Stone AEe Technologv in India

K,PADDAYYA

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a review of various aspects of Stone Age (Palaeolithic and Mesolithic)
general
technology in lndia. After initial remarks about the history of Prehistoric studies and
culture Sequence, detailed observations are made about how changes in raw material
of
utilization, experienced from time to time, and consequent improvements in techniques
tool-manufacture and tooltypes themselves led to changes in subsistence and settlement
patterns of Stone Age hunter-gatherer groups. The review concludes with remarks highlighting
the need for identification of regional settlement systems, functional interpretation of lithic
of non-
assemblages, study of present-day use of stone for various purposes, and recognition
utilitarian dimensions of Stone Age technology.

CONTENTS
l.lNTRODUCT10N
2.HISttORY OF PREHISttORiC RESEARCH
3 FIRST PARADIGM
4.PARADIGM SHIFT
5.FRESH FIELD RESEARCH
6.GENERAL CULttURE SEQUENCE
7.USE OF ORCANIC MAttERIALS
8.LITHIC ttECHNOLOGY
A.lmprovements in raw mateHal ulllza10n
9.SttUDIES iN TECHNOLOGY
A.Lower PalaeolithlC
B.Mlddle and Upper Palaeolithic
C.Mesolnhic
10 GENERALTRENDS
 ‐ ロ ロ 口 ‐ 甲 甲 ― ― ロ ロ ― ― ―
暉 r‐
■ ■ 口 ‐ 口 ‐ 口 甲 暉 "―
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 甲 ・

￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨￨■

ANCIENT INDiA,NEW SERIES,NO.1

11. TASKS AHEAD

A" Regional adaPtive sYstems
B. Functional interPretations
C. Rspects of non-utilitarian
behaviour
D. Ethnography as a source of learning

「
IIIiDIDNOTPROGRESSUNIFORMLYORSTEADILYBUTHEDIDPROGRESSONTHE1/VHOLE
MAKING AND T00L― USiNG CREATURE WHO
FROM A FAIRLY INEFFICIENT AN!MAL TO A T00L―
DOMINATED THE VVHOLE PLANET BY HIS NUMBERS AND B漱 ::[:η 晏[li:Fギ ∫」][担
ACTIVITY,AND HAS NOⅥ ′ONLY TO LEARN TO CONTROL Hい

I. INTRODUCTION
certain aspects
of the evidence bearing upon
paper I propose to present a review with by H' D'
7futhis t"tft*togy in lndia' This topic was first dealt
Llof Palaeolithi. ur,d Mesolithic t'wo well-knovrn books
titled stone Age Took: Their
(-f sant ulia more than forty years a'o i" t'is
of Prehistoric Technologt in
Probable Function's (1964) and Some '\spects
Techniques,Ncmes ond"
provided an excellent account
tf manufacturing techniques and
(1970). These publications
India review' we will try to go one
of hunter-guii"'"' societies' In the Present
rypes of stone implements of prehistoric
to relate t..h.,oiogy to rhe functioning and evolution
step further and attempt pre-literate stage in which man
r,vith more than one-milrion-year-rong
socieries. we are dealing
life' The overwhelming body of
evidence for
led a nomadic and hunting-gathering *uy of
artefacts and' to a
formative stage of the human story is formed by'sto1t
reconstructing this iong Let us start with
made of organic materials like wood, bone and antrer.
limited extent, by objects
one or of rndia's
of rwo students par excellence
T",f,:Tr":iriTJlToor, the birth centenaries D' Kosambi and H' D' Sankalia'
while they
ancient past were celebrated in the country - D'
and Sankalia recognized
their overail up*outi"' and methods' both Kosambi
differed vastly in
theuniquefeaturesofthecountrfsheritage,itsrelevancetothePresent,anduseofthepresentas
a method
pubrished their major books
which are stili widelv
[:ti[x'*'};,1Ti;r, century they
in rndia andpakistan
students arike. sankalia,s book prehisr ory and.protohistory
and
used by schorars Kosambi's book The Culture and
in 1963 (second edition in 1974)' Two years iuter
appeared Although as fresh students
of Ancient India in Historicar outrine (196s) was pubrished.
civilization

10
 IN INDiA
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGY

rwo books,
the differing contenrs and approaches of these
lve were initiarly somewhat befuddred by
rvith ti-re need to prefer one ro exclusion of the
other,
we recognized that. far from being faced to our
understanciing of our past. we soon realized
borh were indispensabre sources to a meaningful
pleasantsurprisethatwhileSankalia,sbookwasrichincarefullyacquiredandassorteddatawhich lower and
work was repiere with many carefully drawn
is basic to alr empiricar sciencesl, Kosambi,s truth in the
of the counrry's past. we grasped too the
higher order inferences about the trajectory
content are empty; intuitions
famous German philosopher Kant,s ,,u,.*"r, that'Thoughts without
(sense data) without thoughts are blind' r^- n-r
:--- point for
a good starting -^:-) review' As he has
our ,crriern/
The writings of D. D. Kosambi provide
academic training ir Indological studies
and indeed
himself confessed, Kosambi lacked formal
,roof. In fact, this was his advantag" ,.ra we need severar more 'roof-
arrived there from the trees and
Kosambi possessed an uncanny abiliry to recognize the woods among
breakers,.
madeSomeverypertinentobservationsaboutthemethodsoflndologicalresearchandabout
prehistory can afford to ignore' Among
prehistoric life in general which no student of Indian
(Kosambi 1965: Ch' 2):
most important observations
rhese, I consider thl fo[owing as the

a)IceAgewasneithersoharshnorasextensiveasinEurope'suchthatfood-gathering'apart
a wide range of edibie items'
easier task and covered
from hunting and fishing, was a much to the essential way
b) culture i, toi" understood in
the sense of erhnography; it refers
of life of the people'
basis of human cultur'es and are
dependent on the means
c) Food supplies ut" urr essential
procurem€nt'
(techniques and instruments) adopted for rise and
d) Any important advance in the
,,*u,,, of production leads to population
alterations in relations of production'
e)Temporalvariabilityexistsinregionaiculturaldevelopment. methodol0gy of
an important comPonent of the
fl 'Living prehistorf or ethnography is
Prehistoric research'
of hunter-gatherer
to the available archaeological record
Before relating these propositions stone Age research in the country'
societies, let us briefly note the
main smges in the development of

