An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9.s5: 4.5 Mesolithic
An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9.s5
- Language
- English
4.5 Mesolithic
v1.c9.s5.1
The term Mesolithic is conventionally applied in India to denote the cultural stage represented by Microlithic industries not associated with pottery and generally antedating the earliest farming-based village cultures. The evidence for this stage in India is both qualitatively and quantitatively richer than that of the preceding stages of the Stone Age. The reasons for this are: (1) Most of the Mesolithic sites are associated with the existing landscape that has not undergone any significant changes that could disturb them and thereby affect the cultural evidence. (2) Organic material, mainly animal and human physical remains, have been preserved, thus enabling us to reconstruct the subsistence pattern and environmental setting of the culture. The oldest human skeletal remains yet known in India come from the Mesolithic levels. (3) A number of the living sites of this age have been excavated, mainly in w. and c. India, providing us with a variety of data regarding the way of life of the communities. (4) Finally, about two dozen ¹⁴C dates from six sites give us a fairly clear idea of the duration of the Mesolithic period.
v1.c9.s5.2
Most of our information comes from nine excavated sites: (1) TILWARA, Dt Barmer; (2) BAGOR, Dt Bhilwara; (3) LANGHNAJ, Dt MAHESANA; (4) SARAI NAHAR RAI, Dt Pratapgarh; (5) LEKHAHIA and other rock shelters on the MORHANA PAHAR, Dt Mirzapur; (6) BHIMBETKA, Dt Raisen; (7) ADAMGARH, Dt Hoshangabad; (8) BIRBHANPUR, Dt Burdwan; and (9) SANGANAKALLU, Dt Bellary. Except the last two sites all have yielded animal remains besides stone industry.
v1.c9.s5.3
Mesolithic sites have a wide distribution in India and cover almost the entire country, except a few areas like most of the Indo-Ganga plains, Assam and most of the w. coast. In the Indo-Ganga plains their absence is easily explained by the lack and remoteness of the primary raw material—stone—for making tools. Assam and the w. coast were probably not much inhabited because of the very high rainfall and dense vegetation. Some regions like the Gujarat plains, Marwar and Mewar have a denser concentration of sites than others. But this uneven distribution of sites would appear largely due to differential pace of research in different parts of the country. For example, the vast tract of country between the Godavari and the Mahanadi was for long a blank on the map, but recent explorations in the hilly tract along the Indravati valley in Dt Koraput, Orissa, have led to the discovery of over 100 sites in a small part of the Dt. There can be little doubt that as exploration proceeds many areas that have at present no or only sparse sites will be filled in.
v1.c9.s5.4
Fig. 7. Langhnaj microliths
v1.c9.s5.5
Though most of India had been occupied during the Lower Palaeolithic and the successive Palaeolithic periods [4.2-4], the Mesolithic peoples significantly extended this process of colonization. They ventured into virgin areas like the Ganga valley. Elsewhere they occupied new ecological niches, taking advantage of the new landscape created during the terminal Pleistocene [9.8.2] and filled in spaces previously left unoccupied. Thus the vast plains of Gujarat and Marwar dotted with sand-dunes were more intensively inhabited during the Mesolithic than at any time before. The same is true of the rocky plains of Mewar and the Deccan and c. India which is full of rock-shelters. The available evidence strongly suggests that there was a phenomenal expansion in human population during the period. While we are not in a position to say at this stage that this was caused by the introduction of new technology and consequently more efficient exploitation of food resources or to an improvement in climate and consequent increase in food resources or to some other causes, it is clear that the principal environments preferred by the Mesolithic peoples were the following
v1.c9.s5.6
(1) Sand-dunes: In Gujarat and Marwar hundreds of dunes of varying sizes dot the alluvial plain. In Gujarat these dunes often enclose a shallow lake or pond which was the source of aquatic food for the inhabitants. The dunes themselves were covered with thorny scrub vegetation which supported a rich fauna. Human occupation took place on the top of the dunes. In Marwar the dunes along perennial lakes as well as others near seasonal sources of water were inhabited [cf. 9.2]. In e. Rajasthan dunes are not so common, but wherever they exist the Mesolithic man occupied them.
