[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Reference works](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference) › [An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989) › v1.c21.s15 # An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c21.s15: 16.15 Stone Tools An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c21.s15 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [v1.c21.s15.t1 16.15.3 Functional study](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.t1) — 5 parts ### 16.15 Stone Tools ### [v1.c21.s15.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.1) \*16.15.1 Palaeolithic and Mesolithic.\* Our present knowledge of the technology of Stone Age cultures in India is almost exclusively confined to the working of stone. Quartzite and silica minerals like chert, jasper, quartz and chalcedony serve as the principal raw materials, but other rocks such as granite, dolerite, limestone and sandstone are also used in certain parts of the country. The techniques employed for flaking and chipping these rocks into various tool forms show close similarities with those known from Africa, Europe and w. Asia. ### [v1.c21.s15.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.2) During the Lower Palaeolithic \[4.2\] phase four important techniques are employed, viz. the block-on-block (Clactonian), stone hammer, soft hammer and Victoria West techniques. In the block-on-block or anvil technique the nodule or pebble from which a flake is to be detached is struck against the projecting edge of a larger block of stone fixed into the ground. The resultant flakes are generally massive and show a prominent bulb of percussion, wide flaking angle (above 120°) and cortical upper surface. They serve as blanks for the manufacture of tools like handaxes, knives and scrapers. In the stone hammer technique blows are given with a fist-sized piece of stone on another block held in the other hand; a series of flakes is thus removed from the latter block. Tool types like handaxes, chopping tools and polyhedrons are manufactured by means of this technique. In view of the heavy nature of the stone hammer leading to the removal of thick flakes the artefact surfaces are often irregular and bear deep negative bulbs of percussion; the edges tend to be wavy or jagged. This defect is remedied by the employment of the soft hammer technique. Here a cylindrical piece of wood or bone is used in lieu of stone hammer, thereby affording the artificer a certain degree of control over the amount of force to be applied while delivering the blow. Since the flakes so detached are thin, the artefacts bear smooth surfaces; all fine-looking handaxes and cleavers are made by means of this technique. The Victoria West technique involves partial prior preparation of the core and the removal of a large and rather flat flake by giving a blow on one of the lateral sides. Such flakes are fashioned into cleavers and handaxes with a minimum of secondary working. ### [v1.c21.s15.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.3) The stone hammer and soft hammer techniques were also employed extensively during the succeeding Middle Palaeolithic \[4.3\] phase for the production of flakes. Another technique, already known to some of the Lower Palaeolithic groups and widely used during this phase, is the prepared core or Levallois technique. In this case the dorsal surface of the flake is prepared on the core itself by way of removing a series of centrally directed flakes; the flake is then detached by a blow with a soft hammer. The flakes so produced are generally regular in shape and bear sharp edges. The flake-blanks obtained by these techniques are shaped into scrapers of various types, points and borers by means of edge-retouch executed with a pointed object of bone or wood. ### [v1.c21.s15.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.4) The Upper Palaeolithic \[4.4\] phase witnesses a wholesale transformation in stone technology inasmuch as the majority of tools are made on long and parallel-sided flakes technically known as blades. The blade technique consists of the selection of elongated nodules or pebbles whose surfaces as well as the ends (to serve as platforms) are prepared carefully. Then a series of blades is detached along the long axis either by the punch technique or by applying pressure with the chest. Backing or blunting, edge-retouch and burin faceting are the chief forms of secondary working used for turning these blanks into various finished types like backed blades, retouched blades, points, borers and burins. The incised decoration found on ostrich eggshell pieces from PATNE and the small female figurine of bone from the BELAN valley would appear to have involved the use of burins. Another aspect of the Upper Palaeolithic technology concerns the bone tools (points, spatulae, etc.) reported from the limestone caves in the Kurnool region of Andhra Pradesh (cf. BILLA SURGAM). These are made on splinters detached by the well-known groove-and-splinter technique and then finished off by means of grinding. ### [v1.c21.s15.