2. HISTORY OF PREHISTORIC RESEERCH

during his geological
hundred archaeorogical sites which Robert Bruce Foote had discovered
over four of Baroda and
surveys in south India from 1g63
to 7gg7,and later in the erst\ rhile princely states
Mysore,wereassignedbyhimtothreechronologicalstages'viz''Palaeolithic'Neolithicandlron
Foote included a
In his 46_page-Iong introductiorr"to trr" main catalogue,
Age (Foote 1914,1916). people (Foote 791'6:7-74)'
*"upo,'*'d tools of the Palaeolithic
section of seven paSes on the comprising axes
artefact types in the collection'
He recognized as many as one dozen
toJs' knives' choppers' scrapers circular
(with four sub-types), two rypes of spears, digging his observations about
cores, hammerstones and strike.a-1ights. Foote also recorded
implements, for tool-making
shown by the palaeolithic people ior quartzite as the raw material
the preference

11`
 l

ANClENT INDIA,NEW SERIES,NO.1

and made some inferences about the probable uses tO ■ vhich the stone implements vvere put.
Foote did not come across any nlicrolithic sites and hence proposed a hiatus beれ veen the
Palaeolithic and ⅣIesolithic stages(Foote 1916:15-17).
But this gap was adnlirably filled by the discOveries ofA.C.Carlyle,one ofthe ield assistants
of Alexander Cunninghanl vvhO dOcumented historical sites of northern lndia for急 ハ√enty years
froln 1862 to 1885。 Carlyle discovered in the caves and rock shelters of lMirzapur hills Of central
lndia deposits yielding tiny implements or what we now call microlithic artefacts made of siliceous
materials.This led tO the recOgnition of the existence of a Mesolithic stage(C00k and 1/1artingell
1994).1'hus before the c10se ofthe nineteenth centu7,the existence of Palaeolithic and
ⅣIes01ithic
stages was irmly established in the country.

3。 F:RST PARnD:GM
The next mttOr deve10pment came up with the recognition of three distinct stages within the
Palaeolithic by Canllniade and Burkittin 1930.Based On their study oftechn010glcal and typ010glcal
features of stone artefacts, Obtained iOm variOus sedilnents fOrnling part of cliff―
sectiOns Of
rivers in the Kurnool area Of Andhra Pradesh, they put fOrward a four―
stage cultural sequence
(deSignated as Series l tO IvD,which cOuld be brOadly cOrrelated with Lower,Middle and upper
palaeolithic,and Mesolithic stages,respectively.
Silnilar attempts were Fnade by de Terra and PatersOn(1939)in northwestern lndia and by
Zeuner(1950)in Gttarat.Sankatta'sr市 er valley suⅣ eys at Nevasa On the Pravara in the Deccan
revealed a silnilar succession of four stages within the StOne Age(Sankalia 1956).Thus came into
existence what rnay be called the stratigraphic_cunl¨
climatic― cum― cultural sequence paradigm in the
lndian Stone Age studies.This paradignl governed PrehistOric studies in the next h″
O decades or sO;
Sankalia hilnself and his c011eagues at the Deccan COllege and wOrkers fron1 0ther places adopted it
and undertook a large number ofregiOnal studies in different parts Ofthe cOuntry.Prehistory indeed
emerged as a regular branch Oflndian archaeology.
Sankalia's b00k Prchisι ογ αnd Prο t072お 10ry in lndiα
αnd Pα kisι αn (1963, revised 1974)
served as the reference wOrk.His Other boOk s[ο ne/聴「
e rOο lsf rた cir Tccた rliqllct NQmes and PrObα
b:θ
Furlcど :ο ns(1964)served to ftlrther consOlidate the place Of stOne Age studies in the cOun町
.

1'he lingering dOubts abOut the existence Of upper Palaeolithic Phase in lndia were finally put tO
rest by MurtrS diScoveries of blade and burin assemblages in the Rallakalava basin Of Andhra
Pradesh(Murty 1968,1979).

4.PnRnD:GM SH:FT
PrehistOric studies soOn began receiving strong dOses Of rebuke fronl sOme quarters. Impatient
with the preOccupation Of the sch01ars of prehistOry with stOne tools and their endless effOrts
to catalogue and classitt them,Sir MOrtimer VVheeler,well known fOr his acerbic cOmments,
dubbed lndian prehistOry as nOthing more than a cOncem with a multitude Of stOnes。

12
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDlA

e
In his widely read book Eα rヶ lndia and Pakistan(1960:34,63)Sir lⅥ Ortimer gave the deris市
titles of`Stones' and `〕 √ore Stones' tO the LA′ o chapters dealing、 vith the Stone Age. I suspect
that he vvas eChOing Shakespeare's statement in Cο riO[α mus: `What is the city but the people?'
Kosambi adopted a silnilar critical stance、 げhile reviewving the irst edition of Sankalia's
boOk P7‐ Cた おtory and Protoた istoり in lndiα α71d Pakisξ αlt and called the whole outline a`muddle'and
an example of`slipshod research'.He also said,`The dittointed sentences shoW not only lack of
colnlnand over syntax but absence oflogic'(Kbsambi 1964).
The focus on the shortcolnings became sharperin the 1970s When the influence ofthe Newv
Archaeology had already begun to be felt on lndian soil.There developed a strong reaction against
the hit― and― run type of field studies,undue reliance on lithic assemblages obtained from secondary

contexts like allu宙 al sedilnents and facile climatic interpretations arrived at on the basis of study of
river gravels and silts.
Calls silnultaneouslybegan to be made for adopting a regional approach tO the archaeological
record whiCh would involve intensive surveys ailned at the discovery of prilnary sites preserving
e earth and
in situ Stone Age cultural material(Paddayya 1978).A need was also felt to invo市
and to supplement the
biological sciences so aS tO reCOnstruct past environmental Settingξ
archaeological approach with ethnographic and experilnental analogies.These combined efforts
were expected tO enable the scholars of prehistory to reconstruct StOne Age cultures from a
settlement systenl perspective.Indeed a new paradigm made its appearance in lndian prehistOry.

