Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Prehistory and Protohistory in India and Pakistan c5: List of Illustrations

Prehistory and Protohistory in India and Pakistan c5

Language
English

Contents

List of Illustrations

c5.1

Frontispiece (in colour) (Fig. 91). Painted Pottery Spouted Pots in Jorwe ware from Nevasa. Fig. 91A Spouted Pot and Carinated Bowl, Nevasa.

c5.2

| | | Page |
| Fig. 1 | Map of the "amphitheatre" in W. Asia, showing four of the earliest sites, viz. Jarmo, Jericho, Sialk and Hacilar. (*Courtesy: Dr. Braidwood*) ... ... ... ii |
| Fig. 2 | Early Historical Centres of Civilization and Physiographical Divisions of India... iv |
| Fig. 3 | Composite Transverse Section through the Sohan Valley (*Courtesy Dr. De Terra and Asia Publishing House*) ... ... ... 3 |
| Fig. 4 | Early Palaeolithic Sites in N. W. Panjab . . . . . 7 |
| Fig. 5 | Pre-Sohan and Early Sohan types of tools . . . . . 11 |
| Fig. 6 | Early Sohan Flakes and Cores . . . . . 12 |
| Fig. 7 | Late Sohan Cores and Flakes . . . . . 14 |
| Fig. 8 | Chauntra and Evolved Sohan tools . . . . . 15 |
| Fig. 9 | Palaeolithic Sites in the Sirsha and Beas-Banganga Valley, East Panjab ... 17 |
| Fig. 10 | Panoramic view of the "terraces" near Guler on the Banganga, East Panjab. (*Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India*) ... between pp. 16-17 |
| Fig. 11 | Physiography of the Singrauli Basin (U.P.) (*Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India*) ... ... ... between pp. 18-19 |
| Fig. 12 | Diagrammatic Section of the Rihand river midway between Kota and Pipri. (*Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India*) ... 22 |
| Fig. 13 | Stone Age Sites, Kangsabati Valley, West Bengal. (*Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India*) ... ... ... 25 |
| Fig. 14 | North Orissa showing Stone Age sites (*Courtesy: Dr. G. C. Mohapatra*)... 26 |
| Fig. 15 | Section on the River Baitarani, Ramla, Orissa. (*Courtesy: Dr. G. C. Mohapatra*) ... ... ... 29 |
| Fig. 16 | Map of Kurnool showing Stone Age and other sites (*Courtesy: Dr. N. Isaac*) ... 34 |
| Fig. 17 | (a) Eroded laterite plains at Krishnapuram on the Bhavanasi, Kurnool District |
| (Plate I) | (b) Section cliff, Bhavanasi, showing indurated silt capped by brownish silt (*at the end*) |
| Fig. 18 | Early and Middle Palaeolithic Sites in Maharashtra and Karnatak ... 40 |
| Fig. 19 | Sections on the Malaprabha at Katarki, Taminhal and south-west of Maneri (*Courtesy: Dr. R. V. Joshi*) ... ... ... 42 |
| Fig. 20 | Section of the Pravara Locality I at Nevasa (*Courtesy: Director, Deccan College*) 44 |
| Fig. 21 | Early Palaeolithic Sites in Gujarat . . . . . 49 |
| Fig. 22 | Section at Pedhamli on the Sabarmati, N. Gujarat ... ... 44 |
| Fig. 23 | Map of Malwa showing Prehistoric Sites (*Courtesy: Dr. A. P. Khatri*) ... 55 |
| Fig. 24 | Palaeolithic Sites in Rajasthan (*Courtesy: Dr. V. N. Misra*) ... ... 57 |
| Fig. 25 | Early and Middle Palaeolithic Sites in Bundelkhand and E. Malwa ... 59 |
| Fig. 26 | Pebble-butted handaxe (1-3); Rostrocarinate-like tool (4-5); Abbevillian handaxe (6-8); Discoid Scraper (9-11). 1/2 ... ... ... 61 |
| Fig. 27 | Double-pointed Handaxe (1-3); Hammer-cum-Chopper (4-6); Side-Scraper (7-9). 1/2 . . . . . 62 |

