[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.c9 # An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9: 4 Cultures An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [v1.c9.s1 4.1 General Observations](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1) — 20 parts - [v1.c9.s2 4.2 Lower Palaeolithic](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2) — 30 parts - [v1.c9.s3 4.3 Middle Palaeolithic](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s3) — 35 parts - [v1.c9.s4 4.4 Upper Palaeolithic](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s4) — 30 parts - [v1.c9.s5 4.5 Mesolithic](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s5) — 27 parts - [v1.c9.s6 4.6 Neolithic](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s6) — 62 parts - [v1.c9.s7 4.7 Copper/Bronze Age](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s7) — 37 parts - [v1.c9.s8 4.8 Pre-Harappa](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s8) — 32 parts - [v1.c9.s9 4.9 Harappa](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s9) — 65 parts - [v1.c9.s10 4.10 Late Harappa](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s10) — 11 parts - [v1.c9.s11 4.11 Copper Hoard](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s11) — 9 parts - [v1.c9.s12 4.12 Ochre-coloured Ware (OCW)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s12) — 9 parts - [v1.c9.s13 4.13 Black-and-red Ware—Upper Ganga Valley](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s13) — 5 parts - [v1.c9.s14 4.14 Chalcolithic](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s14) — 35 parts - [v1.c9.s15 4.15 Painted Grey Ware (PGW)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s15) — 7 parts - [v1.c9.s16 4.16 Iron Age](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s16) — 10 parts - [v1.c9.s17 4.17 Megalithic](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s17) — 127 parts - [v1.c9.s18 4.18 Early Historical](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s18) — 62 parts - [v1.c9.s19 4.19 Late Historical](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s19) — 43 parts ### 4 Cultures ### 4.1 General Observations ### [v1.c9.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.1) ‘Archaeologists classify the objects of their study not only by function into knives, axes, huts, tombs and so on, but also into different “types” of knives, axes, dwellings and graves. The several types of knife or tomb each fulfil roughly the same function; the differences between them repose upon divergences in the social tradition prescribing the methods of their preparation and use. In each functional class archaeologists can distinguish a variety of types current over a restricted area at a given period in archaeological time. The totality of recognized types current simultaneously in a given area is termed “culture”. ‘Archaeology is liable to become a study of cultures rather on of culture’ (Childe, 1942, p. 19). Such an itemwise study would not surely give a total picture of the life of the people of a particular culture, which is ‘more than the sum of its component items—as a wall is more than a thousand bricks’ (Krober, 1963, p. 23). But as the archaeologist studies objects left by ancient man, with reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, he has to content himself with whatever material remains are available. It must be admitted that his resources are limited. ### [v1.c9.s1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.2) It goes without saying that archaeological cultures must be studied under regions and periods (cf. Childe’s ‘a restricted area at a given period’, quoted above), the former particularly true for a vast country like India with its diverse physical features and the latter for the length and variety of human occupation thereof. The following two subsections \[4.1.1, 2\] deal with the regions and periods under which the subject ‘culture’ has been dealt with in this work. They are not authoritative discourses on the principles of regionalization and periodization but merely explain the system followed here. ### [v1.c9.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.3) Childe, V.G., 1942, \*What Happened in History\*, Harmondsworth Krober, A L., 1963, \*An Anthropologist Looks at History\*, Berkeley & Los Angeles.—A. GHOSH ### [v1.c9.s1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.4) \*4.1.1 Regions.\* Spate, 1957, divides the subcontinent into 35 regions of the first order, 74 of the second order and about 225 subdivisions of these, admitting that the scheme is empirical. Political factors have also played their part: in his regionalization Tamil Nadu and Kerala have each been treated as a region of the first order in spite of their physiographic variations. The system of Spate \*et al.\*, 1967, however, has the merit of defining the nuclear areas of attraction and areas of relative isolation, which had their full play in the formation of archaeological cultures (cf. Subbarao, 1958; Malik, 1968). But this can be true only of the post-Stone Age periods, for the area of the greatest attraction, the Indo-Ganga valley (see map, Spate \*et al.\*, 1972, p. 176, and Subbarao, 1958, p. 26), had hardly any importance in the Stone Age cultures. ### [v1.c9.s1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.5) How far the areas of languages, their cousins, cross-cousins, daughters, granddaughters, etc., were conterminal with archaeological cultures form an interesting study. Says Childe: ‘Linguistic divergences may be first as old as the cultural divergences traceable directly in archaeological record’ (Childe, 1942, p. 21). This point has also been touched upon by some in the Indian context (Subbarao, 1958, p. 27; Malik, 1968, p. 165). But all over the world political conquests and spread of foreign cultures have obliterated or modified many a language and the present-day distribution of languages may not have much bearing on ancient cultures. In India, for example, the widespread distribution of the Indo-Aryan languages does not allow us to correlate the pre-Aryan languages with any corresponding cultures. The rise of the new Indo-Aryan languages, the distribution of which is well-mapped, is too late to equate them with the earlier cultures. ### [v1.c9.s1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.6) Cultures have been dealt with in this work under some pragmatically convenient regions. It has been found that it is not always practicable to separate these regions from the present-day political divisions of the country, variable though they are. Many Indian archaeologists, while retaining their extra-territorial interests, specialize in the archaeology of their own (political) states, seldom coinciding with natural regions, and are reluctant to go out of the sphere of their activity. As such there has to be a compromise between natural and political regions. Some cultures may transcend the limits of political states; others may be confined only to parts thereof. ### [v1.c9.s1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.7) With all this in view, cultures in this work have been generally dealt with under: n.-w. region (roughly Jammu and Kashmir); n. region (Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh); w. region (Rajasthan and Gujarat); middle Ganga region (Bihar); lower Ganga region (W. Bengal); e. region (Assam and the adjacent states or Centrally administered territories); c. region (Madhya Pradesh); n.-e. Deccan (Orissa); upper Deccan (Maharashtra); s.-e. Deccan (Andhra Pradesh); lower Deccan (Karnataka); s. region (Tamil Nadu); and s.-w. region (Kerala). Special regions, such as the Vindhyan and Chota Nagpur, have been dealt with separately when a culture so demands; otherwise they have been treated as parts of the nearest larger units, even though physiographically they are distinct units. ### [v1.c9.s1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.8) Childe, V.G., 1942, \*What Happened in History\*, Harmondsworth. Malik, S.C., 1968, \*Indian Civilization: The Formative Period\*, Simla. Spate, O.H.K., 1957, \*India & Pakistan\*, London. Spate, O.H.K., & Learmonth, A.T.A., 1967, \*India & Pakistan\*, London; 1972, same title, New Delhi. Subbarao, B., 1958, \*Personality of India\*, Baroda.