5.FRESR F:ELD RESEnRCn

Against thiS background, university and government departinents, sometilnes in collaboration

Venty― five
with foreign institutions,undertook fresh field studies in lnany regions during the lastい
to thirty years.These areas include the Kortallayar basin of Tanlil Nadu,Kurnool and Cuddapah
basins of Andhra Pradesh,Kaladgi and Bhilna basins of Karnataka,Pravara and Bhilna basins ofthe
Deccan,Raisen district of Madhya pradesh,Son and Belan valleys of Central lndia,Iniddle Ganga
These field
valley,Chotanagpur hills,western Raiasthan,and Orsang and Other valleys of Gttarat・
studies covered both Palaeolithic and WIlesolithic sites.
As part of this work,excavations vvere conducted at a number of Palaeolithic sites such
as Kumool Caves and Vodikalu in Andhra Pradesh;Attirampakkanl in Talnil Nadu; Anagwadi,
Nevasa, Patne, Bori and
Lakhlnapur, Hunsgi, Yediyapur and ISampur in Karnataka; Chirki―
Morgaon in Maharashtra;Bhimbetka,Samnapur and Natthar Khurd,Baghor and other sites in
central lndia; Singi Talav and 16R dune site near Didwana in Rttasthan; and Paisra in Bihar.
α[. 2002)
The Acheulian levels at Attirampakkanl(Pappu ct αl. 2011)and ISampur(Paddayya ct
iddle Palaeolithic levels at 16R
have been dated to l.5 and l.2 1nillion years respectively.The lⅥ
1).
dune site near Didwana are dated to about O.2 million years(see Fig。
Important l颯 esolithic sites vvere investigated at Sangankallu in Karnataka,Chitrakot Falls
Ⅲ e
and Bhimbetka in central lndia,Mahadaha,Damdama,Sarai Nahar Rai and Chopanimando in
valapuram Locality 3 in the
Ganga basin,and Bagor and Tilwara in Rttasthan.Recent WOrk at力

13

― ‐
―
一

1
 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1

Jurreru valley of Kurnool region exposed Middle Palaeolithic artefacts below and above volcanic
asl'r deposits dated to 74,000 years BP (Petraglia et at. 2OO7). Excavations ar rock shelter Localiry 9
at this place stretched the antiquiry of blade-based microlithic tools to 34,000 years Bp (Clarkson
et at. 2009). At Mehtakheri in centrai India, microlithic traditions are dated to 48,000 years Bp
(Mishra et al. 2009a). In all these excavations occupation deposits were carefully exposed in
horizontal levels and cultural materials were point-plotted and photo-documented. In some areas
archaeologicai investigations were accompanied by ethnographic and experimental studies.

5. GENERET CUMURE SESUENCE

Anothermajordevelopmentthattookplace duringthis periodwas the use of absolute datingtechniques
such as radiocarbon, Electron Spin Resonance (ESR), thermoluminescence, palaeomagnetism,
thorium-uranium and argon-argon. The four major stages recognized within the Stone
Age of the
Indian subcontinent and their broad chronological spans, respectively, are as follows (Mishra
l99s;
Dennell 2009: 338-9; Chauhan 2010: 4) :

Cultural Stage Age (years in BP)

1. Possible early sites
a) Uttarbaini, Jammu, India 1.6 (revised to 2.8) million years
b) fuwat, punjab (pakistan) 1.9 (revised to 2.5) million years
2. Palaeolithic
a) Lower palaeolithic 1.5 to 0.2 million years
b) Middle palaeolithic 0.2 million to 40,000 years
c) Upper Palaeolithic 40,000 to 10,000 years
3. Emergence of microlithic tradition 10,500 years ro 48,000 years
based on blades (Jwalapuram in I(urnool
area and Mehtakheri in central India)
4. Mesolithic 10,000 ro 6,000 years

It must be admitted that the sequence noted above is an aggregated picture. Barring a
few sites like 16 R dune site at Didwana in Rajasthan (Fig. 1; Misra lggT),rock
sheiter III F-23
at Bhimbetka in central India, and Patne in the Deccan, the phases
designated above are found as
single units and not as components of a one evolving culture
complex.
Secondly, Stone Age culture, while marked by both regional and
temporal variability, did
show progress on the whole. In this context Kosambi's observation quoted
at the beginning of this
paper is verY pertinent. I sincerely believe that this statement
reflects the inspiration derived from
the concept of progress which dominated European thought during
seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries' Let us consider some of the striking aspects pertaining
to the prehistoric stage.