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.5) The Mesolithic \[4.5\] technology is essentially a continuation of the blade technology of the Upper Palaeolithic period. The only notable difference is that true microlithic types, viz. lunates, trapezes, triangles and certain types of points made their appearance now. These are made on blades or segments thereof by means of the blunting form of secondary working. As in Europe and certain other parts of the Old World it is quite probable that these artefacts served as insets for the preparation of composite tools and weapons like knives, sickles, arrowheads and harpoons. Unfortunately no such composite tools have been found in the country so far. ### [v1.c21.s15.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.6) Sankalia, H.D., 1964, \*Stone Age Tools: Their Techniques, Names and Probable Functions\*, Poona.—K. PADDAYYA ### [v1.c21.s15.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.7) \*16.15.2 Neolithic and Chalcolithic.\* Stone tool assemblages occur, albeit in varying proportions, in all the Neolithic \[4.6\] and Chalcolithic \[4.14\] cultures of the country. These belong to two different industrial traditions, viz., (1) the pecked and ground stone industry and (2) the blade industry. But it should be made clear that the assemblages occurring in various cultures show marked differences in respect of artefact types as well as their percentages. The range of types and the richness of assemblages of the pecked and ground stone industry of the Neolithic cultures contrast sharply with the impoverished character of the counterpart industry in the Chalcolithic cultures. Similarly the blade industry of the Deccan and s. Neolithic \[4.6. 7-10\], Jorwe \[4.14.6\] and Malwa \[4.14.5\] cultures is richer and more varied than that of the other Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures. ### [v1.c21.s15.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.8) The artefacts of the pecked and ground stone industry are manufactured on a variety of rocks belonging to the igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary series. Fine-grained rocks such as dolerite, basalt and diorite seem to have been preferred for manufacturing edge tools like axes and adzes. Granite, schist, gneiss, epidosite, sandstone, chert and quartzite were employed for other artefacts. Jadeite, sandstone, quartzite, indurated shale and even fossil wood were used in e. India \[4.6.6\]. From the point of view of typology and technology, two broad groups can be distinguished in this industry, the first comprising the assemblages of the e. Neolithic culture and the second one comprising the assemblages of the other Neolithic \[4.6\] as well as the Chalcolithic cultures \[4.14\]. ### [v1.c21.s15.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.9) The tools of the e. Neolithic \[4.6.6\] have been manufactured by means of flaking, pecking and grinding techniques. So far it was thought that the square-cut shoulders of shouldered axes were obtained by wire-cutting, but it is now felt that this effect could have been produced by using a sliver of bamboo or a sharp-edged shell piece. Among the axes the splayed, shouldered and quadrangular types are very characteristic of this region. It is generally believed that these types, more particularly the shouldered variety, were borrowed from e. Asia (s.-w. China and Indo-China). ### [v1.c21.s15.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.10) The second group is formed by the assemblages belonging to the Deccan and s. Indian and BURZAHOM Neolithic \[4.6.1\] cultures and the Chalcolithic cultures of c. \[4.14.5\] and w. India \[4.14.6\]. Overlooking certain minor differences all these collections are characterized by a homogeneity of tradition. ### [v1.c21.s15.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.11) Flaking, pecking and grinding are the three basic techniques employed in manufacturing these artefacts. To these one may add the technique of polishing. It differs from grinding inasmuch as it presupposes the use of some greasy medium and does not result, as would happen with grinding, in the reduction of the body thickness of artefacts. After making a detailed study of the collections from n. Karnataka, Allchin, 1957, has concluded that the manufacture of edge tools, more particularly axes, involved five separate processes: (1) rough flaking for blocking out the tool from the nodule of raw material, (2) finer flaking for regularizing the form, (3) pecking, (4) edge grinding, and (5) overall grinding. But , as Allchin himself concedes, these processes cannot always be regarded as consecutive stages because there are numerous instances where axes or adzes have been fashioned out of blocks of suitable size by merely grinding the edge portion. Other classes of artefacts have been obtained by means of flaking and pecking. Considered as a whole, the assemblages of the Deccan and s. Neolithic cultures are richer than those of other cultures. In fact this region has several rich factory sites of the industry. SANGANAKALLU, Dt Bellary, and BILLAMARAYANAGUDDA, Dt Raichur, in n. Karnataka are two of the most important of these workshops. At the former site grinding grooves were used for grinding artefacts. ### [v1.c21.s15.