—A. GHOSH ### [v1.c9.s1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.9) \*4.1.2 Periods.\* The simplest and universally accepted primary division of archaeological periods is ‘prehistoric’ and ‘historical’. In the former relics left by the illiterate man form the sole source of information; in the latter written or unwritten but reliable sources augment the relics and add to their precision, chronological and otherwise. A hazy dividing line between the two is inevitable, at least in the Indian context: for example, even though the Harappa culture \[4.9\] was fully literate, with its script still remaining undeciphered \[20.4.1\] nobody would call it a historical culture. An intervening period called ‘protohistoric’ has been postulated. In Indian archaeology this term was perhaps first used by Foote, 1914, 1916. From the early 50s the ASI started using it extensively (cf. \*Archaeology in India\*, New Delhi, 1950; \*AI\*, 9, 1953), and Heras, 1953, used it in connection with the Harappa culture. Thence the term has received wide acceptance. But it is a very ill-defined term (Ghosh, 1979, pp. 3-5) and has different connotations to different writers. Thus, while Allchin, 1968, p. 27, would accept the relevance of the term to the culture represented by the Vedic literature (and not earlier), Sankalia, 1974, pp. 7-8, 15, would include in this category the motley of cultures that followed the Holocene Mesolithic \[4.5\], adopting the minimum definition of prehistory as comprising the various Stone Ages but not including the Neolithic \[4.6\], which he classes as protohistoric. All this is confusing enough and cannot be dismissed by saying that ‘the problem of terminology has been unduly magnified in Indian prehistoric studies’ (Agrawal and Chakrabarti, 1979, p. xiv). It has therefore been thought best to avoid the term altogether in this work (except in quotations). ### [v1.c9.s1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.10) Any account of archaeological cultures has to begin with the early phases of the Stone Ages, but here again comes in the question of terminology. When Stone Age research began in India, naturally the European terminology—Lower Palaeolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic—was adopted. Sankalia, 1956, pp. 35-52, used the terms Series I, II and III for the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (Microlithic) for his finds at Nevasa. These terms were widely used for other sites also. In the meantime Subbarao, 1958, proposed Early, Middle and Stone Ages for these three industries. ### [v1.c9.s1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.11) The (First) International Conference on Asian Archaeology held in New Delhi in 1961 set up a committee to consider Stone Age terminology and, with one member (R.J. Braidwood) dissenting, recommended the terms already proposed by Subbarao—Early, Middle and Late Stone Ages—for the food-gathering stages, retaining the term Neolithic for the food-producing stage. This classification was followed for over 10 years, but in published reports the term ‘microlithic’ (perhaps not always Mesolithic) was extensively used. ### [v1.c9.s1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.12) Subsequent discoveries, particularly in the BELAN valley (Sharma, 1973, p. 108), produced a blade-and-burin industry stratigraphically intervening between the Middle and Late Stone Ages. This has necessitated a fresh appraisal of the situation and the present trend is to revert to the terms Lower Palaeolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, the succeeding Neolithic remaining unaltered. This latest (but resuscitated) terminology has been followed in this work, but for individual sites included in vol. II the ‘translation’ of the old into new terms may not have been always correct. Unless the impossible task of re-examining all the collections, particularly microlithic, is undertaken such a shortcoming will inevitably remain. ### [v1.c9.s1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.13) The warning of Thapar (\*IAR 1975-6\*, preface) is worth repeating: ‘It is not intended that prehistoric cultures of India present a similar succession of technological and chronological stages of Europe. There are obvious pitfalls in the wide application of the cultural terms, especially in view of the environmental diversity and the size of the country, which may show different “culture cycles”, and phases of regional specialization. For example, the blade-and-burin industry, grouped under the Upper Palaeolithic of India, is not necessarily to be correlated to the Würm glaciation as its counterpart in Europe. A standardized sequence for Indian prehistoric cultures can only be built through intensive stratigraphic studies in various regions, including those relating to the fluctuations of the sea-level. Till then the terminology of European prehistory, which indeed has wormed its way deeply in the literature, a fivefold division, Lower Palaeolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic, is being adopted \[in the publications of the ASI\]. ‘Caution has to be exercised even in its application, for all microlith-using communities need not be Mesolithic.’ This warning forebodes yet another or more revisions of terminology, adding to the confusion in a situation which lacks clarity, particularly in the Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic-Microlithic phases. ### [v1.c9.s1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.14) After the Neolithic \[4.6\], marking the termination of the Stone Ages, one would naturally expect the Chalcolithic cultures, characterized by the simultaneous use of both stone and copper artefacts. Instead, however, in this work the Neolithic is followed by the Copper/Bronze Age cultures \[4.7-13\]. The reason is the consideration of chronology. The Harappa culture \[4.9\], the Bronze Age culture \*par excellence\* in the subcontinent, is earlier than any Indian Chalcolithic culture though the earliest ones of the latter may at best be a late contemporary of the Harappa; the later ones come down even to the 1st millennium B.C. This is a sufficient justification for according the Harappa culture and all those Copper/Bronze Age cultures that follow a priority of treatment over the Chalcolithic cultures. (The previous practice of regarding the Harappa culture itself as Chalcolithic, mainly on account of the occurrence therein of long parallel-sided chert blades, has now been rightly given up.) ### [v1.c9.s1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.15) The Chalcolithic cultures \[4.14\], being heterogeneous, have been treated regionwise and not chronologically. After all they are all regional cultures, if with links with each other. ### [v1.c9.s1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.16) The next section \[4.15\] deals with the PGW culture. To name any culture after a ceramic industry is theoretically questionable but is a well-established archaeological practice, particularly as along with the diagnostic pottery there are some recurring industries. It is with the PGW 'that one treads on a culturally secure ground in the upper Ganges valley . . . . The basic importance of this level is that it provided the immediate background to the early historic period.' (Chakrabarti, 1972, pp. 216-17.) Not only that, the pottery has, in addition to its distinctive colour, fabric and paintings, its own background in the black-and-red ware \[4.13\] and black-slipped ware \[11.13\] of the upper Ganga valley which precede and are invariably found mixed up with it at all excavated sites (cf. Tripathi, 1976, pp. 69-92). It is essentially an Iron Age culture, though recent discoveries at such sites as Bhagwanpura, where it co-occurs with the late Harappa pottery \[11.4\], may suggest its pre-Iron Age antecedents, the only justification for the section on Iron Age \[4.16\] following it in this work. ### [v1.c9.s1.