c5.3

Fig. 28 Acheulian Handaxes: Pear-shaped (1-3); Ovate (4-6); Cordate (7-9) 1/2 ... 63

c5.4

Fig. 29 Cleavers of various types. Convex-edged with tapering butt (1-4); Oblique or straight-edged with square or U-shaped butt (5-6); (9-10); Straight-edged with pointed butt (7-8). 1/2 ... 65

c5.5

Fig. 30 Cleavers: Concave-edged with tapering or pointed butt (1-3); straight-edged with U-shaped butt (5-6). 1/2 ... 66

c5.6

Fig. 31 (Plate II) Pyriform handaxe from Nevasa (Courtesy: Director, Deccan College) ... at the end

c5.7

Fig. 32 (Plate III) Handaxes from Nevasa (Courtesy: Director, Deccan College) ... at the end

c5.8

Fig. 33 Map showing the distribution of Lower Palaeolithic sites in relation to the Physiographic Divisions of India ... 68

c5.9

Fig. 34 Map showing the Distribution of Soan Types of Tools in India ... 69

c5.10

Fig. 35 (Plate IV) (a) Jaw of Bos namadicus from Nevasa ... at the end
(b) Skull with horn of Bos namadicus from Kalegaon (Courtesy: Director, Deccan College) ... at the end

c5.11

Fig. 36 Section on the Pravara at Hathi Well site, near Nevasa (suggested reconstruction) ... 74

c5.12

Fig. 37 Section across the River Narbada, opposite Sahasradhara ... 80

c5.13

Fig. 38 Points and Scrapers, Maharashtra ... 83

c5.14

Fig. 39 Borers and Scrapers, Maharashtra ... 84

c5.15

Fig. 40 Scrapers, Maharashtra ... 86

c5.16

Fig. 41 Points, Borers and Scrapers, Karnatak ... 88

c5.17

Fig. 42 Scrapers, Karnatak ... 89

c5.18

Fig. 43 Points and Scrapers, Kurnool, Andhra ... 92

c5.19

Fig. 44 Points, Borers and Scrapers, Orissa ... 95

c5.20

Fig. 45 Scrapers: Malwa, Madhya Pradesh ... 97

c5.21

Fig. 46 Points, Borers and Scrapers, Rajasthan ... 101

c5.22

Fig. 47 Small handaxes, Cleavers, Flake-knives and Tortoise Core ... 102

c5.23

Fig. 48 Points, and Borers, Bundelkhand ... 106

c5.24

Fig. 49 Points and Scrapers, Bundelkhand ... 107

c5.25

Fig. 50 Stone Age Sites in relation to the Geological Formation in Bombay Island (Courtesy: Indian Science Congress) ... pp. 114-115

c5.26

Fig. 51 Western Section of Nala 1, behind the School of Physical Culture at Kandivli ... 111

c5.27

Fig. 52 Eastern Section of Nala 2 at Kandivli ... 111

c5.28

Fig. 53 (1-11) Middle Palaeolithic tools from Kandivli ... 116

c5.29

Fig. 54 (12-20) Middle Palaeolithic tools from Kandivli ... 117

c5.30

Fig. 55 Map showing the distribution of Middle Palaeolithic sites in relation to the Physiographic Divisions of India ... 121

c5.31

Fig. 56 Map showing the distribution of Microlithic Cultures and Physiographical and Cultural Divisions of India ... 130

c5.32

Fig. 57 Birbhanpur 1957: Trench BBP-1, Section (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India) ... 133

c5.33

Fig. 76 Types and Designs in Somnath or Prabhas Ware. (Courtesy: Late Dr. B. Subbarao and Late Shri P. P. Pandya) . . . . . 172

c5.34

Fig. 77 (Plate XVI)
(a) View of Mound IV and (b) Section showing debris of four periods at Navdatoli, Madhya Pradesh. (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India and Director, Deccan College) . . . . . at the end

