Dr.Bridget Allchin and Dr.F.Raymond Allchin
|
Allchinfiles
Converters and Calculators 
|
|
An article extracted from
The contribution of Dr. F.R. Allchin and Dr. Bridget Allchin, to the field of South Asian Archaeology is difficult to summarise in a few words. Raymond Allchin, M.A., Ph.D., F.S.A, was born in Harrow (1923). He visited India, while serving in the army in 1944, from which time onwards his fascination for India's past grew steadily. He taught South Asian Archaeology in the School of Oriental and African Studies in London (1954-59) and subsequently at Cambridge (1959-1989). He is also an Emeritus Reader in Indian Studies. His work spans vast time periods, ranging from prehistory to the Neolithic and to Early Historic archaeology; and spans India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Some of his numerous publications include books on Piklihal Excavations (1960), Neolithic Cattle-Keepers of South India (1963), and more recently on the Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia:Emergence of Cities and States (1995).
Bridget Allchin, M.A., Ph.D., F.S.A, was born in Oxford in 1927, and has been conducting research into varied aspects of Indian prehistory and ethnography, helping in the foundation and development of these branches of archaeology in India and Pakistan. Since 1968, she is the Director of the British Archaeological Mission to Pakistan (with Dr. Raymond Allchin as Joint-Director). She is also a Fellow of the Wolfson College, Cambridge, Secretary of the Ancient India and Iran Trust, editor of South Asian Studies and Secretary General of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists. Some of her books include The Stone Tipped Arrow and The Prehistory and Palaeogeography of the Great Indian Desert. The Allchin's have jointly published The Birth of Indian Civilization; and The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan, the latter passing through several editions.
Interview with Dr. Bridget Allchin and Dr. F.R. Allchin conducted on the 18th of October 1997 at Srinagar, Garhwal, by Shanti Pappu and Sumita Chakrabarti S.P. and S.C: How did you develop an interest in archaeology? In particular, what were your reasons for choosing Indian archaeology as your special field of research. Bridget Allchin: Well, as a child, I was always interested in archaeology. In the U.K. after the War, archaeology was not an undergraduate subject. A year after the War, my parents and I moved to South Africa, to Cape Town, where at the University, a degree course was taught in Archaeology, Anthropology and the Bantu language. This was a very good department which had a number of Africans studying there as well. My involvement in Indian Archaeology began after my marriage to Dr. F.R. Allchin. He will tell you how he was initiated into Indian Archaeology. I met him while doing my Ph.D. at the Institute of Archaeology, London, and he was studying for his doctorate at the SOAS. An ex-servicemen grant paid for my visit to India, where I soon became interested in different problems in Indian prehistory and this led to my developing an interest in other aspects of Indian archaeology. F.R. Allchin: I was introduced to archaeology in my boyhood, although I had no intention then of taking it up as a career. However, after the Second World War; one left school earlier then; I read architecture for my intermediate examination for three years. Then I went on to the army automatically, after the course, and joined the Royal Corp of Signals. I hoped to be sent to Italy, this was at the time of the Allied Invasion, but found myself in India. I was first sent to Mhow, then to Agra and then back to Mhow. The first archaeological site I saw was Sanchi, along the Grand Trunk Road. There was this strange monument on a hill top, and I can say that my interest in archaeology started from here. On my second posting in Mhow, I went on cycle excursions to Mandu and explored the region. This was the beginning of my interest in archaeology. Two years later, I was sent to Singapore and was waiting to get out of the army. I sat and wrote out options open to me on a piece of paper. I had decided not to pursue architecture as I disliked modern architecture. It didn't occur to me to enter into archaeology as a career. On the other hand, I liked India. I was partly interested in archaeology, because in school, I subscribed to the Illustrated London News, an illustrated magazine, which in the 1920's and 30's carried articles on archaeological sites. When in school, I read a report on Mohenjodaro and Chanhudaro by Mackay, which interested me. On arriving in India, I noticed various things; walking around the countryside and living off the land, I began thinking that villagers were not so very different from people of the Indus Civilization. This was one of the central themes which started me off in Indian archaeology. S.A and S.C: Dr. Bridget Allchin, this question is specifically addressed to you. In the field of