The Development of Archaeology in the Indian Subcontinent

Author(s): Dilip K. Chakrabarti

Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 13, No. 3, Regional Traditions of Archaeological Research II
(Feb., 1982), pp. 326-344
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124387
Accessed: 18/01/2009 01:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
Thedevelopmentof archaeologyin the Indian
subcontinent

Dilip K. Chakrabarti

Because of its sheer size, if for no other reason,the archaeologyof the Indiansubcontinentwill
receiveprimaryattentionhere. Amongthe earlierwritingson this subjectare Roy (1961), Ghosh
(1953), Allchin(1961), Imam(1966) and Chakrabarti(1976, 1979, 1981) in the Indiancontext.

The roots
The first Europeannotices of the living temples and ancient monuments of Indiaare found in
the reports of travellersand sailors in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and the first half of the
eighteenth centuries. These notices relate primarilyto west and south India.The most import-
ant records of living temples are by John Huighenvan Linschotenin the late sixteenth century
and Pietro della Valle in the early seventeenth century. While Linschoten(Purchas 1905) was
unhappy about 'pagodes,cut and formed most uglie' Valle (1664) was detailed, objectiveand
remainsunique among his contemporariesin the sense that he supplementedhis descriptionsof
south Indian temples with ground plans. Among the ancient monuments the rock-cutcaves of
the Deccan, particularlyElephanta(Fig. 1), Kanheriand Ellora,attractedmost attention (anon.
1785; Sen 1949). The descriptionswere sometimes detailed, although there was no attempt at
historical explanations,except occasional referencesto Alexander.The two important archae-
ological landmarkson the Orissancoast, the Jagannathtemple of Puri (the WhitePagoda)and
the sun temple of Konarak (the Black Pagoda), were also recorded during this period
(D. Mitra1968).

The middle of the eighteenthcentury

This period saw the beginningof a systematicand scholarlyinterest. First, accurateand precise
records of monuments began to appearand there was a better appreciationof India as a rich
and fruitful area of historical and archaeologicalinvestigations.Second, there was also the
beginningof theoretical research,primarilyconcerningthe historicalgeographyof the country.
In 1758 Anquetil du Perron(anon. 1785) was interestedin the precisemeasurementsand plans
of the Ellora rock-cut complex and its associated mythology. About 1760 he investigated

WorldArchaeology Volume13 No. 3 Regional traditionsII

?R.K.P. 1982 0043-8243/82/1303-326 $1.50/1
 The developmentof archaeologyin the Indiansubcontinent 327

Figure 1 Architecturaldetails of pillar and statue from ElephantaIsland, Bombay. From the
log of CaptainPyke of the East-IndiamanStringer, 1712, publishedin Archaeologia,7, 1785,
pp. 323-33 by AlexanderDalrymple

Elephantaand Kanheri.CarstenNiebuhr'svisits to Elephanta,where he 'made drawingsof all

the most remarkableparts of it', seem to be somewhat later (anon. 1785). In both du Perron
and Niebuhr one detects a positive awarenessof Indiaas an areaof historicaland archaeological
research.Niebuhr wrote: 'One still finds among the Indians, one of the oldest nations of the
world, so many valuableremainsof antiquity, which deservemore attention from the literati of
Europe,than has been hitherto bestowed on them' (anon. 1785).
The first significantauthor on Indian historical geographywas M. D'Anville (1753, 1775),
who was concerned,amongother things, with the identificationof historicalsites that had been
mentioned by the Classicalauthorson India, such as the Palibothraof the Classicalsourceswith
Pataliputra.A fuller subsequentstudy of these problemsappearedin a three-volumework by
Joseph Tieffenthaler, du Perron and James Rennell (1786-88). About this time Rennell (3rd
ed. 1793) publishedan independentstudy of his own. In all these volumes the primaryconcern
was with the identificationof ancient sites.
328 Dilip K. Chakrabarti

The Asiatic Society

The Asiatic Society was founded in Calcuttaon 15 January1784, primarilyat the initiativeof
WilliamJones. An annualjournal,Asiatic Researches,was first publishedin 1788 and a museum
was establishedin 1814. The aim of the Society was 'to inquireinto the history and antiquities,
the arts, sciences and literature of Asia'. Three historical factors explain the success of this
society. First, it was increasinglyclearthat the early Britishrole of the traderwould be replaced
by that of a territorialruler,and the time was ripe for a systematicinvestigationof the country.
Second, as Poliakov (1974: 183-88) has shown, in their attempt to free themselves from
Judaeo-Christianthought, Western philosophical thinking, particularlythat of the French
Encyclopaedists,turned to India for the origin of culture and religion. This attitude is well
reflected in the writingsof Voltaire, who was 'convincedthat everythinghas come to us from
the banks of the Ganges, astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis,etc.' (Poliakov 1974: 185).
This particularimage of India exerted considerableinfluence on GermanRomanticism(Wilson
1964).
Third, the closing years of the eighteenthcentury witnessedthe growth of many literaryand
philosophicsocieties in Britain(Plumb 1966: 167):
By 1815 every provincialtown of importancehad its society, supported by both the local
aristocracy and the local manufacturerswho were equally aware of the social value of
scientific discovery . . . The results of this activity were vast and valuable. The flora and
fauna of Britain, the nature of its soils and rocks, were examined in detail, catalogued,and
givena scientific orderand arrangement.
The foundation of the Asiatic Society in Calcuttawas entirely in keeping with the scientific
spirit of late eighteenthcentury Britain.

Earlytheoreticalapproaches
There were two early theoreticaltraditions.The first was distinctly geographicalin content and
a continuation of the earlierhistorical-geographicalstudies. In the late eighteenth century its
chief exponent was Rennell (1793), who identified ancient Pataliputrawith modernPatna.He
was also aware that ancient Ujjayiniwas the Ozene of the Periplusand Ptolemy. On some sites,
such as Gaur, he made precise measurements.By and large Rennell's was a factual approach
that tried to bring an element of objectivity into the reportingof ancient Indian monuments
and sites.
The primary exponent of the second theoretical tradition was WilliamJones, who tried to
link Indian history to UniversalHistoryas it was then understood.Its importantsource was the
ten 'discourses'Jones deliveredon varioustopics between 1784 and 1793 (publishedbetween
1788 and 1793) as President of the Asiatic Society. When he delivered his discourses, the
biblical theory of human creation was still dominant. There was no doubt about the unitary
origin of mankindfrom a common ancestor.In this way all branchesof the human family were
thought to be linked and likely to show survivalsin various spheres of life that would reflect
their commnonancestry and spreadfrom a single place of origin.One of the main issues before
Jones was to understandthese survivalsin the Indian context and to demonstratehow ancient
India and Indianswere historically linked to other human groups in the world. This theme is
 The developmentof archaeologyin the Indiansubcontinent 329