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.17) The Megalithic cultures \[4.17\] again follow a regional treatment, with an insignificant deviation in one case from the names of regions enumerated above \[4.1.1\]: the megaliths in e. Maharashtra, which should have been regarded as belonging to the upper Deccan, have been placed under c. India. As the term 'c. Indian megaliths' has been widely current (perhaps as a hangover from the name of the British province of C. Province), it has been thought expedient not to disturb the prevailing nomenclature. ### [v1.c9.s1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.18) The megaliths of n.-w. and n. India \[4.17.1, 2\] are isolated and inadequately studied; those of Chota Nagpur and e. India \[4.17.4, 5\] have an additional disadvantage in that megalithism is still a living tradition in these regions. Those of the Vindhyan region \[4.17.3\] do not present a uniform picture in that some have been regarded as Chalcolithic and others as belonging to the Iron Age. The c. Indian megaliths \[4.17.6\] have vague links with those of the Deccan and s. India \[4.17.7-10\], which are the main zone of the Megalithic culture in the 1st millennium B.C. References to megalithism in early Tamil literature (Srinivasan, 1946, pp. 9-16) lend it a historical aspect in its dying phase, but the major part of its life falls in the realm of prehistory. ### [v1.c9.s1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.19) While the Deccan and s. India were in the grip of the Megalithic culture, n. India and the middle Ganga region witnessed the beginnings of the early historical period \[4.18\] in the middle of the 1st millennium B.C. The first half of the period saw the rise of large kingdoms and distinct changes in the life-style of the people. Gradually it spread to the rest of India, supplanting or modifying the existing cultures and sometimes breaking new grounds. From the 2nd century B.C. the establishment of foreign kingdoms in n.-w. and c. regions and the upper Deccan resulted in trade with the Mediterranean world and this added affluence to the towns; it also affected art. In the s. maritime trade developed ports, emporia and consequent prosperity, though how much of the life of the non-urban people was affected is not known. The end of all this also marks the end of the early historical period, to be followed by the late historical period \[4.19\], of which not much archaeological material is available, though religious edifices, sculptures and inscriptions are plentiful. ### [v1.c9.s1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s1.20) Agrawal D P., & Chakrabarti, D K., ed , 1979, \*Essays on Indian Protohistory\*, Delhi. Allchin, B. & R., 1968, \*Birth of Indian Civilization\*, Harmondsworth. Chakrabarti, D.K., 1972, in \*Jour. Economic & Social History of the Orient\*, 15. Foote, R.B , 1914, \*Foote Collection of Indian Prehistoric & Protohistoric Antiquities in the Government Museum, Madras\*; 1916, \*Foote Collection etc., Catalogue Raisonné\*, Madras. Ghosh, A., 1979, in Agrawal, D.P., & Chakrabarti, D.K., \*Essays in Indian Protohistory\*, Delhi. Heras, H , 1953, \*Proto-Indo-Mediterranean\*, Bombay. Sankalia, H.D., 1956, in \*AI\*, 12, pp. 35-52, 1974, \*Prehistory & Protohistory of India & Pakistan\*, Poona. Sharma, G.R., 1973, in Agrawal, D.P., & Ghosh, A., \*Radiocarbon & Indian Arch.\*, Bombay. Srinivasan, K.R., 1946, in \*AI\*, 2. Subbarao, B., 1958, \*Personality of India\*, Baroda. Tripathi, V., 1976, \*Painted Grey Ware, an Iron Age Culture of India\*, Delhi.—A. GHOSH ### 4.2 Lower Palaeolithic ### [v1.c9.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.1) Investigation into the Indian Palaeolithic cultures commenced over a century ago with the discovery of the first palaeolith at PALLAVARAM near Madras by R. Bruce Foote in 1863. But the real impetus to the scientific study of the cultures was given in the thirties of this century by the Yale-Cambridge team of geologists and archaeologists under the leadership of H. de Terra and T.T. Paterson. They worked in the Kashmir valley and Potwar plateau and briefly examined the Narmada valley near HOSHANGABAD and the Kortalayar river near Madras and by their study tried to integrate the Palaeolithic cultures with their contemporary environments. The somewhat earlier work of M.C. Burkitt and L.A. Cammiade in Andhra Pradesh, the Calcutta University's work in Mayurbhanj in Orissa in 1940 and later and F.E. Zeuner's study mostly in Gujarat in 1948 were the other notable contributions prior to 1950. Following the methods of de Terra and Zeuner extensive regional surveys have later on been carried out by the ASI and a few universities and institutes, so that considerable progress has taken place in this field and practically all the regions in India have now been covered for Palaeolithic research. ### [v1.c9.s2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.2) It is now clear that early man, recognized by his artefacts, had penetrated into all regions of India of diverse physiography, climate, vegetation and to some extent animal life. Palaeolithic sites have been found in periglacial sub-Himalayan areas like Kashmir and the Kangra valley; in arid or semi-arid tracts of Rajasthan and Kutch; in heavy-rainfall areas of Assam and thickly forested regions of Bihar; and in coastal areas like Konkan, Saurashtra and Tamil Nadu. They occur in practically all the river basins in peninsular India and in rock-shelters like GUDIYAM in Tamil Nadu. This wide distribution of the Lower Palaeolithic assemblages has raised many new problems but has at the same time removed such notions as that certain regions were not congenial to early man's habitation, either because they were very heavily forested, rain-fed, snow-clad or under the sea, or because they did not possess suitable raw material for tool-making. ### [v1.c9.s2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.3) The Lower Palaeolithic cultures of India fall within the time-span of the Middle Pleistocene \[9.8.2\] and early part of the Upper Pleistocene, approximately covering a period from about half-a-million to 50000 years B.P. Stratigraphically the earliest of them is the one represented by tools found in the fluvio-glacial deposits in the LIDDAR valley near Pahalgam in Kashmir, which are overlain by the Second Glacial phase of the Middle Pleistocene in Kashmir. Another area yielding older cultures is w. Saurashtra where the tools have been obtained underlying the Middle Pleistocene miliolite \[9.7\]. There being no Early Pleistocene industry in India, the Lower Palaeolithic of India is of a later date than that of Africa, where the earliest lithic cultures have been dated to nearly 1·75 to even 3·5 million years. ### [v1.c9.s2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.4) The industries of the Indian Palaeolithic cultures consist of a variety of stone tools, distinguished by different terms, generally according to their probable function, such as handaxes, cleavers, choppers, picks, scrapers, borers or points and worked flakes. But by far the most important types in this list are the handaxes and cleavers, because their forms, being standardized, can be comprehensively examined in respect of technology and subtypes. The tool types do not display any artistic talent of early man but were manufactured with an eye to utility only. ### [v1.c9.s2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.5) The choppers are generally made on pebbles and rarely on rock blocks or thick flakes. They are either worked in one direction (unifacial) or two directions (bifacial), the two varieties being often distinguished as chopper-chopping tools. On the basis of their first discovery in large quantities on the terraces of the Sohan (Soan) river, a tributary of the Indus, these