Protohistory is a period between prehistory and history, during which a culture or civilization has not yet developed writing but other cultures have already noted its existence in their own writings. For example, in Europe, the Celts and the Germanic tribes are considered to have been protohistoric when they began appearing in Greek and Roman sources.
Protohistoric may also refer to the transition period between the advent of literacy in a society and the writings of the first historians. The preservation of oral traditions may complicate matters as these can provide a secondary historical source for even earlier events. Colonial sites involving a literate group and a non-literate group are also studied as protohistoric situations.
It can also refer to a period in which fragmentary or external historical documents, not necessarily including a developed writing system, have been found. For instance, the Proto–Three Kingdoms of Korea, the Yayoi and the Mississippian groups recorded by early European explorers are protohistoric.
Usage of the term
In The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe, an article by Timothy Taylor says,
|“||Because of the existence in some but not all societies of historical writing during the first millennium BC, the period has often been termed 'protohistoric' instead of prehistoric. Of course, the understanding of the past gained through archaeology is broadly different in nature to understanding derived from historical texts. Having both sorts of evidence is a boon and a challenge.||”|
In the abstract of a later paper on "slavery in the first millennium Aegean, Carpatho-Balkan and Pontic regions", Taylor, who is primarily an archaeologist, says,
|“||I have taken the rather unusual step of trusting what the classical authors tell us they knew.||”|
For other examples, see also the writings of Brian Fagan on the protohistory of North America and the work of Muhammed Abdul Nayeem on that of the Arabian Peninsula
As with prehistory, determining when a culture may be considered prehistoric or protohistoric is sometimes difficult for archaeologists. Data vary considerably from culture to culture, region to region, and even from one system of reckoning dates to another.
In its simplest form, protohistory follows the same chronology as prehistory, based on the technological advancement of a particular people with regard to metallurgy:
Civilizations and peoples
The best known protohistoric civilizations and ethnic groups are those for whom the term was originally coined: the barbarian tribes mentioned by European and Asian writers. Many of these peoples of course also experienced periods of prehistory and history.
- ^Bahn, Paul (ed.) The Penguin Archaeology Guide Penguin Books Ltd (29 Nov 2001) ISBN 978-0-14-029308-1 p. 368
- ^Cunliffe, Barry (2001). The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-285441-4.
- ^Taylor, Timothy (1994). "Thracians, Scythians and Dacians". In Cunliffe, Barry. The Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 373–410.
- ^Timothy Taylor (2001). "Believing the Ancients: Quantitative and Qualitative Dimensions of Slavery and the Slave Trade in Later Prehistoric Eurasia". World Archaeology, Vol. 33, No. 1, The Archaeology of Slavery (Jun., 2001), pp. 27-43. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
- ^Fagan, Brian (2005). Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent (4th ed.). London: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 978-0-500-28532-9.
- ^Nayeem, Muhammed Abdul, ed. (1990). Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula (5 volumes). Hyderabad: Hyderabad Pub.
- ^"Alani". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 12, 2016.
- ^"Gaul - Ancient History Encyclopedia". Ancient History Encyclopedia.
- ^Herodotus. "The Histories". Sacred Texts.
- ^Van Rhyn, G.A.F. "The American Cyclopaedia (1879)/Germanic Races and Languages". Wikisource. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
- ^Maenchen-Helfen, Otto J. (1973). Max Knight, ed. The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-01596-7.
- ^Kōzō, Yamamura; John Whitney Hall (1997). The Cambridge history of Japan. Cambridge University Press.
- ^"Timucua Indians of the Southeast". Manataka Indian Council. Manataka Indian Council.
- ^"Where are the Susquehannock". The Susquehannock Fire Ring. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
- ^Sultzman, Lee. "Erie". Dick Shovel.
- ^"Mid-America : an historical review". archive.org. p. 228. Retrieved 2015-07-16.
Read this article to learn about the pre-historic and proto-historic periods of India.
Pre-history and Proto-history are terms which according to Prof. M. C. Burkitt are misnomers, for as he observes, there is no period before history begins.
Long unknown vista of human history cannot be bound by term like Pre-history or Proto-history, and what we have been able to know of man before history begins, is only a fraction of the unknown vast to admit of any such nomenclature.
However, these terms have come to stay in the vocabulary of history and historical writings. These have come to represent something which almost everybody understands.