recurrentin virtuallyall his discourses.Jones'sidea of the affinity of Sanskritwith severalother

ancient languagesneatly fitted into this thought-pattern.In the third discourse deliveredon
2 February1786 (1788: 430-1), he arguedthat the speakersof Sanskrit
had an immemorialaffinity with the old Persians,Ethiopiansand Egyptians,the Phoenicians,
Greeksand Tuscans;the Scythiansor Goths, and Celts;the Chinese,Japaneseand Peruvians;
whence, as no reason appearsfor believingthat they were a colony from any one of these
nations or any of these nations from them, we may fairly conclude that they all proceeded
from some centralcountry ...
Jones's ideas were echoed by many of his contemporaries,although in a different form.
T. Maurice(1800-1) wrote a seven-volumestudy of Indian Antiquities in which antiquities
themselveshardly figured, but there were discussionsof such esoteric issues as the Indianorigin
of Druids. This was not an isolated idea but may be found in the works of a numberof authors
until the middle of the nineteenth century (Chakrabarti1976). With his emphasison India as
the centre of all things, Mauriceechoes the tradition of the Encyclopaedists.FrancisWilford
(1792) sought to trace the origin of the Nile on the basis of 'Hindusacredbooks'.
The point which must be stressedis that WilliamJones and many of his contemporarieswere
not interested in accurately observingand reportingon Indianantiquitiesand monuments. For
them, the basic problem was to integrate the emerginghistoricalknowledgeof Indiawith con-
temporarynotions concerningthe origin of culture and civilization and within the framework
of the unitary origin of man as laid down in the Bible. These provided a significant frame-
work for interpretingthe Indian past. Jones's linguistic hypothesis linking Sanskritto Greek,
Latin and other languages,is only a part of this interpretiveframeworkevolved in the context
of pre-evolutionarythinking.If to Jones (1792) the centre of population,knowledge,languages
and all the arts was Iran, some of his contemporariesmade India the centre of all things (cf.
Maurice 1800-1). Until the middle of the nineteenth century it was believed that different
cultural influences along with actual migrationsof people went out of India, ultimately pen-
etrating as far north as Scotland. From the middle of the nineteenth century, however, an
entirely contradictory hypothesis was generally promoted: India was at the receivingend of
various cultural influences and migrations of people emanating from regions further west.
Whetherthis reversalof opinion had something to do with the establishmentof the Rajin the
post-Mutinyperiod is, of course, difficult to determine,but the coincidence is too clear to be
overlooked (Chakrabarti1976). Both these hypotheses have one thing in common: emphasisis
placed on movements of people as an explanationof historicalchange.In the historicalstudies
on ancient India this explanation, which is rooted in pre-evolutionarythought-patterns,has
served as the cornerstone of almost all historical explanations. It is also forgotten that the
linguistic hypothesis of WilliamJones, which gave rise to the Aryan hypothesis, is part of the
paradigmof pre-evolutionaryUniversalHistory.

1784 to 1830
There are at least three recordsof field discoveries(Davis 1790; Duncan 1798; Babington 1823)
and some descriptionsof ancient monuments (Chambers1788; Harrington1788; Goldingham
1795, 1798; Mallet 1799; Stirling 1825; Alexander 1830) during this period but it deserves
330 Dilip K. Chakrabarti

attention primarilybecause of two, basically non-archaeological,surveyswhich also recorded

monuments and sites. Colonel Colin Mackenzie was a military engineer who subsequently
became the Surveyor General of the TopographicalSurvey of India. Much of his antiquarian
work, which was done principally in south India, remains unpublished,but his notes and
drawingshave been used by many later authors. It has been said that 'Mackenzievisited nearly
every place of interest south of the Krishnariver, and preparedover 2,000 measureddrawings
of antiquities, carefully drawn to scale, besides facsimiles of 100 inscriptions,with copies of
8,000 others in 77 volumes' (Imam 1966: 17). The second important surveyorof this period
was FrancisBuchanan,whose south Indian surveyswere publishedin 1807. His surveysin east
India remainedunpublishedfor a very long time. Buchanannoted archaeologicalsites, and his
field observations are still useful because they recorded details which have since been lost.

1830 to 1861
The period beginningin 1830 witnessed a significantincreasein archaeologicalactivities. This
was due largely to the personalenthusiasmand influence of James Prinsep,the assay-masterof
the Calcutta mint who became the focal point of the Asiatic Society and guided its activities
along a new line. His call must have sounded inspiringto many of his contemporaries:'Whatthe
learnedworld demandsof us in Indiais to be quite certainof our data, to placethe monumental
record before them exactly as it now exists, and to interpretit faithfully and literally'(1838).
Anotherfactor which gave considerableimpetus to archaeologicalresearchduringthis period
was the deciphermentof ancient Indian scripts in which Prinsephimself played the key role.
The process of decoding the Brahmi script began in the late eighteenth century with the
decipherment of two ninth-tenth-century inscriptions by Charles Wilkins (1788a, b). It
culminated in the reading of the Asokan edicts of the third century BC by Prinsepin about
1837 (Prinsep 1838). About the same time Prinsepand others read the Kharosthiscriptwhich
had been current, principallyin the northwest (Sircar 1976). The deciphermentof these two
main early scriptsresultedin a better understandingof the ancient Indianhistoricalframework,
within which it became possible to appreciatearchaeologicaldiscoveries.It was also duringthis
period that the foundations of the study of ancient Indian numismatics were laid down.
Perhapsthe most significantnumismatistof the period was JamesTod. Manywell-knownseries
of coins which were to revolutionizethe study of ancientIndianhistorywerebroughtinto promi-
nence by Tod, a task in which he was soon joined by Prinsepamong others (Imam 1966: 17).
As far as the discoveriesare concerned there were two major geographicalfoci, the north-
west and the north Indianplain. In south India,the diggingof megaliths(plate 1) was a popular
pastime, but this did not lead to anything (Harkness1832). Barrowsof a different form, the
Buddhist sepulchralstupas or, as they were called in the contemporaryliterature,topes, pro-
vided the main attraction in the northwest. The process began with M. le ChevalierVentura,a
generalin Ranjit Singh's army, who opened the Manikiyalastupa in Panjabby drivinga shaft
through its centre (Prinsep 1834a, b, c, d). A. Court, an engineerin the same army, provided
further information about this stupa and thought it to have been a 'royal tomb' (Court 1834).
AlexanderBurnes of the Bombay army, seeking 'the topes and Grecianremainsin the Punjab',
found himself being directed to from place to place 'like one in search of the Philosopher's
stone' (Burnes 1833). Increasingattention was paid to the sites in the north Indian plain.
Plate 1 A megalithic site with a monolithic anthropomorph on top (Mottur, North Arcot
District, Tamil Nadu). Megalithic sites in the south of India excited attention since the first
half of the eighteenth century (courtesy B.K. Sinha)

