum of resources, andmovement into a broader range of ecological zones than in

50 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.13019-3

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 50–57


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.13019-3

previous periods. Technologically, the Mesolithic period ischaracterized by small flake tools or ‘microliths.’ Althoughmicroliths are found during many preceding and succeedingphases of South Asian prehistory, their association with theMesolithic remains strong, and the period is sometimesreferred to as a ‘microlithic phase’ (Ghosh, 1989). Mesolithicremains have been reported across South Asia, often at siteswith evidence for earlier Paleolithic occupation. However, onlya few Mesolithic sites have been excavated including Bagor inRajasthan; Chopani Mando in the Belan valley; and SaraiNahar Rai, Mahadaha, and Damadama in the Ganga valley(Misra, 2002). In Sri Lanka, some of the earliest humanremains have been discovered along with microlithic tools andartifacts made of bone and shell at sites such as Fa Hien Lena,Batadomba-lena, and Beli-lena, but sites dating prior to theMesolithic are few and require additional verification(Deraniyagala, 1992).

The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods

As climatic conditions became more favorable during theHolocene, numerous communities across South Asia beganthe process of plant cultivation and animal domestication.This development is generally associated with the beginningsof the Neolithic period, but it is a process which began atdifferent times across South Asia between the eighth and thirdmillennia BCE. During this span of time, some regionalcultures are characterized as ‘Chalcolithic’ based on the pres-ence of copper artifacts. Copper begins to appear in limitedquantities by the fifth millennium BCE, increasing infrequency over the next two millennia. Ground stone tools,early pottery, and evidence for permanent settlements are alsoassociated with ‘Neolithic’ period sites across South Asia;however, there is much regional variability in Neolithic stonetool assemblages. Similarly, previous assumptions about thelink between domestication, ceramics, and sedentism are nowunder question in many areas. Although there was a markedincrease in sedentism between the eighth and third millenniaBCE, various communities continued to practice more mobilelifestyles associated with pastoral or foraging subsistencestrategies. This heterogeneity continues across South Asia tothis day and must be factored into any consideration of pastsocial dynamics.

Once believed to be a singular development, paleobotanicalstudies have now confirmed that agriculture was initiated atmultiple locations across South Asia (Fuller, 2011). The earliestevidence comes from Baluchistan at the site of Mehrgarh in theBolan valley, where the transition from seminomadic pasto-ralism to sedentary agriculture between the eighth and sixthmillennia BCE may have been influenced by developments inWestern Asia (Allchin and Allchin, 1982). Excavations atMehrgarh yielded evidence for house structures, burials, anddomesticates such as barley, wheat, and cotton. There isevidence for the gradual domestication of cattle, goats, andsheep, though wild game continues to form an important partof diet – this is a pattern seen across South Asia throughouttime.

Several other sites in the northwest have provided evidenceof small agricultural settlements between the sixth and fourth

millennia BCE including Kili Gul Mohammad, Anjira,Mundigak, Gumla, and Sarai Khola (Ghosh, 1989; Singh,2009). At these sites and many others, Neolithic levels areidentified by features and artifacts such as mud brick structures,querns, pottery, and by paleobotanical and faunal evidence fordomesticated species (Allchin and Allchin, 1982). Many sitesand regions are associated with specific types of pottery tradi-tions including Nal, Kulli, and Hakra ware sites. Copperobjects, terracotta figurines, and beads made of semipreciousmaterials have also been recovered from Neolithic levels inmany places, and excavated human burials attest to a variety offunerary customs during this time (Ghosh, 1989).