14
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDIA

0 ,r● ="￨:0■ l`
Mesolithic
6.140 B P cL)
J,I
■L)
14,610 B P 〔 1::41 Brown (10 yr 4/4) loamy fine sand
1 weak pedogenesis
16.1908P (■ L)

Yellow brown (10 yr 6/4) fine sand

with soll carbonates

Colluvlal slat€ and schist

coarse sand
Calcrets I

5 Pale yellow brown (10 yr 5/4) loamy fine smd

Calcrete ll
Pale yellow brown {10 yr 5/4) loamy line sand
26.2101:;:88P (16c)
Calcrete lll
6 Calcrets lV

Unit il Y€llow brown ( lO yr 6/4) lin€ sandy loam with

tubular carbonates moderate pedogenesis

Calcrele V

Yellow brown (10 yr 6/4) loany fihe sand

CalcretB Vl
Calcrete Vll
Calcrete Vlll

Reddish brown (5 yr 4/8) line sandy loam

strong pedogenesis

Brown (7.5 Yr 4/6) line sand

Calcrele lX

163000± 21000 B P(■ L) Brown (7.5 yr 5/6) loamY line sand

strong padobenesis
1.44.000■ 12.0008P(U/Th)

Brcwn (7.5 yr 5/6) medium sand

Calcrete X

Calcrete xl
1.50,000■ 10,000 B P(U/Th)

Brown (7.5 yr 5/6 to 6/6) loamy line sand

Calcrete Xll
Brown (7.5 yr 5/6) loamy medium sand

Calcrete xlll
Brown (7.5 Yr 5i6) loamy medium snd
Calcrete xlV

Calcrete XV
Brown (7.5 yr 5/6) loamy medium sand

3.90000■ 50.000 B P(Uノ Th) Calcrete XVI

sffatigraphy ond Stone Age

Fro 1 I6R sand- dune section at Didwano, Rajasthan, sltowing sedimentary
(Courtesy: Misro 1989)
culture sequence from the Lower Palaeolithic to Mesolithic
Ｅυ

I
 I

ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1

7. USE OF ORGENIC MATERIETS

Prehistoric man showed remarkable resiiience in the utilization of raw materials for making
artefacts. The erridence for use of organic materials is limited. One may recall here that the earliest
known artefacts on organic materials come from Europe. In 1911, one yew wood spear was
reported from the Lower Palaeolithic site of Clacton-on-Sea in England. Then in 7.948, another
example, also of yew wood, was excavated from the Palaeolithic site of Lehringen in Germany.
Since 1995 half a dozen more examples have been reported from excavation at Schoningen in
Germany, dated to the last interglacial (Eemian) (Thieme 2005). These are made of spruce and
pine and range from 1.82 rn to 2.5 m in length and show working at both distal and proximal
ends. What is equally important about these objects is that they were found together with stone
artefacts and animal bones, particularly the remains of horse. There is thus no doubt that these
lances or spears were indeed used for killing game.
In India too, wood and bone were probably commonly used right from early times for
shaping spears, lances and points but no such objects have survived from Lower Palaeolithic
sites. Our evidence by and large consists of stone implements, and it is dnly from the succeeding Middle
Palaeolithic that we begin to see artefacts shaped from organic materials. In the mid-1880s, Robert
Bruce Foote and his son Henry Foote exposed much faunai material from the Upper Palaeolithic
levels of Billasurgam caves of Kurnool area (Foote 1884: 201-202; 7976:38). It comprised over
7,7O0 pieces of cut and vr,orked bones, out of which 200 were identified as tools and compared with
the Magdalenian specimens. Unfortunately, all these specimens were lost.
In the 7970s, Murry re-exca\rated the Billasurgam caves and also undertook excavations at
a nearby cave called Muchchatla Chintamanugavi. These excavations yielded bone artefacts along
with stone artefacts and faunal material. The latter site yielded, in addition to 223 artefacts of
shale and limestone, a bone-tool assemblage made up of 2,003 specimens (FiS.2). This bone tool
assemblage consisted of scrapers, perforators, chisels, spaftllae, and tanged and shouldered points
fashioned from wild cattle bones by means of flaking, cutting and chipping (Muffy 1974).
More recently, fresh evidence has been obtained from Kurnool region. Excavations at rock
shelter Localiry 9, near Jwalapuram, have pushed the antiquiry of backed tools of microlithic
tradition to 34,000 years BP, and also yielded objects made of organic materials (Clarkson et al.
2OO9). A uniseriai harpoon head of antler has been found in levels dated to 34,000 years BP. A
broken bone point (probably an awl with traces of use at the tip) has been found in levels dated
berween 20,000 years BP and 34,000 years BP. Further, Stratum C (dated between 12,000 years
and 20,000 years BP) has yielded a set of 25 flat beads of limestone and bone. Their thickness varies
from 1.6 mm to 2.1 mm and all of them have a central perforation obtained by means of rotating
action of the tip of a thin, backed tool (Fig. 3A). In 1960s, a shaped bone objectwas reported in an
Upper Palaeolithic context from Lohanda nullah of the Belan valley (Pal 2005). It measures about
10 cm in height and was initiaily considered as a figurine of Mother Goddess, but most workers now
treat it as a harpoon head with a barb on either side (Fig. 38).
Patne is a well-excavated open air site in the Ajanta range of hills of Western Ghats, preserving
cultural levels of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic phases. The Upper Palaeolithic

16
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDIA

＾Ａ職輛聯‰圏
一

珊 脚
∩酬輔醐閻
△祗燻鰈灯麒鳳靱鰤駆枷
已鰤 顆 珍 財 下

Ｃ
ｍ

′
一´
´ョ
”
′´
´″
´´
十一´
´〆一

Muchchatla Chintamanugavi'
Frc 2 A: [Jpper Palaeolithic artefocts of limestone-ond- shole from
(Courtesy: MurLy 1974 and
Kurnool district, Andhra pradesh; S: nonl artefacts from the same site
7979, respectively)

