An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9.s6.t2: 4.6.3 Vindhyan region
An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9.s6.t2
- Language
- English
4.6.3 Vindhyan region
v1.c9.s6.t2.1
The area covered by this culture region is taken as the mountainous tract between the Narmada and the Ganga plains up to the Dts of Allahabad and Mirzapur. In present-day political boundaries the region includes the best part of n. Madhya Pradesh and the cis-Vindhyan tracts of Uttar Pradesh with a restricted estuarine belt of the Narmada in the c. mainland of Gujarat, falling in all between 21° to 26° latitudes and 73° to 83° longitudes. [The s. part of the Vindhyan region, as defined here, has been included under c. Indian region elsewhere in this work.] The w. part of the area is an integral part of the Malwa plateau and the Satpuras and the e. part of the Vindhyan Kaimur ranges. The other two zones fall into two distinct geomorphological patterns: the latter is more hilly and forest-clad with a large river like the Son with smaller ones like the Rihand and the BELAN featuring some riparian tracts here and there; and the former, notwithstanding its ranges of hills of the Satpuras, outstandingly provides a semi-urban settlement topography with its own ecology conducive to a developed stage of settlements. The archaeological evidence, in so far as Neolithic cultures are concerned, fully bear out this disparate character of this zone from the former, where indeed some focal early Neolithic centres have been discovered in recent years. All the same it would be appropriate to point out that neither of these zones has either the environmental or the cultural context for a *primary* Neolithic upsurge, which would be expected in the epi-Palaeolithic times; and indeed the consensus of evidence in this part of India especially, when taken with the data available further e. and outside this zone in e. India, would not speak for such a devolution. Our key to the e. Indian Neolithic [4.6.6] is, as now accepted, farther beyond in S.-E. Asia, probably in the tracts now falling in the country of Thailand and perhaps also in n.-e. area of Burma adjacent to Thailand. Be this as it may, two clear zones of what may be deemed as *secondary* Neolithic farming communities have been specifically identified, one around KOLDIHAWA (DEOGHAT) and another MAHAGARA across the river, on the n. bank, both on the BELAN in Dt Allahabad and the other in the Kayatha [11.7] culture of the Malwa plateau.
v1.c9.s6.t2.2
The former, at Koldihawa and Mahagara, though adjacent to the Palaeolithic stratigraphic sequence [4.2-5], spectacularly brought out in the Belan valley at DEOGHAT, does not show any lineal continuity with it, as particularly at MAHAGARA it rests over the eroded rear slope on the n. cliff bank at a point where another nullah is also cut at a somewhat higher level, probably coeval with the Upper Palaeolithic [4.4].
v1.c9.s6.t2.3
The wirter has observed at MAHAGARA other details. A section was maintained in excavation of this Neolithic site, on its inner eroded declivity and this seems to indicate also that there were two stages of the microlithic strata, on the upper of which the land was further eroded by a drier climatic succession that followed after the Upper Palaeolithic times, on the undulating land of which the Neolithic hut-dwelling culture was established a few mm below the present top. This culture is characterized by handmade and partly burnished pottery which carries coarse silica and rice-husks in its sections. Some stray pieces of polished stone flakes and tool fragments and a good number of contemporary microliths are also seen. The huts are often in pairs with the inner part of each invariably characterized by greyish humic soil which was the working floor and having a well-delineated series of post-holes on the perimeter of the huts. Some single huts are also seen but paired huts appear to be more in number. The area of occupation on the survey of the neighbouring interior parts seems to extend almost up to the main road on a now partly undulated and cut-down land and partly recultivated modern soil. The site could be prima facie designated as the well-established Neolithic farmstead culture with cultivation around, as also proved by hoof marks in the houses, indicating perhaps that the cattle were themselves housed in the huts used as cattle pens and probably men lived along with them in these circular huts, the average diameter of which appears to be up to 5 m.
v1.c9.s6.t2.4
At KOLDIHAWA itself the Neolithic culture lay at the base of an 1·90 m habitational deposit, characterized by handmade ill-fired, thick yellowish ware, besides red ware produced on slow wheel and mat-impressed ware and also black-and-red ware, in deep bowls, lipped bowls, basins, troughs and dishes-on-stand. Rice husk is seen as *dégraissant*. It preceded the Chalcolithic culture horizon [14.4.3] here and may be ascribed to the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C. [For higher proposed dates see KOLDIHAWA].