Palaeolithic archaeology, your work in Western India, forms one of the major landmarks in Indian prehistory, being as it is one of the first attempts to utilise a multidisciplinary approach in the study of past lifeways. Would you comment on the principal aims and results of this work? Bridget Allchin: It was very clear at an early stage, that no work had been systematically done on past climates in India. "There has been no climatic change in India", was what people said at the time. I thought it was an essential aspect of Indian archaeology and so organised an interdisciplinary project with Baroda University. R.N. Mehta, of this University; I must mention was most helpful and open minded and encouraged me greatly. Other members of our team included Andrew Goudie, from Oxford University, a specialist in desert geomorphology, and who studied the dunes; K.T.M. Hegde who was a soil scientist; and I was the archaeologist of the team. We were able to establish definite evidence of climatic change in this area. And so was Gurdip Singh who was also working in this region. S.P and S.C: One of the points which you emphasized in this work and also elsewhere was the need to adopt more regional groupings within the Palaeolithic; e.g. as in the use of the term 'Nevasian'; in order to distinguish these groupings from larger technological phases. Can you comment on this? Bridget Allchin: Yes. In the Indian Middle Palaeolithic, there is a distinct difference between the Middle Palaeolithic of Peninsular and Central India and that of Western India and Pakistan/Afghanistan. The Thar is the place where these two traditions meet. In Central and Peninsular India the Middle Palaeolithic developed out of the Lower Palaeolithic without much outside influence. During major dry phases, the deserts and mountains cut India off from the rest of Asia. Different Middle and Upper Palaeolithic technologies developed in the North-West, during conditions when the climate was hospitable, such as during the formation of red soil in the Thar desert when savanna conditions facilitated hunting; and hunters migrated here from the South-East and from the North-West. S.P. and S.C.: While on the subject of the transition from the Lower to the Middle Palaeolithic, what do you think about the nature of these transitions in the Indian Palaeolithic context? Bridget Allchin: The nature of transitions differed in different parts of South Asia and the world. In Central Asia and Afghanistan and North-West Pakistan (as seen in Sanghao cave), there is a definite overlap in the technology of the Mousterian and blade technology which seem to run side by side. This comprehensive technology traveled to the northern part of the Thar desert during the Middle Palaeolithic. A definite Upper Palaeolithic technology is noted in the Vindhyas and in the Thar. In Northern and Central Gujarat it is sometimes difficult to distinguish this phase from the Mesolithic. In North Gujarat even during the Mesolithic, flake and blade technology existed side by side. This situation is similar in Karnataka as well. S.P. and S.C.: Throughout your career, you have emphasized the need for ethnoarchaeological studies. Could you comment on this aspect? How far do you think such studies are relevant in the case of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic? Bridget Allchin: Well, ethnoarchaeology may not be really relevant as related to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. It is important in so far as it helps in understanding how people utilized different modes of subsistence, how they utilized their environment. It cannot be used specifically as in the case of the Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic. The further back one travels in time, the more one can use ethnoarchaeology only in general terms. I would however, insist on emphasizing that the whole subcontinent is the best field in the whole world for ethnoarchaeological studies. People who live here don't quite realise this fact. In India, archaeologists having been doing ethnoarchaeology even without using this term. Marshall, for example, while interpreting his findings, looked at the local people of Sindh, in terms of their bullock carts and the round clay balls using by boys as sling shots. Indian archaeologists, while noticing all these facts, generally put them down as notes in relation to the sites they are working on, but rarely go further. Marshall too, never continued his work, along these lines in a systematic manner. It is most important for young people to observe and talk with local people and they can find out lots of interesting things. A very good example is that of Inamgaon where the houses or huts of different local modern communities are very similar to excavated ones. My own personal observation is that it is much easier for women to do this. Local women are less self-conscious of women ethnographers and one can freely enter kitchens, observe modes of cooking, and other aspects of their