Elsewhere in South Asia, early Neolithic traditions havebeen documented in numerous regions, many having distincttraits marking them as potential loci of indigenous develop-ment. Rice is an early domesticate in the Ganga valley andsurrounding plains, as well as in the northern fringes of theVindhyas (Fuller, 2011). Though paleobotanical evidence forrice is documented from very early periods in these regions,understanding of its transition from a wild to cultivated cropremains ambiguous and is possibly dependent on the timing ofhybridization of indica rice with japonica species introducedfrom China (Fuller, 2011). At sites such as Mahagara, Kol-dihwa, Chirand, and Senuar, Neolithic settlements have beendated from the fourth to third millennia BCE, though someearlier dates have also been suggested. In the Kashmir valley,Neolithic sites such as Burzahom and Gufkral are distinguishedby the presence of plastered pit dwellings between the third andsecond millennia BCE. In the Northeast, Neolithic stone celtsand axes have mainly been collected as surface finds. Neolithiclevels at Sarutaru, Marakdola, Napchik, and Selbalriri haveyielded some absolute dates in the range of the mid-secondmillennium BCE but there are suggestions that some of thesesites may date to much later periods (Ghosh, 1989;Chakrabarti, 1999; Singh, 2009).

Further to the south, early agricultural village sites havebeen uncovered in Orissa and Bengal such as Kuchai,Gopalpur, and Pandu Rajar Dhibi, while in peninsular India,a number of Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures have beendocumented, including the Ahar, Ganeshwar-Jodhpura,Malwa, and Jorwe complexes (Ghosh, 1989). These cultureshave been dated from the third to late first millennia BCE andare contemporaneous with the Indus civilization. At sites suchas Ahar, Gilund, Navdatoli, Daimabad, and Inamgaon, exca-vations have revealed evidence for copper artifacts in additionto stone implements. The presence of nonlocal materials suchas shell, gold, ivory, and semiprecious stones indicates theexistence of interregional networks of exchange across SouthAsia during this time.

In South India, the Neolithic traditions of the SouthernDeccan are marked by unique patterns of material culture andpaleobotanical evidence, suggesting this region was an inde-pendent center of early domestication. The cultivation of pulsesandmillets by the third millennium BCE at sites such as Hallur,Sanganakallu, Kurugodu, and Tekkalakota gradually intensi-fied to include a wide range of local and introduced species(Fuller et al., 2004). A distinctive feature of the early ‘SouthernNeolithic,’ confined mainly to Bellary and Raichur districts inKarnataka, are Neolithic ashmounds. These monumentalaccretions of vitrified dung indicate the importance of cattle in

South Asia, Archaeology of 51



the agro-pastoral economy and possibly represent the emer-gence of communal ritual activity (Paddayya, 1993; Johansen,2004). Further south, Neolithic levels at Paiyampalli in TamilNadu have been radiocarbon dated to the mid-secondmillennium BCE. Very early dates have been suggested for thecultivation of barley, oats, and possibly rice in the HortonPlains (Premathilake, 2008), but overall the transition from theMesolithic period to the better documented Iron Age remainspoorly understood in Sri Lanka.

The Indus Civilization

As the small farming and pastoral communities of peninsularIndia began to develop, the earlier Neolithic societies of theNorthwest were coalescing into a widespread tradition begin-ning in the fourth millennium BCE. The Indus or ‘Indus Valley’civilization is also known as the ‘Harappan’ culture, in refer-ence to the site of Harappa which, along with Mohenjo Daro, isone of the best known of the Indus urban sites. However,hundreds of other sites have now been documented acrossa vast region stretching from the foothills of the Himalayas toIran and Afghanistan in the west, eastwards into the Ganga–Yamuna doab, and across Saurashtra to the Gulf ofKhambhat (Kenoyer, 1998). These sites range in size from largeurban centers greater than 100 ha to much smaller sites in the1–5 ha range. Several periodization schemes have been devel-oped to characterize the emergence and eventual decline of theIndus civilization including the Early (c.3200–2600 BCE),Mature (c.2600–1900 BCE), and Late (c.1900–1300 BCE)Harappan phases; a fourfold scheme of Early Food Producing(pre-6000–4000 BCE), Regionalization (4000–2500 BCE),Integration (2500–2000 BCE), and Localization (2100–1300BCE) eras; and several more finely tuned regional and localchronologies based on pottery types or the stratigraphicsequence of a particular site (Ghosh, 1989; Possehl, 2002).

