Stratigraphy and typology have formed the basic archaeological parameters of Indian prehistoric studies because that was what was needed first and because geoarchaeological techniques and the necessary adjunct of radiometric dating remain undeveloped. In view of this there is an increasing emphasis on the “settlement-subsistence” approach, based on modern analogies (Paddayya 1978; Murty 1985; Nagar and Misra 1989; Misra 1989) or on the amalgamation of prehistoric data in the long-term settlement history of a geographical region (Chakrabarti 1993). Fossil evidence does not extend beyond the Mesolithic except in one case where a skull cap, presumably associated with late Acheulean artifacts and found in the cliff section of the Narmada river in central India, has been interpreted either as an Asian variety of Homo erectus or as an archaic Homo sapiens. Some cultural details are available from the Upper Paleolithic but earlier primary occupation sites associated with organic remains are still to be discovered, and their climatic background also remains to be worked out on a pan-Indian level, some regional efforts notwithstanding (see Agrawal 1992).

In the field of protohistory the discovery of Indus civilization sites on a large scale within Indian territory was among the primary archaeological targets after Independence, and the rapidity with which the vast space of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, eastern Panjab, and western Uttar Pradesh came to be dotted with “Harappan” sites of early, mature, and late denomination is enviable by any standard of archaeological research (for maps, see Joshi, Bala, and Ram 1984). Major excavations of Harappan sites in modern India include those at Rupar, Lothal, Kalibangan, Surkotada, Banawali, and Dholavira, all undertaken by the archaeological survey. Another major breakthrough in this context has been the discovery of a late Harappan phase in Maharashtra and Malwa. The regional protohistoric data are ever increasing in quantity. All major agricultural regions of India have their protohistoric antecedents, and again the discovery of this horizon is among the bright spots of archaeological research since 1947 (see Sankalia 1974).

Discoveries of the historical period have been no less abundant, and there is now a much clearer appreciation of early historic and later India as parts of the cultural development with protohistory and prehistory at its roots. Both civic and religious sites have been identified and excavated all over the country.

Dimensions of Archaeological Research in the Third World: Examples from Modern India

In any global survey of the history of archaeological research it would be invidious not to draw a distinction between the contexts of this research in the First and Third Worlds. Archaeological literature unconsciously hides this distinction because, generally speaking, data from the Third World are discussed primarily on the basis of the work done in those areas by experts from the First World and published in First World languages. However well meaning such archaeologists and their publications are, they have taken upon themselves the task of interpreting the past heritage of a very large number of people who belong to various nation states and who may themselves like to interpret their own past. No understanding of the context of archaeological research in India can be meaningful unless it is put firmly in the context of the broader framework of archaeological research in the Third World done by Third World archaeologists themselves. If Third World archaeology is to go anywhere, it must first learn how not to imitate the fashions and jargons of First World archaeology, with which, for various historical reasons, it cannot cope satisfactorily anyway. It has to pose problems that are meaningful and necessary in its own contexts and that can be pursued and solved by its own resources. To begin with, it has to be vigorously empirical and at least try to reach a position in which the basic questions regarding the past of the nation concerned can be answered in a way that will be understood by most of the population.

One of the unifying features of Third World archaeology is that there is far less money to spend on conservation and archaeological research. This paucity of money is glaringly manifest in the general absence of scientific analytical