c5.35

Fig. 78 (Plate XVII)
(a) Remains of circular structures;
(b) A "room" outlined by charred wooden posts;
(c) A row of double post-holes;
(d) Remains of a mud-walled house. Phase IV, Navdatoli. (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India and Director, Deccan College) ... at the end

c5.36

Fig. 79 (Plate XVIII) (a-b) Kuja-like high, narrow-necked vessels.
(c) Large painted jar.
(d) Carinated bowl, Phase I, Navdatoli. (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India and Director, Deccan College) ... ... ... at the end

c5.37

Fig. 80 (Plate XIX) Dish-on-stand and Goblets, Periods II and III, Navdatoli. (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India, and Director, Deccan College) ... at the end

c5.38

Fig. 81 (Pl. XX) White-slipped Pottery: (a-e) bowls;
(b) shoulder portion of a jar, Periods I-II, Navdatoli. (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India, and Director, Deccan College) ... ... ... at the end

c5.39

Fig. 82 (Plate XXI) (a) Lota (water-pot); (b) channel-spouted bowl; Period IV, Navdatoli. (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India and Director, Deccan College) . . . . . at the end

c5.40

Fig. 83 (Plate XXII) Painted designs on white-slipped and Malwa Ware, Navdatoli. (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India and Director, Deccan College) at the end

c5.41

Fig. 84 (Plate XXIII) Painted designs on Malwa Ware. (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India and Director, Deccan College) ... ... ... at the end

c5.42

Fig. 85 (not included)

c5.43

Fig. 86 (Plate XXIV) (a) Applique design, standing woman; (b) Applique design, monkey-like animal; (c) Hearth (Chulah). All from Navdatoli. (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India and Director, Deccan College) ... at the end

c5.44

Fig. 87 (Plate XXV) Copper axes, Navdatoli. (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology, and Director, Deccan College) . . . . . at the end

c5.45

Fig. 88

c5.46

Fig. 89 (Pl. XXVI) (a) Channel-spouted bowl in copper: Khurdi, Rajasthan; (b) Spearhead or Dagger-head of copper from Chandoli, Poona District. (Courtesy: Director, Archaeology Department, Rajasthan, and Director, Deccan College) ... at the end

c5.47

(Figs. 90-108 have been reproduced with Courtesy: Director, Deccan College)

c5.48

Fig. 90 (Frontispiece in colour) Painted Pottery from Nevasa . . . . .

c5.49

Fig. 91 (Frontispiece in colour) Painted Pottery from Nevasa . . . . .

c5.50

Fig. 92 Globular high-necked vessels from Nevasa . . . . . 205

c5.51

Fig. 93 Lids, Nevasa . . . . . 206

c5.52

Fig. 94 Burial urns from Nevasa . . . . . 207

c5.53

Fig. 95 Coarse Grey Ware from Nevasa . . . . . 208

c5.54

Fig. 96 Dough Plates from Nevasa . . . . . 210

c5.55

Fig. 97 (a) Storage Jar; (b) Theriomorphic Vessel; (c) Squarish Pot ... ... 211

c5.56

Fig. 97A (Plate XXX) (a) White-slipped pot with elongated Sialk-like Iranian animals; (b) Painted Designs, Daimabad . . . . . at the end (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India).

c5.57

Fig. 98 Opened pot-burial, Nevasa . . . . . 212

c5.58

Fig. 99

c5.59

Fig. 100 (Plate XXVII) Section showing the weathered layer 4, Trench X, Nevasa at the end

c5.60

Fig. 101 (Plate XXVIII) (a) Group of urn-burials; (b) Storage jar under a pot-burial; (c) storage jar (reconstructed), Nevasa ... ... ... at the end

c5.61

Fig. 101A Typical Beads: Chalcolithic and Bronze Age. (Courtesy: Dr. S. B. Deo) ... 213

c5.62

Fig. 102 Various types of cores for Chalcolithic blades ... ... ... 215

c5.63

Fig. 103 Crested Ridge Flakes (1-4); Plunging Flakes (5-9); Parallel-sided Flakes (unused) (10-14); Parallel-sided Flakes (used) (15-19); Penknife-blades (Right-sided) (20-23); (left-sided) (24-27; 28; 31; 32-35); Lunates—i (37-44); ii (45-48); Trapezès (53-56) ... ... ... 216