v1.c9.s6.t2.5
In the other and somewhat subsequent stage as seen on the Malwa plateau amidst KAYATHA culture habitation, it is classified by its excavators led by Wakankar into Betwa valley culture and Narmada valley culture. Two more component areas of the Kayatha culture, respectively called the Avanti valley culture in c. Malwa and Daśapura-Aparārka culture, did not yield any Neolithic remains. The sites in the Betwa valley are ERAN, BASODA, BESNAGAR, AMAKHEDA, PIPALIA, LORKA, NAYAKHEDA and NANDURA, while those of the Narmada valley are MAHESWAR, NAVDATOLI, PIPALDA, BADADA, CHIKALDA and KHEDI. [Many of these sites have been classified as Chalcolithic (4.14.5), from the occurrence of copper/bronze in their earliest levels.] The Neolithic elements in the former are a sturdy grey ware sometimes painted, Neolithic tools and microliths. Their specific relationship with the Malwa ware [11.10]) is not yet satisfactorily established but they are broadly classifiable as pertaining to Pd II (*c.* 1965-1675 B.C.), while the Narmada culture sites have yielded the remains of round and rectangular houses, Neolithic celts and microliths. The Neolithic tools of the region comprise pestles, querns, etc., including one example of a typical shoe-last celt among the tools, trap being the raw material. It may be recalled that the shoe-last type of celts occur in the s. Neolithic culture [4.6.10] also in good numbers. But as the excavator legitimately claims: ‘there is no doubt that the Malwa plateau surrounded by hilly tracts was populated by Mesolithic and Neolithic communities in the Chalcolithic period. Neolithic remains have been found at Kabra Pahar, Chitrakut, Vidisha [Besnagar], Bhopal and Navdatoli. A bone scraper of the Indian Neolithic tradition was found at Kayatha.
v1.c9.s6.t2.6
Fig. 9. Mahagara, Belan valley: Neolithic pottery
v1.c9.s6.t2.7
Fig. 10. Mahagara, Belan valley: Neolithic pottery
v1.c9.s6.t2.8
The *gong* (cup-marks) so common on granite boulders of s. Indian Neolithic sites have been noticed in the shelters of BHIMBETKA, Narsgarh and Indagarh. These indicate cultural give-and-take tradition at such an early date. We should have no hesitation in concluding provisionally though, that the Neolithic here is essentially a way of life, in propinquity with the truly Chalcolithic and somewhat more advanced metal-using contemporary communities which dominated in this zone for over two centuries from *c.* 1950 to 1750 B.C., before they were overtaken by the intruding Banas culture [4.14.1] in a big way, which continued here for over four centuries thereafter.
v1.c9.s6.t2.9
About the agricultural produce not much is known except that jungle berries were used for food, while non-vegetarian food covered a wider range from pig and boar, to aquatics like tortoise and birds like jungle fowl and peacock. This again explains the marginal economic role that the Neolithic people played in the production of food and thus were minor partners in the community.
v1.c9.s6.t2.10
Wakankar, V.S., 1967, in *Jour. Vikram Univ., Kayatha Excavation No.*, 1967, 1978, in *Prācya Pratibhā*, 4, 2. For sites see respective entries in vol. II.—K.V. SOUNDARA RAJAN
v1.c9.s6.t2.11
*4.6.4 Middle and lower Ganga region.* The middle and lower Ganga flows through Bihar and W. Bengal, between 22° and 27° lat. and 84° and 93° long., its lowest course lying within Bangladesh where it meets the Bay of Bengal. It cuts through the recent *khadar* alluvium which finally grades into the most recent delta silt. A large part of its valley was inhabited by the Neolithic people, as is evident from the occurrence of their cultural material at a number of sites, though in most cases the chrono-cultural periodization has been made on the basis of techno-typological traits of the artefactual assemblage.
v1.c9.s6.t2.12
In Bihar the most important site is CHIRAND (Narain, 1970, 1972; Verma, 1970-71) in Dt Saran. Surface finds of Neolithic artefacts of mixed assemblages have been found at SONPUR in Dt Gaya and ORIUP in Dt Bhagalpur. Neolithic tools have also been reported from SAHEBGANJ in Dt Gaya, RAJGIR in Dt Nalanda (Hutton, 1931) and JAMALPUR in Dt Monghyr (Brahmachari, 1926). A collection of a large number of tools, of which a comprehensive description has been given by Allchin, 1962, was made in the Dumka area around Mohulpahari in Dt Santal Parganas (Bodding, 1901, 1904).
v1.c9.s6.t2.13
In W. Bengal the number of sites is about two dozens but the material is scanty and the finds are mostly from the surface. In Dt Darjeeling the Kalimpong area has yielded a number of stone celts (Walsch, 1904). A solitary polished stone axe at BANGARH in Dt W. Dinajpur has been attributed to pre-Śuṅga levels (Goswami, 1948). A few stone celts have been collected from POTANDA and BHIMGARH in Dt Birbhum. There is also mention of the find of a single stone axe from Raniganj in Dt Birbhum. In Dt Burdwan NADIHA has yielded a few stone axes, while from another site, PANDU RAJAR DHIBI, have been unearthed quite a number of stone celts. BAN ASURIA, KACHINDA, KANKRADARA and BARKOLA, all in Dt Bankura, are also tool-yielding sites. In Dt Purulia tools have been collected from the surface at three sites—MATHA forest, SARGO and CHIADAH. A concentration of Neolithic sites is found in the n.-w. part of Dt Midnapur, the important of them being ORGONDA, KUKRAKHOPI, BAGRIDHI, CHIRUGADA, DHUILAPUR, ENTHELA (Ghosh, 1961, 1962), LALGARH (Sen, 1948) and GARBETA. In the same Dt Neolithic celts have been unearthed in excavation at TAMLUK in the deltaic region. Two more sites are also known in the deltaic part of West Bengal: HARINARAYANPUR in Dt 24-Parganas, has been considered as an important tool-bearing site, though the materials are surface finds; a tool also comes from an unknown site in Dt Howrah. To complete the picture, mention may be made of an example from Bangladesh: ‘a piece of fossil wood, pointed, elongated, one side flat, truncated butt, beautifully polished’ was found at Sitakund in Dt Chittagong (Coggin Brown, 1917). It has been reported that from the Chittagong area four more specimens of the same type, two of them on fossil wood, one on limestone and the last on chert, are preserved in the British Museum (Dani, 1960).