Plate 2 General view of an excavated tank complex (lst-2nd century AD) at Sringaverpur,
Allahabad District, UP (courtesy Archaeological Survey of India)
332 Dilip K. Chakrabarti

In 1834, at Behat near Saharanpur,P. T. Cautley (1834a, b) made an attempt to correlatean

early historic settlement with the broad geographicalfeatures of the locality. The settlement
was dated to the 'commencementof the Christianera' on the basis of coins. In 1837 Edward
Conolly (1837) made 'observationsupon the past and presentcondition of Oujeinor Ujjayini'.
In 1843 AlexanderCunninghamgave 'an account of the discoveryof the ruinsof the Buddhist
city of Samkassa'or Sankisa. This publication is important because for the first time it lays
down the basic methods employed in Cunningham'ssubsequent surveys(Cunningham1843).
The main guide in this case were the writings of Fa xian, whose travelsin India in the fifth
century AD provided the basic geographicalbearings;all that Cunninghamdid was make a
topographical survey of the ruins with comments on their probable identification. In 1856
A. F. Bellasis(1856a, b) describedin considerabledetail the early historic city of Brahminabad.
Descriptions of ancient sites during this period may easily be multiplied, but what is
important is that by the middle of the nineteenth century there was a clear understandingof
the archaeologicalwealth of India. And in MeadowsTaylor'smegalithic excavations at Jiwarji
(Taylor 1856) one also encounters a concern for stratigraphicaldetails and careful recording,
althoughTaylormust be consideredfar aheadof his contemporariesin this matter.

AlexanderCunningham
The need for a methodicalsurveyundergovernmentsponsorshipwas being increasinglyfelt and
this was clearly expressed by AlexanderCunningham(1848). Apartfrom emphasizingthe need
for a government-sponsoredsurvey, he clearly stated his preferences and methods in this
publication. Monuments and antiquities had to be published in a systematic manner and
adequate consideration given to those associated with Buddhism.In the proposed survey the
accounts of the two ChineseBuddhistpilgrims,Fa xian in the fifth century AD and Xuan zang
in the seventh century AD, would be the geographicalguides. Imam (1966) has explained
Cunningham'senthusiasmfor Buddhistrelics. The publication of Fa xian's travelsin Frenchin
1836 and StanislasJulien's translationof Xuan zang's work in 1857 and 1858 along with the
proof of the historical authenticity of Buddha through textual researchesin Nepal, Burmaand
Sri Lanka, where Buddhism was still a living religion, marked a significant breakthroughin
Indologicalstudies and Cunninghamwas one who was deeply influencedby it. His concernwith
the Chinesetravelaccounts was also rooted in his interest in the topographicalsurveyof ancient
settlementswhich he, as a militaryengineer,could hardlyescape.
Interestingly enough, Cunninghamalso thought that a search for Buddhist ruins would
demonstratethat Brahminismwas not the only paramountreligionin Indiaand this knowledge
would facilitate the propagationof Christianitythere. Second, 'it would show that India had
generally been divided into petty chiefships, which had invariablybeen the case upon every
successful invasion; while whenever she had been under one ruler, she had always repelled
foreign conquest with determinedresolution' (1848). In other words, he was trying to justify
the systematic archaeologicalexploration of Indiaon the groundsthat politically it would help
the British to rule India and lead to an easieracceptanceof Christianityin the country. As the
head of the newly constituted ArchaeologicalSurveyin 1861, Cunninghamhimself initiated the
explorations he proposed, but it must be understood that by the middle of the nineteenth
century the basic nature of the monuments and historical sites in India was well understood.
It is worth while to recall that around this time the study of Indian architecturetook a
 The developmentof archaeologyin the Indian subcontinent 333

systematic shape. The primarycredithere goes to James Fergusson,who undertookan architec-

tural survey between 1834 and 1845 and arrangedthe Indian architecturalremains in an
evolutionaryorderon the basis of his analysisof structuralfeatures(Allchin 1961).
Cunninghamheaded the ArchaeologicalSurvey for two spells, 1861-5 and 1871-85. The
Survey was disbandedin 1865 and organizedagainin 1871. In the first phasehe worked alone;
in the second he was allowed two assistants.Over a total of nineteen years he went over the
ground, sometimes repeatedly, of a surprisinglylarge amount of territory which included the
whole of the Gangeticvalley, Panjaband the NorthwesternFrontierProvince,centralIndiaand
Rajputana.No archaeologistin India, before or since, has had such a close personalfamiliarity
with such an impressivestretch of territory.The results of surveys done either by him or by
his assistantsare containedin the twenty-threevolumesof his Reports, publishedbetween 1862
and 1887. Along with his basic field reports one must also considerhis analytical writings on
historical geography,coins, inscriptions,architectureand sculpture.To all these fields he made
significantcontributions,in many cases on the basis of his own findings (for a comprehensive
bibliographyof Cunningham,see Imam 1966).
In his Memorandumof Instructionsto his assistantswritten in 1871, Cunninghamset a high
ideal for archaeology(1873): 'Archaeologyis not limited to broken sculptures,old buildings
and mounds of ruins, but includes everything that belonged to the world's history . .. our
researchesshould be extended to all ancient remainswhateverthat will help to illustrate the
mannersand customs of formertimes'. This ideal notwithstanding,he remainedthroughoutthe
course of his official explorations true to the goal he set for himself as early as 1848, if not
earlier:the elucidationof Indianhistoricalgeographyby following the footsteps of Fa xian and
Xuan zang. By traininga militarysurveyorand engineerwho attainedthe rankof major-general,
he remainedto the end an archaeologicalsurveyorconcernedwith the issues of Indianhistorical
geography.In most cases his identificationsof ancient sites have provedto be correct.
Excavations,for Cunningham,were matters of test-probingwhich was never followed by a
planned effort. The basic method, in the case of a stupa, was the diggingof a well to the centre.
In this he followed the tradition of opening stupas developed in the northwest. In situations
where no superficial remains were visible, he dug long trenches to hit structures. In these
explorationshis main concern was the identificationof the sites in the light of ancient records.
The details of the site did not alwaysinteresthim. Cunningham'snear total preoccupationwith
historical geographyplaces him in the tradition that had begun in India in the second half of
the eighteenth century. Yet by making the geographicalissues clear and by successfully
demarcatingthe fields of ancient Indian numismatic,inscriptional,architecturaland sculptural
studies he made possible the more detailed and in-depth studies of individual monuments,
groupsof monumentsand sites by some of his contemporariesand successors.

