Development of Indian Archaeology

The Development of Archaeology in the Indian Subcontinent
Author(s): Dilip K. Chakrabarti

Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 13, No. 3, Regional Traditions of Archaeological Research II
(Feb., 1982), pp. 326-344
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124387 .
Accessed: 06/10/2014 13:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.135.154.99 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 13:18:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The development of archaeology in the Indian
subcontinent
Dilip K. Chakrabarti
Because of its sheer size, if for no other reason, the archaeology of the Indian subcontinent will
receive primary attention here. Among the earlier writings on this subject are Roy (1961), Ghosh
(1 953), Allchin (1 96 1), Imam (1 966) and Chakrabarti (1 976, 1979, 198 1) in the Indian context.
The roots
The first European notices of the living temples and ancient monuments of India are found in
the reports of travellers and sailors in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and the first half of the
eighteenth centuries. These notices relate primarily to west and south India. The most import-
ant records of living temples are by John Huighen van Linschoten in the late sixteenth century
and Pietro della Valle in the early seventeenth century. While Linschoten (Purchas 1905) was
unhappy about 'pagodes, cut and formed most uglie' Valle (1664) was detailed, objective and
remains unique among his contemporaries in the sense that he supplemented his descriptions of
south Indian temples with ground plans. Among the ancient monuments the rock-cut caves of
the Deccan, particularly Elephanta (Fig. 1), Kanheri and Ellora, attracted most attention (anon.
1785; Sen 1949). The descriptions were sometimes detailed, although there was no attempt at
historical explanations, except occasional references to Alexander. The two important archae-
ological landmarks on the Orissan coast, the Jagannath temple of Puri (the White Pagoda) and
the sun temple of Konarak (the Black Pagoda), were also recorded during this period
(D. Mitra 1968).
The middle of the eighteenth century
This period saw the beginning of a systematic and scholarly interest. First, accurate and precise
records of monuments began to appear and there was a better appreciation of India as a rich
and fruitful area of historical and archaeological investigations. Second, there was also the
beginning of theoretical research, primarily concerning the historical geography of the country.
In 1758 Anquetil du Perron (anon. 1785) was interested in the precise measurements and plans
of the Ellora rock-cut complex and its associated mythology. About 1760 he investigated
World Archaeology Volume 13 No. 3 Regional traditions II
( R.K.P. 1982 0043-8243/82/1303-326 $1.50/1
The development of archaeology in the Indian subcontinent 327
Figure 1 Architectural details of pillar and statue from Elephanta Island, Bombay. From the
log of Captain Pyke of the East-Indiaman Stringer, 1712, published in Archaeologia, 7, 1785,
-pp.
323-33 by Alexander Dalrymple
Elephanta
and Kanheri. Carsten Niebuhr's visits to
Elephanta,
where he 'mnade drawings
of all
the most remarkable
parts
of it', seem to be somewhat later
(anon. 1785).
In bothi du Perron
and Niebuhr one detects a
positive
awareness of India as an area of historical and archaeological
research. Niebuhr wrote: 'One still finds
among
the Indians, one of the oldest nations of the
world, so
many
valuable remains of
antiquity,
which deserve more attention from the literati of
Europe,
than has been hitherto bestowed on them'
(anon. 1785).
The first
significant
author on Indian historical geography
was M. D'Anville
(1753, 1775),
who was concerned, among
other
things,
with the identification of historical sites that had been
mentioned by
the Classical authors on India, such as the Palibothra of the Classical sources with
Pataliputra.
A fuller
subsequent study
of these
problems appeared
in a three-volume work by
Joseph Tieffenthaler, du Perron and James Rennell
(1786-88).
About this time Rennell
(3rd
ed.
1793) published
an
independent study
of his own. In all these volumes the
primary
concern
was with the identification of ancient sites.
328 Dilip K. Chakrabarti
The Asiatic Society
The Asiatic Society was founded in Calcutta on 15 January 1784, primarily at the initiative of
William Jones. An annual journal, Asiatic Researches, was first published in 1788 and a museum
was established in 1814. The aim of the Society was 'to inquire into the history and antiquities,
the arts, sciences and literature of Asia'. Three historical factors explain the success of this
society. First, it was increasingly clear that the early British role of the trader would be replaced
by that of a territorial ruler, and the time was ripe for a systematic investigation of the country.
Second, as Poliakov (1974: 183-88) has shown, in their attempt to free themselves from
Judaeo-Christian thought, Western philosophical thinking, particularly that of the French
Encyclopaedists, turned to India for the origin of culture and religion. This attitude is well
reflected in the writings of Voltaire, who was 'convinced that everything has come to us from
the banks of the Ganges, astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc.' (Poliakov 1974: 185).
This particular image of India exerted considerable influence on German Romanticism (Wilson
1964).
Third, the closing years of the eighteenth century witnessed the growth of many literary and
philosophic societies in Britain (Plumb 1966: 167):
By 1815 every provincial town of importance had its society, supported by both the local
aristocracy and the local manufacturers who were equally aware of the social value of
scientific discovery . . . The results of this activity were vast and valuable. The flora and
fauna of Britain, the nature of its soils and rocks, were examined in detail, catalogued, and
given a scientific order and arrangement.
The foundation of the Asiatic Society in Calcutta was entirely in keeping with the scientific
spirit of late eighteenth century Britain.
Early theoretical approaches
There were two early theoretical traditions. The first was distinctly geographical in content and
a continuation of the earlier historical-geographical studies. In the late eighteenth century its
chief exponent was Rennell (1793), who identified ancient Pataliputra with modern Patna. He
was also aware that ancient Ujjayini was the Ozene of the Periplus and Ptolemy. On some sites,
such as Gaur, he made precise measurements. By and large Rennell's was a factual approach
that tried to bring an element of objectivity into the reporting of ancient Indian monuments
and sites.