c5.64

Fig. 104 Blade with straight blunted back; i (a) (1, 2); (b) (8, 4); (c) (5); ii. Partly blunted (6, 7); iii. Fully blunted (8-10); Blades fully retouched on both sides (11-13); Straight blunted back-cum-Scraper (14-18); Saws (19-30); Scrapers (31-32; 33-35; 36-39); Blades used on both sides (41-42) ... ... 217

c5.65

Fig. 105 (a) Points (1-5); (b) Projecting Points (6-8); (c) Triangular Points (9-15); (d) Pointed Flakes (16-17); Type 18; Tanged Point (18) 18; Type 19, Tanged Flakes (i) Broken, (19, 2); (ii) Intact and worked flakes (24-26); Type 20, Tanged Blade-cum-Scraper (27-28) ... ... ... 218

c5.66

Fig. 106 (Plate XXIX) (a) Polished Stone Axes (1-3); Chisel (4); Adze (5); Nevasa at the end

c5.67

Fig. 107 Polished Stone Tools. Fully Polished Axes (1-5); Partly Polished Axes (2, 3); Incomplete (first stage) (4); Adze (6); Chisel (7) ... ... ... 219

c5.68

Fig. 108 Anvils (1-2); Muller (8); Stone Ball (4); Hammerstones (5-7) ... ... 220

c5.69

Fig. 109

c5.70

Fig. 110 Distribution of "Copper-hoards" in India. (Adapted with addition of latest information from Ancient India) . . . . . 224

c5.71

Fig. 111 Map showing the distribution of Ground or Polished Stone Tools in India... ... 226

c5.72

Fig. 112 Geological Eastern India showing Stone Age sites (Adapted with some additions, from A. H. Dani) . . . . . 227

c5.73

Fig. 113 Neolithic Finds in Assam (After Dr. A. H. Dani) ... ... ... 228

c5.74

Fig. 114 Neolithic Tools from Assam (After Dr. A. H. Dani) ... ... ... 230

c5.75

Fig. 115 Neolithic Tools from Assam (After Dr. A. H. Dani) ... ... ... 233

c5.76

Fig. 115A Proto-historic Sites in the Valley of Kunoor and Ajay in Burdwan and Birbhum Districts, W. Bengal (Courtesy: Shri P. C. Das Gupta) ... ... ... 240

c5.77

Fig. 116 (Plate XXXI) Neolithic Tools from Orissa. 1-3 Shouldered axe. (Courtesy: Shri B. K. Thapar and Director-General of Archaeology in India) ... ... at the end

c5.78

Fig. 117 Excavated Neolithic Sites in Andhra and Mysore. (Courtesy: Dr. F. R. Allchin) . . . . . 246

c5.79

Fig. 118 Section at Brahmagiri. (Courtesy: Director-General of Archaeology in India) ... 249

c5.80

| | | Page |
| Fig. 119 | Pottery types from Piklihal, Andhra. (*Courtesy*: Dr. F. R. Allchin) ... ... 258 |
| Fig. 120 | Pottery types from Piklihal, Andhra. (*Courtesy*: Dr. F. R. Allchin) ... ... 254 |
| Fig. 121 | Pottery types from Piklihal, Brahmagiri and Nagarjunakonda ... ... 256 |
| Fig. 122 | Different types of Polished Pointed Butt Axes from Brahmagiri ... ... 259 |
| Fig. 123 | "Shoe-last" celt, Fabricators and Chisels from Sangankallu ... ... ... 260 |
| Fig. 124 | Puranic Tribes and Pottery Groups (*Map adapted, with some additions, from Pargiter*) . . . . . 280 |
| Fig. 125 | (Plate XXXII) View of excavations at Burzahom, near Srinagar, Kashmir. (*Courtesy*: Shri T. N. Khazanchi and Director General of Archaeology in India) at the end |
| Fig. 126 | (Plate XXXIII) Dwelling Pit from Burzahom. (*Courtesy*: Ibid) ... ... at the end |
| Fig. 127 | (Plate XXXIV) (a) High-necked vessel in steel-grey ware from the earliest pit-dwelling, Phase I; (b) Polished Stone Axes, Phase II; (c) Polished bone tools, Phase II; Burzahom. (*Courtesy*: Ibid) . . . . . at the end |
| Fig. 128 | (Plate XXXV) (a) Pebble Conglomerate on the right bank of the Mutha below Datta Wadi, Poona; (b) Fine Gravel with light brown silt on the right bank of the Mutha below Datta Wadi, Poona . . . . . |
| Fig. 129 | (Plate XXXVI) Terraces on the Narmada at Sagauna Ghat ... ... ... at the end |
| Fig. 130 | Palaeolithic Sites on the Narmada . . . . . 285 |

