Prehistory and Protohistory in India and Pakistan c7.s6.7

c7.s6.7

¹¹ There is in fact no logical contradiction between the terms "Middle Stone Age" and "Middle Palaeolithic". In the former, the entire Stone Age is divided into three subperiods: (i) Early Stone Age, (ii) Middle Stone Age and (iii) Late Stone Age. In the latter, the Old Stone Age itself is divided into three sub-periods: (i) Early or Lower Palaeolithic, (ii) Middle Palaeolithic and (iii) Late or Upper Palaeolithic. Thus the former is more extensive in its connotation and applications. The latter has a limited and precise meaning. The difficulty arises when the Early Stone Age is equated with the Early or Lower Palaeolithic, and the Middle Stone Age with the Mesolithic, which is regarded as a transitional period between the Palaeolithic and Neolithic. The propounders of the term "Middle Stone Age" think that there is no sufficient evidence to place the recently discovered industry or industries (to be described) in the Palaeolithic period or within the Middle or Late Pleistocene. And therefore it is advisable to have a term of wider connotation. For the reasons mentioned, it is, I think, unnecessary to adopt a term which is not precise. For if it is agreed that the industry denoted by Series II falls within the Pleistocene and is thus Palaeolithic, and its earliest occurrence is in the middle gravels, and in character the industry is not only different from the earlier handaxe industry, but has its own individuality and further leads on to the blade industries of the succeeding period, then the name "Middle Palaeolithic" admirably brings out its stratigraphical horizon and cultural stage.