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.12) As far as the functional aspect \[16.15.3\] of the industry is concerned, it will suffice to note that the edge tools are essentially wood-working tools and must have been employed for such operations as cutting, chopping, splitting and slicing. The various types of hammer stones as well as rubbers and grinders were probably used for crushing and grinding cultivated grain as well as wild vegetable foods. ### [v1.c21.s15.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.13) The blade industry constitutes one of the integral traits of the s. Neolithic, Jorwe and Malwa cultures. It is associated but in a tenuous way with the other cultures. In regard to raw material as well as typology and technology it differs fundamentally from the above industry. It is mainly based on the working of siliceous materials like chert, chalcedony, agate, jasper and quartz. These materials were obtained either as nodules from intertrappean beds and veins in sedimentary formations or in the form of water-worn pebbles from river beds. The excavations at NAVDATOLI, INAMGAON and TEKKALAKOTA have revealed that each household made its own tools. Another feature associated with this industry is that we have some suggestive evidence to show that either the raw material or finished tools were being traded from one region to another. The Shorapur doāb in n. Karnataka supplies a good example. Here reddish-brown chert of fine quality occurs in inexhaustible quantities in the local limestone formations. The occurrence of nodules and artefacts made of identical chert at MASKI, PIKLIHAL, TEKKALAKOTA and other sites proves that this material was being exported to Dts Raichur and Bellary lying further s. ### [v1.c21.s15.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.14) As in the Mesolithic industries, the technology of this industry is based on the mass production of blades from prismatic cores. These blanks are then fashioned into regular tool types by retouching. With regard to the detachment of blades from fluted cores, this industry evidences the employment of a novel process not known to the Mesolithic people but known to the Harappans \[4.9\] i.e., the crested-ridge technique. This technique has been studied in detail by Subbarao, 1955. According to him the preparation on the core of a wavy ridge by means of alternate flaking is essential for the production of blades on a mass scale. A flake bearing such a wavy or zigzag longitudinal ridge on the dorsal surface is called a crested ridge flake. It is detached from the core prior to the commencement of the removal of true blades. It has been stated that the function of these crested ridge flakes was to guide (by way of controlling the length and breadth and also the parallelism of margins) the ‘run-off’ of blades from the core. Subbarao has traced the origins of this specialized technique to w. Asia. ### [v1.c21.s15.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.15) Amongst the tool types lunates, trapezes and triangles are generally found in very limited numbers because, forming as they do a part of the hunting gear, they have only a limited use in a food-producing economy. Sankalia’s experiments, 1967, with the blade tools from the NAVDATOLI collections have shown that these can serve a variety of purposes involving scraping, cutting, slicing and paring of soft materials like vegetables, fruits, corn-stalks and wood. It is very probable that most of these artefacts were hafted in wood or bone to form composite tools/weapons like sickles, knives, harpoons, etc. ### [v1.c21.s15.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.16) Allchin, F.R., 1957, in \*Bull. School of Oriental & African Studies\*, 19, pp. 321-35 (for the Neolithic industry of n. Karnataka). Dani, A.H., 1960, \*Prehistory & Protohistory of e. India\*, Calcutta. Sankalia, H.D., 1964, \*Stone Age Tools: Their Techniques, Names & Probable Functions\*, Poona; 1967, in \*Current Anthropology\*, 8, pp. 262-7 (for the blade industry of Navdatoli); 1974, \*Prehistory & Protohistory of India & Pakistan\*, Poona. Subbarao, B., 1955, in \*Bull. Deccan College Res. Inst.\*, 17, pp. 126-49 (for Chalcolithic blade industry of Maheshwar).