Charts and Tables

c5.s1.1

| 1. | Stone Age and climatic sequence in India outside the Panjab ... ... at the end |
| 2. | From the Beginning of Pastoral stage to the Threshold of Urbanization in India and Pakistan . . . . . to face p. 274 |
| 3. | Narmada tool sequence correlated with other parts of India ... ... 287 |

c5.s1.2

In the Hindu or Brahmanic mythology, Prithu, (said to be ruling the Gangā-Yamunā doab) son of King Vena, is credited with the introduction of an agricultural and urban way of life by founding towns and villages and even mining. He is said to have achieved this feat by first "flattening" the earth, so as to facilitate agriculture, storage of water and building of houses. Hence the earth is called "prithvī", after Prithu. See Shrimad Bhāgavat Purāṇa, IV. 18. (Gujarati Edition published by M. T. TELIWALA, Bombay, 1934, p. 149.)

Antiquarianism Absent

c5.s2.1

All this should have goaded the people in India to take interest in antiquities. But this was never done. The Hindu mind was turned towards the metaphysical aspect of these questions and later—when images had come into existence—it was considered a sin to worship or even preserve an image which was (somehow) broken. Thus antiquarianism and true historiography never developed in India. There was not even simple curiosity to know the past.

New Impetus

c5.s3.1

Whatever interest we behold today is solely due to the impact of Western thought and science. So after FOOTE, it took nearly three decades to revive interest in Indian prehistory and another decade to arouse the official world—the Archaeological Survey of India—and still another fifteen years for its establishment there.

c5.s3.2

It began with the work of CAMMIADE and RICHARDS, two British-Indian Civilians. These during their tours in present Andhra and Madras States had collected thousands of palaeoliths and other stone tools. These were studied by BURKITT who proposed a climatic and typological correlation with that of Africa.

Yale-Cambridge Expedition

c5.s4.1

Indian prehistory was thus re-born in 1930. It took a great step forward when the Yale-Cambridge Expedition under the leadership of DE TERRA, after prolonged geological, climatic, botanical and palaeontological study of the Kashmir Valley, the Panjab (the Potwar Plateau), the Narbada Valley at Hoshangabad and the Kortalayar near Madras published the results. This was the first systematic and scientific attempt to put prehistory on a proper foundation.

Indian Universities

c5.s5.1

Soon after a modest beginning was made by a few Universities. The Calcutta University dug the laterite gravels in Mayurbhanj, Orissa. The Archaeological Survey, Government of India, in co-operation with the Deccan College Post-graduate and Research Institute and the Gujarat Research Society, Bombay, took up the clues in Gujarat left by ROBERT BRUCE FOOTE 50 years earlier. This stimulus given by the late Rao Bahadur K. N. Dikshit, has continued to inspire all subsequent work in India. A few more Universities—Baroda, Mysore and Allahabad—besides that of Poona and Calcutta, have entered the field. The Government of India have created a regular sub-department of prehistory in the Department of Archaeology, once again renamed Archaeological Survey of India.

c5.s5.2

Official and academic recognition has thus been accorded to prehistory. The press is spreading the news of progress in the subject to the literate.

c5.s5.3

However, there is not that social awareness and interest in the subject to strike deep roots. Probably this is due to mass illiteracy and poverty, and apathy of the intellectual classes to things of the past.