The earliest stages of the Indus civilization have beendocumented primarily along the Indus river system and inKutch. This preurban phase is marked by the appearance oflarger walled settlements and an overall intensification inagriculture, craft production, metallurgy, and trade. Many earlysites such as Mohenjo Daro, Harappa, Rakhigarhi, Dholavira,and Ganweriwala grew into large cities by the mid-thirdmillennium BCE (Kenoyer, 1998). In addition to this expan-sion, hundreds of new settlements were constructed acrossa vast and diverse landscape encompassing nearly one millionsquare kilometers. Although much regional variation exists,this period is considered a time of standardization, stability,and general cultural efflorescence. With the exception ofSaurashtra, where stone was frequently used, most Indussettlements were constructed of mud brick and baked brickarchitecture (Chakrabarti, 1999).

Hallmarks of the mature Indus tradition include the massproduction of distinctive ceramic wares such as black on redHarappan ware and other large-scale manufacturing includingshell working, bead making, and copper and bronze produc-tion. Thousands of seals and sealings have been recovered,many with common motifs such as the unicorn, humped bull,various wild animals, and a horned male figure sometimesreferred to as a ‘proto-Shiva’ (see Figure 1). Many seals and

other small objects bear short inscriptions in a logo-syllabicscript that remains as yet undeciphered. Settlements of allsizes are laid out according to a walled grid plan, and haveextensive water management systems for civic and domesticpurposes (see Figure 2). Typical Indus craft items such as beads;shell ornaments; terracotta figurines; and objects of copper,bronze, silver, and gold have been recovered from manydifferent types of sites, indicating the existence of strongintraregional networks linking villages, towns, and larger urbancenters (Kenoyer, 1998; Possehl, 2002).

Comparison of house sizes and human burials at manyIndus sites suggests the existence of some social division andunequal access to wealth during this period. However,a distinctive absence of monumental architecture, opulentmortuary remains, or other forms of lavish elite display make itdifficult to characterize the nature and structure of Indussociety. Interpretations have ranged from ideas of centralizedimperial control, to theories based on economic linkages(cf Ratnagar, 1991; Shaffer, 1982). Different interpretations ofIndus religion have been put forward, including links to laterHindu practices. No Indus temples have ever been documentedbut evidence for ritual activity is materially marked by smallobjects and features such as figurines, ring stones, and brick-lined pits interpreted as ‘fire altars.’ Additionally, it has beensuggested that the sophisticated hydraulic features found atmost Indus sites indicate a ritual association with water orbathing (Possehl, 2002). Barring decipherment of the Indusscript, or any more conclusive evidence, our understanding ofreligion during Indus times remains elusive.

Although our knowledge of political and social organiza-tion is still uncertain, the Indus civilization is typically clas-sified as a ‘state’ level society, with features of complexitycomparable to the contemporaneous Bronze Age societies ofthe Old World in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Western and CentralAsia, and the Arabian Peninsula. Evidence for trade between

Figure 1 Harappan seal (from harappa.com).

52 South Asia, Archaeology of



http://harappa.com

these societies has been documented by the sourcing of rawmaterials and artifacts, and by the Mesopotamian historicalrecord. Harappan seals, pottery, and carnelian beads havebeen found at several sites in Mesopotamia, Western Asia, andthe Persian Gulf, but few foreign artifacts have been recoveredfrom Indus sites (Singh, 2009). Sumerian cuneiform textsreferring to trade mention semiprecious stone; metals such as

gold, silver, and copper; ivory; ebony; and various types ofanimals from ‘Mehluhha’ in exchange for fish, grain, andwool. Additionally, there is also evidence for exchangenetworks linking the Indus civilization to the Neolithic andChalcolithic communities occupying other regions of SouthAsia (Possehl, 2002). The importance of trade and commerceto the Indus society is clear, and has been linked to both its

Figure 2 Mohenjo Daro (from harappa.com).




http://harappa.com

rise and fall. While trade may not have been a direct factor, itwas certainly a significant activity in the Indus social andeconomic milieu and is an important avenue for furtherresearch.

