Prehistory and Protohistory in India and Pakistan c7.s21: Cultural Affinities
Prehistory and Protohistory in India and Pakistan c7.s21
- Language
- English
Cultural Affinities
c7.s21.1
Two other considerations deserve our attention. The first is the relation of this Nevasian or Middle Palaeolithic culture of Peninsular India with that of the Panjab, viz. the Late Sohan.
c7.s21.2
On geological grounds both the Nevasian and the Late Sohanian can be placed into the Late or Upper Pleistocene and assigned to the Middle Palaeolithic or Stone Age culture complex. But it is difficult to say on the strength of DE TERRA and PATERSON'S statement that certain flake tools of the Narbada were comparable with those of the Late Sohan, that these two cultures are related or typologically fall within this period, as suggested by ALLCHIN. For very little is known of the Narbada tools mentioned by DE TERRA. He has not illustrated any. Nor anyone among the present writers has handled both. Thus we are not sure of what we are comparing, typologically or stratigraphically. For one thing, though the Late Sohan does contain a fairly good percentage of flakes on prepared cores, still very few points, awls or borers and various types of scrapers reminiscent of the Nevasian or the Peninsular Middle Palaeolithic are seen. However, if we are to depend upon illustrations, among the twelve flakes of Late Sohan A, one may cite Nos. 9 and 11 as scrapers and Nos. 10 and 12 as double hollow scraper and awl respetively. Thus typology is not a good guide in this respect.
c7.s21.3
*Limitation*
c7.s21.4
For the present, in the absence of a first hand study of both the assemblages, it would be better to regard the Late Sohan and the Nevasian, at the most homotaxial and falling within the Middle Stone Age or Middle Palaeolithic Period of India. But it should be remembered that both belong to very different environmental-climatic and ecological-regions. Thus the homotaxiality has also a limited significance.
c7.s21.5
*Origin*
c7.s21.6
The second is the important question of the origin of this culture. Its antiquity is undoubted, so also its long survival, probably culminating in the microlithic industries of the Holocene.
c7.s21.7
BANERJEE⁸³ had postulated after his detailed study of the Nevasa (the Deccan) and North Karnatak material that this culture had evolved out of the earlier hand-axe-cleaver culture, because techniques like the block-on-block, cylinder hammer characterized both, as well the borer which is a type tool of the Nevasian is also available, though very rarely, in the earlier industry.
c7.s21.8
⁸³ *Middle Palaeolithic Industries of the Deccan*, p. 291.
c7.s21.9
Similar is the view of ALLCHIN,⁸⁴ who also thinks that "it (this culture) was in early stages at any rate, in contact with comparable industries in Central Asia and later developed in comparative isolation in the regions south-east of the Sind desert for a long time...," whereas, earlier⁸⁵ she had said that "the closest parallel, in terms of environment and stone technology is provided by the Middle Stone Age industries of Africa, south of the Sahara."
c7.s21.10
⁸⁴ *Op.cit.*, p. 35.
c7.s21.11
⁸⁵ ALLCHIN, *op. cit.*, p. 29.
c7.s21.12
*Africa or Central Asia?*
c7.s21.13
Regarding the indigenous evolution out of the hand-axe-cleaver industry, it may be said that though the presence of a few small hand-axes and large borers on quartzite flakes and two essential techniques may be cited, still the fundamental fact remains that by and large the people of this culture had little need for tools like the hand-axe and the cleaver. Hence they gave up the quartzite and other material in preference to other material of much finer quality, but very often much smaller in size, which was suitable for their purpose. All this suggests basic change in the life of the people, and probably the people themselves. Arrival of new cultural influences is definitely indicated. This should be most probably from Africa. It may be north⁸⁶ or south of the Sahara or even both. The existence of tanged tools may point to the former. Central Asia may be another source for the Late Sohan, as suggested by ALLCHIN, but not for the Peninsular Middle Palaeolithic, unless comparable tool types of earlier or comparable date can be cited from Iran⁸⁷ and other sites in the same region.⁸⁸
c7.s21.14
⁸⁶ MACBURNEY, C. B. M., *The Prehistory of North Africa*.
c7.s21.15
⁸⁷ COON, C. S., "Cave Explorations in Iran, 1949" *Mus. Mon. Univ. Pennsylvania* (Philadelphia, 1957).
c7.s21.16
⁸⁸ OKLADNIKOV, A. P., "Papers for the Institute of Scientific Research, Moscow", (Tr. by Movius, H. L., *Amer. School of Prehistoric Res. Bull.*, No. 17, 1953.
c7.s21.17
Evidence is increasingly coming forth from this, so far scantily explored part of Asia, of stone industries and human physical types which are described as Mousterian. The leading characteristics of the industry are (i) discoidal core, (ii) points on Levallois flakes, (iii) scrapers with steep retouch.⁸⁹ Now all these features do mark the Nevasian occasionally in some regions, or comparatively frequently in others, say Western Rajputana and Bundelkhand. But this is not sufficient to derive the Nevasian from Central Asia, or even establish a typological similarity.
c7.s21.18
⁸⁹ See for instance, Movius, Hallam, L., "Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Sites in Soviet Central Asia", Proc. Am. Philosophical Society, Vol 97, No. 4, 1953. Particularly striking are the side-scrapers and points from the cave of Teshik-Tash, Haisum Region, Uzbekistan. A brief description of this and other sites since discovered is given by MOONATT, A., Archaeology in the U.S.S.R. (Translated by M. W. Thompson), Penguin, 1961, pp. 82-7.
c7.s21.19
In truth, much more stratigraphical and other data as well as first hand comparative study of the Indian, African and Central Asian industries is necessary before something definite can be said about the origin and relationship of the Middle Palaeolithic—Nevasian and Late Sohanian—culture.