tools have been called the Sohan industry by de Terra and Paterson. The Sohan valley also yielded handaxe industries which de Terra christened as the Madras handaxe industries due to their occurrence in large numbers in the Madras area. These two industries were viewed as representatives of two cultural traditions—Sohan or pebble-tool culture and Madras handaxe culture. And on the basis of percentages of these two industries at Indian sites various hypotheses of migration, diffusion and meeting of the two have been put forward. ### [v1.c9.s2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.6) In peninsular India pebble tools (choppers) and pebble-butted handaxes generally occur together, both the types being stratigraphically inseparable. However the pebble tools from MAHADEO PIPARIA on the Narmada, named as Mahadevian, were considered to be of a pre-handaxe culture similar to the Oldowan industry from Olduvai Gorge in e. Africa. But exactly contrary evidence also came from the excavations on the same river near MAHESHWAR and at MAHADEO PIPARIA itself, conclusively proving that there was no stratigraphical basis for establishing the existence of a pebble tool substratum underlying the handaxe industries. The experience from several other localities in peninsular India is not different. The excessive percentage of pebble tools in areas like the Kangra valley or at places on the Narmada perhaps shows the ecological influence on the industries, for here the pebbles are the only available tool-making raw material. The choppers are thus an inseparable adjunct of the Indian Lower Palaeolithic cultures. ### [v1.c9.s2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.7) The handaxe-cleaver tools are the most dominant type of the Indian Lower Palaeolithic occurring throughout the peninsular region. Both handaxes and cleavers occur in a variety of shapes and can be distinguished on the basis of their length, breadth and thickness and morphological outlines. Typologically they can be grouped into: cruder types in which the flaking has left deep and irregular scars, thick bodies and asymmetrical forms; and finer types with smoother surfaces due to controlled flaking and symmetrical forms. Unless these two groups occur in a stratigraphic succession they do not imply evolutionary stages. If they are present in the same collection their contrasting typological features perhaps denote only the stages in the manufacture of the tools belonging to the same cultural level. ### [v1.c9.s2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.8) Typologically, however, it is possible to bring out the distinction between the handaxe-cleaver industries of one site and another. For example, the industries from GANGAPUR, NEVASA, LALITPUR, KHYAD, etc., show highly advanced forms. The deposits in which they occur directly underlie the sediments containing Middle Palaeolithic tools with ¹⁴C dates of 30000 to 40000 years. Such evolved forms of the closing phases of the Lower Palaeolithic therefore belong to the Upper Pleistocene, roughly 50000 B.P. ### [v1.c9.s2.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.10) Fig. 2. Acheulian tools: 1, cordiform handaxe, 2, ovate; 3,4, cleaver—Vadamadurai; 5, blade—Paisra; 6, blade; 7, borer; 8, scraper on pebble ### [v1.c9.s2.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.11) Fig. 1. Lower Palaeolithic tools: 1, flat-based chopper—Soan valley, 2, Flake—Guler; 3, Chopping tool—Soan valley ### [v1.c9.s2.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.12) Statistical studies of the relative proportion of handaxes and cleavers carried out on the collections from major explored and excavated sites have shown that in general the cleaver-handaxe ratio ranges from 1:1 to 1:2. Handaxes are thus the dominant types even in areas of contrasting vegetational and climatic features. In the presently dry areas like Rajasthan, the moist and deciduous tracts of Orissa and the forested upper reaches of the Narmada handaxes are in excess over cleavers by 3 to 6 times. In the s. in Kurnool area again handaxes are in excess over the cleavers by 2 to 3 times. The Krishna basin presents a varied picture. But at a few sites like ADAMGARH and BHIMBETKA rock-shelters, GANGAPUR, NAGARJUNAKONDA, etc., cleavers outnumber handaxes. Typologically speaking these cleaver-dominated cultures show an advanced stage. It may be said that broadly in the Early and Middle Acheulian stages the handaxes are dominant while in the Late Acheulian the cleavers are in excess over handaxes (Joshi, 1970). ### [v1.c9.s2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.13) The Indian Palaeolithic industries are by and large Acheulian in character. The feeble element of the Abbevillian, if at all present, is discernible only by a detailed technological scrutiny although this does not find much stratigraphic support. It is also difficult to further subdivide the Acheulian industries stratigraphically (Joshi, 1964). In open sites like river-banks the possibility of a considerable admixture brought about by natural agencies like the river is bound to exist. The only undisturbed localities are the caves or rock-shelters. In recent years excavations have been carried out within the rock-shelters at ADAMGARH and BHIMBETKA in the Narmada valley. Although the question of the subdivisions of Abbevillian-Acheulian cultures still remains unsolved, the excavations have in a way been helpful in tracing the cultural evolution from the Lower to the Middle Palaeolithic. ### [v1.c9.s2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.14) The tools are made on a variety of rocks. The most common and abundantly available stones are the quartzites and sandstones from the sedimentary Vindhyan and Cuddapah formations. They occur in a variety of colours—grey, red, brown—depending on the different cementing material. The next preference is the basaltic rocks like the Deccan trap or dolerite. As is logical early man made use of these rocks wherever they were available and at this early cultural stage there was little effort of transportation of raw material from one region to another. There are however some instances where preference was shown to a particular raw material not locally available, as instanced by a jasper handaxe from MANDSAUR, chert handaxe from CHIRKI and phyllite handaxe from HUNSGI, implying some kind of transport. Limestone and chert were also used at some sites in Andhra and w. Rajasthan, where the rocks were available locally. Interestingly even granite (Bundelkhand granite in the Lalitpur area) and some metamorphic rocks (MALAPRABHA sites) were made use of. Viewing the tools made on such different material as a whole we notice a remarkable similarity in technique and form, which clearly brings out the fact that the Palaeolithic man handled varied raw material with equal efficiency. ### [v1.c9.s2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.15) The Indian handaxes compare very well with all European types, and the same is true of their African counterparts. The cleaver, though rare in Europe, is extremely common in Africa. Since the raw material used in Africa and India is the same the resulting tools also show close correspondence; in fact one could easily replace every one from the Olduwai Gorge or s. African collections. Thus Africa only remains in the field if a foreign origin or contact is to be sought for the Indian Lower Palaeolithic cultures, particularly so as India is geographically nearer Africa. In Africa and Olduwan pebble tools are undoubtedly of great antiquity and its handaxe-cleaver group should be fairly old. As such one may postulate a slow diffusion to India from Africa. Alternatively the Indian tools which show advanced forms may have had an independent origin and were slightly later than those of Africa. ### [v1.c9.s2.