Beginning of Protohistory

c5.s6.1

Surprisingly nobody had thought of a systematic search for tracing the beginnings of the historic archaeology in India. So for nearly 70 years—from 1860 to 1920—work continued in the historic field, until the Indus Civilization was revealed in 1917-20. For a long time it was assumed to be pre-historic, but it is now realized that several of its features entitle it to be called "Proto-historic." Though systematic attempts were made soon after its discovery to understand its spread and extent by N. G. MAJUMDAR, Sir AUREL STEIN and HARGREAVES, its origin remains obscure. The problem was freshly attacked by Dr. (now Sir) MORTIMER WHEELER in 1947 at Harappa and then at Mohenjodaro and significant details have been added to our knowledge of the civilization. To this a new chapter is being added by Shri S. R. RAO's work at Lothal.

c5.s6.2

Meanwhile, the work of the Universities and the Government of India and the State Departments has brought to light hitherto unknown cultures in the Gangetic Valley, Rajputana, Saurashtra, Central India, the Deccan and Mysore. These are often called "prehistoric," but are truly "protohistoric," as is understood here.

c5.s6.3

We may say, then, that the real foundations of pre- and proto-historic archaeology in India were laid between 1920 and 1930. It has since then flourished after the Second World War.

Work Ahead

c5.s7.1

Both have still much to achieve. So far a mere skeleton sequence of cultures has been obtained in prehistory and protohistory, but the whole sociological background is missing. In the former the old techniques are to be perfected and new ones adopted. We are far behind Europe and America and even Africa in this respect. Not only are the latest scientific methods of dating the river and other deposits—called geochronology—suitable to Indian conditions are to be learnt and applied assiduously, but attempts must be made to understand the distribution of hand-axe and other prehistoric as well as protohistoric cultures on an ecological basis. No caves or rock-shelters have yet been excavated.28a Thus in a sense, Indian prehistory is, where the European was in 1860. Only one redeeming feature is that in India stone implements are not being collected nor excavations conducted by untrained workmen and amateurs and momentous theories built on some selected material by the scholars working on them.

c5.s7.2

28a Last year a rock-shelter near Hoshangabad was partly excavated.

c5.s7.3

However, a long way lies ahead which should be trodden by trained men alone so that we shall avoid all those pitfalls which others experienced.

c5.s7.4

In this work, therefore, care has been taken to use the old concepts and terms which have become standard, though found defective and fallacious, with as much precision, as the data at our command allow us.

c5.s7.5

The Four Ages in India

c5.s7.6

First the Three Age Theory of THOMSEN. When the prehistoric archaeology in India is divided or grouped into Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic, it is generally understood that man first knew the use of stone, but not of copper or iron. In this Stone Age, other perishable objects like bone²⁸ᵇ and wood might have been used, but as only stone has survived, it is called by the most prominent object or artifact of the period. According to the geological and artifactual evidence, this Stone Age is divided into (a) Early or Lower Palaeolithic and (b) Middle Palaeolithic,²⁹ leaving room for its final phase (c) Upper Palaeolithic when it is fully discovered and identified.

c5.s7.7

²⁹ As explained in the Preface, this may now be called "Middle Stone Age" and the subsequent "Late Stone Age."

c5.s7.8

Palaeolithic

c5.s7.9

Geographically, these Stone Ages were fairly wide-spread, almost coextensive, barring high lands and thickly forested regions and purely coastal or deltaic regions. Sind, Saurashtra, Kerala, Tinnevelly, Assam, Nepal and West Rajputana did not perhaps witness the Early Palaeolithic; and all these except Sind, Saurashtra and West Rajputana did not witness the Middle Stone Age or Palaeolithic either.

c5.s7.10

Thus, when the term "Palaeolithic" is used, it has slightly restricted connotation. Straightaway, it does not apply to the whole of India.

c5.s7.11

The climate during the first was comparatively humid than the second. Both were followed by a period of relative dryness.