v1.c9.s6.t2.14
Typologically most of the finds are to be included in the category of celts, having three main varieties—axes, adzes and chisels. The broad morphological form of the celts includes the subtriangular, trapezoidal, ovaloid and subrectangular. The polar end varies between rounded and pointed forms. The cutting edge is either straight or convex, the amount of convexity being variable. The major shapes of the cross-section along the minor axis are triangular, rectangularoid, trapezoidal and planoconvex. Other artefacts found in the assemblages are the hammer-stone, pounder, mortar and pestle. Debris, blanks and incomplete and broken pieces are quite abundant at sites where the total collection is considerable. Many sites in Dt Midnapur have also yielded microlithic tools as well as potsherds. The Neolithic artefacts are made on basalt, diorite and dolerite. A shouldered celt was found near GHAGRA in the same Dt, embedded in the top soil of the bank of the Tarapheni. Rectangularoid in shape and ground all over, the transverse cross-sections of both the shaft and the axe were straight, meeting each other at right angles.
v1.c9.s6.t2.15
The celts from Kalimpong are made on chert and in Chittagong the materials are fossil wood, chert and limestone. Cherty material is abundantly used for knapping microliths, but the use of quartz is not entirely absent. The potsherds are generally crude, thick and ill-fired.
v1.c9.s6.t2.16
Of the above sites, only CHIRAND, which has bone tools as well (Narain, 1970, 1972), has provided some information derived from excavation. On this basis it is assumed that the house type was circular, with a diameter of 2 m. The clustering of houses, with paved floors The presence of an integrated complex of microliths in greater proportion on the one hand and lesser frequency of Neolithic tools on the other is indicative of an earlier date for the industry in the Midnapur area. The Neolithic industrial component was scantly continued later till the pre-Suṅga times, as indicated by the BANGARH and TAMLUK finds.
v1.c9.s6.t2.17
Fig. 11. Neolithic tools, lower Ganga
v1.c9.s6.t2.18
There is hardly any reliable information on the origin of the Neolithic culture in this region. It has been thought that there was a cultural diffusion from further e., i.e. S.-E. Asia (Krishnaswami, 1960). This hypothesis is probable and the presence of shouldered celts is a pointer. It is proposed that the diffusionary mechanism of the Neolithic tradition from S.-E. Asia came later and mixed with the local Neolithic tradition. The basic substratum of the Neolithic in this region might have started independently because the origin of cultivation of rice set forth in this fertile region (Chatterjee, Ray and Ghosh, 1977). [Also see 2.2.3.]
v1.c9.s6.t2.19
Allchin, F.R., 1962, in *Bull. School of Oriental & African Studies*, 25, 2, pp. 306-30. Brahmachari, U.N., & S.C., 1926, in *Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal*, 22, p. 136. Bodding, P.O., 1901, in *Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal*, 80, 3, pp. 17-22; 1904, in *ibid.*, 83, 3, pp. 27-31. Chatterjee, P.G., Ray, R., & Ghosh, A.K., 1977, in *Science & Culture*, 1977. Conggin Brown, J., 1917, *Cat. Raisonné of Prehistoric Antiquities in the Indian Museum*, Simla. Dani, A.H., 1960, *Prehistory & Protohistory of e. India*, Calcutta. Ghosh, A.K., 1961, in *Science & Culture*, 27, 369-75; 1962, in *ibid.*, 28, 338-9. Hutton, J.H., 1931, in *Census of India*, 1, 1, 360. Krishnaswami, V.D., 1960, in *AI*, 16, pp. 25-64. Narain, Lala Aditya, 1970, in *Jour. Bihar Res. Soc.*, 56, pp. 1-35; 1972, in *ibid.*, 58, pp. 1-24. Sen, D., 1948, in *Science & Culture*, 14, pp. 252-3. Verma, B.S., 1970-1, in *Purātattva*, 4, pp. 18-22. Walsch, E.H.C., 1904, in *Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal*, 73, 3, pp. 20-4. For sites see respective entires in vol. II.—A.K. GHOSH