The primary exponent of the second theoretical tradition was William Jones, who tried to
link Indian history to Universal History as it was then understood. Its important source was the
ten 'discourses' Jones delivered on various topics between 1784 and 1793 (published between
1788 and 1793) as President of the Asiatic Society. When he delivered his discourses,
the
biblical theory of human creation was still dominant. There was no doubt about the unitary
origin of mankind from a common ancestor. In this way all branches of the human family were
thought to be linked and likely to show survivals in various spheres of life that would reflect
their commlon ancestry and spread from a single place of origin. One of the main issues before
Jones was to understand these survivals in the Indian context and to demonstrate how ancient
India and Indians were historically linked to other human groups in the world. This theme is
recurrent in virtually all his discourses. Jones's idea of the affinity of Sanskrit with several other
ancient languages neatly fitted into this thought-pattern. In the third discourse delivered on
2 February 1786 (1788: 430-1), he argued that the speakers of Sanskrit
had an immemorial affinity with the old Persians, Ethiopians and Egyptians, the Phoenicians,
Greeks and Tuscans; the Scythians or Goths, and Celts; the Chinese, Japanese and Peruvians;
whence, as no reason appears for believing that they were a colony from any one of these
nations or any of these nations from them, we may fairly conclude that they all proceeded
from some central country . . .
Jones's ideas were echoed by many of his contemporaries, although in a different form.
T. Maurice (1800-1) wrote a seven-volume study of Indian Antiquities in which antiquities
themselves hardly figured, but there were discussions of such esoteric issues as the Indian origin
of Druids. This was not an isolated idea but may be found in the works of a number of authors
until the middle of the nineteenth century (Chakrabarti 1976). With his emphasis on India as
the centre of all things, Maurice echoes the tradition of the Encyclopaedists. Francis Wilford
(1792) sought to trace the origin of the Nile on the basis of 'Hindu sacred books'.
The point which must be stressed is that William Jones and many of his contemporaries were
not interested in accurately observing and reporting on Indian antiquities and monuments. For
them, the basic problem was to integrate the emerging historical knowledge of India with con-
temporary notions concerning the origin of culture and civilization and within the framework
of the unitary origin
of man as laid down in the Bible. These provided a
significant
frame
work for interpreting the Indian past. Jones's linguistic hypothesis linking Sanskrit to Greek,
Latin and other languages, is only a part of this interpretive framework evolved in the context
of pre-evolutionary thinking. If to Jones (1792) the centre of population, knowledge, languages
and all the arts was Iran, some of his contemporaries made India the centre of all things (cf.
Maurice 1800-1). Until the middle of the nineteenth century it was believed that different
cultural influences along with actual migrations of people went out of India, ultimately pen-
etrating as far north as Scotland. From the middle of the nineteenth century, however, an
entirely contradictory hypothesis was generally promoted: India was at the receiving end of
various cultural influences and migrations of people emanating from regions further west.
Whether this reversal of opinion had something to do with the establishment of the Raj in the
post-Mutiny period is, of course, difficult to determine, but the coincidence is too clear to be
overlooked (Chakrabarti 1976). Both these hypotheses have one thing in common: emphasis is
placed on movements of people as an explanation of historical change. In the historical studies
on ancient India this explanation, which is rooted in pre-evolutionary thought-patterns, has
served as the cornerstone of almost all historical explanations. It is also forgotten that the
linguistic hypo-thesis of William Jones, which gave rise to the Aryan hypothesis, is part of the
paradigm of pre-evolutionary Universal History.
1784 to 1830
There are at least three records of field discoveries (Davis 1790; Duncan 1798; Babington 1823)
and some descriptions of ancient monuments (Chambers 1788; Harrington 1788; Goldingham
1795, 1798; Mallet 1799; Stirling 1825; Alexander 1830) during this period but it deserves
attention primarily because of two, basically non-archaeological, surveys which also recorded
monuments and sites. Colonel Colin Mackenzie was a military engineer who subsequently
became the Surveyor General of the Topographical Survey of India. Much of his antiquarian
work, which was done principally in south India, remains unpublished, but his notes and
drawings have been used by many later authors. It has been said that 'Mackenzie visited nearly
every place of interest south of the Krishna river, and prepared over 2,000 measured drawings
of antiquities, carefully drawn to scale, besides facsimiles of 100 inscriptions, with copies of
8,000 others in 77 volumes' (Imam 1966: 17). The second important surveyor of this period
was Francis Buchanan, whose south Indian surveys were published in 1807. His surveys in east
India remained unpublished for a very long time. Buchanan noted archaeological sites, and his
field observations are still useful because they recorded details which have since been lost.
1830 to 1861
The period beginning in 1830 witnessed a significant increase in archaeological activities. This
was due largely to the personal enthusiasm and influence of James Prinsep, the assay-master of
the Calcutta mint who became the focal point of the Asiatic Society and guided its activities
along a new line. His call must have sounded inspiring to many of his contemporaries: 'What the
learned world demands of us in India is to be quite certain of our data, to place the monumental
record before them exactly as it now exists, and to interpret it faithfully and literally' (1838).
Another factor which gave considerable impetus to archaeological research during this period
was the decipherment of ancient Indian scripts in which Prinsep himself played the key role.
The process of decoding the Brahmi script began in the late eighteenth century with the
decipherment of two ninth-tenth-century inscriptions by Charles Wilkins (1788a, b). It
culminated in the reading of the Asokan edicts of the third century BC by Prinsep in about
1837 (Prinsep 1838). About the same time Prinsep and others read the Kharosthi script which
had been current, principally in the northwest (Sircar 1976). The decipherment of these two
main early scripts resulted in a better understanding of the ancient Indian historical framework,
within which it became possible to appreciate archaeological discoveries. It was also during this
period that the foundations of the study of ancient Indian numismatics were laid down.
Perhaps the most significant numismatist of the period was James Tod. Many well-known series
of coins which were to revolutionize the study of ancient Indian history were brought into promi-
nence by Tod, a task in which he was soon joined by Prinsep among others (Imam 1966: 17).
As far as the discoveries are concerned there were two major geographical foci, the north-
west and the north Indian plain. In south India, the digging of megaliths (plate 1) was a popular
pastime, but this did not lead to anything (Harkness 1832). Barrows of a different form, the
Buddhist sepulchral stupas or, as they were called in the contemporary literature, topes, pro-
vided the main attraction in the northwest. The process began with M. le Chevalier Ventura, a
general in Ranjit Singh's army, who opened the Manikiyala stupa in Panjab by driving a shaft
through its centre (Prinsep 1834a, b, c, d). A. Court, an engineer in the same army, provided
further information about this stupa and thought it to have been a 'royal tomb' (Court 1834).