Prof. Stuart Piggott remarks that the distinction between history and pre-history in India is a peculiarly elusive one. The reasons for his remark are, while the Pre-history of Western Asiatic countries like Mesopotamia, Egypt etc. ended immediately after 3000 B. C. when records of dynasties, King-lists came to be written which can be interpreted to form the outline of a fairly reliable chronology in terms of years before the Christian era, in India although writing was known in the third millennium B.C. as is evident from the Indus seals these have not yet been deciphered to help us in preparing an outline of a reliable chronology in terms of years.
Further, there is a big gap between the 3rd millennium B. C. and 650 B. C. during which no written historical materials have been found. As Dr. Smith says, Definite chronological history begins about 650 B. C. for northern India, absolutely certain and precise date of the beginning of the historical period of India, however, is 326 B.C. the date of Alexander’s invasion.
All the same, like the Pre-Historic period of Europe, India had also passed through Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Ages.
According to Prof. Basham, India like Europe of the Pie-historic age had passed through Ice Ages. After the second Ice Age, a hundred thousand years before Christ, men left traces of their stone tools, discovered in the bed of the river Soan or Sohan in the Punjab. These were Palaeolithic Stone, rough, blunt and crude. The stone used was quartzite, hence the Palaeolithic men in India were known as Quartzite men.
Not only in the north but in the South India also, stone implements of the same period, of the Sohan men, have been discovered which the archaeologists call ‘Madras Industry’. In the Gangetic valley similar Old Stone Age implements have been discovered.
From the rough, crude stone tools used by the people of the Palaeolithic period, i.e., Old Stone Age, we can at best form a vague, general idea of their life and living. Palaeolithic man was a hunter and food gatherer and lived in very small communities with no fixed homes. They were nomads, although a few might have made huts of shrubs and leaves.
In course of time they learnt to produce fire, protect their body against cold by use of tree-barks, leaves or animal skins and domesticated the dogs. They had no idea of agriculture. Their food was flesh of animals and birds they would hunt or fruits and vegetables they would gather. They were then food-gatherers. From modern point of view, the Palaeolithic men were savages not far removed from animals.
However, it was on their culture and civilisation that further improvements were made down the ages and we have reached our civilisation today. About the people of the Palaeolithic Age of India, it is suggested that they belonged to negrito race and were of dark complexion, woolly hair, flat nose and of short stature.
About the culture of the Palaeolithic men we must remember that a sparsely populated world without any systematic communication, every region developed of its own and thousands of years must have passed before some very simple improvement in shaping a stone could be made. Naturally the pace of development in different regions was not the same.
Further, the only evidences available to us are the imperishable stone materials. These are not a fair index of the cultural progress or cultural pattern. It is also difficult to determine whether the hand-axes found in Madras and in Abbeville on the river Somme in Europe, although almost of the same workmanship belonged to the same period of time.
The Palaeolithic people of India, as all over the world, lived in this age for many thousands of years. But their knowledge and skill were imperceptibly improving through the ages.
With the progress of time, the Palaeolithic man acquired greater knowledge and skill in mastering the forces of nature. Prof. Gordon Childe says that man developed an aggressive attitude to his environ- meat and gradually entered into the Neolithic i.e., New Stone Age. But midway between the Old Stone and the New Stone Age, scholars speak of a Mesolithic Period which was characterised by the making and use of small stone implements, instead of quartzite.
Chelcedony and Silicate varieties of stone were used. Archaeologists regard this mesolithic phase as one in which men lived by hunting and fishing with the help of implements of bones and flint, the latter being of minute size. Fish hooks made of bones and flint, pottery etc. were in use in that age. The small delicate stone implements, made during this age were called microliths i.e., small stones. Microliths appear to have been in use even during the Neolithic Age in the Deccan and did not go altogether out of use till iron replaced them.
The chief characteristic that distinguishes men from animals is their ability to think and move from progress to more progress. As time passed, men naturally acquired more knowledge than what they possessed during the Mesolithic phase and gradually entered into the Neolithic culture. The development was gradual and down through ages, but the pace of progress is difficult to estimate.
The tools and implements of the Neolithic Age were very different from those of the preceding ages, i.e., the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. The people of this age used stones other than quartzite and the tools and implements they made were far better grooved, ground and polished.
For different types of work, they had different types of highly finished tools and these can be very easily distinguished from the rough, crude tools of the Palaeolithic Age. As the name Neolithic denotes, it was the New Stone Age, metals except gold being then unknown.