The Iron Age

The second millennium BCE brought sweeping changes acrossmuch of South Asia, although the cause and nature of thesetransformations remain poorly understood. They have oftenbeen correlated with an overall contraction of Bronze Agesocieties in the Old World, but explanations of this broaderdecline remain speculative and the phenomenon is most likelydue to a number of environmental and social factors. In theNorthwest, the ‘Localization’ era of the late Indus civilization ischaracterized as a time of dissolving urban traditions anddiminishing long-distance and interregional interaction.Settlements decrease in terms of both size and number, andthere is a significant shift in material culture that varies byregion.

Distinctive cultures such as the Jhukar and Cemetery Hgroups are identified by new forms of pottery and inhumationin the posturban layers of sites in Sindh and Punjab. To thenorth, the Gandharan Grave Culture has been dated from theearly second millennium to the third century BCE and ischaracterized by a number of inhumation styles, objects ofcopper and bronze, and some evidence for iron and horses(Singh, 2009). The material cultures of these regions showsome continuity with pre-Harappan and Harappan traditionsbut also have links with Central Asia. Theories that northern‘Aryan’ invaders were responsible for the Indus decline havenow been widely disproven but there is evidence for a gradualmigration of Indo-European speaking groups into the Indiansubcontinent during this period. These groups are difficult totrace archaeologically but linguistic studies have linked them tothe origins of the Sanskrit language and the earliest layers ofVedic tradition. It is likely that the practices of these new groupsmerged with the indigenous traditions they encountered toform the ritual and social customs that developed in the post-Indus period. Although agriculture practices continued todiversify during this time, a shift toward pastoralism is oftenhypothesized.

The post-Indus period is conventionally depicted as illit-erate and nonurban but there is strong evidence to suggestcontinued settlement in many regions, particularly to the eastand south of the Indus valley. Sites such as Daimabad in theupper Godavari Valley and Rojdi in central Saurashtra showsome evidence for expansion during later Harappan levels(Possehl, 2002). Archaeologically, the cultures of northernand central India are identified through a range of materialforms such as Ochre Coloured Pottery, which has beendiscovered at sites across the Ganga–Yamuna doab, andcopper hoards found primarily in the upper Ganga valley andeastern India (Ghosh, 1989). In addition to copper objects,more widespread evidence for iron use is documented acrossSouth Asia between the mid-second and mid-first millenniaBCE and thus the period is increasingly referred to as the ‘Iron

Age,’ though the use of ‘Vedic period’ as well as regional termsalso persists. Iron yielding levels are associated with a ceramictype known as ‘Painted Grey Ware’ from the Indus to Gangavalleys.

In peninsular India, continuity is seen at many earlierNeolithic and Chalcolithic sites, where the Iron Age is asso-ciated with an intensification in agricultural practices,increasing settlement size, and the construction of monu-mental features known as megaliths. Megaliths have beendocumented in various contexts across South Asia and inmany regions may have been built up until recent times(Moorti, 1994). Megaliths dated to the Iron Age are con-structed in a range of forms such as dolmens, cairns, menhirs,and circular alignments. Some contain human inhumationsand various objects such as iron implements, pottery, orfaunal remains (Moorti, 1994; Brubaker, 2000–2001). Inaddition to mortuary purposes, megaliths were sometimesconstructed to mark socially differentiated space and thusmay serve as an indication of increasing political complexityin South India (Bauer, 2011). A ceramic type known as ‘blackand red ware’ begins to appear more frequently, though it isseen during earlier and later periods as well. The Iron Age inSri Lanka is also better documented than previous periods. Atsites such as Anuradhapura and Ibbankatuva, early ironbearing levels have been dated as early as the eight and ninthcenturies BCE (Deraniyagala, 1992).