Alexander Burnes of the Bombay army, seeking 'the topes and Grecian remains in the Punjab',
found himself being directed to from place to place 'like one in search of the Philosopher's
stone' (Burnes 1833). Increasing attention was paid to the sites in the north Indian plain.
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
Plate 1 A megalithic site with a monolithic anthropomorph on top (Mottur, North Arcot
District, Tamil Nadu). Megalithic sites in the south of India excited attention since the first
half of the eighteenth century (courtesy B.K. Sinha)
.........n ... ..
..... ...
Pla te 2 General view of an excavated tank
complex (1st-2nd century AD) at
Sringaverpur,
Allahabad
District,
UP
(courtesy Archaeological Survey of
India)
In 1834, at Behat near Saharanpur, P. T. Cautley (1834a, b) made an attempt to correlate an
early historic settlement with the broad geographical features of the locality. The settlement
was dated to the 'commencement of the Christian era' on the basis of coins. In 1837 Edward
Conolly (1837) made 'observations upon the past and present condition of Oujein or Ujjayini'.
In 1843 Alexander Cunningham gave 'an account of the discovery of the ruins of the Buddhist
city of Samkassa' or Sankisa. This publication is important because for the first time it lays
down the basic methods employed in Cunningham's subsequent surveys (Cunningham 1843).
The main guide in this case were the writings of Fa xian, whose travels in India in the fifth
century AD provided the basic geographical bearings; all that Cunningham did was make a
topographical survey of the ruins with comments on their probable identification. In 1856
A. F. Bellasis (1856a, b) described in considerable detail the early historic city of Brahminabad.
Descriptions of ancient sites during this period may easily be multiplied, but what is
important is that by the middle of the nineteenth century there was a clear understanding of
the archaeological wealth of India. And in Meadows Taylor's megalithic excavations at Jiwarji
(Taylor 1856) one also encounters a concern for stratigraphical details and careful recording,
although Taylor must be considered far ahead of his contemporaries in this matter.
Alexander Cunningham
The need for a methodical survey under government sponsorship was being increasingly felt and
this was clearly expressed by Alexander Cunningham (1848). Apart from emphasizing the need
for a government-sponsored survey, he clearly stated his preferences and methods in this
publication. Monuments and antiquities had to be published in a systematic manner and
adequate consideration given to those associated with Buddhism. In the proposed survey the
accounts of the two Chinese Buddhist pilgrims, Fa xian in the fifth century AD and Xuan zang
in the seventh century AD, would be the geographical guides. Imam (1966) has explained
Cunningham's enthusiasm for Buddhist relics. The publication of Fa xian's travels in French in
1836 and Stanislas Julien's translation of Xuan zang's work in 1857 and 1858 along with the
proof of the historical authenticity of Buddha through textual researches in Nepal, Burma and
Sri Lanka, where Buddhism was still a living religion,
marked a significant breakthrough in
Indological studies and Cunningham was one who was deeply influenced by it. His concern with
the Chinese travel accounts was also rooted in his interest in the topographical survey of ancient
settlements which he, as a military engineer, could hardly escape.
Interestingly enough, Cunningham also thought that a search for Buddhist ruins would
demonstrate that Brahminism was not the only paramount religion in India and this knowledge
would facilitate the propagation of Christianity there. Second, 'it would show that India had
generally been divided into petty chiefships, which had invariably been the case upon every
successful invasion; while whenever she had been under one ruler, she had always repelled
foreign conquest with determined resolution' (1848). In other words, he was trying to justify
the systematic archaeological exploration of India on the grounds that politically it would help
the British to rule India and lead to an easier acceptance of Christianity in the country. As the
head of the newly constituted Archaeological Survey in 1861, Cunningham himself initiated the
explorations he proposed, but it must be understood that by the middle of the nineteenth
century the basic nature of the monuments and historical sites in India was well understood.
It is worth while to recall that around this time the study of Indian architecture took a
systematic shape. The primary credit here goes to James Fergusson, who undertook an architec-
tural survey between 1834 and 1845 and arranged the Indian architectural remains in an
evolutionary order on the basis of his analysis of structural features (Allchin 1961).
Cunningham headed the Archaeological Survey for two spells, 1861-5 and 1871-85. The
Survey was disbanded in 1865 and organized again in 1871. In the first phase he worked alone;
in the second he was allowed two assistants. Over a total of nineteen years he went over the
ground, sometimes repeatedly, of a surprisingly large amount of territory which included the
whole of the Gangetic valley, Panjab and the Northwestern Frontier Province, central India and
Rajputana. No archaeologist in India, before or since, has had such a close personal familiarity
with such an impressive stretch of territory. The results of surveys done either by him or by
his assistants are contained in the twenty-three volumes of his Reports, published between 1862
and 1887. Along with his basic field reports one must also consider his analytical writings on
historical geography, coins, inscriptions, architecture and sculpture. To all these fields he made
significant contributions, in many cases on the basis of his own findings (for a comprehensive
bibliography of Cunningham, see Imam 1966).
In his Memorandum of Instructions to his assistants written in 1871, Cunningham set a high
ideal for archaeology (1873): 'Archaeology is not limited to broken sculptures, old buildings
and mounds of ruins, but includes everything that belonged to the world's history . . . our
researches should be extended to all ancient remains whatever that will help to illustrate the
manners and customs of former times'. This ideal notwithstanding, he remained throughout the
course of his official explorations true to the goal he set for himself as early as 1848, if not
earlier: the elucidation of Indian historical geography by following the footsteps of Fa xian and
Xuan zang. By training a military surveyor and engineer who attained the rank of major-general,
he remained to the end an archaeological surveyor concerned with the issues of Indian historical
geography. In most cases his identifications of ancient sites have proved to be correct.
Excavations, for Cunningham, were matters of test-probing which was never followed by a
planned effort. The basic method, in the case of a stupa, was the digging of a well to the centre.
