Prehistory and Protohistory in India and Pakistan c8.s7: Upper Palaeolithic
Prehistory and Protohistory in India and Pakistan c8.s7
- Language
- English
Upper Palaeolithic
c8.s7.1
With regard to the association of microliths with palaeoliths in Kurnool, Kandivli, Sangankallu and Morhana Pahar in Rewa, it has been suggested by GORDON²⁰ and after him by KRISHNASWAMI²¹ that such a context might indicate a succession of the Mesolithic after the Upper Palaeolithic. What can one say is that such associations are highly suggestive, but should not be accepted without further scientific scrutiny. CAMMIADE'S observation, though highly significant, was made in the last century when this subject was little studied as today. CAMMIADE'S collection appears to be surface and hence no reliance can be placed on it. Kandivli is suspected as mentioned above. Sangankallu needs a much larger excavation before fancy theories are built on the patinated flakes of Levallois type. However, we should not exclude the possibility of these or any other site yielding us the true Upper Palaeolithic types of tools—both of stone as well as of bone. FOOTE had compared his collection of bone tools from the Billa Surgam caves with the Magdalenian of France. Unfortunately this collection is lost. Recently renewed excavation at Burzahom21a in Kashmir, near Srinagar, has yielded some of the finest bone points, awls, needles and harpoons. The age of these is not known.21b It might not go back to that of the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe but may bear some relation with that found in Iran by BRAIDWOOD.²² Never-the less the discovery is most welcome, as it adds considerably to our knowledge.
c8.s7.2
²⁰ A.I., No. 6, p. 65.
c8.s7.3
²¹ A.I., No. 9, p. 68.
c8.s7.4
21a See here Pl. XXXII.
c8.s7.5
21b C-14 date is around 1,800 B. C.
c8.s7.6
²² Illustrated London News, October 22, 1960, pp. 695-97.
c8.s7.7
When these two or three groups and modes of occurrences of microliths are eliminated, we are left with (i) surface microliths, with or without pottery (ii) microliths from excavation, and (iii) microliths from certain geological deposits.
c8.s7.8
*Age and Distribution (See Fig. 56)*
c8.s7.9
With regard to microliths, two assertions are often made. First that microliths have been found from practically every corner or part of India.²³ Secondly, that they continued to be used up to the 10th century A.D. When these statements are examined, it would appear that these need to be qualified. In the first place such statements ignored the basic differences in types of microliths and their modes of occurrence. Secondly, they were made when little was known of the cultures called "Middle Palaeolithic" and the "Chalcolithic Short Blade Cultures," respectively. Thirdly, even without excluding these two, as done by us, it will be found that no microliths have been reported from Assam, Bengal, Nepal, the Gangetic Valley proper, the plains of the Panjab²⁴ and Kerala. While the subsequent explorations have shown their existence in Western Orissa²⁵ and Western Rajputana²⁶ which were formerly blank, it is difficult to say whether the absence in the above mentioned regions is due to want of exploration or related to the geographical causes. Thus the absence in Assam and Nepal may be due to thick forests and altitude, and in the Panjab plains, the Gangetic Valley and deltaic Bengal, for want of suitable raw material and environment. The same may be the case with Kerala. Even within the known distribution of microliths, a strict demarcation based on the availability of raw material and ecology—that is surroundings or environment—is necessary. Except for four or five areas, very little is known about the rest. However, there is no positive proof to say that microliths continued to be used in secluded semi-forested regions up to the 10th century A.D.²⁷ This is one of those statements which gains currency when oft-repeated. None of the present primitive, aboriginal tribes, like the Chenchus, use microliths today, nor there is evidence that they did so, a thousand years ago.
c8.s7.10
²³ WHEELER, R. E. M., in *A.I.*, No. 4, 1947, p. 209 and GORDON, D. H., in *A.I.*, No. 6, p. 67 and KRISHNASWAMI, V. D., in *A.I.*, No. 9, p. 64.
c8.s7.11
²⁴ Beyond the hilly Afghan frontier, Jamal Gahri Cave, former Mardas District, N.W.F.P., GORDON had long ago (Man, 1938, p. 65) noted the occurrence of microliths, but whether these are true microliths or belong to the Chalcolithic blade complex is difficult to say in the absence of illustrations or first hand study.
