124 SOCIAL SCIENTIST of describing the elements of change in the system that he described as 'landlordism' which in his opinion is supposed to have prevailed throughout Indian history. Thus, the question on hand is not simply the use or rejection of terms like "feudalism* which is supposedly said to be able to describe only the West European situation, but rather, to seek valid explanations for understanding the different levels of change and the nature of change in early Indian society. In recognizing that there was change it is crucial for historians to generate a new set of questions. That the articles in the present volume have largely raised them in the context of the critical method emodied in the theory of historical materialism sets in a healthy spirit of challenge and debate for understanding early Indian social formations. For a long time for instance, one of the problematic areas of our understanding has been the isssue of periodization in Indian history. The volume under review adds considerably to our understanding of the transition from the ancient to the medieval period by establishing a set criteria rather than adhering to an affixation of rigid dates. However, in this context it is pertinent to point to recent studies undertaken for some parts of South India which do not accept the applicability of the Teudal model' particularly with reference to the question of transition. These are the works of Burton Stein and his followers and those of Noburo Karashima and his Indian collaborators. Far from being identical in their approach they both bring to the forefront, by using different dimensions of the 'scientific method9, the issue ot the individuality and peculiar features of the South Indian data and situation. At the interpretational level having drawn upon already well-known inscriptional data. Stein has used a socioiogical model and Karashima has employed the techniques of statistical analysis for data available at the micro-level to arrive at conclusions describing the medieval South Indian state as 'segmentary5 and one where the formation of a 'centralized state reached a certain degreee of completion^, respectively. In disagreeing with the above the writings of D.N. Jha, M.G.S. Narayanan, R.N. Nandi and others for South India in the volume, as well as elsewhere, consciously strive to present yet another alternative model to understand the South Indian' situation. They particularly question the basic assumption of Stein who gives primacy to the ritual and moral forces as binding early Indian society and thus lay bare the inadequacies of his understanding of the structure of the State. This they do by sometimes citing the data collected, analysed and presented by Karashima who overtly neither subscribes to the 'segmentary model' nor to the 'feudal model". In the conclusion to his introduction D.N. Jha rightly points out that in recent years many area-wise studies have emerged explaining social and economic changes but he also interestingly notes, 'even if the data have not always been discussed against the background of a feudal mode of production' (p. 41. ft, nt. 101). Thi§ observation is particularly relevant for $tvdies on South