The Early Historic Period

As with other cultural periods in South Asia, the Early Historichas varying start dates across different regions. By the sixthcentury BCE, many settlements begin to grow into cities onceagain, thus marking the beginning of what is known as the‘second urbanization’ in northern India (Allchin, 1995).Initially centered in the Ganga valley, this urban expansioncontinued to spread across the northern and northwesternIndian subcontinent over the next two centuries and is asso-ciated with early literary traditions and the emergence of smallregional states known as janapadas. Though there are no extantwritten records, several later texts have been assigned originalcomposition dates of the mid-first millennium BCE. Thepolitical genealogies suggested by these texts can be cross-referenced with the numismatic record which also emergesaround this time. Additionally, the development and spreadof heterodox religions such as Buddhism and Jainismcontribute their own traditions of literary and materialculture.

In South India, the Early Historic period begins about threecenturies later, and is based on the date of the Asokan edictswhich are written in the Brahmi script, and also in Kharosthi.These inscriptions, which are distributed across the Indiansubcontinent, are associated with the third king of the MauryanEmpire (c.320–180 BCE), and are the first extant inscriptions tobe found in South Asia (see Figure 3). Though several possibleorigins for the Brahmi script have been proposed, its earliestdevelopment is still unclear. Research from Tamil Nadu and SriLanka has recovered graffiti-marked sherds from layers that




predate the Mauryan Empire (Deraniyagala, 1992; Mahadevan,2003). These early dates may substantially revise our under-standing of Brahmi, which is often attributed to foreign ornorth Indian origins.

With the advent of written records, the narrative of theSouth Asian past becomes less reliant on archaeology and thestudy of material remains. Nevertheless, historic periodarchaeology in South Asia has a long record of research, datingback to the historical geography of Colin Mackenzie in the lateeighteenth century. Early archaeological research focusedlargely on monumental remains such as the early Buddhiststupas at Bharhut, Sanchi, and Sarnath. However, excavationsin the early twentieth century at Pataliputra and Bhita in theGanga Valley, and Taxila in the northwest gave some indicationof the growth and character of the renewed urbanism thatemerged during the Early Historic period (Chakrabarti, 1995).Although hundreds of cities and smaller settlements have beenidentified across South Asia, excavations have been limited asoccupation at many sites has continued up until the presentday. This significantly complicates efforts at more intensiveexploration. Settlement evidence from survey and excavationresearch is often contrasted with details from Puranic and earlyBuddhist texts and with external references in Greek andRoman literature. More recently, remote-sensing techniqueshave been employed at sites such as Sisupalgarh and Kausambiin order to clarify additional details about city layout.

Layers associated with the Early Historic period are identi-fied by diagnostic artifacts such as Northern Black PolishedWare, punch-marked coins of bronze and silver, beadsmade of semiprecious stones such as carnelian and lapislazuli, and terracotta figurines (Ghosh, 1989). Many citiesincluding Kausambi, Rajgir, Ahicchatra, Mathura, Atranjikhera,Chandraketugarh, and Sisupalgarh are surrounded by extensiveramparts and fortification walls which may have served bothdefensive and symbolic purposes (Allchin, 1995) (seeFigure 4). Craft production areas have been identified at sitessuch as Ujjain (Ghosh, 1989), andmore recently at Indor Khera(Menon and Varma, 2010), but understanding of settlementorganization remains incomplete. Knowledge of Early Historicsocial life is still largely reliant on interpretations from thehistorical and epigraphic records. Inscriptions in Brahmi,

Karoshti, and later regional scripts are found with increasingfrequency from the third century BCE onwards and are carvedin stone and later on copper plates and other objects. As bothtext and material artifact, the epigraphic record providesa wealth of detail on political, economic, and social formsduring the Early Historic and later periods in South Asia.