c5.s7.12

Economically, man was a savage, a hunter, though he might have subsisted largely on fruits, roots and grubs during the Early Palaeolithic and on the chase with the help of the bow and arrow or/and spear during the Middle Palaeolithic. Lastly, though so far only stone tools have been known of this stage of man's life and nothing else—man's other aspects of life—social, moral, religious—still the word "culture" is applied to it, because stone tools of certain type constantly recur in both the Stone Ages. These form a leading characteristic and give an inkling of the material culture of the man. Hence, instead of grouping the stone tools into simple "assemblages" or "industries," a term of greater significance and connotation, viz. culture, has been used. Strictly, only the former two terms are applicable.

c5.s7.13

Mesolithic or (Late Stone Age)

c5.s7.14

The term "Mesolithic" is again used in a much more limited sense. It has been amply proved in a number of sites in England, Western and Northern Europe, parts of Africa, Palestine that the Upper Palaeolithic was succeeded by certain climatic changes, during which man used tiny stone tools, called "microliths." The tools, though small, heralded an advance in technological stage and implied the discovery of the principle of compound tools. Economically, the man was still a hunter, and preferred to live in lightly forested, sandy regions. It is argued from certain types of tools occurring in certain context that the man, in a few areas, might be practising primitive agriculture, that is, cutting with stone-teeth sickles naturally growing stalks of grain—like wild barley and wheat. Thus the term "Mesolithic" has a stratigraphic, chronological, typological and economic significance, but not universally, and much less in every part of India. Nor can we equate in time or content the various Mesolithic Cultures of India, either with each other within India or with any outside India.

c5.s7.15

28b Scholars like Professor DART have postulated an earlier "Age of Bone." See "Bone Tools at Makapansgat Australopithecine Locality, Central Transvaal" in the Archaeological Bulletin, vol. XIII, No. 51, 1958, p. 74 ff. The maker of these bone tools is called Australopithecus prometheus.

c5.s7.16

However, with all these limitations, the term "Mesolithic" helps us in distinguishing a few stone-using cultures in a few regions from those of the preceding Stone Age Cultures and the succeeding metal-using cultures of the protohistoric period.

Neolithic

c5.s8.1

The term "Neolithic" denotes, as now understood, a stage when man did not have the knowledge of copper, but had begun to domesticate a few animals, make pottery, practice primitive agriculture with or without ground or polished stone implements. The last is not an invariable feature of the Neolithic either in India or anywhere else. The most important characteristics are some kind of permanent habitation and production of food. With this yardstick, certain areas in the present States of Andhra-Karnatak-Mysore as well as in Orissa-Bihar-Assam and Kashmir may be grouped into the South-eastern and Eastern Neolithic, though it must be emphasized that the evidence is not at all of a uniform nature. Sharp, clear cut distributions are at present not possible and perhaps can never be had.

Chalcolithic

c5.s9.1

The "Chalcolithic" has all the above features of the Neolithic, but in addition objects of copper occur in small quantities. The pottery is now generally painted, though not all. Whether these few copper objects were locally made or imported, it has not been ascertained. Hence the uncertainty about the true state of the inhabitants' knowledge of copper, its smelting etc.20a The last is indeed a test or the leading characteristic. However, since a few objects of copper occur almost everywhere in the Deccan, Central India, Rajputana, Saurashtra and do not occur in the South-east Zone, the former have been assigned to the Chalcolithic. Further all these—the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic—have been simply called cultures, and further distinguished by the name of the type-site, such as Nevasa or Navdatoli Chalcolithic or Bellary Neolithic. In each case, besides pottery, other objects which give some idea of the life of the people are available; hence to designate them as assemblages or industries would be under-estimating the evidence.

c5.s9.2

20a Such evidence is now forthcoming from Ahar in south-east Rajasthan and Kaundinyapura, near Amaroti in Vidarbha.

Bronze Age

c5.s10.1

The "Bronze Age" and "Civilization" are reserved for the Indus Civilization proper, and its manifestation—whether in the Panjab, Rajputana or Saurashtra. For these answer to all the characteristics of a "civilization" as defined by BRAIDWOOD. The Indus people must have had knowledge of the smelting and alloying of copper. It is truly a Bronze Age Civilization and not “Chalcolithic”, though the inhabitants continued to use long blades of stone. The last only underlines the fact that each period gradually merged into the next, without leaving sharp breaks.

