Prehistory and Protohistory in India and Pakistan c8.s7.1

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.