v1.c9.s5.7
(2) Rock-shelters: The Vindhya, Satpura and Kaimur hills in c. India are very rich in caves and rock-shelters [13]. Several thousands of these are known and many more no doubt are awaiting discovery. Though some of these shelters had been occupied as early as the Acheulian times [4.2.2], it was during the Mesolithic phase that they became a favourite place for habitation. From our experience at BHIMBETKA, ADAMGARH and other places we can say that every shelter with evidence of occupation invariably has Mesolithic deposits. C. India receives ample rainfall—between 80 and 200 cm—and the hills are covered with dense deciduous vegetation. The forests until recently were teeming with wild life and shall produce a large variety of plants with edible flowers, fruits, seeds and roots. Water was available near the shelters either from natural perennial springs or from seasonal or perennial streams. This vast rocky country is ideally suited for a hunting-gathering way of life. Even today c. India remains the largest zone of the aboriginal population of the country in whose economy hunting and gathering, especially the latter, plays a major role.
v1.c9.s5.8
(3) Alluvial plains: From early Palaeolithic times men had lived along river banks because of the nearness of water and the availability of game. This tendency persisted into the Mesolithic period. Numerous Mesolithic sites are located on alluvial terraces along river banks in all parts of the country. BIRBHANPUR on the Damodar is one of them.
v1.c9.s5.9
(4) Rocky plains: In Mewar numerous microlithic sites occur on low rocky outcrops in what is now open savannah type of country but was probably better wooded in pre-agricultural days. On the Deccan plateau also microlithic sites are common both on hilltops and the flat rocky plain. In these areas where water would be available, except near the rivers, only during the rainy season, occupation must have been seasonal and of short duration.
v1.c9.s5.10
(5) Lake shores: Mesolithic settlements in the Ganga valley in Dts Allahabad and Pratapgarh were centred on the shores of lakes formed by abandoned meanders of changing river-courses. Here the settlers had ample food supplies from the lakes as well as the dense primeval forests of the fertile alluvial plains.
v1.c9.s5.11
(6) Coastal environments: A number of microlithic sites are known very close to the coast, such as on the Salsette island and on the *teri* dunes in Dt Tirunelveli [9.5]. Though no organic remains have survived at any of the known sites, it seems certain that their inhabitants drew upon marine food resources.
v1.c9.s5.12
There is evidence that at least in w. India the climate was wetter and the environmental conditions more favourable than at present during much of the time when the Mesolithic people lived there. In Marwar the present-day saline lakes like Sambhar and Didwana were freshwater lakes between 10000 and 3500 B.P. [7.4]. However the fauna from TILWARA, BAGOR and LANGHNAJ includes the sheep, black buck, gazelle, *chital* and *nilgai* which are adapted to a thorny or dry deciduous type of forest. Also the cultural remains at these sites lie buried under blown sand. It would appear that the occupation at these sites was seasonal, and the remains would get buried under freshly drifted sand during hot windy summers. The conditions therefore were not drastically different from those of today but were more conducive to human occupation. The faunal remains from the Ganga valley sites and from the rock shelters of BHIMBETKA and ADAMGARH show that the environment was similar to that prevailing in these areas today.
v1.c9.s5.13
The Mesolithic technology is essentially based on microblades which were mass-produced by pressure technique [16.15.1]. The beautifully fluted cylindrical or conical cores and thin parallel-sided blades, so common at most sites, testify to the high skill of the Mesolithic craftsmen in the production of microblades. These blades were then retouched on one or more edges, mostly by steep blunting, to produce a variety of microlithic types—blunted-back blades, obliquely truncated blades, points, triangles, crescents, trapezes and drills. The size of these tools usually varies from 1 to 3 cm. Though no actual hafted examples have yet been found in India, comparative evidence available from other parts of the world shows that microliths were hafted on bone or wooden handles and shafts with natural resin or gum to produce a variety of implements and weapons like arrows, spears, knives and sickles. One of the advantages of these composite tools was that being made of a number of microlithic components if one of them broke it could be easily replaced without having to discard the whole tool as would be the case with single-piece tools of the earlier times. It is believed that the bow and arrow came into regular use with the introduction of microlithic technology.
