Isaac Newton’s third law of motion states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Every extreme viewpoint in academia also elicits an equally extreme and opposing reaction. For example, a section of historians and researchers continues to insist that a large-scale migration around c.1500 BCE led to the emergence of a new culture distinct from earlier ones. More erroneous still are assertions that claim there’s a void in Indian history from c.1000 to c.600 BCE. Perhaps a lack of written records, before c.600 BCE, or a lack of archaeological data or an understanding of archaeological research – or perhaps both – have forced some to make such assumptions.
The equivalent and opposite response to this is seen in two ways – first in the form of the Out of India Theory (OIT), which claims that the great migration occurred from east to west and not the other way around. And second, by scholars pushing early dates from archaeological sites without enough context, forgetting the fact that assigning dates without providing the required context is meaningless.
In this great divide, the past is portrayed as either black or white. It ignores the fact that history has shades of grey and is not linear
Recently Rakhigarhi, a Harappan site in Haryana, made headlines for being an 8,000-year-old city, showing how media often misinterprets scholarly views. Then, there was the news of Gujarat’s Vadnagar dating back to c.800 BCE, labelled as India’s oldest living city. Since there isn’t much historical context to this assertion, it created nothing but a stir in the public domain. While people are amazed to see the continuity of cultures, with change and early cultures dating as far back as 8,000 years ago, archaeologists are not.
For archaeologists, the story of India’s oldest living city is not new. In every corner of the country, there are sites like Vadnagar (and some even older than Vadnagar) which are an example of living cultures. Such sites have revealed multi-cultural chronology, continuity from prehistoric times to the mediaeval period. There are also some sites that offer cooperation and collaboration between contemporary cultures (for example Burzahom) while others offer a glimpse of the overlap of cultures.
Between these extreme notions of the past, let’s take a look at a few archaeological sites that discard the need for validation.
Also read: Painted Grey Ware from Bareilly holds the key to the question: Did India have a ‘dark age’?
Brahmagiri
Located in the Tungabhadra-Hagari Doab in the Chitradurga district of Karnataka, the Brahmagiri archaeological site is a multi-cultural (period) site. It has functioned as a type-site ever since it was excavated by archaeologists MH Krishna in 1940 and 1947, respectively.
For the uninitiated, a ‘type-site’ is the first site where the unique features that define a culture are identified.
When historian and archaeologist B Lewis Rice discovered the site and three Ashokan edicts in 1892 that indicated the locality was known as ‘Isila’ – the southernmost extent of the Mauryan Empire – it became clear that the location was historically significant. This eventually led to its systematic excavations.
Krishna extensively explored the area around the granite hill at Brahmagiri and identified habitational sites, megaliths and medieval temples. His excavation yielded a long continuous sequence from Microlithic to Neolithic to Early Historic and Hoysala periods. Later, when Wheeler excavated the site in 1947 on behalf of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), he established a sequence of three cultures – Period I: Neolithic period, Period II: Megalithic Culture and Period III: Early Historical Culture.
These three cultures, according to Wheeler, range from the 1st millennium BCE to the 3rd century CE. However, a fresh study in the region and newly calibrated dates suggested that the site was in occupation for more than 3,000 years, from the Neolithic (3000-1200 BCE) – Iron Age (1200-300 BCE) to the Early Historic period (300-500BCE). Moreover, evidence of temple remains, sculptures etc in subsequent studies has extended the site’s occupation from the Satavahana dynasty (late 2nd c. BCE to 3rd c. BCE) to the Hoysala-Vijaynagara dynasty (c.1400 CE), indicating the importance of this area.
With a well-established cultural sequence, Brahmagiri has become a type-site for archaeological sites like Watgal, Tekkalakota, Sanganakallu-Kupgal, Piklihal and Maski. From Neolithic polished stone tools to cist-burials and medieval burials, Brahmagiri is more important than the region’s Ashokan edicts.
Also read: Calling Harappan Civilisation ‘Vedic Saraswati’ is extreme—learn to hold a trowel first
Maski
The archaeological site is situated in the Raichur district of Karnataka, which is also well-known for the Minor Rock Edict, found by explorer C Beckon in 1915 and containing the first-ever mention of the name ‘Ashoka’ in reference to the Mauryan Emperor. But, this site’s significance goes beyond the rock edict; like Brahmagiri, it is renowned for being a multicultural and multi-period site.
The site was excavated by BK Thapar of ASI in 1957, a decade after Wheeler’s excavation at Brahmagiri. Four cultures were identified at the site, which, like Brahmagiri, span from the Neolithic to the medieval period.
In period I, Maski yielded microliths, blades made out of chert, carnelian, agate etc. The restricted presence of copper from the mid-level of this stratum indicates the slow infiltration of metal in Neolithic society. This period also indicated the domestication of cattle, buffalo, sheep and goats, the hallmark of Neolithic economy and subsistence patterns. Looking at the findings from the excavation, Thapar dated this period based on Wheeler’s chrono-cultural sequence, corroborating it with recent dates and evidence.
Also read: Archaeological tourism is on the rise. Govt to citizens, India must learn to handle the sites
Continuity and change
The society, at both Brahmagiri and Maski, transitioned slowly. It went from being a Neolithic – agro-pastoral/food-producing society to a Megalithic one with builders and Iron using folks to a Russet-coated and Rouletted ware-using culture to great medieval period dynasties.
Gradual use of copper in later phases of the Neolithic period at the site and extensive use of the landscape validates the fact that the past is fluid and not as rigid as we would like to think.
It’s unfortunate that history books still echo an age-old narrative of the past where archaeological data is only to be used as supporting evidence. It’s even more stressful to see archaeological evidence constantly being used as clickbait.
With a surge in scientific dating, the gap has slowly narrowed. But there is more to the story of humankind than just dates; it’s all buried in the shades of grey.
Disha Ahluwalia is an archaeologist and junior research fellow at the Indian Council Of Historical Research. She tweets @ahluwaliadisha. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)