c8.s7.12
²⁵ MOHAPATRA, op. cit., p. 269.
c8.s7.13
²⁶ MISRA, op. cit., p. 207.
c8.s7.14
²⁷ This was GORDON'S view (*Arts and Letters*, 1936, pp. 34-41), and has been shown to be incorrect by the writer. SANKALIA, *Investigations*, p. 150. Further, it was said recently that microliths were made of bottle glass in Mahabaleshwar because a core-like object was found. Unless actual blades are found in use, this view should not be accepted.
c8.s7.15
*Eastern India*
c8.s7.16
In Eastern India the most important site to date is Birbhanpur, on the bank of the Damodar river. This river, however, rises in the Chota Nagpur plateau on the west, and though at present the site is included in West Bengal, geographically it belongs to this region. Other sites in chronological order are those noted by BEECHING²⁸ near Chaibasa and Chakradharpur in Singhbhum District in 1868, by BODDING³⁰ in the Santal Parganas in 1904, by ANDERSON in the Sanjai Valley in 1917,³¹ by MAJUMDAR³² near Durgapur in 1937 and by LAL in 1954 (the same as Birbhanpur), by MURRAY³³ from Hartopa in Singhbhum in 1940, by CHAKALDAR³⁴ in Bankura District in 1952 and again by KRISHNASWAMI in 1959-60 and by RAY³⁵ near Bongara in Manbhum District in 1954.
c8.s7.17
²⁸ BEECHING in *P.A.S.B.*, 1868, p. 177.
c8.s7.18
²⁹ WOOD-MASON in *J.A.S.B.*, Vol. LVII, 1888, pp. 387-96.
c8.s7.19
³⁰ BODDING, P. O., in *J.A.S.B.*, Vol. LXXXIII, 1904, pp. 27-31.
c8.s7.20
³¹ ANDERSON, G. W., in *J.B.O.R.S.*, Vol. III, pp. 349-62.
c8.s7.21
³² A.S.I., A.R. 1937-38, p. and *Revealing India's past*, p. 110.
c8.s7.22
³³ MURRAY, E. F. O., in J.A.S.B., Vol. VI, pp. 79-104.
c8.s7.23
³⁴ CHAKALDAR, Man in India, Vol. XXXI, 1952, pp. 124-64.
c8.s7.24
³⁵ RAY, G. S., op. cit., Vol. XXXIV, 1954, pp. 16-9.
c8.s7.25
PHYSIOGRAPHICAL AND CULTURAL DIVISIONS OF INDIA AND MICROLITHIC CULTURES
c8.s7.26
Fig. 66. Map showing the distribution of Microlithic Cultures in India.
c8.s7.27
Thus three out of four divisions of Chota Nagpur viz. Singhbhum, Manbhum, Ranchi, except Palmau, and the region bordering on West Bengal and Orissa have yielded microliths.³⁶
c8.s7.28
³⁶ Nudhia in West Bengal proper has given a few microliths, A.I., No. 14, 1958, p. 16.
c8.s7.29
Everywhere the sites are situated on the old river terraces and plateaus and away from the present river valleys. These are lightly forested now, and were possibly so when the microlithic people inhabited the area. At present these are the homes of a number of aboriginal tribes, such as the Santals and Uraons. Hence the Chota Nagpur plateau is of particular importance in understanding the Mesolithic problem in this part of India. How old are these microliths? Have they anything to do with the present tribes or their ancestors? No large scale work has ever been attempted in this region. However, one small excavation by LAL and earlier observation by ANDERSON give some idea of the antiquity of microliths.
c8.s7.30
ANDERSON noticed chert flakes in river sections on the Sanjai and its tributaries. These were found according to him on the top of gravel deposit which overlies whitish clay or schist. Whether this gravel is old, that is Pleistocene, or comparatively recent is difficult to say without first hand examination. So also about the tools. Elsewhere microliths occur in the latest gravel deposits. There is also a possibility that these tools which look like microliths are older, belonging to Middle Palaeolithic complex. For 18 ft. of reddish clay over lay the gravel, and hence the tools if not plastered on with the gravel as a rewash, but really in situ should be considerably old. And as DANI has rightly noted, suggest different environmental and climatic conditions than those obtaining today. The illustrations of the tools do not convey anything.