lives. F.R.Allchin: Yes, it is really very important. A survey of sites in the Raichur Doab, and surrounding hills shows that they were terraced-this was later very clear at Tekkalakota. There were these little terraces, on which houses and fields were made. We photographed modern huts which stood on these terraces and they were really very similar to Neolithic huts. At Piklihal, we found fragments of burnt wattle and daub and larger fragments of mud plaster of door entrances. These were very similar to that used in modern huts. At Utnur, we excavated an area owned by a Reddy. He told us that the site must have been a cattle keeping one and that they must have lit bonfires to scare away beasts as done at present. This was also told to us by a local gwala. They knew the purpose of the floor marked with imprints of cattle hooves and they also said that the cattle-hoof sizes were bigger than what they are today. I also became aware of the importance of a systematic study of place names. Place names reveal a great deal. Not only were Neolithic sites associated with the Kal element, but many halli's and palli's were agricultural villages while the Lambadi settlements were called tandas. The cultural history of places is contained within place names. They are really an aid to reconstructing past histories. For example, the word Budi as in Budihal, is probably derived from the Sanskrit Bhuti or ash. S.P and S.C.: Dr. Bridget Allchin, this question is once again addressed to you. Your work has encompassed the prehistoric archaeology of Pakistan and Sri Lanka, apart from that of India. Would you comment on the present state of South Asian Palaeolithic Archaeology? Bridget Allchin: The South Asian environment makes some technologies developed in the West outmoded. It is necessary to develop your own technology appropriate to South Asian conditions. This is because, unlike in the West, where sites are deeply buried, most sites in South Asia are either heavily eroded or deeply buried under silts. Therefore, the whole technique of studying sites, site formation processes and site disturbances, has to be developed for South Asian contexts. The discipline is sure to attract more students in the future. Studying site contexts is really very important, for example in the Potwars, the team completely reversed the hypothesis of de Terra and Paterson, working in the 1930's who had thought along the lines of a static landscape. This is rare in the Himalayan contexts, and one must develop new approaches in the light of new theories of Plate Tectonics. It is very exciting to think along these lines. Rajaguru has also talked about the importance of Plate Tectonics in understanding sites, in particular in North India. S.P. and S.C: You have long called for a problem-oriented approach in Indian archaeology and have criticized the waste of time and funds in large scale excavations. Do you think the situation has improved today? Bridget Allchin: The condition is certainly improving and more people are aware of the importance of a thorough survey before excavating. S.P. and S.C.: You have consistently stressed on the importance of the conservation and preservation of India's archaeological heritage. What do you think of the present state of affairs in this issue. Bridget Allchin: An enormous amount of work and a great deal of effort is required for this. One must arouse the interest of local people and authorities, in taking pride in their heritage. They are the only one's who can do so. Young archaeologists must take an interest in educating local authorities on the importance of conserving not only major sites but also minor ones. One must keep on working for this as the rate of destruction is very rapid. One should also try to put archaeology onto TV channels. Short articles, although important, are not of much use in sustaining the interest of the general public. New discoveries should be publicized on TV, and there should be a regular slot to talk about these. Curators of local museums should also be encouraged and invited to talk on these programs. One must press on, and attract people. It is an exciting project and very essential. F.R. Allchin: I agree with what my wife says. Monuments at the national, state and local levels must be preserved. There is a dire need to decentralise responsibility and to arouse interest at the local level. We had studied groups of rock paintings at Piklihal in 1957 but when we returned to them again in 1972, we found that the whole rock had been destroyed- a rocky mound 30'-40' in height, totally gone due to road building activities! When Paddayya excavated Kodekal, he took me to an occupation site we had noted earlier, and we found the whole ground dug over and re-levelled and there was nothing of the original stratigraphy left. Sites are being so rapidly destroyed. This is where what I call the Allchin Law comes in 'Economic progress and population expansion are certain to lead to the destruction of archaeological