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.16) In the sub-Himalayan Kashmir basin Lower Palaeolithic tools occur near PAHALGAM in association with the fluvio-glacial deposits laid down partly by the moraine and by the stream. As these deposits are overlain by considerably thick Middle Pleistocene boulder beds into which are cut Upper Pleistocene terraces, the tools suggest a very high antiquity of about half-a-million years and provide proof that man existed in this region prior to the beginning of the maximum cold phase in the Himalayas. The tools occurring on the high terraces in the Jammu area have decidedly no relationship with Pleistocene glaciation. ### [v1.c9.s2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.17) Choppers and handaxe-cleavers have been found on the terraces on the BANGANGA, NALAGARH on the SIRSA and Saketi area on the MARKANDA, all in Himachal Pradesh. All these terraces have been cut into fluvio-glacial cone deposits. It is not possible at the moment to understand the relationship of the terrace sequence in this periglacial region with the Pleistocene glacial sequence. As stratigraphically these terraces are of the late Middle to the Upper Pleistocene Age, the industries lying on their surfaces should be of a comparable period. Since the terrace deposits are unfossiliferous and the tools are rarely found buried in them the terrace sequence by itself has no stratigraphic significance and is of little use in the tracing of different cultural stages. ### [v1.c9.s2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.18) In the Hiran valley in Saurashtra, Lower Palaeolithic tools have been discovered in the fluvial gravels underlying the miliolite formation of fluvio-marine origin. This formation, representing a transgressive marine phase, has been tentatively correlated with the well-dated (by ¹⁴C and Uranium-Thorium isotopic method) marine transgression of the last interglacial, i.e. c. 120000 years. Thus it is for the first time in India that the Lower Palaeolithic tools have been definitely proved to be older than 120000 B.P., being possibly of the Middle Pleistocene Age. ### [v1.c9.s2.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.19) Scores of these industries have been found in peninsular India in the gravel deposits which are exposed in the cliff sections of rivers like the NARMADA, GODAVARI, Krishna, TAPTI and their tributaries like the PRAVARA, Mula and Kan. Generally the associated gravel conglomerate is coarse and there are chances of getting in these sediments fresh as well as differentially rolled tools, depending upon whether the tools got buried at the same place where they had been manufactured or got transported by the stream. At places the tools acquire patination. The degree of rolling and intensity of patination are sometimes a useful aid for typological analysis of the tools found in a mixed condition and have been used for distinguishing various Sohan collections of choppers and the Madras handaxe industries. It should however be noted that highly rolled and patinated tools do not necessarily represent the earliest tools in the collection, for both these properties largely depend on the nature of the deposits in which they were buried, such as red lateritic clays, calcareous clays, etc. ### [v1.c9.s2.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.20) Some tool-bearing gravels contain animal fossils, as in the valleys of the NARMADA, BELAN, GODAVARI, PRAVARA, Krishna, etc., which throw useful light on the palaeo-environment. These gravels usually occur at the base of the section and represent the earliest aggradational deposit. They are covered by a succession of gravels, sands, silts or clays indicating several periods of deposition. The tools of the later period occur in such deposits overlying the basal gravel containing Lower Palaeolithic tools. Fine sections of these deposits are found on the NARMADA, Sabarmati, GODAVARI, PRAVARA, etc. ### [v1.c9.s2.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.21) In the SINGRAULI basin in Uttar Pradesh, particularly on the Rihand river and the Bichi Nala, more or less similar stratigraphy has been noticed. The choppers found here were once considered to be of Sohan variety, indicating this region as a sort of meeting place of the n. Sohan culture and the s. handaxe culture. This view however is no longer tenable. Recently very interesting Palaeolithic sites have been discovered in the BELAN valley in Dt Allahabad, where a succession of sediments has been worked out: the lowest highly cemented gravel has yielded Lower Palaeolithic tools comprising pebble tools, handaxes and cleavers. Besides, this gravel also contains animal fossils which may be of the Middle Pleistocene age. ### [v1.c9.s2.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.22) Rarely Lower Palaeolithic tools are found on the hills in thickly forested areas like BHIMBANDH in Dt Monghyr and MALVAN in Konkan. Their occurrences have been noticed at the foot of the hills as well as on the talus slopes and in hill-wash gravels in the Garo Hills of Meghalaya. Tools are found in the secondary laterities or lateritic gravels in the Mayurbhanj area and POONDI, ATTIRAMPAKKAM and VADAMADURAI sites near Madras. At MALVAN tools are found on a lateritic plateau. ### [v1.c9.s2.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.23) Factory sites of the Lower Palaeolithic industries are known from LALITPUR, ANAGWADI, GANGAPUR, CHIRKI (Joshi & Marathe, 1975), NEVASA, etc., close to the rivers Shahzad, GHATAPRABHA, GODAVARI and PRAVARA. LALITPUR is a surface site, while ANAGWADI, GANGAPUR, CHIRKI, NEVASA and HUNSGI are stratified sites. ### [v1.c9.s2.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.24) No Lower Palaeolithic cave sites are known in India, but tools occur in several rock-shelters in the Vindhyan hills in c. India. Of them the largest group is at BHIMBETKA and a few near ADAMGARH, respectively on the n. and s. banks of the NARMADA near HOSHANGABAD. A complete sequence of cultures from the Lower Palaeolithic through the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic (and in some places even the Chalcolithic) has been uncovered in the excavations conducted in these shelters. ### [v1.c9.s2.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.25) The settlement or habitational pattern of the camp site of the Lower Palaeolithic people cannot be made out from the observations of the open-air factory sites or the river-valley sections containing artefacts. Basically early man used to roam about in search of food and thus had no fixed abode. A glimpse of the life of these people can, however, be had from horizontal excavations of such sites. In India such excavations have been carried out recently at the rock-shelter sites at BHIMBETKA, at CHIRKI on the Pravara and at HUNSGI on the Krishṉa. At BHIMBETKA there is evidence of the construction of a wall of boulders for partitioning the shelter during the Acheulian phase. It is also a factory site. CHIRKI is a rich factory-cum-camp site, for here within an area of 15 × 15 m more than 2000 tools were found in mint condition. Unfortunately the debris one would expect in such a workshop has been washed away as the site is on a rock surface close to the Pravara. No trace of any contrivance for windbreak is available here. At HUNSGI an ovalshaped living floor, covering an area of about 65 sq m, has yielded over 600 artefacts. It is surrounded by granite blocks on all sides, some of which must have been deliberately placed by man to facilitate the construction of hut-like structures. Most of the tools from this site are made of limestone. ### [v1.c9.s2.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.26) Allchin, B. & R., 1968, \*Birth of Indian Civilization\*, Harmondsworth. Jayaswal, V., 1978, \*Palaeohistory of India\*, Delhi. Joshi, R.V., 1964, in \*Asian Perspectives\*, 8, 1, pp. 150-63; 1970, in \*Archaeocivilization\*, Paris, 7-8, pp. 39-46; Joshi, R.V., & Marathe, A.R., 1975, in \*Puratattva\*, 8. Marathe, A.R., Rajaguru, S.N., & Lele, V.S., 1977, in \*Sedimentary Geology\*, Amsterdam (for age of miliolites in the Hiran valley). Sankalia, H.D., 1974, \*Prehistory & Protohistory of India & Pakistan\*, Poona, with complete bibliography. For sites and river valleys see respective entries in vol. II.