17
 ￨

ANCIENT IND:A,NEW sERIES,NO.1

deposit has a c_14 date of 25,000 years BP.The Middle and upper Palaeolithic levels yielded shaped
ostl‐ ich eggshell pieces.These consist of three disc_beds with a central perfOratiOn(and an additiOnal
piece made of lnarine shel)and a few specilnens showing criss_cross design beれ
veen hOrizontal
lines(sali 1989)(Fig.夕ヽ-3).Subsequently,ostrich eggshel1 0可
ectS Were fOund in Upper Palaeolithic
context from MehtakheH,Rttota and Otter sites in central and westem lndia.POints and Other OtteCtS
shaped i¥Orn bOne,ander and horn have been reported from many MesOlithic sites such as Bhilnbetka
in centrallndia and Damdama,sarai Nahar Rai and Other sites in the Ganga basin.
The evidence fron■ the site of Kalpi On the Yamuna takes the antiquity of use Of Organic
materials to the Middle Palaeolithic Phase(Tewari cど
αl.2002).Here,an assemblage of 65 artefacts
on small quartzite pebbles was fOund in a layer Of fine rnicaceous sand fornling part Of a cliff
section on the Yamuna.The sandy layer has been dated t0 45,000 years BP by lnfrared stimulated
Luminescence.In additiOn tO the lithic assemblage,Kalpi yielded a set Of 23 artefacts shaped On
cattle and elephant bOnes,ali shOwing signs Of charring(Fig.5).These speciinens shOw flaking
and other prOcesses Of wOrking Of a silnPle type and have been grouped intO end―
scrapers,pOints,
notched implements,burins,specimens with cut_marks and atypical end_scraper.JOglekar(In press)
has inade a systematic study Of the faunal assemblage and cOnfirmё
d the presence of shaped t001s
in the c01lectiOn.Thus the Kalpi assemblage represents the earliest known set Of ottectS made On
OFganiC materials recOrded fronl sOuth Asia.
労 ●●﹄ ｏ Ｏ ¨
Ｍ
３

Jurreru Va‖ ey Locality

9 rockshelter l cnl

lie

ゝ
L,r!r)i J;r
LeVe1 38 Leve1 39

Square N3 ∪nit 1/2

機
●
0 磯 0
負
S:「 tlltjin c

3A

Frc 3A: Bone and stone beads

from strarum c-yietding
9' Kurnool district, Andhra Piadesh; B: Bone,iarpogi microlithic ar_tefacts from Jwalapuram Locality
Pradesh (courtesy: crarkson et ar. 2009
ii"a"jrom L-ohand.a nala of Beran valley, uttar
and pai zoos,-*rirrrrrayr

1B
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYININDiA

' I
-, I
CM

4A

& t

Frc 4A: Ostrich eggshett lJpper Palaeolithic levels at Patne, Maharashtra' showing a
piece from
criss-cross incised desigi b"wr"n hoiizontal lines; B; Perforated and unperforatedbeads of ostrich
eggshett from the same levels (Courtesy: Sali 1989)

19

tF
ANCiENT:NDlA,NEW SERIES,NO.1

貧００ヽ．
中ｏ一 ぃい
ミ む ミど ・
． ﹄ｏ
一 し
く∽ぃ﹁︶︵
ヽ Ｌも一
一 ０一
ｂ ぃ も、 もロコ日 ざ︻ ゛島 ０︼ 一∪ 選場 ｏ﹁
［ ミ一﹃
一 じヽ 理てヽヾく ωミ一Ｅ ｐヽ いｏい理ヽ ωだｏ綸 一
ｏωＣ一 υ日 ”
〓も ヽＯＬヽＧミｏ﹁〓り ヽいミＬやド ¨
ｍ “ く崎 ︺﹄
く崎
“い

20
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYININDIA

8. LITHIC TECHNOLOGY

A. Improvements in Raw Material Utilization

Coming to the subject of lithic technology, a variery of rocks and siliceous materials were utiiized by
the palaeolithic and Mesolithic groups. In fact one could identify some improvements from stage to
groups
stage in the selection of rocks. Bruce Foote (1916: B-9) beiieved that the Lower Palaeolithic
occupied only those areas rich in surface exposures of quartzite. But this observation is no ionger
valid because we now know that the Stone Age groups occupied even areas lacking quartzite
and
groups' The raw
utilized locally available rocks belonging to igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic
and blocks from
material blanks of these rocks were obtained either as river cobbles or as nodules
dolerites from dykes
the actual geoiogical outcrops or veins. In the Deccan region basalt rocks and
are good examples'
were freely exploited. sites like chirki-Nevasa, Bori, Gangapur and Morgaon
and dolerite from
In the Bellary region of Karnataka, haematite quartzite from Dharwar formation
dykes within the Archaean granites were utilized'
In the Hunsgi and Baichbal valleys of Guibarga district, silicified limestone from beds
sorne sites in these rwo valleys
belonging to the Bhima series was exploited on an extensive scale. At
raw material at the site of
other rocks like schist and dolerite were used. Granite is the principal
was exploited in some parts of
Lalitpur in Jhansi district of Uttar Pradesh (Singh 1965) ' Fossil wood
eastern and northeastern India.
At many sites, e.g., Anagwadi in the Ghataprabha valley and
Durkadi in the Narmada valley'
cobbles and bouiders for flaking' But
the Acheulian groups occupied river bed gravels and exploited
were exploited at the geological
there are only a limited number of sites where the raw materials
site where a chert vein was exploited
sources themselves . ziaratpir shaban in sind is an Acheulian
example. It was a true quarry-
for flaking (Biagi et al. 7996). Isampur in Hunsgi valley is another
consisting of blocks of suitable size and
cum-workshop that came up on a weathered iimestone bed
shapes. It covers an area of three quarters of a hectare'
by flake-tool assemblages,
The succeeding Middle palaeolithic stage, which is dominated
witnessed a big change in raw material selection. While
quartzite and other rocks continued to be
jasper, agate and other siliceous stones
used in some areas in a limited way, chert, chalcedony,
obtained either as nodules from
now became the principal raw materials for working. These were
shows that the Stone Age groups
veins or as cobbles anilpebbles from river gravels. This definitely
the geoiogical sources of raw
now acquired a more intimate knowiedge of the landscape including
material. At some of these places extensive workshops came
up, which contain large quantities
in central India' and
of finished tools as well as flaking debris. Samnapur, Choli and Dongargaon
of such sites'
Kovalli and Devapur in Karnataka are some well-knovrn examples
Samnapurisafoothillsitelocatedsomel0kmfromtherightbankoftheriverNarmada.
deposit of chert enclosed within
Here the cultural level is associated with one-metre thick rubble
nodules of cherty
thick brown silt of alluvial origin. The Middle Palaeolithic groups employed
three thousand artefacts
quartzite procured from adjacent hill-slopes as raw material blanks' Over
and a small amount of fossil fauna were found during excavation'