In peninsular India, most settlements remained relativelysmall during the first part of the Early Historic period, thoughsome sites such as Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka may havereached urban proportions quite early (Coningham, 1999).While the janapadas of the north and northwest were beingabsorbed into imperial polities such as the Mauryan Empire,the late Iron Age communities of southern India were steadilygrowing into larger settlements supported by diversifyingsubsistence regimes that included new cultigens such as rice.New styles of pottery such as Rouletted Ware and Russet-Coated Painted Ware are associated with Early Historicdeposits (Allchin, 1995). Although conventional narrativesclaim that much of south India was incorporated into analmost pan-Indian Mauryan Empire by the third century BCE,recent research has proposed that interaction with northernimperial forces may have been much more limited (Ray, 2008;Sugandhi, 2013). Nevertheless, there is some evidence tosuggest the deliberate articulation of northern forms of sover-eignty and local traditions of authority during the Iron Age/Early Historic transition in the south. This begins the gradualincorporation of South India into the wider ‘pan-Indic’customs characteristic of the latter half of the Early Historicperiod. This is first seen through the construction of Buddhistmonuments, and later by the adoption of Brahmanical politicaland ritual traditions. Buddhist sites with initial dates ofconstruction as early as the second century BCE have beendocumented at Kanaganahalli in Karnataka and Amaravati inAndhra Pradesh. Sri Lanka also has many early Buddhiststructures that date to Early Historic times. According tohistorical sources, the first stupa at Anuradhapura was built inthe mid-third century BCE (Coningham, 1999).

In contrast to earlier models of imperial conquest, recentnarratives look to politically independent networks ofcommerce and religion as mechanisms of exchange and

Figure 3 Asokan edict at Erragudi (personal photograph). Figure 4 View of Sisupalgarh eastern rampart (courtesy of MonicaSmith).




integration between the cultures of the north and south (Ray,2003). Evidence for large-scale craft production has beendocumented at sites such as Kodumanal in Tamil Nadu andMantai in Sri Lanka, indicating participation in earlyeconomic networks. Trade items from the Mediterraneanregion have been identified at sites such as Arikamedu inPuducherry, Pattanam in Kerala, and at sites in Sri Lanka.Collectively, this evidence, along with written records, testifiesto the early incorporation of South India and Sri Lanka in theinterregional and long-distance relationships that traversedSouth Asia and connected it to the wider world (Ray, 2003).These connections certainly warrant further research in orderto better understand the processes of integration that devel-oped across the Indian subcontinent during the Early Historicperiod.

Understanding of religious networks has largely beeninferred from the literary and epigraphic records but can also beunderstood from the distribution of monastery sites, which areoften located at important points along trade routes. EarlyHistoric ritual architecture is largely confined to Buddhist stonestructures and the rock-cut caves of the Western and EasternGhats, which are mostly Buddhist and Jain during the earliestphases of construction. However, by the close of the EarlyHistoric period, these traditions were on the decline, as thenewly emerging bhakti (devotional) traditions of Hinduismbegan to take hold across the subcontinent. The earliestsurviving Hindu temples are built of stone and have been datedto the first few centuries of the Common Era (Singh, 2009).Early temples were small structures that are sometimes difficultto identify, but over time they grew into larger complexes suchas the sixth-century CE Vishnu temple at Deogarh in Bihar andthe seventh-century CE Durga temple built at Aihole inKarnataka (Sugandhi and Morrison, 2011). They are mostlikely predated by wooden or brick structures, which oftenform the early core of later stone constructions.

From the limited archaeological evidence available, it isclear that the Early Historic period was an extremely dynamictime in South Asia which saw the emergence of a number ofsignificant and enduring traditions, many of which continue upuntil the present day. Efforts to encapsulate these multipledevelopments within a single cultural period have provenfrustrating for archaeologists attempting to characterize theregional variation observed in the material record. Neverthe-less, understanding this variation remains an important goal inhistoric period archaeology of South Asia, and efforts to revisethe chronology in order to reflect this are currently underway.

The Medieval and Modern Periods

Archaeological research on the subsequent Medieval andModern periods (c.500–1500 CE, 1500 CE–present) is quitelimited in contrast to the fields of art and architectural history.Studies of material culture have mostly focused on monu-mental architecture such as temples and forts, and on thenumismatic and epigraphic records. Although many historicsettlements across South Asia continued to be occupied intomedieval times, little consideration has been given to theseremains. An important exception is the research that has beenconducted in the Tunghabhadra corridor in Karnataka around

the city of Vijayanagara, capital of an imperial polity that heldsway over much of South India between the fourteenth andsixteenth centuries CE (see Figure 5). Archaeological studies atVijayanagara have examined issues of craft production, inves-tigated the distribution of sites across the wider metropolitanarea, and examined the effects of long-term human land usethrough paleobotanical studies (Sinopoli, 2003; Sinopoli andMorrison, 2006, 2009). With the start of the Modern period(c.1500 CE), the line between archaeology and the history ofthe discipline becomes blurred. Though a few projects havelooked at the colonial use of space, archaeological studies ofthe Modern period are scarce.

