In the preceding sections we have tried to isolate the essential character of the major components of early historic archaeology of the subcontinent. A few points emerge. First, there is a general chronological correspondence between the archaeological context of the beginning of early history and the Buddhist literary evidence related to the sixteen great principalities from the north-west to the Deccan. While the NBP serves the purpose of a good archaeological marker in parts of Gangetic and central India, it does not do so elsewhere in the land. The ceramic markers still remain to be worked out for the latter areas. For instance, how do we define the transition to history in the archaeological record of Gujarat or Bengal, for instance? It is on the basis of the appearance of the NBP in these areas and on the basis of a tacit assumption that these areas passed into their early historic phase only after being included in the Mauryan dominion, that we take the third century BC as the cut-off chronological point in these contexts. Without trying to deny the significance of the Mauryan rule in the consolidation and expansion of the early historic phase all over the subcontinent, the close possibility of the existence of pre-Mauryan states or political units in the areas, where the beginning of urbanism has hitherto been associated only with the Mauryan presence, needs to be examined. The early slate formation in India has to date from the latter part of the regional archaeological columns covering the whole phase of the neolithic–chalcolithic and the. Iron Age. Archaeological markers of this formation have to be worked out first regionally. Even in the relevant section of Gangetic India, the NBP need not be mechanically construed as the cut-off point between protohistory and early history. There should be an important shadowy phase in between.
Fig. 55 Art ordinary early historic house at Adam (Indian Arch.—A Rev.)
Second, the fact that the NBP cannot be mechanically construed as an archaeological marker of early historic urbanism all over the subcontinent has been driven home by the probability of an urban growth going back to the sixth to fifth century BC in the Kaveri delta and its hinterland. Earlier we have drawn attention to the archaeological finds from this region on the basis of Rajan’s work. The local inscriptional corroboration of the south Indian states mentioned by Asoka is a major breakthrough in the study of south Indian history and points to the growth of states in this region in the pre-Asokan period. On the basis of inscribed Tamil–Brahmi sherds, the like of which has been dated at Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka around the middle of the first millennium BC, its beginning can easily be taken back to c. 500 BC. This, together with the mounting evidence of a separate early tradition of Chola, Pandya and Chera coinage, the consolidation of arterial routes and trade marts of the region (cf. Karur), and the large size of some of the settlements, will make the study of the archaeology of this part of the subcontinent an exciting prospect.
Third, what may be considered somewhat disturbing is the uneven character of data on settlement contexts of different regions. Till the overall settlement picture is clear, it is difficult to isolate the various categories of settlements of a given region and relate them as far as practicable to the basic textual, inscriptional and numismatic evidence from that region.
Fourth, as far as this latter category of evidence is concerned, there is a fair amount of correspondence with what can be inferred from archaeology: the general outlines of urban planning, as mentioned in texts; the evidence of intense craft-specialization, as suggested both by texts and inscriptions; the significance of both internal and external trade and trade routes, as reflected in literature, inscriptions and the distribution of coins and various raw materials and finished products; and so on. As long as one does not expect to find the literary minutiae reflected in detail in the archaeological record, there is no problem regarding the level of correspondence between archaeology and the relevant literary, inscriptional and numismatic evidence of early historic India.
Fifth, despite the probability of distinct regional features in the archaeological assemblages of various parts of the subcontinent, which have not yet been looked into in detail, the initial impression of early historic India is that of a great uniformity in material traits down to the level of pottery. The early historic pottery that one may find in the cliff-sides of Himachal Pradesh in one season may turn out to be overwhelmingly similar to the pottery that may be dug out of a river cliff in West Bengal in the next. This impression deepens when one considers the quick spread and historical evolution of a pervasive art idiom from the Maurya–Sunga phase onwards. The Gandharan art may be an exception, but even here the basic themes and iconography are subcontinental. Further, when one thinks that the time-bound terracottas and sculptures are bound within the framework of the same idiom, one feels more convinced by the logic of this argument. As far as coins are. concerned, we have drawn attention to the basic indigenousness of the Indian coinage as reflected in the segment of punch–marked–cast copper-local coins lineage. The style and content of the inscriptions do not greatly vary either. Whichever way we view it, it is the streak of broad uniformity running through the different archaeological components of early historic India which commands our attention than the many undoubted elements of regional variations.
Finally, we must appreciate the simple fact that early historic India is deeply rooted in the archaeological columns that we have traced in the preceding chapters.