The tools and implements left by the Neolithic people of India have been found all over India. A stone factory of the time has been discovered in the Bellary district of Madras where traces of the various stages of the making of the tools and implements can be still seen.
The life and living of the Neolithic men showed a distinct advance from those of the previous ages. Agriculture became known to them, domestication of animals like ox, goat etc., production of fire by friction of bamboos or pieces of wood or flint, making of painted pottery were all known, to them. They lived in caves, decorated their frails by painting scenes of hunting, dancing etc. They knew spinning and weaving, as also making of boats.
Some tombs of the Neolithic men which have been discovered show that they used to bury their dead in large earthen urn. There were also tombs with stone-slab roof on stone pillars.
The period of thousands and thousands of years covered by the Palaeolithic and Neolithic ages is called Prehistoric. Whether the Neolithic people were descendants of the Palaeolithic predecessors is not known for certain.
Although scholars are not unanimous in regarding the Palaeolithic men as the ancestors of the Neolithic men, there is a general agreement that the Neolithic men were the predecessors of the next stage of men who knew the use of metals. However, the transition from use of stone to the use of metals is slow and long-drawn.
There is no doubt that there was an overlapping period when both stone and metals, were used. This is proved by the close resemblance of metallic tools and implements with those made of stone. It must, however, be remembered that use of metals in different parts of India was not uniform. While in Northern India copper was the metal that came to be used after stone, in Southern India iron replaced stone without the intermediate stage of use of copper.
Bronze which is an alloy made of copper and tin was in use in India simultaneously. The Chalcolithic age of India was a period of copper-bronze. Bronze implements of India have been found along with those of copper. Thus in India there was no separate Bronze Age as we find in some of the countries of Europe.
It was centuries later that iron appeared as a substitute of copper or bronze in Northern India. The Chalcolithic, Copper-Bronze Age of India produced a splendid civilisation in the Indus Valley which spread in the neighbouring regions.
In different parts of India there was no systematic succession of stone by copper-bronze or copper-bronze by iron. In Southern India use of iron came after the use of stone. In any case there were periods of overlapping in the use of stone, copper, bronze, and iron.
Our only evidence of the transition from copper-bronze age to the Iron Age is the monuments like dolmens, cairns, cromolechs etc. These have been found in wide areas all over India, such as Assam, Bihar, Orissa, Central India, Gujarat and Kashmir. But by far the largest number has been found in south India, in Karnataka and the Deccan. These iron monuments appear to have belonged to both pre-historic and historic periods.
Some of these monuments have been found at Ranchi which are supposed to have been the work of the Asuras, that is, the ancient predecessors of the present day Mundas. But these were found along with polished stone tools, wheel-made pottery, copper and bronze materials. It is, therefore, impossible to determine the date of the beginning of Iron Age in this area.
Monuments discovered in Hyderabad, Mysore, Tinnevelly district, Coimbatore, Malabar, Penumbur etc. also show varied stages of development. Neolithic, Microlithic tools along with copper, bronze and iron implements have been discovered, making it difficult to identify the actual period of transition from copper-bronze age to the Iron Age. At this stage of our limited knowledge, no definite conclusion in this regard can be arrived at.
Proto-historic period is the age nearest to the historical period. In so far as India is concerned the civilisation of the Vedic period is the proto-historic period. The hymns composed by the Vedic priests had perfected a poetic technique. These hymns were praise of their gods and were sung at sacrifices. These were not reduced to writing but were handed down by words of mouth.
Even when the art of writing was widely known to the Indians, hymns were not committed to writing. The period of the Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanishads, says Prof. Basham, “is a sort of a transition from prehistory to history”. Naturally it falls in the proto-historic period of Indian history that is nearest to the historical period. But as Prof. Basham points out, If history, as distinct from archaeology, is the study of the human past from written sources, then Indian history begins with the Aryans. The Rig Veda and the great body of oral religious literature which follow it in the first half of the first millennium B.C. belong to the Hindu tradition. The Vedic hymns are still recited at weddings and funerals, and in the daily devotion of the brahman. Thus they are part of historical India, and do not belong to her buried pre-historic past.
But it cannot be denied that the Vedic period is not within the really historic period of India, for it is only the matter of religion about which we are fully informed. About other matters or events we have only indirect and vague references. Thus the Vedic Age of Indian history has to be regarded as the period immediately preceding the historical period; hence it belongs to the proto-historic period of India, a period which marks the transition from pre-historic to historic period of the Indian History.