Discussion

In closing this article of South Asian archaeology, a few finalpoints should be noted. As the descriptions above have hope-fully made clear, there is a tremendous amount of variationwithin and between the different cultural traditions that havebeen identified by archaeologists over time. As researchcontinues to document this diversity, it is increasingly evidentthat the immense complexity of the South Asian past is onlypartially represented by existing culture historical classifica-tions. Moreover, advanced techniques of analysis such asthermoluminescence and isotope studies continue to revise ourunderstanding of chronology, social process, and transitionacross both space and time.

Although the continuous nature of occupation at manyhistoric and prehistoric sites may provide valuable data onlong-term human–environment interaction, it also raises thechallenge of site destruction. Much archaeological researchconducted in South Asia may be classified as ‘rescue work’ asmodern processes of agriculture, construction, and miningthreaten thousands of sites. Attempts at mitigating thisdestruction include community outreach programs and heri-tage management strategies adapted to fit the South Asiancontext. The development of increasingly efficient documen-tation methods also holds much value, as the pace ofcontemporary development rapidly outstrips preservationefforts.

Figure 5 Entrance to Vitthala temple, Vijayanagara (personalphotograph).




Finally, the political use of archaeological knowledge mustbe mentioned and cautioned against. From the destruction ofthe sixth century BCE Bamiyan Buddhas in central Afghanistanto the court-ordered excavation of the Ram Janmabhoomi siteat Ayodhya in northern India, recent events in South Asia havehighlighted the significance that can be attached to archaeo-logical remains and the way perceptions of the past maybe used for contemporary political purposes. Archaeology isa science grounded in fact, but it is also an interpretive disci-pline conditioned by the biases of researchers and the publicalike. Future studies must strike a balance between objectiveresearch goals and reflection on these more subjective factors asit continues to document various aspects of the South Asianpast.

See also: Archaeology, Politics of; Asia, SocioculturalOverviews: South Asia; Buddhism; Food Production, Origins of;Historical Geography; Historical Thought and Historiography:South Asia; Language Families, Archaeology and History of;Religions of India; Third World.

Bibliography

Allchin, B., Allchin, R., 1982. The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

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

Bauer, A.M., 2011. Producing the political landscape: monuments, labor, water andplace in iron age Central Karnataka. In: Johansen, P.G., Bauer, A.M. (Eds.), TheArchaeology of Politics: The Materiality of Political Practice and Action in the Past.Cambridge Scholars Publishing, New Castle upon Tyne, pp. 83–113.

Brubaker, R., 2000–2001. Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian iron age.Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 60-61,253–302.

Chakrabarti, D.K., 1995. The Archaeology of Ancient Indian Cities. Oxford UniversityPress, Delhi.

Chakrabarti, D.K., 1999. India: An Archaeological History – Palaeolithic Beginnings toEarly Historic Foundations. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Chauhan, P., 2009a. The lower paleolithic of the indian subcontinent. EvolutionaryAnthropology 18, 62–78.

Chauhan, P., 2009b. The south asian paleolithic record and its potential for transitionsstudies. In: Camps, M., Chauhan, P. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions:Methods, Theories, and Interpretations. Springer, New York, pp. 121–139.

Coningham, R., 1999. Anuradhapura. The British-Sri Lankan excavations atAnuradhapura. Salgaha Watta 2. BAR International Series 824, Oxford.

Deraniyagala, S.U., 1992. The Prehistory of Sri Lanka: An Ecological Perspective.Department of the Archaeological Survey, Government of Sri Lanka, Colombo.

