Jim G. Shaffer Quotes

A cultural tradition refers to persistent configurations o f basic technologies and cultural systems as well as structure within the context of temporal and geographic continuity.

This review of archaeological data demonstrates that a continued division of South Asian cultural history into discrete archaeological “cultures” or “sta­ges” such as non-Harappan, “early” Harappan, “mature” Harappan, Kot Dijian, “late” Harappan, Painted Gray Ware and others masks the existence of a long surviving cultural tradition, and distorts the processes responsible for the cultu­ral changes this variety of designations represents. Archaeological data indicate the existence of a long-term cultural tradition responsive to changing cultural and ecological contexts, with an ability to adjust to rapid, as well as long-term, changes.

These emerging connections and relationships in the northern South Asian arch­aeological record indicate no significant cultural discontinuities.

The shift by Harappan groups, and perhaps, other Indus Valley cultural mosaic groups, is the only archaeologically documented west-to-east movement of human populations in South Asia before the first half of the first millennium BC.

[the demographic eastward shift of the Harappan population during the decline of their cities, i.e. an intra-Indian movement from Indus to Ganga,] “is the only archaeologically documented west-to-east movement of human populations in South Asia before the first half of the first millennium BC”, while the archaeological record shows “no significant discontinuities” for the period when the Aryan invasion should have made its mark.

Unfortunately, there is an “academic status” associated with studying ancient states. Therefore, it is likely that either the “state” will be rede­fined to fit the “mature” Harappan pattern, or that “mature “Harappan culture will be moulded to the contours o f existing definitions, at the expense of exploring alternative explanations.

However, he also emphasizes that between material and nonmaterial aspects of “mature” Harappan culture a sense o f “oneness” exists, and striking similarities are found at sites, exemplified by the stamp seals. This “oneness” is very significant since “mature” Harappan sites are distributed over an area of 800,000 km 2 , a region larger than any contemporary state or non-state culture.

At the same time the use - pattern o f animal domesticates was significantly different, indicating that the social and economic contingencies surrounding the development and propagation o f food production were likewise different. It follows, therefore, that subsequent patterns o f cultural development need not mirror those found elsewhere. Finally, Mehrgarh demonstrates that food production cannot be attributed to a single area, “people”, or linguistic group as recently proposed by Renfrew.

By the close of Period II, at ca. 4500/4300 B.C., not only was a distinctive, domestic animal subsistence pattern established, but other cultural traits were present that would cha­racterise this region down to the Early Historic Period.

The numerous and substantial mud brick “granaries” built by the close of Period HA at Mehrgarh, in the first half of the 5th millennium B.C., suggest a concern, unparalleled in contemporary cultures, for surplus production irrespec­tive of what was stored in them.

Given these characteristics, a preference for cattle, after 5000 B.C., undoubtedly influenced other social, economic and political rela­tionships, and suggests that cultural developments in South Asia did not simply parallel those in Southwest Asia, where groups did not have a comparable bias.

Moreover, available chronologies indicate that Mehrgarh was contemporary with comparable Southwest Asian phenomena which, combined with the abs­ence o f contemporary food producing groups on the Iranian Plateau, argues against a diffusionist explanation. The Mehrgarh data raise serious questions about diffusion as an all-encompassing explanation for major South Asian cultu­ral developments. The sophistication of this aceramic neolithic food-producing complex, and its early date, suggest the possibility that subsequent bronze and early iron age cultural developments were likewise indigenous.

The gradual reduction in size, a phenomenon associated with domesti­cation, and the occurrence o f wild progenitors in earlier levels, indicate that the domestication o f these animals was also a local process.... Although similar species were domesticated elsewhere, the pattern in which hum an actors arranged them in South Asia was distinctive to the region.

Detailed studies of plant and animal remains suggested that domesti­cated species were present in the earliest levels. The plant economy, reconstruc­ted from thousands o f seed impressions in mud bricks, was quite sophisticated... The presence o f wild examples o f wheat and barley suggests that their domestication was an indigenous process; o f some antiquity...

The Mehrgarh excavations near Sibri, Pakistan, changed our understanding of the origins of food production - the use of domesticated plants and animals in a neolithic context - in South Asia. Previously, food production and the entire “village way o f life” were perceived as a single complex, diffused from the W est sometime after 5000 B.C. They, in turn, were followed by the “idea” of civilisation only a few millennia later, then by the Aryan, Greek, Muslim and British invasions. The acceptance of one incidence of cultural diffusion/invasion made the others seem that much more reasonable.