TrendingVideosIndiaWorldSports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhPatialaBathindaAmritsarLudhianaJalandharDelhiShaharnama
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
EntertainmentLifestyle
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Advertisement

Competitive archaeology

The claims about early origins of iron, like in Tamil Nadu recently, show an obsession for showcasing regional achievements rather than addressing important questions about the past
An aerial view of ‘Iron Age’ graves at Mayiladumparai. Photos courtesy: ‘Antiquity of Iron: Recent radiometric dates from Tamil Nadu’
Advertisement

In India, the State has always played a dominant role in driving archaeological research, be it the case of Harappan sites, or the origins of iron, and even writing. Such an agenda gets pushed both by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the various state departments of archaeology. While the ASI has tended to take the lead in Harappan or Epic Archaeologies (through the excavations of the large Harappan sites as well as the national projects of archaeology of the Ramayana and Mahabharata), the state departments have tried to bolster regional chauvinism through their endeavours. This can take various forms, such as showcasing regional achievements, as evident in the quest for the early origins of iron in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.

So far, the universally accepted dates for the Iron Age in both North and South India are placed in the range of 1200-500 BCE. However, nearly two decades ago, the Uttar Pradesh State Department of Archaeology carried out excavations at several Iron Age sites that revealed dates between 1800 and 1400 BCE. Most recently, the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology has published a report that places the origins of wrought iron production around 3000 BCE. These dates significantly predate the start of the Iron Age elsewhere in the world, which is placed around 1300-1200 BCE.

Advertisement

Excavated trenches at Sivagalai-parambu.

Globally, it is well recognised that the Bronze Age (3300–1200 BCE) precedes the Iron Age (1200–500 BCE). Closer home, the general understanding for much of South India (which includes Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana) is that they share similar archaeological histories, viz. Neolithic (3000-1200 BCE), Iron Age (1200-500 BCE), followed by the Early Historic (500 BCE-500 CE).

So how does one go about trying to understand these early dates for iron in Tamil Nadu, especially since these state boundaries are a recent phenomenon and not applicable for the Neolithic/Iron Age/Early Historic periods? Does it mean that within the modern boundaries of Tamil Nadu, the Neolithic overlapped with the Iron Age unlike in the other states of South India? In other words, did the Neolithic and Iron Age societies co-exist from 3000 BCE till 1200 BCE in Tamil Nadu? If so, what were the relations between them?

The evidence for the Iron Age in South India comes from the ‘megalithic’ burials and from settlements. These burials comprised different forms, such as dolmens (stone slab enclosures), stone circles, stone chambers open at one end, cairns, and menhirs (single-standing stones). Such burials are found as large and small mortuary complexes as isolated features, often not very far from the settlements, or at the edges and even within habitation sites. There were significant differences between what was included in the burials and the types of internment, such as pits, urns, sarcophagi, and stone cists. It is interesting that occasionally, urn burials have indicated dates between 2700 and 2000 BCE, leading archaeologists to infer that burial practices attributed to the Iron Age may not have been limited to that period alone. Instead, the practice of urn burials may have begun in the Neolithic period (3000-1200 BCE) and continued into the Early Historic period (500 BCE-500 CE). It has also been argued that the burial features may have been less elaborate in the Neolithic but became more elaborate and labour-intensive during the Iron Age. Hence, it is possible that some of the early dates from Tamil Nadu may belong to Neolithic rather than Iron Age contexts.

Advertisement

Equally significant is that out of the 20 dates that have been published, 14 are from urn burials ranging from 3200 BCE to 1000 BCE. Archaeologically, what may have been a more important question to explore would be the changes in the forms and features of the urn burials over these 2200 years.

An urn found in one of the trenches.

There are also several inconsistencies with the dates themselves; for instance, three dates from the same urn burial at Sivagalai reveal two dates around 2400 BCE while the third date is about 3200 BCE. Similarly, from another urn burial at the same site, one date is around 1800 BCE while the second is 2450 BCE. It is also noteworthy that the carbon samples extracted from the iron objects show dates ranging between 1500 and 1000 BCE.

We find that most research has focussed on the origins of iron production, along with an obsession regarding early dates, rather than addressing more important questions related to the nature of iron production and the significance of iron in the Iron Age societies. Mostly, the iron objects comprise tools (sickles, hoes, ploughshares, celts, axes, stirrups) and weapons (spears, arrowheads, knives, daggers, swords). Isn’t it more important to explore the role of these iron objects? Were they used to delineate social differences and affiliations in South India? Were iron products used to display status and rank? Did control over iron production create a source of power for some social groups? Moreover, did iron production require specialisation? Were there specialist producers like smelters and smiths? What also needs to be undertaken are detailed studies of Iron Age settlements. Fortunately, away from the glare and pressure of the State, these questions are being addressed by a couple of archaeologists working in northern Karnataka.

Archaeology in India seems to make front-page news on issues that are related to varying forms of chauvinism, be it national, regional or religious. Often, these are related to discoveries, origins and disputes over religious structures. Globally, there have been numerous cases wherein archaeology was pressed in the 19th and early 20th centuries in serving the nation, yet, in more recent times, States have stayed out of the discipline. It is now time that in India, as should be the case in any mature democratic nation, the State (through the ASI and the state departments of archaeology) should stop using the discipline for political gains or competitive regional aspirations. There is so much potential for archaeology in our country and the focus should be on strengthening the discipline in our schools, colleges and universities.

— The writer taught archaeology at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement