During the past few decades archaeological excavations in the country have presented a vista of cultural heritage; a chrono-cultural sequence for reconstructing our past. This succession of cultural periods and phases so revealed is usually compressed in a framework of 'relative chronology', which is at once speculative and nebulous. But then the aim of the archaeologist or the historian in regard to chronology is somewhat different. His target is absolute dates; dates in hard figures.
Determining chronology on the basis of taxonomy is handicapped by the 'asumption that types evolved (or degenerated) regularly. But taxonomy is the only alternative when, as Childe observes, where stratigraphical or geological evidence is lacking we must have recourse to typology. Stratigraphy and the associate objects do help to evolve a relative chronology to a great extent. To extend this over a wide area is 'all hazardous business'; a mere 'guess work', and more often than not, wrong speculation. Therefore, a technique of almolute dating becomes imperative. For, in the absence of absolute dates cultures of different regions cannot accurately be compared, their ultimate interrelationship cannot be assessed: in other words the vital causative factors of human 'progress' cannot be authoritatively reconstructed, and may be widely misunderstood.
Recently physical and natural scientists have developed several dating methods viz., dendrochron- ology, thermoluminiscence, archaeomagnetism, radiocarbon or C14 method of dating, etc. Of these, dendrochronology was the earliest to be developed and successfully utilized in dating the American prehistory (pre-sixteenth century). But this method is cumbersome and involves building up a library of dated samples for comparison and to arrive at a date. Thermoluminiscence and archacomagnetism present serious handicaps and, under the present stage of knowledge, cannot be used with much advantage. In the circumstances, till a better system is evolved, the most acceptable technique is the Radiocarbon method developed by Willard F. Lib Libby. This method, a product of atomic research, haa to a greater extent enabled the archaeologist in building a chronologcial framework(s). However, it should not be assumed that this is the panacea for all the ills of archaeological dating, for this too, has certain drawbacks. Thus, while it has helped us in providing dates for prehistoric cultures to a large degree, it has not been an infalliable method for determining the choronology of the historical periods for which written records are plentifuland are reliable. This is particularly true in case of Indian archaeology. The unsurmountable handicap in such cases have been the relatively large margin of error within which the actual date might vary. For example, if a sample from a known historical context gives a date 100+100 B. C., then it has to be surmised that the actual date might be anywhere between 200 В. С. and A.D. 100; in the absence of corroborative internal evidence C 14 determination proves to be less useful. Nevertheless, under the present circumstances, by a judicious combination of stratigraphical and geological evidence we can arrive at a reasonably acceptable date by this method.
In the present compilation all the available data pertaining to the C 14 dates of various sites in India have been given; the intention being to presentin one place the chronological framework of all the sites for which C 14 dates were published in various journals from time to time. Besides, the cultural sequence of each site recounted here would, doubtless, be an added advantage facilitating intercomparison of cultures of different sites and regions. A short account of radiocarbon dating method is also appended.
The present work thus covers the vast temporal and spatial cultural framework as available from seventy-four sites. Some of the earliest dates of cultures represented here are: (i) Late Stone Age at Sarai Nahar Rai (ii) neolithic at Kodekal (in) pre-Harappan and Harappan at Kalibangan (in) P.G.W. levels at Noh and (0) N. B. P. levels at Kausambi and Rajghat respectively.
The sites have been arranged alphabetically and the dates are given in a descending order. Two dates are given, one of which is in parenthesis; B.P. after the parenthesis denotes Before Present. The first is based on half-life value of radioactive carbon worked out to 5568+30 while the latter within brackets on 5730+40. The reduced dates in B.C./A.D. scale is also given. In this process, as stipulated by the laboratories, 1950 has been reckoned as the base year. For intercomparison of dates it is essential that constancy in the half-life value ofradiocarbon between the sets of comparable dates should be maintained: in other words a set of dates based on half-life value of 5568-30 should be compared with another set based on the same half-life. Yet another dictum is that the dates should not be considered indepen dent of their standard deviation.
Most of the dates are those of samples measured by the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay (now Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmadabad); samples run by other laboratories are also included. Each date is prefixed with the code name of the laboratory and a serial number. The code letters are abbreviations of: (i) BM-Research Laboratory, British Museum, London, U.K.; (ii) P-Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, USA; (in) TF-Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India; (is) UInstitute of Physics, University of Uppasala, Uppasala Sweden; and (0) UCLA Institute of Geophysics, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. The materials for this compilation are derived from various works, viz., Ancient India, Bulletin of the Archaeological Survey of India New Delhi: Current Sciener, Bangalore; Indian Archaeology-A Review, New Delhi and Radiacarbon.
I am beholden to the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, to Dr. D.P. Agrawal of the Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmadabad and to the various excavators whose Reports have enabled me to complete the task. To Dr. R. Subrahmanyam I am obliged for many suggestions. B.B. Datta was kind enough to prepare the typescript; to him my thanks are due. Lastly, I am extremely grateful to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and to Dr. N. Ramesan, Director of Archaeology and Mescums A.P. in particular for undertaking the publication of this work.
For privacy concerns, please view our Privacy Policy
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Manage Wishlist