v1.c9.s5.14
Although blades had been used from an early stage of the Palaeolithic [4.2-4] they were made by percussion flaking. The technology of producing a large number of thin, strictly parallel-sided blades from a single core by pressure flaking was, however, characteristic of the Mesolithic. There is at present no reliable stratigraphical evidence to show where this new technology evolved or whether it came from outside. Another new feature of this technology was the total change in raw material in most areas. Except in parts of s. India where very fine-grained quartzite was available and used, in all other areas people switched over to chalcedony and chert for making these new tools. Quartz which does not lend itself to the production of good blades was also sometimes used, probably because of the limited availability of chert and chalcedony.
v1.c9.s5.15
**Fig. 8. Microliths:** 1, 2, triangle; 3, 4, trapeze, 5, truncated bladelet, 6, bladelet with marginal retouch—Bagor; 7, serrated bladelet; 8, transverse arrowhead, 9, 10, lunates—Langhnaj; 11, transverse arrowhead, 12, truncated bladelet; 13, backed bladelet; 14, 15, lunates, 16, convex side scraper, 17, awl, 18, bifacial point; 19, backed bladelet; 20, side-scraper: 21, fluted core, 22, backed bladelet, 23, bladelet, 24, end-scraper, 25, chopping tool—Tirunevelly district
v1.c9.s5.16
Though the vast majority of Mesolithic tools comprise microlithic forms, tools made on flakes and cores were also used in small quantities. These include side and end scrapers, points, truncated and notched flakes, borers and burins. Only rarely do we find heavier tools like discoids and choppers. Within this generalized technology we do find a certain amount of regional variation. At BAGOR the stone industry consists entirely of microliths: there are a few flake tools and no heavy tools at all. It is characterized by extreme miniaturization. The BHIMBETKA blades, very steeply blunted on both margins, probably to be used as drills and small end and thumb-nail scrapers, are characteristic. At BIRBHANPUR there are no geometric types. And the industry of the *teris* [9.5] is characterized by bifacially pressure-flaked flake points and discoids.
v1.c9.s5.17
No plant remains have as yet been recovered from any site. But at several sites, such as TILWARA, BAGOR and BHIMBETKA, shallow querns and rubbers [6.19] are very common, suggesting an extensive use of plant foods. It is significant that querns and rubbers appear for the first time in the Mesolithic context only in India. At some sites—BAGOR, LANGHNAJ and BHIMBETKA—a few pieces of perforated heavy discoid stones have also been found. They might suggest the beginning of rudimentary agriculture since one of their recorded ethnographic uses is as weights of digging sticks. The main source of our knowledge of the subsistence pattern, however, is the animal remains [15.1.5] which have survived at several sites, sometimes in very large quantities as at BAGOR. The bones are usually charred, broken and split open, showing the cooking of meat on open fires and extraction of marrow. Two types of economy are indicated. At TILWARA, BAGOR and ADAMGARH the people combined hunting and gathering with stock breeding [1]. Indeed at BAGOR stock breeding seems to be more important than hunting, for 65% of the identifiable bones here belong to the sheep or goat. This is not surprising since Rajasthan forms part of the natural zone of wild-sheep distribution and was therefore a potential area of early sheep domestication. At ADAMGARH the cattle were also domesticated. And the evidence for the domestication of the dog also comes from this site. At LANGHNAJ and SARAI NAHAR RAI, on the other hand, only hunting seems to have been practised. The animals usually hunted at all the sites were the Indian cattle, water buffalo, *sambar*, *chital*, gazelle, hog deer and *nilgai*. But at LANGHNAJ the *barasingha* and rhinoceros were also hunted and at SARAI NAHAR RAI the elephant was killed. The people of ADAMGARH hunted the porcupine as well. Both at BAGOR and SARAI NAHAR RAI there are remains of the tortoise and at the former place those of the fish as well.