In this he followed the tradition of opening stupas developed in the northwest. In situations
where no superficial remains were visible, he dug long trenches to hit structures. In these
explorations his main concern was the identification of the sites in the light of ancient records.
The details of the site did not always interest him. Cunningham's near total preoccupation with
historical geography places him in the tradition that had begun in India in the second half of
the eighteenth century. Yet by making the geographical issues clear and by successfully
demarcating the fields of ancient Indian numismatic, inscriptional, architectural and sculptural
studies he made possible the more detailed and in-depth studies of individual monuments,
groups of monuments and sites by some of his contemporaries and successors.
James Burgess
Cunningham's successor in the Survey, James Burgess, was inspired by the tradition of architec-
tural studies initiated by James Fergusson. Before he came to the Survey, he made his mark by
undertaking and organizing a series of detailed surveys of some of the principal monuments of
west and south India. In 1872 he started a journal, Indian Antiquary, which came to be famous
for its detailed inscriptional and other historical studies. Inscriptional studies were put on a
more secure basis with the series Fpigraphia Indica and with the appointment of a government
epigraphist some time later. However, the main interest of Burgess lay in
architecture, and
under him archaeology in India was equated with the study of structures (Burgess 1905):
ancient stupas and other remains were dug up and demolished under the idea that the relic
caskets or any entire pieces of sculpture found within or about them were the only objects of
archaeological research, whilst no attention was paid to the character and size of the build-
ing, or to what bricklayers would call the 'bond' of the bricks, their moulding, size, etc.
matters from which important deductions might possibly be drawn as to the age, purpose,
arrangement and relations of sculptures, and history of a structure.
Burgess's monographs on various groups of monuments published both before and after his
retirement from the Survey in 1889 constitute one of the major foundations of Indian architec-
tural studies. Yet it would be wrong to say that archaeology as such flourished under him in the
Survey. In fact, in the post-Cunningham period there was virtually no concern with field archae-
ology. The period witnessed significant developments in the general historical understanding of
ancient India but, by and large, field archaeology remained totally neglected until the appoint-
ment of John Marshall as the head of the Survey in 1902.
John Marshall
It would be invidious in this context not to acknowledge the debt Indian archaeology owes to
Lord Curzon, then the Viceroy. It was under his direct patronage that John Marshall began
work, and it was he who laid down the basic guidelines of this work:
It is in the exploration and study of purely Indian remains, in the probing of archaic
mounds, in the excavation of old Indian cities, and in the copying and reading of ancient
inscriptions, that a good deal of the exploratory work of the archaeologist in India will in
future lie . . . It is in my judgement equally our duty to dig and discover, to classify, repro-
duce, and describe, to copy and decipher, and to cherish and conserve (cited in Marshall
1904).
Marshall directly shaped the course of Indian archaeology until 1928, when he retired. Conser-
vation of ancient monuments and objects was among his first priorities and the basic principles
of conservation laid down by him in the Indian context (Marshall 1923) are still followed by
the Survey. The Survey was reorganized and centrally consolidated; the whole of the sub-
continent was neatly parcelled into a number of archaeological 'circles', each with its com-
plement of officers and men. The successive issues of the Annual Report beginning with the year
1902-3 faithfully reflect the manifold tasks performed by the officers of the Survey. Under
Marshall the Archaeological Survey of India became the largest single organization of its kind in
the history of archaeological research and witnessed its most glorious and 'imperial' period.
The details of the discoveries and excavations made in India during this period by Marshall's
colleagues and Marshall himself perhaps do not fit into the present survey of archaeological
traditions, but a few salient points cannot be ignored. First, no part of the country escaped
attention. Even a casual perusal of the Annual Reports indicates this. Second, specialized
studies of monuments, sites and areas were not neglected. The volumes published as Memoirs
bear witness to this fact. Third, some of the discoveries and excavations revolutionized the
study of Indian archaeology and ancient history. One has only to recall the discovery of
the Indus civilization and the long spell of excavations at Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, the
explorations of Aurel Stein in Baluchistan, the explorations of N. G. Majumdar in Sind, and the
excavations at Taxila and at some of the most important early historical sites of the Gangetic
valley. It may be added that all these works have been fully published. Fourth, it was during
this period that the natives of the subcontinent were inducted into superior positions in the
Survey and associated with both excavations and discoveries. Several Indian scholars like Ram
Raj, Bhagawanlal Indraji and Rajendralal Mitra had made their mark in the field of Indological
scholarship in the nineteenth century and the help of the traditional Indian scholars was
invaluable for the early decipherment of inscriptions but it was during this period that archae-
ology became a recognized part of Indian academic thinking.
A point that is not usually appreciated is that when John Marshall was directing the Indian
archaeological scene, historical scholarship about India had already come of age. The details of
ancient Indian political history, religion, economy and culture had been established on the basis
of textual, inscriptional, numismatic, architectural, sculptural and other sources. Yet at the same
time, as the important sites associated with the course of ancient Indian history remained
largely unexcavated, there was something shadowy about the historical image of ancient India.
The excavations initiated by Marshall at such sites as Taxila, Bhita, Sravasti, Vaisali, Rajagriha,
Sarnath and Nalanda provided the much needed touch of reality to this image. The period most
affected by it in the historic context was the early historic period in the Gangetic valley and the
northwest, roughly the period of 'Buddhist India'. The work initiated by Marshall suddenly
made this period alive in the Indian cultural consciousness. In the nationalist image of ancient
India this resuscitation of the Buddhist period played an important role.
In the field Marshall was primarily concerned with the horizontal exposure of sites. This had
not been previously attempted in the Indian context. In fact, apart from the work of Bellasis
at Brahminabad in Sind, no archaeologist had even thought about the total picture of the site.
Under Marshall, structures were individually described and their positions plotted in relation to
the total plan of the site. Their history was determined on the basis of successive structural
phases. Plans were drawn of the excavated settlement as a whole and the main cultural occu-
pations were reconstructed both on the basis of structural remains and antiquities. For a
typical 'Marshall report' see Marshall 1915. His methods of excavation have been criticized,
quite justifiably, on the ground that the depth of antiquities and 'strata' was interpreted in
relation to a fixed bench-level on the top of the mound, in violation of the principles of modern
stratigraphic excavation. The only point which may be said in Marshall's favour is that he
achieved what he wanted: a total picture of the site and its main historical-cultural periods.