Iron Age

c5.s11.1

The “Iron Age,” that is, the use of iron, instead of copper and bronze, was also not sudden, nor did it take place at the same place everywhere in India. It can only be asserted that its use was fairly general by about the 3rd-4th century B.C. in almost all the parts of India, though no doubt there were large pockets—the hilly forested regions of Central India and Assam—where iron might not have reached, and the people were still in a Mesolithic stage. This was also the time when writing, coined money etc. appear and also monumental architecture and a few large cities. Thus one can definitely say that India was largely “civilized” by the 3rd century B.C. We cannot yet define the beginning of this process. Though iron has been found at a few sites like Rajar Dhipi, Ujjain, Alamgirpur, Hastinapur and Kausambi in deposits earlier than the 4th century B.C., still the exact age is unknown. Provisionally, we may fix the 4th-6th century as the date when iron was first introduced in some parts (northern) of India.

Chronological Table

c5.s12.1

The following table will at a glance show the *present* position of pre- and proto-historic archaeology in India.

c5.s12.2

PROTO-HISTORY

c5.s12.3

| 2,500 B.C.- 2,000 B.C. | Bronze Age | Sind Panjab Rajputana Saurashtra |
| C. 18,00 B.C.- 1,000 B.C. | Chalcolithic | Rajputana Central India Saurashtra Deccan |
| c. 2000 B.C. | Neolithic | Andhra Karnatak Kashmir |
| c. 3,500 B.C. ? | Neolithic | Baluchistan |

c5.s12.4

PRE-HISTORY

c5.s12.5

| c. 5,000 B.C. | Mesolithic or Late Stone Age | Langhnaj Mysore Tinnevelly Birbhanpur |
| | Upper Palaeolithic | ? ? Kurnool Kandivli |

c5.s12.6

| c. 25,000 B.C. | Middle Palaeolithic or Stone Age | Late Sohan Nevasian and its other manifestations | Panjab Peninsular India, barring Assam, Nepal, Kerala and perhaps extreme S. India. |
| 1,50,000 B.C.³⁰ | Early Stone Age or Early Palaeolithic | Sohanian or Chopper-chopping tool culture | } Panjab |
| | | Hand-axe culture | Panjab and Peninsular India barring Assam, Nepal, Kerala, Sind, W. Rajputana and extreme S. India. |

c5.s12.7

³⁰ This is a very conservative estimate, based on the palaeontological and other methods of dating the Middle Pleistocene and the associated Abbevillian and Acheulian industries in India. Since, however, the Chellean (Abbevillian) at Olduvai in East Africa can now be dated to about 1,750,000 years by the argon potassium method (LEAKEY, L. S. B. and CURTIS, G. H., in National Geographic, October, 1961, p. 564), it is to be seen how this affects the dating of these industries elsewhere. Some backward dating of our industries is inevitable, if the claims of this new method are universally accepted.

c5.s12.8

The above chart is presented here with a view to facilitate understanding of the complicated and still very much immature state of the subject³¹. It can best be done for the general reader with the help of the Three Age system of THOMSEN, as modified during the last 100 years. Even its most brilliant critic,³² Dr. GLYN DANIEL, has had recourse to it when he describes the Indus Civilization as Chalcolithic in one of his later publications.³³ This state of things will remain until a more suitable terminology, a "vocabulary" which is more objective than the present is "discovered". For many scholars in the field have criticized, but few have come forward with a really constructive suggestion which is universally acclaimed.

c5.s12.9

³¹ The arrangement of the Chronology on the basis of the Three Age system at once shows its merits and demerits. First it is not of universal application in India, much less for the whole world. Secondly, one has to provide for periods of retrogression, as in Sind and Saurashtra.

c5.s12.10

³² DANIEL, GLYN, E., The Three Ages, Cambridge, 1943.

c5.s12.11

³³ DANIEL, A Hundred Years of Archaeology, p. 250.