v1.c9.s5.18
At this stage we are not in a position to define the degree of sedentism practised by the Mesolithic peoples. Probably camps were seasonal, but where water and food were available all the year round, there would be no reason why people should not have lived permanently. Thick habitation deposits at some sites—both BAGOR and BHIMBETKA have more than 1 m—and at both the continuity of technological tradition certainly suggests people returning repeatedly to the same camp site over long periods of time. There is evidence for rudimentary structures at some sites. At SARAI NAHAR RAI there was a large oblong floor covering an area of 6 × 4 m, made by ramming burnt clay nodules. On the floor occurred several hearths and plenty of animal bones and microliths. Four post-holes on the sides of the floor suggest a superstructure of some kind. At BAGOR and TILWARA numerous stones were brought on the dune to make stable floors. Small floors, up to 1 m across, compactly paved with stones at BAGOR were probably used for butchering animals and also as eating places. At TILWARA circular alignments of stones with diameters of 2·25 to 3·0 m suggest outlines of huts. In one of the shelters of BHIMBETKA a stone wall, 6 m long and 1 m wide, was made probably to partition off a part of the shelter.
v1.c9.s5.19
The Mesolithic peoples had little by way of material culture. Stone querns, rubbers and hammers occur at many sites. At BHIMBETKA a few bone points, some bone pieces with incised decoration and an animal rib with a long narrow perforation possibly to be used as a pendant have also been found. It is only in the later contact with contemporary metal-using and farming-based economies that we find them acquiring such items as pottery, metal tools and stone beads for ornaments.
v1.c9.s5.20
The only way of disposing of the dead among Mesolithic communities known to us is inhumation. Both in rock-shelters and at open-air sites the dead were buried within the habitation area. At SARAI NAHAR RAI all the skeletons were found buried in an extended form in a w.-e. orientation and with the right forearm placed diagonally across the abdomen. The only burial from Phase I at BAGOR was similarly disposed. Some of the burials from the earlier phase at BHIMBETKA were also placed in an extended form with legs slightly folded. A burial from a rock-shelter at MORHANA PAHAR was also laid in an extended position, and the rock floor was dressed to provide raised floors for the head and feet. At LANGHNAJ all the burials were laid in a flexed position with both legs and arms tightly folded. A burial from one of the rock-shelters at BHIMBETKA was also similarly laid. All the three burials from Phase II at BAGOR were laid in a crouched position. There is also evidence of partial secondary burials. At LEKHAHIA as many as 17 burials were found in a shelter within a very thin deposit, and all the skeletons were incomplete. Several burials from the BHIMBETKA shelters comprise only a few bones and are obviously examples of secondary burials.
v1.c9.s5.21
Only rarely do we see any grave offerings, and where they exist tney are few. At BHIMBETKA they include pieces of ochre, bone ornaments and pieces of antlers. In one case a number of small grinding stones were arranged by the side of the body. In the later phase of BAGOR clay pots, originally no doubt containing food, and pieces of meat, now surviving as bare bones, and copper objects were placed with the dead. In one case a person was buried wearing a necklace of bone and stone beads, and a terracotta spindle whorl was placed near its feet.