JamesBurgess
Cunningham'ssuccessorin the Survey,JamesBurgess,was inspiredby the traditionof architec-
tural studies initiated by James Fergusson.Beforehe came to the Survey,he made his markby
undertakingand organizinga series of detailed surveysof some of the principalmonumentsof
west and south India.In 1872 he starteda journal,IndianAntiquary,which came to be famous
for its detailed inscriptionaland other historical studies. Inscriptionalstudies were put on a
more secure basis with the series EpigraphiaIndica and with the appointmentof a government
334 Dilip K. Chakrabarti

epigraphist some time later. However, the main interest of Burgess lay in architecture, and
under him archaeology in India was equated with the study of structures (Burgess 1905):

ancient stupas and other remains were dug up and demolished under the idea that the relic
caskets or any entire pieces of sculpture found within or about them were the only objects of
archaeological research, whilst no attention was paid to the character and size of the build-
ing, or to what bricklayers would call the 'bond' of the bricks, their moulding, size, etc.
matters from which important deductions might possibly be drawn as to the age, purpose,
arrangement and relations of sculptures, and history of a structure.

Burgess's monographs on various groups of monuments published both before and after his
retirement from the Survey in 1889 constitute one of the major foundations of Indian architec-
tural studies. Yet it would be wrong to say that archaeology as such flourished under him in the
Survey. In fact, in the post-Cunningham period there was virtually no concern with field archae-
ology. The period witnessed significant developments in the general historical understanding of
ancient India but, by and large, field archaeology remained totally neglected until the appoint-
ment of John Marshall as the head of the Survey in 1902.

John Marshall

It would be invidious in this context not to acknowledge the debt Indian archaeology owes to
Lord Curzon, then the Viceroy. It was under his direct patronage that John Marshall began
work, and it was he who laid down the basic guidelines of this work:

It is in the exploration and study of purely Indian remains, in the probing of archaic
mounds, in the excavation of old Indian cities, and in the copying and reading of ancient
inscriptions, that a good deal of the exploratory work of the archaeologist in India will in
future lie . . . It is in my judgement equally our duty to dig and discover, to classify, repro-
duce, and describe, to copy and decipher, and to cherish and conserve (cited in Marshall
1904).

Marshall directly shaped the course of Indian archaeology until 1928, when he retired. Conser-
vation of ancient monuments and objects was among his first priorities and the basic principles
of conservation laid down by him in the Indian context (Marshall 1923) are still followed by
the Survey. The Survey was reorganized and centrally consolidated; the whole of the sub-
continent was neatly parcelled into a number of archaeological 'circles', each with its com-
plement of officers and men. The successive issues of the Annual Report beginning with the year
1902-3 faithfully reflect the manifold tasks performed by the officers of the Survey. Under
Marshall the Archaeological Survey of India became the largest single organization of its kind in
the history of archaeological research and witnessed its most glorious and 'imperial' period.
The details of the discoveries and excavations made in India during this period by Marshall's
colleagues and Marshall himself perhaps do not fit into the present survey of archaeological
traditions, but a few salient points cannot be ignored. First, no part of the country escaped
attention. Even a casual perusal of the Annual Reports indicates this. Second, specialized
studies of monuments, sites and areas were not neglected. The volumes published as Memoirs
bear witness to this fact. Third, some of the discoveries and excavations revolutionized the
study of Indian archaeology and ancient history. One has only to recall the discovery of
the Indus civilization and the long spell of excavations at Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, the
 The developmentof archaeologyin the Indian subcontinent 335

explorations of Aurel Stein in Baluchistan,the explorationsof N. G. Majumdarin Sind, and the

excavationsat Taxila and at some of the most important early historical sites of the Gangetic
valley. It may be added that all these works have been fully published. Fourth, it was during
this period that the natives of the subcontinent were inducted into superiorpositions in the
Survey and associatedwith both excavationsand discoveries.SeveralIndian scholarslike Ram
Raj, BhagawanlalIndrajiand RajendralalMitrahad made their markin the field of Indological
scholarship in the nineteenth century and the help of the traditional Indian scholars was
invaluablefor the early deciphermentof inscriptionsbut it was duringthis period that archae-
ology becamea recognizedpart of Indianacademicthinking.
A point that is not usually appreciatedis that when John Marshallwas directingthe Indian
archaeologicalscene, historical scholarshipabout India had alreadycome of age. The details of
ancient Indianpoliticalhistory, religion,economy and culturehad been establishedon the basis
of textual, inscriptional,numismatic,architectural,sculpturaland other sources.Yet at the same
time, as the important sites associated with the course of ancient Indian history remained
largely unexcavated,there was something shadowy about the historicalimage of ancient India.
The excavationsinitiated by Marshallat such sites as Taxila, Bhita, Sravasti,Vaisali,Rajagriha,
Sarnathand Nalandaprovidedthe much needed touch of reality to this image. The period most
affected by it in the historic context was the early historic period in the Gangeticvalley and the
northwest, roughly the period of 'Buddhist India'. The work initiated by Marshallsuddenly
made this period alive in the Indian culturalconsciousness.In the nationalistimage of ancient
Indiathis resuscitationof the Buddhistperiod played an importantrole.
In the field Marshallwas primarilyconcernedwith the horizontalexposure of sites. This had
not been previouslyattempted in the Indian context. In fact, apart from the work of Bellasis
at Brahminabadin Sind, no archaeologisthad even thought about the total picture of the site.
Under Marshall,structureswere individuallydescribedand their positions plotted in relationto
the total plan of the site. Their history was determinedon the basis of successivestructural
phases. Plans were drawn of the excavated settlement as a whole and the main cultural occu-
pations were reconstructed both on the basis of structural remains and antiquities. For a
typical 'Marshallreport' see Marshall1915. His methods of excavation have been criticized,
quite justifiably, on the ground that the depth of antiquities and 'strata'was interpretedin
relationto a fixed bench-levelon the top of the mound, in violation of the principlesof modern
stratigraphicexcavation. The only point which may be said in Marshall'sfavour is that he
achieved what he wanted: a total picture of the site and its main historical-culturalperiods.
This is a point that was subsequentlyacknowledgedby the strongest critic of his excavations,
MortimerWheeler(1950).
The severe financial cuts imposed by the Government of India in the 1930s did not help
archaeologyin the post-Marshallperiod, and the names of successivedirector-generalsof the
Survey until MortimerWheeler'sappointmentin 1944 are of no academicinterest. It was with
Wheelerthat prehistorybecame a formalpart of the Surveyactivitiesand one may thus choose
this point for a review of the developmentalpattern of Indian prehistoric studies till then.

The developmentof prehistoricstudies

Isolated finds of microlithic and Neolithic implements were made in India before 1863, but it
336 Dilip K. Chakrabarti

was in that year that Robert Bruce Foote, a geologist in the Geological Survey of India first
identified a Palaeolithic implement in India (a handaxe) in a gravel pit at Pallavaramnear
Madras. Foote's subsequent geological career lay in the modern states of Tamil Nadu,
Karnataka,AndhraPradeshand Gujarat.In each of these areashe discovered,along with other
types of prehistoricsites a largenumberof Palaeolithictool-bearinglocalities. The two volumes
that he wrote describing'and analysing this collection were published posthumously (Foote
1914, 1916). These constitute the basic referencepoint for all later discoveriesover a largepart
of south India and Gujarat.Discoveries were also made in other parts of India (cf. Dasgupta
1931), and the wide distribution of Palaeolithic and other prehistoric implements in the
country was amply clear by the beginningof the twentieth century. The early discoverersof
palaeolithsin Indiawere mostly geologistswho seldom went beyond enumeratingthe geological
context of the implementsand sites. The tool-typology and the methods of manufacturewere
never fully discussed. Nor was any attention given to the possible evolution of tool-types. The
descriptionof the geological contexts was usually precise and in two cases led to the proof of
associationof these tools with Pleistocenefauna(Wynne 1866; Medlicott 1873).
There was no significantdiscovery between 1900 and 1930. Apartfrom the two volumes of
Foote's catalogue publishedin 1914 and 1916, the only significantpublication of this period
was a general survey of prehistoric India by P. Mitra (1923). The period between 1930 and
1950 witnessed the beginning of systematic interest in Indian Palaeolithic studies. In 1930
L. A. Cammiadeand M. C. Burkitt (1930) studied the finds of tools over a long stretch along
the Eastern Ghats which fringe the Andhra coast. Two theoretical points make this study
historically significant. First, on the groundsof stratigraphy,typology and their state of preser-
vation, the tools were grouped into 'four series belonging to four distinct culturesof different
dates'. Series 1 to 4 correspondedsuccessivelyto the Lower Palaeolithic,Middle Palaeolithic,
Upper Palaeolithicand microlithicindustries.Second, they tried to develop a climatic sequence
of these industriesfrom an analysis of their respectivegeologicalcontexts. In 1935 H. de Terra
of Yale Universityand T. T. Patersonof CambridgeUniversityled a joint prehistoricexpedition
to the Potwar plateau where they discovered a succession of Palaeolithic industriesand put
them in the context of successiveterracesalong the Soan river.The terrace-sequencewas corre-
lated to the outwash of the glacial cycle in Kashmir,which again was taken to correspondto
the four-fold glacial cycle in Europe. Thus an attempt was made to provide a precise chrono-
logical perspective to the Palaeolithic industries of the Soan valley. Terra and Patersonalso
investigated,albeit briefly, the Narmadavalley and the areaaroundMadras.A broad correlation
was attempted between the Soan and Narmadasequencesin an attempt to give a chronological
frameworkto the central Indian Pleistocene and related industries.Because of its geochrono-
logical approach, their work (Terraand Paterson 1939) became an important reference point
for later investigationselsewherein India.
In 1939 K. R. U. Todd published a major paper on his discoveries around Bombay,
describinga major section and the associatedindustries.Between 1939 and 1942 N. K. Bose
and D. Sen of Calcutta University (1949) discovered a rich Lower Palaeolithic industry in
Mayurbhanj,Orissa.In 1946 H. D. Sankaliaof Deccan College,Poona University,publishedthe
results of his prehistoricinvestigationsin Gujarat.Whatis importantfrom the point of view of
later development is that during this period the Indian universitiesbecame involved in pre-
historic research.
The discoveryof the Induscivilizationand the relatedexcavationsandexplorationshighlighted
 The developmentof archaeologyin the Indian subcontinent 337

the protohistoric phase of Indian archaeologyin the 1920s and 1930s but even before this a
considerable number of copper-bronze 'prehistoric'implements were found in unstratified
contexts in the Gangeticvalley and the adjacentplateau region of centralIndia(Smith 1905).
The sporadic excavations of south Indian megaliths continued from the first quarter of the
nineteenth century, although with few positive results except a rich crop of iron implements
and pottery.

MortimerWheeler
MortimerWheelerwas at the helm of the ArchaeologicalSurvey for only four years (1944--8)
out of which one was lost in the turmoil of Independenceand Partition.Yet what he achieved
and initiated duringthis short period was considerable,and is reflectedin the notes and articles
that he wrote for the first five issues of Ancient India, a new Surveyjournalwhich was started
by him in 1946. In retrospect the following features stand out. First, he took a total view of
archaeology beginning with the Palaeolithic stage and emphasized the need for scientific
analyses in archaeology. One can cite a few good scientific analyses from the earlierperiod,
such as the study of animal,human and crop remainsat the Induscities of MohenjoDaro and
Harappa,and the chemical analyses of metal samplesfrom some sites, but it was Wheelerwho
first arguedthe basic necessity of scientific aids in archaeologyin India. Second, he put strong
emphasison careful archaeologicalplanning,both on the level of an individualsite and in terms
of a wider area.This was somethingnovel for India. Third,by excavatingat Taxila, Harappaand
Arikameduhe not only demonstratedthe significanceof such planningby solvingmajorprob-
lems related to these sites but also introduced to India the modern concept of archaeological
stratigraphy.He also introduced there for the first time the significance of the study of
stratified ceramic material for determiningthe cultural succession at excavated sites and its
importance in comparative study of material between different sites. Fourth, he gave field
training in his methods to a large number of Indian students who have kept his excavation
tradition alive since then. He also wrote a number of articleson the excavationproceduresfor
his Indian colleaguesand students in Ancient India. Fifth, he was wise enough to realize that
archaeologicalresearchin such a large territory as India could not be done by the Archae-
ological Survey alone - effective participationby the universitieswas necessary - and, it was
under his inspiration that severalIndian universitiesstarted archaeologicalresearch.Wheeler's
final contribution to the traditionof Indianarchaeologicalresearchis somethingintangibleand
can be appreciatedonly by those who have felt it, directly or indirectly.Despite his very short
stay as DirectorGeneral,he infused an element of urgencyinto the Indianarchaeologicalscene.
With him archaeologyin India became exciting, worth doing for its own sake. This excitement
is apparentin the articlesthat he wrote, and still affects those who know the scene.