sites'. S.P. and S.C.: Dr. F.R. Allchin, these questions are specifically for you. The principal features of the South Indian Neolithic were largely established by your excavations. In particular you were the first to confirm Robert Bruce Foote's hypothesis of the ashmounds being Neolithic in age and being associated with cattle rituals and a pastoral community. Would you like to comment on your research in this field? F.R.Allchin: I excavated Piklihal in 1951. Almost three to four excavations reports were available then; that of Brahmagiri in the 1930's; and I had also seen Wheelers's work; and Subbarao's report of a small excavation at Sanganakallu in his Ph.D. thesis. When I started work at Piklihal, I very soon realized, that the large number of cattle bones probably pointed to cattle keepers. This fact never came out of earlier works. Neolithic terracotta figurines of cattle suggested their importance in the economy. Although I feel that my conclusion in this report was a synthetic reconstruction of their lifeways and economy and amateurish, it did carry the subject further. One must appreciate Robert Bruce Foote who really started the interest in ashmounds. While talking to Mortimer Wheeler in 1957, regarding the ashmound of Utnur, he said "I shouldn't worry with those things. Industrial sites". The reason for choosing to excavate Utnur, was the presence of a scatter of Early Historic Pottery around it. This could prove or disprove this statement of Wheeler's. S.P. and S.C: What would you comment on the present state of research into the South Indian Neolithic? F.R.Allchin: Well, comparatively little work had been done since excavations at Utnur and the results then were relatively inconclusive. I was delighted when Dr. Paddayya started to reexamine this problem and to look at sites we had visited and studied earlier. He was right when he contradicted us as regarding the scatter of occupation debris at Kudatini. He was not so right when he criticized us for failing to notice an area of occupation at Utnur. This we recorded although we did not see it's significance then. At Budihal, there is extensive emphasis on the ashmound, with a settlement context and a cattle keeping lifestyle. This is an enormous contribution of Dr. Paddayya's. There are however, a number of problems in the archaeology of Andhra and Karnataka. I was very disappointed to find that little fundamental work has been done. There are very few who are willing to undertake a broad synthesis of the Southern Neolithic. Questions regarding it's origins or it's interface with the Mesolithic need to be answered. It is just not enough to survey and document sites. I had hoped to carry this work further. Sankalia's work at Kupgal is also notable in this regard. S.P. and S.C: Your two books the Birth of Indian Civilization and the Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan provide a panorama of the entire breadth of Indian archaeology. Can you comment on the aims between writing these books? F.R.Allchin: With the exception of Piggot's book, the Birth of Indian Civilization is the only one of it's kind and reflects our joint views. At that time, in writing it, we are very conscious that we were amateurs and were rather inexperienced. We were very anxious not to put in too many of our own ideas and include the ideas of others which we agreed with. Although the Birth of Indian Civilization is out of date, it stands out as a statement made in 1968 of what was then new. My wife, was rather embarrassed at having it republished. It was not my ideas but Davidar put pressure to have it reprinted. We couldn't rewrite it, so we wrote out a new preface. I don't' feel embarrassed, though there is always a problem of reprinting a book without mentioning the original date of publication. It does seem to be selling very well. As for the Rise of Civiliztion in India and Pakistan, both of us wanted it to be the last book of it's type. We tried to make it as synthetic a view of the subject as we see it. Bridget Allchin: The Birth of Indian Civilization, is more of a mini-text book for students, containing a lot of useful summaries of the situation at that time. It cannot really be rewritten. F.R.Allchin: So much important material has been left out. S.P and S.C: What would be your message for young Indian Archaeologists?. Bridget
Allchin and F.R. Allchin: We have tried to express this in our
lectures to the conference. In summary we must be prepared for changes
of approach and changes in the types of jobs available. There has
to be a move away from large excavations to problem oriented archaeology,
exploring all kinds of new techniques and methods of analysis. There
must also be much greater emphasis on conservation of the South
Asian Heritage, public education and cultural tourism. Co-operation
with other disciplines is essential in later prehistoric and historic
archaeology as it is in earlier prehistory ------o0o------ |
|
|
| This Site © 1999/2007 AllchinFiles |