v1.c9.s5.22
Though the subject of cave art is treated in detail elsewhere [13], a brief mention must be made here because of its relationship with Mesolithic culture. In c. India the caves and rock-shelters which were inhabited by the Mesolithic peoples are very rich in paintings which are found on their walls and ceilings. Usually the shelters which have habitation deposits are poor in paintings, while the shelters which were only sporadically inhabited or not inhabited at all are very rich in them. This probably shows that to the Stone Age man art was not much of a purely decorative medium and had other and deeper significance. The paintings are usually in red and white colours though occasionally they are also found in green and yellow. Pieces of various shades of red ochre with tell-tale marks of grinding for producing colour are frequently found in Mesolithic deposits and are also associated with burials. There can be little doubt that colour obtained from these ochre nodules was used for making the paintings that adorn the cave walls. The paintings are a mine of information fo. the reconstruction of the Mesolithic man's way of life and contemporary environment. Though a number of stylistic and chronological phases can be distinguished on the basis of superimposition, subject-matter and painting styles, the paintings can be broadly divided into two cultural and chronological stages. The poorly preserved earlier paintings are mostly dominated by the depiction of wild animal life. In these one sees the animals that still live in the area, as also others which have now disappeared, like the rhinoceros, elephant, tiger and gaur or Indian bison. The paintings are characterized by naturalism, accurate rendering of the animal body, depiction of the animals in their various postures and moods—standing, moving, running, grazing, etc. There are scenes of hunting with men hunting individually or in a group with spears and bows and arrows. The spears and arrows have barbs and tips which seem to be made of microlithic forms. There are also scenes of trapping of animals and of collection of wild fruits and honey. The later paintings which overlie the older ones and are in a much better state of preservation depict scenes that relate them to the historical period. They show processions of men riding caparisoned horses and elephants and carrying metal-tipped spears and bows and arrows. More frequently they show battle scenes with men fighting with swords and shields. Both human and animal figures in these paintings are highly stylized and show considerable deterioration in the technique of portrayal.
v1.c9.s5.23
Most of the microlithic industries known to us belong to a very developed technological stage, and therefore we do not have adequate evidence for the full reconstruction of the story of the technological evolution of these industries. In the rock-shelters and open-air sites at MORHANA PAHAR the excavators have reported a four-phase evolutionary sequence: (1) nor-geometric microlithic industry; (2) geometric microlithic industry; (3) geometric microlithic industry with pottery; and (4) diminutive microlithic industry with pottery. We need, however, a detailed publication of the stratigraphic and cultural data to assess the nature of this evolution. In a rock-shelter of BHIMBETKA the stone industry of the lowest layer is characterized by a cruder blade technique and a lower proportion of geometric forms than in the upper layers. The microlithic industry of BIRBHANPUR, lacking triangles and trapezes and having broad crescents made on flakes or broad blades, is certainly more archaic technologically than the microlithic industries of w. and c. India, but unfortunately in the absence of ¹⁴C dates we do not know its correct chronological position. The *teri* industry, with its flake points, less symmetric geometric tool forms and discoids and choppers, also tends to represent an older stage: On the other hand the BAGOR industry, with an almost total lack of flake tools, a high degree of geometric precision of its microliths and extreme miniaturization of microlithic tools, appears to represent a late phase in the evolution of microlithic technology and typology.
v1.c9.s5.24
There is clearer evidence for the acculturation and transformation of the Mesolithic cultures. The people came into contact with metal- and pottery-using settled agricultural communities and borrowed from them traits like pottery, metal tools and stone beads. This contact enabled them to give up eventually the use of stone tools and adopt the use of metal tools when they became easily available. It also drew them away from a hunting-gathering way of life and led them to adopt an agricultural and pastoral economy. The latter was already present in some of the Mesolithic communities in varying degrees. Once the role of hunting and gathering declined and relationship with village communities became closer, the cave-dwellers must have come down from the hills to settle down in villages at the foot of the hills. The present tribal communities living on hill slopes and valleys close to the Stone Age caves may be the descendants of the Stone Age cave-dwellers.