This is a point that was subsequently acknowledged by the strongest critic of his excavations,
Mortimer Wheeler (1950).
The severe financial cuts imposed by the Government of India in the 1930s did not help
archaeology in the post-Marshall period, and the names of successive director-generals of the
Survey until Mortimer Wheeler's appointment in 1944 are of no academic interest. It was with
Wheeler that prehistory became a formal part of the Survey activities and one may thus choose
this point for a review of the developmental pattern of Indian prehistoric studies till then.
The development of prehistoric studies
Isolated finds of microlithic and Neolithic implements were made in India before 1863, but it
was in that year that Robert Bruce Foote, a geologist in the Geological Survey of India first
identified a Palaeolithic implement in India (a handaxe) in a gravel pit at Pallavaram near
Madras. Foote's subsequent geological career lay in the modern states of Tamil Nadu,
Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. In each of these areas he discovered, along with other
types of prehistoric sites a large number of Palaeolithic tool-bearing localities. The two volumes
that he wrote describing and analysing this collection were published posthumously (Foote
1914, 1916). These constitute the basic reference point for all later discoveries over a large part
of south India and Gujarat. Discoveries were also made in other parts of India (cf. Dasgupta
1931), and the wide distribution of Palaeolithic and other prehistoric implements in the
country was amply clear by the beginning of the twentieth century. The early discoverers of
palaeoliths in India were mostly geologists who seldom went beyond enumerating the geological
context of the implements and sites. The tool-typology and the methods of manufacture were
never fully discussed. Nor was any attention given to the possible evolution of tool-types. The
description of the geological contexts was usually precise and in two cases led to the proof of
association of these tools with Pleistocene fauna (Wynne 1866; Medlicott 1873).
There was no significant discovery between 1900 and 1930. Apart from the two volumes of
Foote's catalogue published in 1914 and 1916, the only significant publication of this period
was a general survey of prehistoric India by P. Mitra (1923). The period between 1930 and
1950 witnessed the beginning of systematic interest in Indian Palaeolithic studies. In 1930
L. A. Cammiade and M. C. Burkitt (1930) studied the finds of tools over a long stretch along
the Eastern Ghats which fringe the Andhra coast. Two theoretical points make this study
historically significant. First, on the grounds of stratigraphy, typology and their state of preser-
vation, the tools were grouped into 'four series belonging to four distinct cultures of different
dates'. Series 1 to 4 corresponded successively to the Lower Palaeolithic, Middle Palaeolithic,
Upper Palaeolithic and microlithic industries. Second, they tried to develop a climatic sequence
of these industries from an analysis of their respective geological contexts. In 1935 H. de Terra
of Yale University and T. T. Paterson of Cambridge University led a joint prehistoric expedition
to the Potwar plateau where they discovered a succession of Palaeolithic industries and put
them in the context of successive terraces along the Soan river. The terrace-sequence was corre-
lated to the outwash of the glacial cycle in Kashmir, which again was taken to correspond to
the four-fold glacial cycle in Europe. Thus an attempt was made to provide a precise chrono-
logical perspective to the Palaeolithic industries of the Soan valley. Terra and Paterson also
investigated, albeit briefly, the Narmada valley and the area around Madras. A broad correlation
was attempted between the Soan and Narmada sequences in an attempt to give a chronological
framework to the central Indian Pleistocene and related industries. Because of its geochrono-
logical approach, their work (Terra and Paterson 1939) became an important reference point
for later investigations elsewhere in India.
In 1939 K. R. U. Todd published a major paper on his discoveries around Bombay,
describing a major section and the associated industries. Between 1939 and 1942 N. K. Bose
and D. Sen of Calcutta University (1949) discovered a rich Lower Palaeolithic industry in
Mayurbhanj, Orissa. In 1946 H. D. Sankalia of Deccan College, Poona University, published the
results of his prehistoric investigations in Gujarat. What is important from the point of view of
later development is that during this period the Indian universities became involved in pre-
historic research.
The discovery of the Indus civilization and the related excavations and explorations highlighted
the protohistoric phase of Indian archaeology in the 1920s and 1930s but even before this a
considerable number of copper-bronze 'prehistoric' implements were found in unstratified
contexts in the Gangetic valley and the adjacent plateau region of central India (Smith 1905).
The sporadic excavations of south Indian megaliths continued from the first quarter of the
nineteenth century, although with few positive results except a rich crop of iron implements
and pottery.
Mortimer Wheeler
Mortimer Wheeler was at the helm of the Archaeological Survey for only four years (1944--8)
out of which one was lost in the turmoil of Independence and Partition. Yet what he achieved
and initiated during this short period was considerable, and is reflected in the notes and articles
that he wrote for the first five issues of Ancient India, a new Survey journal which was started
by him in 1946. In retrospect the following features stand out. First, he took a total view of
archaeology beginning with the Palaeolithic stage and emphasized the need for scientific
analyses in archaeology. One can cite a few good scientific analyses from the earlier period,
such as the study of animal, human and crop remains at the Indus cities of Mohenjo Daro and
Harappa, and the chemical analyses of metal samples from some sites, but it was Wheeler who
first argued the basic necessity of scientiflc aids in archaeology in India. Second, he put strong
emphasis on careful archaeological planning, both on the level of an individual site and in terms
of a wider area. This was something novel for India. Third, by excavating at Taxila, Harappa and
Arikamedu he not only demonstrated the significance of such planning by solving major prob-
lems related to these sites but also introduced to India the modern concept of archaeological
stratigraphy. He also introduced there for the first time the significance of the study of
stratified ceramic material for determining the cultural succession at excavated sites and its
importance in comparative study of material between different sites. Fourth, he gave field
training in his methods to a large number of Indian students who have kept his excavation
tradition alive since then. He also wrote a number of articles on the excavation procedures for
his Indian colleagues and students in Ancient India. Fifth, he was wise enough to realize that
archaeological research in such a large territory as India could not be done by the Archae-
ological Survey alone - effective participation by the universities was necessary
-
and, it was
under his inspiration that several Indian universities started archaeological research. Wheeler's
final contribution to the tradition of Indian archaeological research is something intangible and
can be appreciated only by those who have felt it, directly or indirectly. Despite his very short
stay as Director General, he infused an element of urgency into the Indian archaeological scene.