—K. PADDAYYA ### 16.15.3 Functional study ### [v1.c21.s15.t1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.t1.1) So far functions have been attributed to Stone Age artefacts only on the basis of tool morphology which is a very subjective criterion. There is no proof that an axe-shaped (modern analogies) artefact may have been actually used as an axe. In recent years the actual use-wear marks (microwear) on the functional parts of artefacts have been used to identify the function they were put to. This has brought about an element of objectivity into these studies. ### [v1.c21.s15.t1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.t1.2) The principle of microwear is simple. It is based on the fact that if an artefact is used for any work it encounters friction resulting in microscopic damages on its functional parts. The nature and pattern of damages will depend on the factors like: composition of the artefact and worked material; mode of artefact use; its angle of fall; type of pressures on artefact during operation; body mass (edge angle etc.) under pressure, the time of operation; etc. It is therefore obvious that if these wear patterns are properly analysed they may furnish valuable information on tool-use. ### [v1.c21.s15.t1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.t1.3) Generally normal microscopic techniques are used in microwear analysis. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) has also gained importance in this field in recent years. This provides a method to scan the surface of the tool even at a very high magnification (× 100000) with an adequate depth of field. For normal microscopy the samples to be examined are thoroughly cleaned and coated with suitable colourizers to increase their opacity. For SEM studies one has to prepare a replica of the surfaces to be examined or one can mount the samples directly on SEM stubs, if they are small enough to be accommodated on them. In both the cases the surfaces to be examined have to be coated with a thin conducting layer. After giving proper surface treatment the surfaces are scanned from one end to the other and the microwear recorded. The most common types of microwear are: sheen, rounding of friction areas, striations and microscars. All these use-caused deformities appear on the functional parts of the tools in different combinations and orientations and vary in their intensity from tool to tool. Disposition and orientation of these marks on the tools are important to determine the direction of tool movement, the angle at which it contacted the object of work, its depth of penetration and also the mode of its utilization indicating the hafting methods used, etc. On the basis of these marks alone one can conclusively say whether the tool was used as an axe or an adze or it was used as a knife or scraper irrespective of tool morphology. As a result we could show that morphologically similar-looking Neolithic artefacts \[4.6\] were used for different purposes and vice versa. Similarly we could distinguish between the Mesolithic \[4.5\] and Chalcolithic \[4.14\] microliths on functional grounds. This could be achieved with the help of control samples. Control samples are prepared by replicating the artefacts using the same raw material as that of the original. The control samples are then used against different materials (viz., wood, meat, grass, earth, etc.) and in different ways (as a saw, axe, scraper, hoe, chopper, sickle, etc). The resultant use-caused deformities produced on these control samples are then compared with those appearing on the artefacts. This helps us in identifying the functions of Stone Age tools. We could also determine the life history of individual tools by using these techniques. ### [v1.c21.s15.t1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.t1.4) Microwear studies thus provide a dynamic objective approach to lithic analysis. This approach will not only help to know the functions of tools but also enable one to reconstruct the daily life of the people and their economy. ### [v1.c21.s15.t1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15.t1.5) Pant, R.K., 1979, in \*Man & Environment\*, 3, pp. 11-17, 83-5.—R.K. PANT ## Linked texts (8) - [Maski](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.maski) - [Burzahom](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.burzahom) - [Navdatoli](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.navdatoli) - [Inamgaon](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.inamgaon) - [Sanganakallu](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.sanganakallu) - [Tekkalakota](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.tekkalakota) - [Billa Surgam](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.billa-surgam) - [Patne](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.patne) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c21.s15) · Pramāṇa