27
 ANCIEN丁 lNDIA,NEW SERIES,NO.1

Devapur in the Shorapur Doab of north Karnataka is another large r,r,orkshop site associated
r,vith extensive high-level gravel lying about 12 m above the bed of river Krishna. This gravel spread,
laid down by lateral drainage in the early stages of the formarion of the lt-ishna, is less than half-
' a-metre thick and is spread over an area of 3 sq km. tt is made up of whitish/cream-coloured chert
pebbles and cobbles which range up to 10 cm across and rest on granite surface in a consolidated
condirion. These were exploited by the Middle Palaeolithic groups. An extensive workshop was
found 1 km east of the Devapur village. Over 170 fresh-looking artefacts were found from this
locality (Paddayya 1968: 29-31).
Kovalli in the Ghataprabha valley of Kaladgi basin is another example of extensive workshop
that came up on a raw- material source. Here a chert vein was exposed in limestone formation and
nodules from the vein were used as the raw material for fashioning a variety of artefacts (pappu
7974: 87-88). The collection from the site comprises nearly 2,500 specimens, all found in
fresh
condition.
The use of siliceous materials continued into the succeeding Upper palaeolithic and
Mesolithic stages, and basic rocks were now more or less completely discarded. As
in the case
of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic phases, extensive workshops developed at rhe sources
of raw
material. In the case of Rallakalava complex of Upper Palaeolithic sites in Andhra pradesh,
the
assemblages from Vedullacheruvu, Thimmayyagunta and other places
were found on eroded
surface of yellow silt. The raw material blanks of quartzite were obtained
both as nodular blocks
from nearby rock outcrops and as pebbles from river bed. Ail artefacrs were
found in mint-fresh
condition (Murry 1968) (Fig. 6).
Yadwad in the Ghataprabha basin (Pappu and Deo 7994: l-so) and
salvadgi (seshadri
7962) and Maralbhavi in Shorapur Doab (Paddayya 1968: 26) aretrue
workshops or factory sites
with extensive traces of working. All these sites developed on exposures of
chert in limestones and
the cultural levels were subsequently covered by black soil deposits.
The Maralbhavi site occupies an
area of rwo hectares of farmland; the chert is of reddish brown
colour and gives perfect conchoidal
fracture' It was later exploited also by the Neolithic groups of the region.
iuch sites exist in other
regions too, such as Bhokar and Inamgaon in Maharashtra.
In the Mesolithic phase, all these siliceous materials conrinued to be expioited
and in some
areas, like Bellary in Karnataka and Kerala, even a highly intractable
material like quartz was freely
employed' In the Shorapur Doab r,vhitish,/cream-coloured flanish chert
nodules from limestone
formations were preferred for working. The nodules found as loose pieces
on the land surface were
collected and transported to camping spots close to stream banks
or foothill region of plateaus and
hills' The Mesolithic Sroups also used dolerites from dykes or other coarse-grainecl
materials for
fashioning heavy-dury tools iike chopping tools.
The above-mentioned data clearly demonstrates several improvements
in the behaviour of
the hominin groups in respect of their understanding of habitats:
a) Abiliry to use a variery of basic and sometimes coarse-grained
rocks like granite as raw
material in the Lower palaeolithic stage.
b) Recognition of the superior flaking properties of siliceous materials
as against basic rocks
in the subsequent stages.

22
STttNE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN lNDIA

c) Improvements in their knowledge of the original sources of various raw materiais and their
distribution on the landscape; and
d) Ability to collect and transport raw material blocks from original sources to camping spots
covering distances up to 10 or 15 km.
餘鰈

淵 ︲
へｎ醐ソ

＆働ば
鶴

Ю
ｏ
＝

Cm

Frc tJpper Palaeolithic artefacts from the Rallokalava basin, Andhra Pradesh
6
(Courtesy: Murty 1979)