—R.V. JOSHI ### 4.2.1 Siwalik region ### [v1.c9.s2.t1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t1.1) The youngest part of the Himalayas, or the outer Himalayas, is known as the Siwalik region. Composed of the accumulation of alluvium in the remote past, the region derives its name from the mountain near Hardwar, which is made of a similar formation and is called 'Siwalik'. The Palaeolithic implements are found on the earlier terraces of the rivers SIRSA, BEAS, BANGANGA and RAVI. \[For the Sohan in Pakistan, see 4.2.\] ### [v1.c9.s2.t1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t1.2) In the valley of the Sirsa, around NALAGARH, in the foothills of the Simla Himalayas, terraces are found in the post-Siwalik deposits. The artefacts obtained by Sen, 1955, from the middle and upper terraces are made on big quartzite pebbles. The tool-kit is devoid of Acheulian and Abbevillian implements and contains primarily choppers and crude flakes of the Early Sohan tradition. At a distance of less than 16 km from NALAGARH two terraces were discovered by Mohapatra, 1966, on the GHAGGHAR. Pebble choppers and unworked flakes were found on the terraces at DERA, KHARAUNI and CHANDI-MANDIR, all of the Sirsa culture-complex. The course of the BANGANGA lying in Dt Kangra retains five terraces near GULER. Choppers made on quartzite pebbles, a few chopping tools, protohandaxes and flakes of Clactonian and proto-Levallois tradition \[16.15.1\] were collected from the first three terraces. In Dt Kathua of the Jammu area in Jammu and Kashmir Pleistocene deposits containing tools are reported from JURRO, PINYANI, TERRA, MOH and JAGATPUR (\*IAR 1965-6\*, p. 19). The assemblages belong to Early Sohan and Pre-Sohan traditions. Near SAMBA pebble tools were obtained from the terraces of the Basantar at NANDI, MANANU and PALTHA (\*IAR 1968-9\*, p. 19). Later on an Abbevillian handaxe, pebble tools and massive flakes were discovered from the deposits of the Second Glaciation and Interglaciation near PAHALGAM in Kashmir (Sankalia, 1974). ### [v1.c9.s2.t1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t1.3) Mohapatra, G.C., 1966, in \*Bull. Deccan College Res. Inst.\*, 25, pp. 221-30. Sankalia, 1974, \*Prehistory & Protohistory of India & Pakistan\*, Poona, p. 33. Sen, D., 1955, in \*Man in India\*, 35, pp. 177-84. For sites see respective entries in vol. II.—V. JAYASWAL ### [v1.c9.s2.t1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t1.4) \*4.2.2 Vindhyan region.\* The area roughly includes the hilly track of the Vindhyan and Kaimur ranges and the adjoining plains of the Ganga and Narmada systems. In the Malwa plateau a number of Lower Palaeolithic localities are reported from the banks of river Shivna, a tributary of the Chambal. The industries either are found in Gravel I of the region or have been associated with it on the basis of the typological similarities with implements found \*in situ\*. All the implements found at BHANGARH, NANAKANTHUR, CHIKALIA, NABHARAGARH, KHADKI and MANDSAUR (Khatri, 1957) are made on quartzite pebbles and belong to the Acheulian tradition, as the main component of these industries is handaxes and cleavers. A similar lithic tradition existed and flourished in the area around Bhopal. On the flat hilltop at BHIMBETKA a number of rock-shelters contain Acheulian remains (Misra, 1974). Wakankar, 1973, has claimed a separate horizon for the pebble-tool culture in one of the shelters at BHIMBETKA. In the vicinity there are also a few factory sites of both the pebble tool and Acheulian traditions. ### [v1.c9.s2.t1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t1.5) An open-air Acheulian workshop was found by Singh, 1965, near LALITPUR in Dt Jhansi. At this site pink granite blocks had been converted into tools. A noteworthy feature of the industry is that cleavers made on flakes, most of which were obtained by Victoria West technique, outnumber handaxes, which generally have the highest frequency in the Acheulian culture-complex of the subcontinent. Besides the industry also retains the technologically advanced features such as a considerable proportion of Levallois flakes and a few Levallois points \[16.15.1\]. ### [v1.c9.s2.t1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t1.6) At the trijunction of Dts Hamirpur, Jhansi and Chhatarpur, a pebble-tool complex was discovered by Pant, 1965. Near the village LAHCHURA on the bank of the Dhasan and from the foot of the adjoining hills choppers and chopping tools were picked up. There is a complete absence of Acheulian implements. The flakes found in the industry are the by-products obtained during the manufacture of pebble tools. The assemblage compares well with the Early Sohan industries of the Siwalik region. ### [v1.c9.s2.t1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t1.7) The discoveries in Dts Damoh (Joshi, 1961) and Sagar evidence the existence of both pebble tool and Acheulian traditions in the region. REHLI, GHAGRA, HARAT, ASLANA, MARIADO, etc., are a few noteworthy localities where Acheulian and pebble tools co-occur with crude flakes. A similar assemblage comes from Terrace 1 of the Ken near BARIARI village, Dt Banda. But the collections made from RAMCHANDRA HILL, DURENDI, SITAPUR and LODHWARA in the same Dt (Pant, 1963-4) belong to the typical Acheulian traditions. ### [v1.c9.s2.t1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t1.8) The claims made by Krishnaswami \*et al.\*, 1961, in regard to the SINGRAULI basin are similar to the above findings. Here handaxes of Abbevillio-Acheulian tradition were obtained with a considerable proportion of pebble tools from the conglomerate deposits of Balia Nadi, a tributary of the Rihand. But in the adjoining area, which is drained by the BELAN and Seoti, only the Acheulian trend seems to exist (Sharma, 1973, 1975). The conglomerate deposits as well as the hill slopes containing about 17 factory sites have revealed handaxes, cleavers, a few scrapers and prepared flakes made on quartzite blocks. The other group of assemblages having similar techno-typological characteristics come from the upper Son basin around SHAHDOL, SIDHI and BILASPUR (Ahmed, 1966). ### [v1.c9.s2.t1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t1.9) Important Pleistocene remains are reported from the basin of the NARMADA. After the first proper investigation of the area lying between HOSHANGABAD and Narsinghpur by de Terra and Paterson, 1939, various parts of the basin were studied by a number of explorers. The Pleistocene sequence and cultural remains of this area are a subject of controversy. De Terra and Paterson claimed two sets of industries, i.e. Abbevillio-Acheulian along with Sohan tool types, and developed Acheulian from two sedimentary groups, viz., Lower and Upper. The observations of Sankalia and Subbarao, 1953, near MAHESHWAR, Dt Nimar, agrees with those of de Terra and Paterson. However investigation by Khatri, 1961, near MAHADEO-PIPARIA revealed a gradual techno-typological evolution of industries from the pebble tool to the Acheulian, which he claims to be supported by stratigraphy. Khatri says that the pebble tool complex or Mahadevian is a pre-Chellean industry, comparing well with the Oldowan of e. Africa. Later Supekar, 1968, conducted excavations at the same locality and his conclusions completely ruled out Khatri's presumption. ### [v1.c9.s2.t1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t1.10) Though not supported by stratigraphy, the Lower Palaeolithic industries of the NARMADA basin do show two techno-typological groups. The first group comprises the industries in which pebble tools and big crude flakes dominate. In the industries of the second group Acheulian implements have a prepondering position. MAHADEO-PIPARIA represents the first group, where the chopper-chopping element is about 20 per cent more than the handaxe-cleaver element; whereas in the Acheulian group, mainly at ADAMGARH, along with the frequent types of handaxes and cleavers, Levallois flakes also account for a good portion of the industry. Both the groups are worked on quartzite pebbles. ### [v1.c9.s2.t1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t1.11) Ahmed, N., 1966, "Stone Age Cultures of the Upper Son Valley", unpublished thesis, Poona. Joshi, R.V., 1961, in \*AI\*, 17, pp. 5-36. De Terra, H., & Paterson, T.T., 1939. \*Studies on the Ice Age in India & Associated Human Cultures\*, Washington. Krishnaswami, V.D., \*et al.