Finding the “Early Medieval” in South Asian Archaeology

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.

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

“…Their size was defined on the basis of previous landscape surveys in South Asia (e.g. [16,17,28,45]. These have established that the minimum size of radial survey blocks needed to ensure the recovery of enough data for meaningful spatial analyses is 10 km.…”

“…These developments are usually associated with the growth of the Gupta Empire in North India during the fourth century CE [31,57]. Our archaeological understanding of these developments is problematic for a number of reasons [17,26]. The study of this and all subsequent phases of South Asia's past are dominated by textbased histories-a feature of scholarship that affects not only what is studied, but how those sources are studied.…”

“…Research questions tend to be oriented towards historical concerns with the development of kingdoms and states [13,25], the spread of religious institutions [3,5] and socioeconomic systems [42,48]. Within this general thrust of enquiry, archaeology tends to contribute only in terms of providing archaeological evidence for the corroboration or contradiction of those theories and ideas [17,18]. Further complicating the situation is the fact that most archaeologists working in South Asia tend to focus on earlier periods, where there are fewer or no textual sources, and they are less constrained by historical paradigms [7].…”

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

“…In particular, there are large geographical areas and periods of time that have rarely, if ever, been subjected to archaeological enquiry. We might cite, for instance, a comparatively disproportionate focus on the Indus civilization in studies of the third millennium BCE (e.g., Kenoyer 1998;Possehl 2002;Shinde 2016;Wright 2010), or, at the other end of the chronological spectrum, a relative absence of any sort of an archaeology of later historical periods, particularly the medieval (Hawkes 2014). The reasons for this are frequently related to modern political ideologies (see Chakrabarti 1998Chakrabarti , 2003.…”

“…Additional stray finds, such as displaced sculptures and coins, continue to be unearthed in the field and private collections. However, because the period is not the main focus of archaeological research, few of these excavations have been carried out with the aim of investigating the period itself (Hawkes 2014). Rather, in the case of settlement archaeology at least, they are the almost accidental product of excavations that have been carried out to uncover the underlying earlier (more "interesting") layers.…”