With him archaeology in India becarne exciting, worth doing for its own sake. This excitement
is apparent in the articles that he wrote, and still affects those who know the scene.
The post-Independence period
Whatever may be said about Wheeler's historical-archaeological theories in the Indian context
or about his emphasis on one set of data at the expense of another to prove a particular
assumption, there is little doubt that he prepared the archaeology of the subcontinent for its
transition to modernity in the post-Partition period. The Independence and Partition of India in
1947 started the fragmentation of the archaeology into its present units, India and Pakistan,
and in 1971 Bangladesh entered the scene in her own right. Archaeology in Sri Lanka and Nepal
is also a part of the modern picture. One can detect certain variations in the archaeological
activities in all these countries, but these variations are more due to the nature of their ancient
sites than to anything fundamental.
It must be stressed at this point that a review of the current data and individual theories is
beyond the scope of the present paper which will only outline the broad features and the
dominant conceptual framework. The general progress of archaeology in the subcontinent will
be apparent if one compares Stuart Piggott's still useful, Prehistoric India (1950) with Sankalia's
Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan (1974). For more recent developments one
can do no better than turn to Jerome Jacobson's masterly survey (1979).
The number of basic discoveries since 1947 is surely impressive. These discoveries belong to
all phases of the archaeological sequence beginning with the Lower Palaeolithic. Most areas have
been well surveyed, yielding thousands of sites from all periods. The most important beneficiary
has been prehistoric and protohistoric research. In the field of prehistory there is hardly any
area outside the Indo-Gangetic alluvium that has not revealed its own prehistoric succession.
As far as protohistory is concerned, the results are even more complete. The distribution of the
Indus civilization sites has been satisfactorily worked out both in India and Pakistan, revealing
an extent and complexity that was not imagined before. The background of the Indus civiliz-
ation is now well understood. Equally, if not more, impressive is the evidence concerning the
protohistoric situation outside the Indus civilization. The discovery of protohistoric sites in the
northwest, Kashmir, the Gangetic valley, central, west, south and east India has added a
completely new chapter to the subcontinent's history. Important historical sites of various areas
were already known, but recent explorations have added a plethora of new sites (plate 2), and
the details of the historical situation are now better understood. Both explorations and exca-
vations have played their respective parts in promoting discoveries. There is not a single major
area from the hill valleys of Baluchistan to the tip of the peninsula where there is no excavated
sequence. At many of the important sites there have been horizontal excavations. Considered as
a whole, Pakistan shows a preference for protohistoric sites, a perfectly logical choice in view of
both the importance of such sites in that area and the need for a new nation to seek deep roots.
Nepal is fascinated more by the Buddhist remains in her foothill region and archaeology in
Bangladesh has been dominated by early historic and medieval remains. In each of these cases
the distribution of sites dictates archaeological preference. In India, simply because of its size
and diversity of remains, by and large all periods have come in for scrutiny.
The second major phenomenon, although it is not yet particularly strong, relates to the field
of natural scientific analyses in archaeology. This is more apparent in India than elsewhere in
the subcontinent. A significant step in this direction was taken with the establishment of a
radiocarbon laboratory in Bombay (later transferred to Ahmedabad) which has branched out in
recent years to include palaeo-environmental and metallurgical investigations. A second radio-
carbon laboratory has started operating in the Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow,
which has long been known for its profound contributions to the study of ancient plant remains
and pollen sequences. Organized natural scientific groups are also active in archaeology at the
Deccan College, Pune, and elsewhere.
The third major tradition which has gathered momentum since Independence is the partici-
pation of the universities in archaeological field researches. Certain universities have already
played a major role and the historic leadership of H. D. Sankalia must not go unacknowledged
in this context. There is also an increasing number of archaeological publications. In addition to
the monographs, reports and miscellaneous journals one may mention the following leading
annual journals and bulletins: Pakistan Archaeology (Government of Pakistan), Ancient
Pakistan (Peshawar University), Ancient India (Government of India), Indian Archaeology - a
Review (Government of India), Ancient Nepal (Government of Nepal), Puratattva - Bulletin of
the Indian Archaeological Society and Man and Environment (Indian Society for Prehistoric
and Quaternary Studies). On the whole, one tends to agree with Jacobson (1979): 'Today there
are few world areas of comparable size where knowledge of the ancient past is growing so
rapidly and over so broad a geographical and chronological spectrum'.
We must consider how all these discoveries and basic researches have been integrated into an
interpretive framework. To begin, we have to look first at the historical situation of archae-
ology as an academic discipline in India both past and present. Archaeology developed within
the Indian academic scene as an adjunct to ancient historical studies. The wheels of that huge
bureaucratic archaeological machinery, the Archaeological Survey of India, moved steadily
along, churning out an immense amount of data, and the ancient historians at the universities
and elsewhere continued to try to fit these data into their own structures. There was no
attempt at any point to view archaeology as an academic discipline in its own right. The
primary concern in the pre-Independence period was with historical material that would
amplify the rich tapestry of Indian literate civilization. Prehistoric data were known, but there
was not much understanding of them in the curricula of the universities or in the writings of the
historians. After all, that would only demonstrate that India too had passed through a barbaric
phase and this was hardly an attractive proposition to the nationalist spirit of the times. It is
also important to appreciate that orthodox ancient Indian historical studies have always been
characterized by a more or less fragmented approach to history, in which bits and pieces of data
relating to particular periods were analysed and described without any examination of what
today would be called 'total history'. Even this approach has its historical reasons. First, the
textual data on ancient India are severely limited in quantity and suffer from the additional
handicaps of ambiguity, chronological uncertainty and limited geographical applicability.