\*, 1961, in \*AI\*, 7, p. 40. Khatri, A.P., 1957, in \*Bull. Deccan College Res. Inst.\*, 18, pp. 159-72; 1961, in \*Anthropos\*, 56, pp. 519-30. Misra, V.N., 1974, in \*Seminar on Indian Pre- & Proto-history, 1974\*, Poona. Pant, P.C., 1963-4, in \*Bharati\*, 7, pp. 114-42; 1965, in Misra, V.N. & Mate, M.S., ed., \*Indian Prehistory, 1964\*, Poona, p. 8. Sankalia, H.D., \*et al.\*, 1953, in \*S. W. Journal of Anthropology\*, 9, 4, pp. 343-56. Sharma, G.R., 1973, in Agrawal, D.P., & Ghosh, A., ed., \*Radiocarbon & Indian Arch.\*, Bombay, pp. 106-10; 1975, \*Presidential Address to the Indian Prehistoric Soc.\*, New Delhi. Singh, R., 1965, "Palaeolithic Industries of n. Bundelkhand", unpublished thesis, Poona. Supekar, S.G., 1968, "Pleistocene Stratigraphy & Prehistoric Arch. of the c. Narmada Basin", unpublished thesis, Poona. Wakankar, V.S., 1973, in \*Jour Ind. History\*, 51, 1, pp. 23-32. For sites see respective entries in vol. II.—V. JAYASWAL ### 4.2.3 W. region ### [v1.c9.s2.t2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t2.1) The w.most Lower Palaeolithic localities are known from the Mahi, Sabarmati, Karjan and Orsang valleys in Gujarat. From RAMPURA, on the Karjan, Acheulian implements were picked up in the 1941 expedition (Sankalia, 1946). The total kit contains pebble tools, handaxes, cleavers and flakes detached by Levallois technique. Similar remains were found at BAHADURPUR in the Orsang basin. A number of sites situated between Vasad and Jalampur on the banks of the Mahi have yielded Acheulian tools. The stratigraphy and typological position however are much clearer in the Sabarmati basin in n. Gujarat. The alluvial in the basin has been grouped within three stages, i.e. pre-Sabarmati, Sabarmati and post-Sabarmati. The Lower Palaeolithic man was contemporary with the Sabarmati stage, as is evident from the group of finds between WARSORA and GODA. Two groups of industries, viz. Abbevillian and Acheulian, were obtained from the area. ### [v1.c9.s2.t2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t2.2) Investigations in s. Rajasthan by Misra, 1967; have shown that the basins of the Berach-Wagan and Gambhiri-Kadmali were inhabited by the Early Palaeolithic man. The sporadic discoveries from the Berach-Wagan basin mainly belong to the Acheulian tradition, but a part of the finished tool group also consists of choppers, chopping tools and thick scrapers made on flakes. The sites of the Gambhiri-Kadmali group are also characterized by Acheulian tradition. For example, the representative site CHITTAURGARH, has neatly made handaxes and cleavers along with Levallois flakes and tortoise cores. Typologically there is a striking homogeneity among the industries of the Berach-Wagan and Gambhiri-Kadamali. ### [v1.c9.s2.t2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t2.3) Misra, V.N., 1967, \*Pre- & Protohistory of the Berach Basin\*, Poona. Sankalia, H.D., 1946, \*Investigations in the Prehistory of Gujarat\*, Baroda. For sites see respective entries in vol. II.—V. JAYASWAL ### 4.2.4 Chota Nagpur region, e. region and n.-e. Deccan ### [v1.c9.s2.t3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t3.1) Except for Orissa, this region is comparatively less explored and finds from Assam, Bihar, and Bengal are sporadic in nature. In the Chota Nagpur plateau implements of the Acheulian facies are reported from Dts Ranchi, Hazaribagh, Monghyr, Gaya, Purulia and Singhbhum. Among these only the Singhbhum region has been well investigated. Here, in the valleys of the Subarnarekha and Koel, 'chopper-biface' tradition is reported from CHANDIL, CHAIBASA, GHATSILA and SINI. The collection has been divided within four techno-typological evolutionary stages, which is said to be supported by stratigraphic evidence. According to Ghosh, 1970, these are: (1) Abbevillian, obtained from the junction of mottled clay and the overlying conglomerate; (2) Acheulian I, coming from the conglomerated deposit; (3) Acheulian II, associated with the Lower clay; and (4) Acheulian III, found in the loose gravel. Thus the handaxe-cleaver element gradually gains refinement in the group. ### [v1.c9.s2.t3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t3.2) In Bihar the hilly tracts of Dts Gaya and Monghyr which are in fact the extension of the Chota Nagpur plateau, were occupied by the Acheulian man. Noteworthy discoveries in this regard come from the Jethian valley near Rajgir (Narain, 1969) and BHIMBANDH near Monghyr (\*IAR 1960-1\*, pp. 5-6; \*1965-6\*, pp. 7-8). Similarly in the hilly regions of Dts Bankura and Purulia Acheulian tools occur. An evolved Acheulian industry comes from SUSUNIA in Dt Midnapur (\*IAR 1965-6\*, pp. 56-7). ### [v1.c9.s2.t3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t3.3) Investigations relating to Palaeolithic remains in Orissa have been confined mostly to the n. part of the state, which includes Dts Mayurbhanj, Keonjhar, Dhenkanal, Sundargarh and Sambalpur. In Mayurbhanj, Bose and Sen, 1948, found three techno-typological stages of the Lower Palaeolithic culture. The first stage, of the crudest implements, comprises massive choppers and is succeeded in the next stage by a crude biface industry, wherein unprepared flakes are also noticed. The third stage is represented by fine bifaces, crude cleavers and a limited number of scrapers. Investigations by Mohapatra, 1962, were confined to the other adjoining Dts of Orissa, where evidence for three stages of Acheulian facies was also recorded. According to him the earliest phase of Bose and Sen could not be noticed, and the three evolutionary stages are part of the Acheulian complex. ### [v1.c9.s2.t3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t3.4) The extension of the Indian Acheulian complex goes as far as the Garo Hills in Assam, where the cemented gravel of the Waran has revealed handaxes, cleavers and choppers made on dolerite lumps. In the Daphabum area of Dt Lohit a set of three terraces is formed by the Kamlong and Telly rivers, which have revealed the chopper, chopping tool, proto-handaxe, cleaver, ovate, point, scraper and flake. The assemblage is of a mixed nature (Bopardikar, 1972). ### [v1.c9.s2.t3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t3.5) Bopardikar, B.P., 1972, in \*Arch. Congress & Seminar Papers\*, Nagpur, pp. 1-8. Bose, N.K. & Sen, D., 1948, \*Excavation in Mayurbhanj\*, Calcutta. Ghosh, A.K., 1970, in \*Trans-American Philosophical Soc.\*, N.S., 60. Mohapatra, G.C., 1962, \*Stone Age Cultures of Orissa\*, Poona. Narain, Lala A., 1969, in \*Indian Arch. Conf.\*, Patna (cyclostyled paper). Sharma, T.C., 1972, "Stone Age Cultures of Garo Hills", unpublished thesis, Gauhati. For sites see respective entries in vol. II.—V. JAYASWAL ### 4.2.5 Upper, s.