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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.