Second, contemporary studies emphasized racial and linguistic variations in the country and
encouraged ancient historians to think in terms of different racial and linguistic groups. Third,
Indian history was viewed as a process in which there had been continuous migrations of people
from outside bringing in techniques and innovations. The pride lay in emphasizing how these
incoming groups lost their 'foreignness' and became a part of the Indian culture and populace.
It is this interpretive framework of ancient India that was called upon to explain the rapidly
increasing archaeological data in the post-Independence period. No particular explanation was
needed for the Palaeolithic data, which were too remote in time and, because of the absence of
contemporary human remains, remained coldly impersonal and dull. There was also no prob-
lem with the data of the historic periods which were always understood and related to what
was already known. The main challenge lay in the late prehistoric and protohistoric periods.
When the Indus civilization was discovered it was neatly labelled as pre-and-non-Vedic and
treated as a backdrop to the stage the Aryans could act on. Wheeler's explanation for the end of
the Indus civilization as resulting from the Aryan invasions only made this position
further
secure. There was no problem until an assortment of settled food-producing communities of the
3rd and 2nd millennia BC were discovered in all the, major agricultural regions of the
subcontinent. These newly discovered cultures had to be historically understood. The questions
asked of them were: 1. Do these cultures represent various groups of people mentioned in early
texts? 2. Do some of them belong to autochthones who were in the country before the Aryans
came? 3. Do some of them represent the traces of the early Aryans themselves? Because Iran
and central Asia were two postulated springboards of the Aryan migration to India, most of
these cultures were carefully scrutinized for possible Iranian and Central Asian analogues (for
an illustration of this approach, see Sankalia 1974).
Apart from this tradition of attaching ethnic and linguistic labels to the newly discovered
archaeological culture groups, the dominant approach is what should be called 'descriptive-
historical', the piecing together of various pieces of information about these cultures and their
integration in general descriptive terms. One of the reasons why archaeology in the sub-
continent still fights shy of the rigours of modern scientific planning and analysis is that the
current approach, rooted in ancient Indian historical studies, does not demand any rigorous
scientific planning and analysis (Agrawal and Chakrabarti 1979). The general situation is not
acceptable to all archaeologists. Many current assumptions are being increasingly questioned
and there is more emphasis on the archaeological understanding of data without taking recourse
to the orthodox historical framework (for a review, see Jacobson 1979).
1 viii.1981 Delhi University
References
Agrawal, D. P. and Dilip K. Chakrabarti. 1979. Archaeology in India: a professional assessment.
In Essays in Indian Prehistory (ed. D. P. Agrawal and Dilip K. Chakrabarti). Delhi: B. R. Pub-
lishing Corp., pp. 389-92.
Alexander, J. E. 1830. Notice of a visit to the cavern temples of Adjunta in the East Indies.
Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society. 2: 362-70.
Allchin, F. R. 1961. Ideas of history in Indian archaeological writing: a preliminary study. In
Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon (ed. C. H. Philips). Oxford University Press,
pp. 241-59.
anon. 1785. A Comparative View of the Ancient Monuments of India, Particularly those in the
Island of Salset near Bombay, as Described by Different Writers. London: John Nichols.
Anville, M. D'. 1753. Eclaircissemens geographiques sur la carte de l'lnde. Paris: L'Imprimerie
Royale.
Anville, M. D'. 1775. Antiquihe giographique de lIInde et de plusieurs autres contrees de la
Haute Asie. Paris. L'Imprimerie Royale.
Babington, T. 1823. Description of the Pandoo Coolies of Malabar. Transactions of' the Literary
Society of Bombay. 3: 324-30.
Bellasis, A. F. 1856a. An account of the ancient and ruined city of Brahminabad in Sind.
Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 5: 413-25.
Bellasis, A. F. 1 856b. Further observations on the ruined city of Brahminabad in Sind. Journal
of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 5: 467-77.
Bose, N. K. and D. Sen. 1949. Excavations in Mayurbhanj. Calcutta University Press.
Buchanan, F. 1807. A Journey from Madras. 3 vols. London: W. Bulmer.
Burgess, J. 1905. Sketch of archaeological research in India during half a century. Journal of
the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (extra number). 131-48.
Burnes, A. 1833. On the 'topes' and Grecian remains in the Punjab. Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal. 2: 308-10.
Cammiade, L. A. and M. C. Burkitt. 1930. Fresh light on the Stone Ages in Southeast India.
Antiquity. 4: 327-39.
Cautley, P. T. 1834a. Discovery of an ancient town near Behut, in the Doab. Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal. 3: 43-4.
Cautley, P. T. 1834b. Further account of the remains of an ancient town, discovered at Behut,
near Saharanpur. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 3: 221-7.
Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1976. India and the Druids. Antiquity. 50: 66-7.
Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1979. Robert Bruce Foote and Indian Prehistory. East and West. 29:
11-26.
Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1981. Indian archaeology: the first phase, 1784-1861. In Towards a
History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel). London: Thames & Hudson, pp. 169-85.
Chambers, W. 1788. Some account of the sculptures and ruins at Mahabalipuram. Asiatick
Researches. 1: 145-70.
Conolly, E. 1837. Observations upon the past and present condition of Ougein or Ujjayini.
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 6: 813-56.
Court, A. 1834. Further information on the topes of Manikiyala. Journal of the Asiatic Society
of Bengal. 3: 556-62.
Cunningham, A. 1843. An account of the discovery of the ruins of the Buddhist city of
Samkassa. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 5: 241-7.
Cunningham, A. 1 848. Proposed archaeological investigation. Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal. 17: 535-6.
Cunningham, A. 1873. Memorandum of instructions. Archaeological Survey of India, Report
for the Year 1871-72. Calcutta.
Dasgupta, H. C. 1931. Bibliography of Indian prehistoric antiquities. Journal of the Asiatic
Davis, S. 1790. Some Roman coins found at Nelore [letter dated 20 March 17881. Asiatick
Researches. 2: 331.
Duncan, J. 1798. An account of the discovery of two urns in the vicinity of Benares. Asiatick
Researches. 5: 131-2.
Foote, R. B. 1914. The Foote Collection of Indian Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities:
Catalogue raisonne. Madras: Government Press.
Foote, R. B. 1916. The Foote Collection of Indian Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities.