The post-Independenceperiod
Whatevermay be said about Wheeler'shistorical-archaeologicaltheories in the Indian context
or about his emphasis on one set of data at the expense of another to prove a particular
assumption, there is little doubt that he preparedthe archaeologyof the subcontinent for its
transitionto modernityin the post-Partitionperiod. The Independenceand Partitionof Indiain
338 Dilip K. Chakrabarti

1947 started the fragmentation of the archaeology into its present units, India and Pakistan,
and in 1971 Bangladesh entered the scene in her own right. Archaeology in Sri Lanka and Nepal
is also a part of the modern picture. One can detect certain variations in the archaeological
activities in all these countries, but these variations are more due to the nature of their ancient
sites than to anything fundamental.
It must be stressed at this point that a review of the current data and individual theories is
beyond the scope of the present paper which will only outline the broad features and the
dominant conceptual framework. The general progress of archaeology in the subcontinent will
be apparent if one compares Stuart Piggott's still useful, Prehistoric India (1950) with Sankalia's
Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan (1974). For more recent developments one
can do no better than turn to Jerome Jacobson's masterly survey (1979).
The number of basic discoveries since 1947 is surely impressive. These discoveries belong to
all phases of the archaeological sequence beginning with the Lower Palaeolithic. Most areas have
been well surveyed, yielding thousands of sites from all periods. The most important beneficiary
has been prehistoric and protohistoric research. In the field of prehistory there is hardly any
area outside the Indo-Gangetic alluvium that has not revealed its own prehistoric succession.
As far as protohistory is concerned, the results are even more complete. The distribution of the
Indus civilization sites has been satisfactorily worked out both in India and Pakistan, revealing
an extent and complexity that was not imagined before. The background of the Indus civiliz-
ation is now well understood. Equally, if not more, impressive is the evidence concerning the
protohistoric situation outside the Indus civilization. The discovery of protohistoric sites in the
northwest, Kashmir, the Gangetic valley, central, west, south and east India has added a
completely new chapter to the subcontinent's history. Important historical sites of various areas
were already known, but recent explorations have added a plethora of new sites (plate 2), and
the details of the historical situation are now better understood. Both explorations and exca-
vations have played their respective parts in promoting discoveries. There is not a single major
area from the hill valleys of Baluchistan to the tip of the peninsula where there is no excavated
sequence. At many of the important sites there have been horizontal excavations. Considered as
a whole, Pakistan shows a preference for protohistoric sites, a perfectly logical choice in view of
both the importance of such sites in that area and the need for a new nation to seek deep roots.
Nepal is fascinated more by the Buddhist remains in her foothill region and archaeology in
Bangladesh has been dominated by early historic and medieval remains. In each of these cases
the distribution of sites dictates archaeological preference. In India, simply because of its size
and diversity of remains, by and large all periods have come in for scrutiny.
The second major phenomenon, although it is not yet particularly strong, relates to the field
of natural scientific analyses in archaeology. This is more apparent in India than elsewhere in
the subcontinent. A significant step in this direction was taken with the establishment of a
radiocarbon laboratory in Bombay (later transferred to Ahmedabad) which has branched out in
recent years to include palaeo-environmental and metallurgical investigations. A second radio-
carbon laboratory has started operating in the Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow,
which has long been known for its profound contributions to the study of ancient plant remains
and pollen sequences. Organized natural scientific groups are also active in archaeology at the
Deccan College, Pune, and elsewhere.
The third major tradition which has gathered momentum since Independence is the partici-
pation of the universities in archaeological field researches. Certain universities have already
 Thedevelopmentof archaeologyin the Indian subcontinent 339

played a major role and the historic leadershipof H. D. Sankaliamust not go unacknowledged
in this context. Thereis also an increasingnumberof archaeologicalpublications.In addition to
the monographs,reports and miscellaneousjournals one may mention the following leading
annual journals and bulletins: Pakistan Archaeology (Government of Pakistan), Ancient
Pakistan(PeshawarUniversity),Ancient India (Governmentof India), IndianArchaeology- a
Review (Governmentof India),Ancient Nepal (Governmentof Nepal), Puratattva- Bulletin of
the Indian ArchaeologicalSociety and Man and Environment(Indian Society for Prehistoric
and QuaternaryStudies). On the whole, one tends to agreewith Jacobson(1979): 'Today there
are few world areas of comparablesize where knowledge of the ancient past is growing so
rapidlyand over so broada geographicaland chronologicalspectrum'.
We must considerhow all these discoveriesand basic researcheshave been integratedinto an
interpretiveframework. To begin, we have to look first at the historical situation of archae-
ology as an academicdiscipline in India both past and present. Archaeologydevelopedwithin
the Indianacademic scene as an adjunct to ancient historical studies. The wheels of that huge
bureaucraticarchaeologicalmachinery, the Archaeological Survey of India, moved steadily
along, churningout an immense amount of data, and the ancient historiansat the universities
and elsewhere continued to try to fit these data into their own structures. There was no
attempt at any point to view archaeology as an academic discipline in its own right. The
primary concern in the pre-Independenceperiod was with historical material that would
amplify the rich tapestry of Indian literate civilization.Prehistoricdata were known, but there
was not much understandingof them in the curriculaof the universitiesor in the writingsof the
historians.After all, that would only demonstratethat Indiatoo had passedthrougha barbaric
phase and this was hardly an attractiveproposition to the nationalist spirit of the times. It is
also important to appreciatethat orthodox ancient Indianhistorical studies have always been
characterizedby a more or less fragmentedapproachto history, in which bits and pieces of data
relating to particularperiods were analysed and described without any examination of what
today would be called 'total history'. Even this approachhas its historical reasons. First, the
textual data on ancient India are severely limited in quantity and suffer from the additional
handicaps of ambiguity, chronological uncertainty and limited geographical applicability.
Second, contemporary studies emphasized racial and linguistic variationsin the country and
encouragedancient historiansto think in terms of different racialand linguisticgroups.Third,
Indianhistory was viewed as a processin which there had been continuousmigrationsof people
from outside bringingin techniques and innovations.The pride lay in emphasizinghow these
incoming groups lost their 'foreignness'and became a part of the Indiancultureand populace.
It is this interpretiveframeworkof ancient India that was called upon to explain the rapidly
increasingarchaeologicaldata in the post-Independenceperiod. No particularexplanation was
needed for the Palaeolithicdata, which were too remote in time and, because of the absence of
contemporaryhuman remains, remainedcoldly impersonaland dull. There was also no prob-
lem with the data of the historic periods which were always understood and related to what
was already known. The main challenge lay in the late prehistoricand protohistoricperiods.
When the Indus civilization was discovered it was neatly labelled as pre-and-non-Vedicand
treatedas a backdropto the stage the Aryanscould act on. Wheeler'sexplanationfor the end of
the Indus civilization as resulting from the Aryan invasions only made this position further
secure.Therewas no problemuntil an assortmentof settled food-producingcommunitiesof the
3rd and 2nd millennia BC were discovered in all the, major agricultural regions of the
340 Dilip K. Chakrabarti