-e. and lower Deccan ### [v1.c9.s2.t4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t4.1) From the coastal land around KANDIVLI, Bombay, a complete sequence of Pleistocene sediments was reported by Todd, 1939. He found an assemblage containing Clactonian flakes from the lowermost implementiferous deposit, which was overlain by a layer containing Chellean tools and Clactonian flakes. An Acheulian assemblage came from the next layer—the middle clay. But the three assemblages were not noticed by Sankalia and Malik, who later on surveyed the same region (Sankalia, 1962). From the parts of Konkan lying south of Bombay a complex reminiscent of pebble tools was discovered from the Ganshari basin by Joshi (\*IAR 1969-70\*, p. 23). ### [v1.c9.s2.t4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t4.2) The TAPTI basin has only recently yielded Pleistocene deposits. Two areas, viz. the Purna (a tributary of the Tapti) basin and Dt Dhulia (c. Tapti basin) are noteworthy in this regard. Both the areas have revealed tools of the Acheulian tradition. ### [v1.c9.s2.t4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9.s2.t4.3) Since long the GODAVARI basin around NASIK and NEVASA has been known for its Palaeolithic yield. The tool kit of the NASIK-GANGAPUR group of sites is made of evolved Acheulian implements fashioned out of locally available basalt. The group however has cruder technological features, as the flakes were detached by Clactonian technique. The typo-technological character of the NEVASA group marginally differs from the former. Excavation at Gravel I at CHIRKI-NEVASA, Dt Ahmadnagar, has revealed a rich Acheulian industry, where higher frequency is formed by cleavers made on flakes detached by Victoria West technique (Corvinus, 1967). The position of such cleaver-flakes and flakes detached by the Levallois technique is also well-represented. _First 67 of 1,015 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9)_ ## Linked texts (88) - [Harappā](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.harappa) - [Indian Archaeology — A Review](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.archaeology.iar) - [Nevasa](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.nevasa) - [Nāsik](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.nasik) - [Nāgārjunakoṇḍa](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.nagarjunakonda) - [Bhīmbeṭkā](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.bhimbetka) - [Burzahom](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.burzahom) - [Inamgaon](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.inamgaon) - [Kāyathā](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kayatha) - [Sanganakallu](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.sanganakallu) - [Maheswar](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.maheswar) - [Langhnaj](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.langhnaj) - [Birbhanpur](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.birbhanpur) - [Kuchai](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kuchai) - [Lalitpur](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.lalitpur) - [Gudiyam](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.gudiyam) - [Baghai-Khor](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.baghai-khor) - [Lekhahia](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.lekhahia) - [Mahadeo-Piparia](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.mahadeo-piparia) - [Kupgal](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kupgal) - [Anagwadi](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.anagwadi) - [Kovalli](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kovalli) - [Poondi](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.poondi) - [Bhadne](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.bhadne) - [Vadamadurai](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.vadamadurai) - [Chirki](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.chirki) - [Tilwara](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.tilwara) - [Bagor](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.bagor) - [Billa Surgam](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.billa-surgam) - [Koldihawa](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.koldihawa) - [Patne](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.patne) - [Hunsgi](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.hunsgi) - [Devakachar](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.devakachar) - [Sarai-nahar-rai](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.sarai-nahar-rai) - [Bahâdurpur](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.bahadurpur) - [Mârkanda](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.markanda) - [Pallavaram](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.pallavaram) - [Pachmarhi](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.pachmarhi) - [Mandsaur](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.mandsaur) - [Sawyerpuram](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.sawyerpuram) - [Jabalpur](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.jabalpur) - [Kangra](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kangra) - [Adamgarh](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.adamgarh) - [Bagalkot](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.bagalkot) - [Kalegaon](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kalegaon) - [Lekhania](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.lekhania) - [Harat](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.harat) - [Guler](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.guler) - [Choli](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.choli) - [Yerragondapalem](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.yerragondapalem) - [Rehli](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.rehli) - [Marvania](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.marvania) - [Chandil](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.chandil) - [Ghatsila](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.ghatsila) - [Bhimbandh](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.bhimbandh) - [Kandivli](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kandivli) - [T. Puduppatti](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.t-puduppatti) - [Salvadgi](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.salvadgi) - [Hasrai](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.hasrai) - [Durendi](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.durendi) - [Lodhwara](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.lodhwara) - [Karvi](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.karvi) - [Sidhi](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.sidhi) - [Dhekulia](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.dhekulia) - [Khadki](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.khadki) - [Pinyani](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.pinyani) - [Terra](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.terra) - [Jagatpur](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.jagatpur) - [Susunia](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.susunia) - [Yigavaripalem](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.yigavaripalem) - [Pravara](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.pravara) - [Godavari](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.godavari) - [Ghod](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.ghod) - [Mula-Mutha](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.mula-mutha) - [Nandi](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.nandi) - [Mananu](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.mananu) - [Samba](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.samba) - [Pahalgam](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.pahalgam) - [Wajjal](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.wajjal) - [Bhutia](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.bhutia) - [Visadi](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.visadi) - [Vemula](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.vemula) - [Khyad](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.khyad) - [Rori](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.rori) - [Kashmiri](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kashmiri) - [Krishna](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.krishna-mahboobnagar) - [Son](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.son) - [Bhangarh](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.bhangarh) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c9) · Pramāṇa