Notes on their Ages and Distribution. Madras: Government Press.
Gerard, J. G. 1 834. Memoir on the topes and antiquities of Afghanistan. Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal. 3: 321 -9.
Ghosh, A. 1953. Fifty years of the Archaeological Survey of India. Ancient India. 9: 29-52.
Goldingham, J. 1795. Some account of the cave in the island of Elephanta. Asiatick Researches.
4: 409-17.
Goldingham, J. 1798. Some account of the sculptures at Mahabalipooram. Asiatick Researches.
5: 69-80.
Harkness, H. 1832. A Description of a Singular Aboriginal Race Inhabiting the Summit of the
Neilgherry Hills, or the Blue Mountains of Coimbatoor, in the Southern Peninsula of India.
London: Smith, Elder.
Harrington, J. 1788. A description of a cave near Gaya. Asiatick Researches. 1: 276-8.
Imam, A. 1966. Sir Alexander Cunningham and the Beginnings of Indian Archaeology. Dacca:
Asiatic Society of Pakistan.
Jacobson, J. 1979. Recent developments in south Asian prehistory and protohistory. Annual
Review of Anthropology. 8: 467-502.
Jones, W. 1788. The third anniversary discourse. Asiatick Researches. 1: 415-3 1.
Jones, W. 1792. On the origin of families and nations. Asiatick Researches. 3: 479-92.
Mallet, C. 1799. Description of the caves... Ellora.Asiatick Researches. 6: 389-423.
Marshall, J. 1904. Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report, 1902-3. Calcutta: Govern-
ment Press.
Marshall, J. 1915. Excavations at Bhita. Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report, 191]1-
12. Calcutta: Government Press.
Marshall, J. 1923. Conservation Manual. Archaeological Survey of India.
Masson, C. 1834. Extracts from Mr. Masson's letter to Dr. J. G. Gerard, on the excavation of
topes, dated Tattung, 22 March, 1834. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 3: 329-32.
Maurice, T. 1800-1.Indian Antiquities, 7 vols. London.
Medlicott, H. B. 1873. Notes on a celt found by Mr. Hacket . . . Records of the Geological
Survey of India. 6: 49-54.
Mitra, P. 1923. Prehistoric India. Calcutta University Press.
Mitra, D. 1968. Konarak. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Piggott, S. 1950. Prehistoric India. Penguin Books,
Plumb, J. H. 1966. England in the Eighteenth Century (1 714-1815). Penguin Books.
Poliakov, L. 1974. The Aryan Myth: a History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe.
Sussex University Press.
Prinsep, J. 1 834a. On the coins discovered by M. le Chevalier Ventura . . Journal of the Asiatic
Prinsep, J. 1 834b. Continuation of observations on the coins and relics . Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal. 3: 436-56.
Prinsep, J. 1 834c. Note on the coins discovered by M. Court. Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal. 3: 562-7.
Prinsep, J. 1834d. Note on the brown liquid contained in the cylinders from Manikayala.
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 3: 567-76.
Prinsep, J. 1838. On the edicts of Piyadasi.. Journal of the AsiaticSociety of Bengal. 7: 219-82.
Purchas, S. 1905. Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes, vol. 10. Glasgow: James
Maclehose.
Rennell, J. 1793 (3rd ed.). Memoir of a Map of Hindoostan ... London: M. Brown.
Roy, S. 196 1. The Story of Indian Archaeology, 1 784-194 7. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey
of India.
Sankalia, H. D. 1946. Investigations into the Prehistoric Archaeology of Gularat. Baroda State
Press.
Sankalia, H. D. 1974. Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan. Poona: Deccan
College.
Sen, S. 1949. Indian Travels of Thevenot and Careri. New Delhi: National Archives.
Sircar, D. C. 1976. Epigraphical studies in India: some observations. Studies in Indian Epi-
graphy.
3: 9-25.
Smith, V. 1905. The Copper age and prehistoric bronze implements of India. Indian Antiquary.
34: 229-44.
Stirling, A. 1825. An account, geographical, statistical and historical of Orissa proper, or
Cuttack. Asiatick Researches. 15: 163-338.
Taylor, M. 1856. Ancient remains at the village of Jiwarji near Farozabad on the Bhima. Journal
of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Bhima. 3: 179-93.
Terra, H. de and T. T. Paterson. 1939. Studies on the Ice Age in India and Associated Human
Cultures. Washington: Carnegie Institute.
Tieffenthaler, J., A. du Perron and J. Rennell. 1786-8. Description Historique et G&ographique
de l'Inde. 3 vols. Berlin: Imprimerie de Pierre Bourdeaux.
Todd, K. R. U. 1939. Palaeolithic industries of Bombay. Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute. 69: 257-72.
Valle, Pietro della. 1664. The Travels of Sig. Pietro della Valle ... London: J. Macock.
Wheeler, M. 1950. What matters in archaeology. Antiquity. 24: 122-30.
Wilford, F. 1792. On Egypt and other countries adjacent to the Cali river, or Nile of Ethiopia
from the ancient books of the Hindus. Asiatick Researches. 3: 295-468.
Wilkins, C. 1788a. A royal grant of land. Asiatick Researches. 1: 123-30.
Wilkins, C. 1788b. An inscription on a pillar near Buddal. Asiatick Researches. 1: 131-44.
Wilson, H. H. 1841. Ariana Antiqua. London: East India Company.
Wilson, A. L. 1964. A Mythical Image: the Ideal of India in German Romanticism. Duke
University Press.
Wynne, A. B. 1866. Remains of prehistoric man in central India. Geological Magazine. 3: 283-4.
Abstract
Chakrabarti, Dilip K.
The development of archaeology in the Indian subcontinent
Because of its size, the archaeology of India has received the primary attention. All the main
stages of Indian archaeology are briefly analysed, and it has been demonstrated how, an im-
pressive number of discoveries notwithstanding, traditional and ancient Indian historical thinking
has conditioned archaeological approaches.

Development of Indian Archaeology

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Development of Indian Archaeology

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Development of Archaeology in the Indian Subcontinent

Author(s): Dilip K. Chakrabarti

S-ar putea să vă placă și