subcontinent. These newly discovered cultures had to be historically understood. The questions
asked of them were: 1. Do these cultures represent various groups of people mentioned in early
texts? 2. Do some of them belong to autochthones who were in the country before the Aryans
came? 3. Do some of them represent the traces of the early Aryans themselves? Because Iran
and central Asia were two postulated springboards of the Aryan migration to India, most of
these cultures were carefully scrutinized for possible Iranian and Central Asian analogues (for
an illustration of this approach, see Sankalia 1974).
Apart from this tradition of attaching ethnic and linguistic labels to the newly discovered
archaeological culture groups, the dominant approach is what should be called 'descriptive-
historical', the piecing together of various pieces of information about these cultures and their
integration in general descriptive terms. One of the reasons why archaeology in the sub-
continent still fights shy of the rigours of modern scientific planning and analysis is that the
current approach, rooted in ancient Indian historical studies, does not demand any rigorous
scientific planning and analysis (Agrawal and Chakrabarti 1979). The general situation is not
acceptable to all archaeologists. Many current assumptions are being increasingly questioned
and there is more emphasis on the archaeological understanding of data without taking recourse
to the orthodox historical framework (for a review, see Jacobson 1979).

1 .viii.1981 Delhi University

References

Agrawal, D. P. and Dilip K. Chakrabarti. 1979. Archaeology in India: a professional assessment.

In Essays in Indian Prehistory (ed. D. P. Agrawal and Dilip K. Chakrabarti). Delhi: B. R. Pub-
lishing Corp., pp. 389-92.
Alexander, J. E. 1830. Notice of a visit to the cavern temples of Adjunta in the East Indies.
Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society. 2: 362-70.
Allchin, F. R. 1961. Ideas of history in Indian archaeological writing: a preliminary study. In
Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon (ed. C. H. Philips). Oxford University Press,
pp. 241-59.
anon. 1785. A Comparative View of the Ancient Monuments of India, Particularly those in the
Island of Salset near Bombay, as Described by Different Writers. London: John Nichols.

Anville, M. D'. 1753. Eclaircissemens geographiques sur la carte de lInde. Paris: L'Imprimerie
Royale.
Anville, M. D'. 1775. AntiquitF geographique de 17nde et de plusieurs autres contrees de la
Haute Asie. Paris. L'Imprimerie Royale.

Babington, T. 1823. Description of the Pandoo Coolies of Malabar. Transactions of the Literary
Society of Bombay. 3: 324-30.
Bellasis, A. F. 1856a. An account of the ancient and ruined city of Brahminabad in Sind.
Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 5: 413-25.
Bellasis, A. F. 1856b. Further observations on the ruined city of Brahminabad in Sind. Journal
of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 5: 467-77.
Bose, N. K. and D. Sen. 1949. Excavations in Mayurbhanj. Calcutta University Press.
 The development of archaeology in the Indian subcontinent 341

Buchanan, F. 1807. A Journey from Madras. 3 vols. London: W. Bulmer.

Burgess, J. 1905. Sketch of archaeological research in India during half a century. Journal of
the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (extra number). 131-48.

Burnes, A. 1833. On the 'topes' and Grecian remains in the Punjab. Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal. 2: 308-10.
Cammiade, L. A. and M. C. Burkitt. 1930. Fresh light on the Stone Ages in Southeast India.
Antiquity. 4: 327-39.
Cautley, P. T. 1834a. Discovery of an ancient town near Behut, in the Doab. Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal. 3: 43-4.
Cautley, P. T. 1834b. Further account of the remains of an ancient town, discovered at Behut,
near Saharanpur. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 3: 221-7.

Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1976. India and the Druids. Antiquity. 50: 66-7.
Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1979. Robert Bruce Foote and Indian Prehistory. East and West. 29:
11-26.

Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1981. Indian archaeology: the first phase, 1784-1861. In Towards a
History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel). London: Thames & Hudson, pp. 169-85.
Chambers, W. 1788. Some account of the sculptures and ruins at Mahabalipuram. Asiatick
Researches. 1: 145-70.

Conolly, E. 1837. Observations upon the past and present condition of Ougein or Ujjayini.
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 6: 813-56.

Court, A. 1834. Further information on the topes of Manikiyala. Journal of the Asiatic Society
of Bengal. 3: 556-62.
Cunningham, A. 1843. An account of the discovery of the ruins of the Buddhist city of
Samkassa. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 5: 241-7.

Cunningham, A. 1848. Proposed archaeological investigation. Journal of the Asiatic Society of

Bengal. 17: 535-6.
Cunningham, A. 1873. Memorandum of instructions. Archaeological Survey of India, Report
for the Year 1871-72. Calcutta.
Dasgupta, H. C. 1931. Bibliography of Indian prehistoric antiquities. Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal. 27: 1-96.
Davis, S. 1790. Some Roman coins found at Nelore [letter dated 20 March 1788]. Asiatick
Researches. 2: 331.

