Back to basics: returning to the evidence and mapping knowledge in south Asian archaeology

Abstract

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.

Accepting Variation and Embracing Uncertainty: Creating a Regional Pottery Typology in South Asian Archaeology

“…Priority was given to sites that have been dated with absolute methods such as radiocarbon dating, and then to sites that have been dated using relative measures (coins, other pottery types, and so on). Especially useful comparative assemblages were those from Mahurjhari , which was excavated between (Hunter, 1933Deo, 1973;Mohanty, 1999Mohanty, , 2003Mohanty, , 2004Mohanty, , 2005Mohanty, , 2006Thakuria & Mohanty, 2009;Vaidya & Mohanty, 2015), and Chachondi from where section scrapings were taken in 2015 (Hawkes et al, 2016(Hawkes et al, , 2020. Both of these sites have recently benefitted from AMS dating of charcoal samples taken from archaeological contexts (Hawkes et al, 2020a;Mohanty et al, 2019).…”

“…Only one rim-sherd has been collected. This was found at the site of Shivni, Khurre Reethi (SHV01) (Hawkes et al, 2020) located in the Mandhal area.…”

“…Geologically, the entire region lies within the Deccan Traps-an igneous province of flood basalt-with large areas of lateritic rock and clay soils covering residual hills and river basins. The region has been surveyed extensively, and a number of sites have been excavated over the last few decades, most of which date to the earlier Iron Age and 'early historic' periods (Hawkes & Casile, 2020;Mohanty & Thakuria, 2014).2 However, few investigations have been published in detail, and those that are do not provide details of the pottery from each site. Nor have there been very many attempts to compare the ceramics found at different sites.…”

Multi-Period Regional Survey Data from Vidarbha, Maharashtra, India

“…Beyond the immediate reuse potential of this dataset, it has value in being the first accessible archaeological dataset for this region, for which we have surprisingly little data [20]. Despite the region having been studied for 190 years, little data exists for it.…”

“…Our choice of exactly where to survey within the region was informed by two previous phases of research. One, that investigated where inscriptions had been found in the landscape [19]; and the other, a compilation of a census of all known sites and remains in the region and assessment of the research potential of the existing data [20]. This last phase of research generated a considerable amount of data that is already openly available [22] and can be accessed and read in conjunction with the data being presented here.…”