In the writing of early Indian history, both Archaeology and Historical Linguistics have provided new evidence and new ways of interpreting existing evidence. Archaeology received enhanced attention after Independence because interest in it was fuelled by the need to ascertain whether there were sites of Harappan urbanization on the Indian side of the border, the major sites of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro being located in Pakistan after 1947. Archaeological investigation resulted in the spectacular discovery of Harappan cities in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Punjab.This gave much encouragement to exploring other archaeological cultures as well in order to see the flow from less complex societies to more complex ones, culminating occasionally in urban centres. And this interest in turn grew with research into regional history.Methods of Historical Linguistics provided less dramatic but equally significant evidence. There was the recognition that seemingly similar words had meanings that were not identical. The reference to ‘pur’ in the Rigveda was not to city but to something like a stockade.This makes it very different from the term ‘pura’ meaning a town that was used in later texts. Therefore, the argument that the Rigveda was familiar with urban living, on the basis of pur, was questioned—it was also necessary to keep in mind the fact that the process of urbanization was not just one settlement evolving into a town, but a substantial social change accompanied by different social and economic structures now supporting urban centres as compared to the previous ones.Historical linguistics when applied to crucial words in a text can provide historical clues to their meaning and to the language to which they belong. The occurrence of Dravidian linguistic elements in the text of the Vedic corpus, inevitably leads historians to asking different questions from those they asked before these elements were recognized. The origins of words are historically significant. For example, langala, a plough, in the Rigveda opens up a new set of questions, as it is not of Indo-Aryan origin.Where texts show evidence of the use of more than a single language, there the historian has to ask whether there might have been some bi-lingualism involving earlier settlers and later, newcomers. This might suggest interesting cultural possibilities of the interface between speakers of different languages. For instance, were there some forms of culture such as customary law or religious beliefs that were exchanged? What was inducted from one society into the other?The other use of linguistics to history has been in sorting out the different stylistic forms that occur in a text.These indicate the chronology of the segments that went into the making of a long text, allowing the separation of the earlier portions from the later.This technique has been used for instance by T.R. Trautmann in the analysis of the Arthashastra of Kautilya, suggesting a period of composition that stretched from the fourth century bc to the third century ad. Similarly, A.L. Basham has also suggested that the Bhagvad Gita may not have been composed at a single point in time.Evidence, no matter how reliable, and irrespective of whether it is an abstract fact from a text or a tangible object from an excavation, has to be interpreted. Interpretations can differ, and do differ, and such differences account for what goes into the making of different approaches to history. But this is precisely where it is necessary to go through the procedure of applying the method of analysis that we have come to associate with new forms of research. This involves assessing, through various means, the reliability of the evidence used as the basis of the argument, and the links between cause-and-effect that are drawn in a logical way from the evidence.In the study of ancient history for example, the historian would have to know how to follow reports of archaeological excavations that now have become quite technical.Archaeology draws increasingly on scientific disciplines for analyses, making it necessary to consult the specialist in the particular science. Few excavators would have the expertise to differentiate between the bones of an onager and a horse, the identification of which might tell us when the horse was introduced into India. A specialist working on faunal bones would have to be consulted. Such specialist consultation is even more necessary now that DNA analyses have been introduced into determining the identity of social groups from both the past and the present. Here the shoe is often on the other foot: the DNA specialists need to know more about the sociology and history of caste and ethnic groups and how they acquire an identity, before they trace them back to antiquity or pronounce on their continuity.Reading inscriptions requires some familiarity with paleography and the evolution of the script. Making sense of coins improves if one knows how to differentiate between the properties of metals, or alloys, and techniques of casting and even statistical methods, not to mention the basic information on economies that used money. In the same way when reading a text, knowing the language is necessary but not sufficient in itself, since a number of further questions have to be asked concerning the author, the audience for whom the text is intended, and above all, the agenda of the text since all texts have an agenda. Such an analysis cannot be based on guesswork.New sources and new methods of analyses can lead to historical readings different from previous ones. A comment frequently made is that since historical facts do not change, how can history change? This reflects a lack of awareness of the sources and methods currently being used in historical interpretation. The facts may not change, although sometimes they do as a result of fresh information or new ways of analyzing old information, but the interpretation of these facts can change. History is not just a directory of information; it also involves analyzing and interpreting this information.Having been through a rigorous training process and later having demanded it of my students, I am always surprised at the popular assumption that historical writing requires no training. The world and his wife can write history, and can take umbrage if criticized by historians for writing junk. It is ironic that the historian today can be confronted by non-historians insisting on their version of the past being correct and accusing the historian of prejudice! The non-specialist does not, in a similar manner, question the views of other social scientists or of natural scientists, because these disciplines do not go into the making of social and political identities to the extent that history does. A rationally argued cause-and-effect connection within the limits of the evidence is required, as it is in all investigation. This procedure will necessarily question the fantasy pasts being palmed off as history. And while it can be fun for historians to analyze such fantasies, the best thing that could be said about such texts is that they reveal more about the authors than about the past. This does not preclude the rare leaps of historical imagination that are not written as history but are knowledgeable and sensitive about the past.Excerpted with the permission of Aleph Book Company from The Past as Present by Romila Thapar.