23
 ANC:ENT:ND:A,NEW SERIES,NO.1

9.STUDIES IN TECHNOLOGY
A.Lower Palaeolithic
Now let us cOnsider briefly some Ofthe recent studies cOncerning stOne tooltechno10gy of different
phases.Conventionally,the Lower Palaeohthic assemblages oflndia have been grouped underthe
Soanian and biface traditions.The Soanian was recognized by de Terra and Paterson in the 1930s
in northwestern lndia.On stratigraphical and typological cOnsideratiOns of stOne artefacts which
they had found On the Soan terraces,they put up what has cOme to be knOwn as the Soan culture
sequence comprising the pre― Soan,Early SOan,Late Soan and Evolved SOan stages.
Later the Soanian was treated as part of the chOpper― chopping tool tradition of east and
south‐ east Asia,while the biface tradition of peninsular lndia was treated as part Of the handaxe_
cleaver traditiOn OfAfrica,west Asia and vvestern Europe,Movlus Line formalized this geographical
and cultural dichOtOmy be● ″een theれνO traditions.Paterson and DruFnlnOnd(1962)even went tO
the extent of attributing the sOanian assemblage to a war―
like grOup and the Acheulian assemblages
to a peace‐ lo宙ng folk.
But the Bridsh ArchaeOb」 cd MiSSion's wOrk in the 198bs in the Pakstan pordon of
PunJab raised seriOus doubts abOut the identlty Of the sOanian both On stratlgraphical and cultural
grounds(Dennell 1995).The Mission fbund a flaked pebble and sOme other artefacts in a cemented
conglomerate occurring at the base Of a 70■ l deep gully at Riwat near Peshavvar.This site is dated
to l.9 million years(Fig.7A).
At Uttarbaini in」 anllnu,some artefacts Of a nondescript nature were found in sedilnents
dated t0 1.6 1nillion years. Pebble― t001 assemblages were obtained ttonl the sirsa and Ghaggar
valleys of Haryana, the Beas and Banganga valleys Of Hilnachal Pradesh, and the Hoshiarpur―
Chandigarh sector Of the siwalik Frontal range.curiOusly enough,bifacial assemblages vvere also
found in the latter area at lnore than麒 ″enty places.This led sOme sch01ars tO propOse co―
existence
ofthe Lν O groups in the area― the Soanian confined tO the duns Ofthe frontal range and the biface
tradition restricted to plateau surfaces(MOhapatra 2009).
On the basis Of a detailed study Of the stratigraphical cOntexts Of sOanian assemblages,
per PleistOcene.He alsO Inade a systematic study
:lillilylilllil:11:fli:Yttlボ i:￨ま 盤 3 of TOka.His lnain Observations are wOrth noting
(Chauhan 2004,2007).
The TOka site is One among a complex of Over● ″enty Palaeolithic Occurrences of surface
type exP10red by chauhan benveen 2002 and 2004 in the Siwalik hills Of Haryana,Puttab and
Hilnachal Pradesh beぃ veen the rivers Markanda and Ghaggar.It is located c10se tO the Markanda
river in the Si.11laur district Of Himachal Pradesh.It is nOt a single spOt site,but cOnsists Of a number
of occurrences sPread over an area of l sq h fornling part Of the Siwalik frontal s10pe.
The artefact clusters were lnostly fOund On sedilnents Of Tatrot fOrlnatiOn Of the upper
Sivvalik grOup.The tOtal assemblage consists Of Over 4,000 specilnens.This,in Chauhan's view,
represents various stages such as prOcurement Of raw lnaterial,平
anufaCture Of implements and
use, rttuvenatiOn and reuse, and discard. The assemblage is mostly based On the wOrldng of

24
sTONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDIA

EXPOSED SURFACES

,・
/ /

′ノ
′ ・  ︱   ●
//湾
「 ｀ ノ

慮」｀ :

Frorh rcrr lurtlcG!

Wtt λ
籠 岬θ
ttsm町 晰&て た ク
“Om詢 れ
蹴 観鮮鶴鰐蹴需嚇胤
,景
θ
Chα uhal1 2θ 4,resPCCtiν ely9
i“

25
 `1

ANCiENT IND:A,NEW SERIES,NO.1

tan^coloured quartzite cobbles and pebbles and there are indications that sollle vvere introduced
fl‐ om outside.
The large nature of the assemblage enabled chauhan to make a systematic study of typo―
technological features.His mttor COnclusion is that the assemblage dOes not fit either■
v■ th the
typical chopper― chopping tool traditiOn or vvith the biface cOmplex.Instead,it shOws a cOmbination
of Mode l and Mode 3(nake_t。 。1)traditions.He recOgnized six maOr groups of artefacts in the
entire assemblagesi a)utilized class(26); b)flaked Pieces(1,194); c)composite tools(564);
d)diScoids(21);e)choppers(628);O flakes and debitage(1,575).Some ofthe specilnens among
the utilized class are hanllnerstones showing pitting and bruising lnarks on sides Or ends resulting
臓om use as hal■ merstones for nake detachlnent Or utilization for other purposes like crushing/
cracking food items.The other specilnens in this group are represented by rounded clasts picked
froln streanl beds and used directly fOr scraping,chopping and pOunding.
The secOnd grouP,i.e.,cores,includes bOth single and dOuble platfOrm specilnens as well
as h″ O bipolar cores.choppers(628)form the largest category and shOw wOrldng on one or both
margins of the clast Or one or both surfaces Or practically a11 0ver lea宙
ng aside a small patch Of
cortex as the butt_end.Altogether eight types are recOgnized among these implements(Fig.7B).
The third category(discoids)cOnsists of specimens which are wOrked unifacially Or bifacially.
Composite or rnuitifunctiOnal t001s cOuld have been used fbr scraping,chOpping and Other purpOses.
Durkadi is anOther Lower Palaeolithic site which has given some useftll infOrmatiOn abOut
Palaeolithic technology. It is 10cated on a small right_bank feeder Of the river Narmada.
」Orgc
Armand's detailed wOrk here in the early 1970s exPOSed a c01lu宙
al gravel bed(1.2 m thicЮ made
up of quartzite cobbles and pebbles and Overlain by silt depOsit measuring abOut a Fnetre in thickness
ln lts eroded state.
The hoΠ linins used the gravel bed fOr Occupation and naking purposes.A trench lneasuring
ox6m wt tmm“ 占
n ie ravel h 1970フ L軍
『輩
The speciinens fronl the 10wer levels shOv、 red s
1盤:零 l誌錯:11里雷鼎硫
upper levels were found in fresh cOnditiOn. Armand recOgnized the existence ofぃ
vO distinct
traditions in the Durkadi assemblage,ソ :z.,MOde l tradition(designated as the lDurkadian)and
biface traditiOn representing both Abbevillean and Acheuhan facies.The arlefact types included
choppers,discOids,prOtO… cleaVers and handaxes,scrapers with five different forms,burins,cOres,
etc.(Arlnand 1980).
Rock shelter III F-23 at Bhilnbetka in central lndia,excavated by V.N.Misra beれ
veen 1973
and 1977,has preseⅣ ed depOsits ylelding rich Late Acheulian,Middle and upper Palaeolithic and
Mesolithic cultural lnaterial(Misra 1978, 1985:Alan1 2001).The tOtal cultural depOsit measures