v1.c9.s5.25
In the middle levels of LANGHNAJ a copper knife was found. It probably came from a Harappa site in Saurashtra or Kutch [4.9]. In Phase II of BAGOR several copper arrowheads, a spearhead and a copper awl, handmade pottery and numerous stone beads were found. All these indicate contact with agricultural communities. The arrowheads are of triangular, concave-based and barbed variety and are identical in form to the arrowheads known from several Harappa sites. Some of the pottery forms bear close affinities to the pottery of the KAYATHA culture [11.7] in Mewar and Malwa. At BHIMBETKA sherds of painted Chalcolithic pottery of Malwa tradition [11.10] as also copper objects have been found in the middle levels of the Mesolithic deposits. What used to be formerly described as ‘microliths with pottery’ should, in the light of our new knowledge, be seen to represent a dynamic culture-contact situation between the Stone Age hunter-gatherers and/or pastoralists and the regular agriculturists. In the top levels of several Mesolithic sites are found iron arrow heads and plain wheel-made pottery of early historical tradition. At LEKHAHIA several iron arrowheads and plain pottery were found. Similar evidence occurs in several shelters at BHIMBETKA. At LANGHNAJ also an iron arrowhead occurred in the top level of the deposit along with plentiful wheel-made pottery.
v1.c9.s5.26
The earliest ¹⁴C date from a Mesolithic deposit in a rock-shelter at BHIMBETKA is 7790 ± 220 B.P. Another date associated with a burial in another shelter of the same place is 6025 ± 110 B.P. The earliest date from ADAMGARH is 7450 ± 130 B.P., and that from BAGOR is 6430 ± 200 B.P. The beginning of the Mesolithic culture can therefore be put at *c.* 8000 B.P. and as more dates from excavated sites become available this antiquity is likely to be pushed back. Two dates from Bagor Phase II are 4710 ± 105 B.P. and 4060 ± 90 B.P. Several dates from the upper levels of the BHIMBETKA shelters have readings between 3000 and 2000 B.P. It is significant that occupation in the caves as well as on sand-dunes came to an end soon after iron tools made their appearance in these deposits. Iron appeared in the Ganga valley at the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. [4.16] and slowly as iron tools began to be available to the stone-using communities they started giving up the use of stone tools and also took to adopting the agricultural way of life. It appears that about 2000 years ago the use of stone tools was given up everywhere though hunting and gathering as a way of life has survived in varying degrees right into the present century.
v1.c9.s5.27
Allchin, B., 1966 *Stone-tipped Arrow: Late Stone Age Hunters of the Tropical Old World*, London. Allchin. B., & Goudie, A., 1971, in *Man*, 6, 2, pp. 248-65 (for dunes, aridity and early man in w. India). Allchin. B., Hegde, K.T.M., & Goudie, A., 1972, in *Man*, 7, pp. 541-64 (for Budha Pushkar basin). Clutton-Brock, J., 1965 *Excavations at Langhnaj, 1944-63*, 2, *Fauna*, Poona, Ehrhardt, S., & Kennedy, K.A.R., 1965 *Excavations at Langhnaj 1944-63*, 3, *Human Remains*, Poona. Lal, B.B., 1958, in *AI*, 14, pp. 4-48 (for Birbhanpur). Misra, V.N., 1971, in *Poona Univ. Journal* (Humanities Section) 35, pp. 59-77 (for two late Mesolithic settlements in Rajasthan); 1973, in *World Arch.*, 5, pp. 95-110 (for Bagor); 1976, in Kennedy, K.A.R., & Possehl, G.L., ed., *Ecological Backgrounds of s. Asian Prehistory*, Cornell, pp. 28-51 (for technological adaptations in w. & c. India). Sankalia, H.D. 1965, *Excavations at Langhnaj 1944-63*, 1, *Arch.*, Poona; 1969, *Mesolithic & Pre-Mesolithic Industries at Sangankal*, Bellary, Poona; 1974, *Prehistory & Protohistory of India & Pakistan*, Poona. Sharma, G.R., 1973, in *Proc. Prehistoric Soc.*, 39, pp. 129-46 (for Mesolithic lake cultures in the Ganga valley). Thomas, P.K., 1975, in Clason, A.T., ed., *Archaeozoological Studies*, Amsterdam (for animals in the food economy in the Neolithic cultures of w. & e. India). For sites see respective entries in vol. II.—V.N. MISRA