No abstract

No abstract

The concept of an “early medieval” period (c. 600–1300 c.e. ) in the study of South Asia’s past is well established, yet remains ill defined and poorly understood. As a result, debates regarding grand explanative frameworks, not to mention the meaning and use of the term medieval, have dominated the study of the period. Important though these concerns are, what underpins them, and something that is rarely considered, is how sources and methodologies affect the study of the period. Historiographic review of scholarship on the early medieval reveals that from its inception, the period has been studied exclusively through the examination of documentary sources and monumental remains within the fields of history, literary and religious studies, and art history. Archaeology has been used to support historical theories, largely in order to provide further empirical “proof ” of a perceived decline in trade and urbanism. The continued use of archaeological evidence in this way has meant that the full potential of archaeological inquiry has not been fulfilled, and the impetus for new archaeological research has been stifled. As a result, the early medieval is arguably the most poorly represented period archaeologically in the entire subcontinent. Critical assessment of the limited amount of archaeological evidence that does exist reveals a number of methodological and theoretical concerns that bring into question its applicability and use. These shortcomings not only force one to question historical interpretations, but also limit what can be said, archaeologically, about the period. It is argued that many of the wider uncertainties surrounding the definition and meaning of the early medieval stem from this absence of archaeological research. What is urgently needed is a revitalization of the archaeological approach to the study of the period; some ways are suggested in which this might be achieved in terms of methodological approaches, and questions that could be asked.

Presented here are the data collected during regional surveys of Vidarbha, India, which were collected to reconstruct the societal and cultural changes that took place in this region during the mid-first millennium CE. Following an overview of the data and their research context, we describe the methods that were used to collect, process and analyse them. This is accompanied by a critical assessment of the factors that constrained the survey and our results. The dataset is then described in detail, with a thorough account of each data group and how they are arranged, presented and archived. Finally, we discuss how these data can be reused in the continued archaeological study of this region, and comparative studies of site distributions.

In this article we advocate a return to the consideration and examination of the basic building blocks of archaeological enquiry: the evidence. Reacting to a widely held perception that archaeology now understands various commonalities of human experience, we suggest that such concepts and the inevitable oscillation towards "big picture" approaches that stems from them are problematic. They engender a type of scholarship that does not always engage fully with the evidentiary bases of interpretation and that risks assuming a great deal about large parts of the world that have not been studied in as much detail as others. We explore this by looking at the South Asian context, where archaeologists are forced to contend with a number of constraints, chief among which is a relative absence of archaeological evidence. Focusing on one particular sub-region, we piece together exactly what evidence exists and consider what can (and cannot) be said from it. On one level this serves as a useful comparator for those working in other parts of the world who may not appreciate the evidentiary constraints that exist elsewhere. Yet beyond this and simple questions of analogy, we suggest that detailed consideration of an area such as the one presented here forces us to return to even more fundamental questions relating to when archaeological research becomes "interesting", "ground-breaking", and "new"; and who decides this.

This article presents the results of the analysis of archaeological ceramics collected during landscape surveys in the Vidarbha of Maharashtra, India; and offers the first attempt at a regional pottery typology for this area. Here, as in many other parts of South Asia, the pottery from archaeological sites have been subject to considerable scrutiny. Yet, so far approaches to their study have focussed on mainly their surface colour and feel. This has resulted in overly simplistic typologies that do not (and cannot) accommodate the full range of variation that exists within a ceramic assemblage, and so limit their value as archaeological evidence. Addressing this, we apply a chaîne opératoire-based approach to the analysis of a ceramic assemblage that we have been developing in this region. This results in a much more complex and detailed pottery typology than has so far been achieved. Throughout this study we also identify points of comparison with familiar parallels published elsewhere. In doing so, the resulting typology, while by no means the final word on the matter, provides a valuable and flexible resource that others working in this region and neighbouring areas can use for their own analyses and research. Moreover, in shifting the bases of categorisation and classification to the ways that pottery was made, we are able to incorporate far more of the variation that exists in the material itself. Indeed, the amount of variation can be somewhat bewildering in comparison to the standard (limiting) typological categories that populate earlier reports, and forces us to question those frameworks. Yet, we argue that it is precisely this sort of uncertainty that has to be embraced if the study of archaeological ceramics for the region of the ancient Vidarbha is going to continue to develop as a meaningful area of archaeological enquiry.

This report presents the results of a short programme of fieldwork targeted towards the investigation of the archaeological and geographical setting of the Chamak copperplate charter. This inscription, unearthed in the modern village of Chamak in 1868, records the grant of land to a group of Brahmins living in the village of 'Charmaka'. These have long been assumed to be the same place, but the archaeological contexts of the find spot of the charter had never been explored. Preliminary surveys in and around Chamak have revealed a considerable amount of archaeological material, which is presented here.

No abstract