Fuller, D.Q., 2011. Finding plant domestication in the Indian subcontinent. CurrentAnthropology 52 (Suppl. 4), S347–S362.

Fuller, D.Q., Korisettar, R., Venkatasubbaiah, P.C., Jones, M.K., 2004. Early plandomestication in Southern India: some preliminary archaeobotanical results.Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 13, 115–129.

Ghosh, A., 1989. Encyclopedia of Indian Archaoelogy, vols. 1 & 2. Indian Council ofHistorical Research, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, New Delhi.

Johansen, P., 2004. Landscape, monumental architecture and ritual: a reconsiderationof the South Indian Ashmounds. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (3),309–330.

Kenoyer, J.M., 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Oxford UniversityPress and American Institute of Pakistan Studies, Karachi.

Mahadevan, I., 2003. Early tamil epigraphy: from the earliest times to the sixth centuryA.D. In: Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 62. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Menon, J., Varma, S., 2010. Reading archaeological evidence: ceramic and terracottaproduction at Indor Khera, Uttar Pradesh (200 BCE–500 CE). Indian HistoricalReview 37 (2), 187–216.

Misra, V.N., 2002. The mesolithic age in India. In: Settar, S., Korisettar, R. (Eds.),Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Prehistory. Indian Council of Historical Research,vol. I. Manohar, New Delhi, pp. 111–125.

Moorti, U., 1994. Megalithic culture of South India: socio-economic perspectives.Ganga Kaveri Publishing House, Varanasi.

Morrison, K.D., 2009. Daroji Valley: Landscape History,Place and the Making ofa Dryland Reservoir System. American Institute of Indian Studies, Manohar,New Dehi.

Paddayya, K., 1993. Ashmound investigations a Budihal, Gulbarga district. Man andEnvironment 18 (1), 57–88.

Possehl, G.L., 2002. The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective. AltaMiraPress, Walnut Creek.

Premathilake, R., 2008. The emergence of early agriculture in the Horton plains,central Sri Lanka: linked to late Pleistocene and early Holocene climatic changes.Pragdhara 18, 91–104.

Raju, D.R., Venkatasubbaiah, P.C., 2002. The archaeology of the upper palaeolithicphase in India. In: Settar, D., Korisettar, R. (Eds.), Indian Archaeology in Retrospect,Prehistory. Indian Council of Historical Research, vol. I. Manohar, New Delhi,pp. 85–109.

Ratnagar, S., 1991. Enquiries into the Political Organization of Harappan Society.Ravish Publishers, Pune.

Ray, H.P., 2003. The Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Ray, H.P., 2008. Interpreting the Mauryan empire: centralized state or multiple centersof control? In: Parker, G., Sinopoli, C. (Eds.), Ancient India in Its Wider World.University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 13–51.

Shaffer, J.G., 1982. Harappan commerce: an alternative perspective. In: Pastner, S.,Flam, L. (Eds.), Anthropology in Pakistan: Recent Socio-Cultural and ArchaeologicalPerspectives. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 166–210.

Singh, U., 2009. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age tothe 12th Century. Pearson, Delhi.

Sinopoli, C.M., 2003. The Political Economy of Craft Production: Crafting Empire inSouth India, c.1350–1650. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sinopoli, C.M., Morrison, K.D., 2006. Land use and settlement in the Vijayanagarametropolitan region: results of the Vijayanagara metropolitan survey. In:Shanmugam, P., Srinivasan, S. (Eds.), Recent Advances in Vijayanagara Studies:An Anthology. New Era, Madras, pp. 91–109.

Sugandhi, N.S., 2013. Conquests of dharma: network models and the study of ancientpolities. In: VanValkenburgh, P., Osborne, J. (Eds.), Territoriality in Archaeology.Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, vol. 22 (1),pp. 145–163.

Sugandhi, N.S., Morrison, K.D., 2011. Archaeology of hinduism. In: Insoll, T. (Ed.),Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion. Oxford University Press,Oxford, pp. 921–933.




Archaeology of South Asia

Documents

Transcript of Archaeology of South Asia