Duncan, J. 1798. An account of the discovery of two urns in the vicinity of Benares. Asiatick
Researches. 5: 131-2.
Foote, R. B. 1914. The Foote Collection of Indian Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities:
Catalogue raisonne. Madras: Government Press.
Foote, R. B. 1916. The Foote Collection of Indian Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities:
Notes on their Ages and Distribution. Madras: Government Press.

Gerard, J. G. 1834. Memoir on the topes and antiquities of Afghanistan. Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal. 3: 321-9.
Ghosh, A. 1953. Fifty years of the Archaeological Survey of India. Ancient India. 9: 29-52.
342 Dilip K. Chakrabarti

Goldingham, J. 1795. Some account of the cave in the island of Elephanta. Asiatick Researches.
4: 409-17.

Goldingham, J. 1798. Some account of the sculptures at Mahabalipooram. Asiatick Researches.

5: 69-80.

Harkness, H. 1832. A Description of a Singular Aboriginal Race Inhabiting the Summit of the
Neilgherry Hills, or the Blue Mountains of Coimbatoor, in the Southern Peninsula of India.
London: Smith, Elder.

Harrington, J. 1788. A description of a cave near Gaya. Asiatick Researches. 1: 276-8.

Imam, A. 1966. Sir Alexander Cunningham and the Beginnings of Indian Archaeology. Dacca:
Asiatic Society of Pakistan.

Jacobson, J. 1979. Recent developments in south Asian prehistory and protohistory. Annual
Review of Anthropology. 8: 467-502.

Jones, W. 1788. The third anniversary discourse. Asiatick Researches. 1: 415-31.

Jones, W. 1792. On the origin of families and nations. Asiatick Researches. 3: 479-92.
Mallet, C. 1799. Description of the caves ... Ellora. Asiatick Researches. 6: 389-423.
Marshall, J. 1904. Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report, 1902-3. Calcutta: Govern-
ment Press.

Marshall, J. 1915. Excavations at Bhita. Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report, 1911-
12. Calcutta: Government Press.
Marshall, J. 1923. Conservation Manual. Archaeological Survey of India.
Masson, C. 1834. Extracts from Mr. Masson's letter to Dr. J. G. Gerard, on the excavation of
topes, dated Tattung, 22 March, 1834. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 3: 329-32.
Maurice, T. 1800-1.Indian Antiquities, 7 vols. London.
Medlicott, H. B. 1873. Notes on a celt found by Mr. Hacket . . . Records of the Geological
Survey of India. 6: 49-54.
Mitra, P. 1923. Prehistoric India. Calcutta University Press.
Mitra, D. 1968. Konarak. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Piggott, S. 1950. Prehistoric India. Penguin Books.
Plumb, J. H. 1966. England in the Eighteenth Century (1 714-1815). Penguin Books.
Poliakov, L. 1974. The Aryan Myth: a History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe.
Sussex University Press.

Prinsep, J. 1 834a. On the coins discovered by M. le Chevalier Ventura ... Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal. 3: 313-20.
Prinsep, J. 1834b. Continuation of observations on the coins and relics . . . Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal. 3: 436-56.

Prinsep, J. 1 834c. Note on the coins discovered by M. Court. Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal. 3: 562-7.
Prinsep, J. 1834d. Note on the brown liquid contained in the cylinders from Manikayala.
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 3: 567-76.

Prinsep, J. 1838. On the edicts of Piyadasi.. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 7: 219-82.
 The development of archaeology in the Indian subcontinent 343

Purchas, S. 1905. Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes, vol. 10. Glasgow: James
Maclehose.

Rennell, J. 1793 (3rd ed.). Memoir of a Map of Hindoostan ... London: M. Brown.

Roy, S. 1961. The Story of Indian Archaeology, 1 784-1947. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey
of India.

Sankalia, H. D. 1946. Investigations into the Prehistoric Archaeology of Gujarat. Baroda State
Press.
Sankalia, H. D. 1974. Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan. Poona: Deccan
College.
Sen, S. 1949. Indian Travels of Thevenot and Careri. New Delhi: National Archives.
Sircar, D. C. 1976. Epigraphical studies in India: some observations. Studies in Indian Epi-
graphy. 3: 9-25.
Smith, V. 1905. The Copper age and prehistoric bronze implements of India. Indian Antiquary.
34: 229-44.

Stirling, A. 1825. An account, geographical, statistical and historical of Orissa proper, or

Cuttack. Asiatick Researches. 15: 163-338.

Taylor, M. 1856. Ancient remains at the village of Jiwarji near Farozabad on the Bhima. Journal
of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Bhima. 3: 179-93.
Terra, H. de and T. T. Paterson. 1939. Studies on the Ice Age in India and Associated Human
Cultures. Washington: Carnegie Institute.

Tieffenthaler, J., A. du Perron and J. Rennell. 1786-8. Description Historique et Geographique

de l'Inde. 3 vols. Berlin: Imprimerie de Pierre Bourdeaux.

Todd, K. R. U. 1939. Palaeolithic industries of Bombay. Journal of the Royal Anthropological

Institute. 69: 257-72.

Valle, Pietro della. 1664. The Travels of Sig. Pietro della Valle ... London: J. Macock.

Wheeler, M. 1950. What matters in archaeology. Antiquity. 24: 122-30.

Wilford, F. 1792. On Egypt and other countries adjacent to the Cali river, or Nile of Ethiopia
from the ancient books of the Hindus. Asiatick Researches. 3: 295-468.
Wilkins, C. 1788a. A royal grant of land. Asiatick Researches. 1: 123-30.
Wilkins, C. 1788b. An inscription on a pillar near Buddal. Asiatick Researches. 1: 131-44.
Wilson, H. H. 1841. Ariana Antiqua. London: East India Company.
Wilson, A. L. 1964. A Mythical Image: the Ideal of India in German Romanticism. Duke
University Press.
Wynne, A. B. 1866. Remains of prehistoric man in central India. Geological Magazine. 3: 283-4.
344 Dilip K. Chakrabarti

Abstract

Chakrabarti, Dilip K.

The development of archaeology in the Indian subcontinent

Because of its size, the archaeology of India has received the primary attention. All the main
stages of Indian archaeology are briefly analysed, and it has been demonstrated how, an im-
pressive number of discoveries notwithstanding, traditional and ancient Indian historical thinking
has conditioned archaeological approaches.