山n
鳳 鍵 FttrT:_=蹴 im縫 糧 『 It榔 五蹴 熙 躍 groups,
The 10cally available quartzite blocks frOm the hills were used by the Palaeolithic
while the =意
MesOlithic Occupants employed siliceOus lnaterials like chert and chalcedOny.QuartZite
artefacts number Over 32,000 specilnens,while the chert and chalcedOny assemblage cOmprises
several hundred thOusand specilnens.

26
 ∽﹁０２ｍ ＞Ｏｍ ﹁ｍＯェＺＯｒ００く 一
I
I G

f- -------- - - -- -- - -'F -,

′アプ
″

Ｚ一Ｚ口一
＞
Layers 1 to 3 with microlithic
north at Bhimbetka III F-23 rock slrcltet", central lndia:
Frc B secrio n through rrench E-1 facing
*otrriit; ioyrr 5 with Middle Palaeolithi'c ntateriol; Layers 6 and /
with
artefacts; Layer 4 with tate Md.dti or
ipprr paloeolithic
ＮＮ

L"ii in artefacts (Courtesy: Misra 1985)

"t{an
 ハＵ
一
  く
1

11 \r'ffi.*

Ⅲ＝＝＝＝□
Frc 9 Late Acheulian hanclaxes and- cleavers
from Bhimbetka III F-23 rock shebet- (courtesy: Misra 1gB5)
 ぃぃ
． ９
﹄ 。こ     ２
一
驚 ∞α［ｏＬ腱ヽ ・
ＬＧ 掟嘔 ﹃
ゝ総選 ５ 一 一 くｏＨ ︺ ﹄
じヽ ミ、﹁ ≧ ¨
３ ｓ一
ｏ電 製８ Ｌ “ぃＬ ﹁︼Ｇ遥 ミ Ｅ ミ ｍ Ｅ ２
３ む電 Ｌ も 、さ］ “ むω一］
ぃ ヽ 斡日憔 ｔ ｕ 増電 ﹃
驚 ミｔ ↑
選罵 撻 ﹄ 一
く ｏ［
ｍ ｏ︼
鰤 :1 鸞凩 劇
Σ υ
断破
STONE AGE TECHNOLttGV IN INDiA
                                                              〇∞
・
・
ｅ ∞Ｒ 日 欄ミ ・
い ω
ミ ｏし
・ ミ ミ 起 ｏｅ ヽ ﹂ ミ 遅 ミ 日
を

﹃扇 Ｅ ミ む ぶ ミ 掟選﹃
覇ｏミ 〓 ど
鍮お4勒 dな∞
β成潟澄 ハ
滋2瑠噸ほ髄ひR

竜 崩 協 敷
西 漱 ご
=選

嘔
″
→

1馬

q
頚延三ア だ
藁感麗療画轟ミ
務 ←還彗 』
嗣
, t

瑯 ハ
周
ン
ぐ
ミ
歌露ヽ 口馬
ハ
、
0

m、
｀

市
―

館
漁

l TI島
F′

ヽ 住

_♂
『

…
型
l費
)mf玲 ゛
ー
ヽ
▼．
Ｏ Ｚ ∝回の ３ ШＺ ヽ
∽Ш 一 く一ｏ ｚ ¨卜 Ｚ Ш 一
Ｏ Ｚく
 IN INDIA
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGY

ZiarutPirShaban,inSindprovinceofPakistan,isanAcheuliansitelocatedonthelimestone
the working of locally available
(Biagi et o.L. 7gg6). It is a workshop site based on
rerrace of Rohri Hills (handaxes)' scrapers'
lithic scatter covered an area of 50 sq m' It yielded bifacial tools
chert. The upper palaeolithic
and hammersrones, in mint-fresh condition. This site also produced an
cores
assemblage evidence
recent work at the Acheulian site
of Morgaon in Maharashrra has produced
flakes' named
to production of Kombewa flakes (Mishra et al' 2oo9b: 126)' Kombewa
pertaining large flakes struck from
site of Kombewa in Kenya, are struck from the flake surface of
after the they are easily fashioned
and hence have two fracture surfaces. Since their shapes are regurar,
cores
into bifaces'uations of Karnataka have given us a better
at the site of Isampur in Hunsgi 1arlev
made it possible to reconstruct
of the Acheurian technology in India. This site has
understanding operotoire' sellet defines
technology from the point of view of the concep t of chaine
Acheurian processes
,It is a chronological segmentation of actions and mental
choine operotoirein-these words: system of a
of an artefact and in its maintenance into the technical
required in the manufacture the final stage is
raw material procurement and
prehistoric group. The initiar stage of the choineis
discard or theffifl'il:ff:,Hi; secror of the Hunsgi vallev,
was discovered
lfll'"*rn*esrern
much of the 1'5 to 2 m
Department had quarried away
in 1983 when the government's trrigation
debris including raw
thickbrown/blacksiltoveriyingtheculturallevel(Fig'12).Subsequentlandmodificationactivities
red to increased exposure of both finished tools and flaking
and soil erosion of systematic surface studies
flakes and chips. Five seasons
material brocks, cores, hammerstones,
andexcavation(1997-2001)andadetailedexaminationofgeoarchaeologicalfeaturesofthe
material (paddayya 2001, 2OO7a;Paddayya
et
Acheulian culturar
surrounding area reveared in situ
aL 2000' 2006)atigraphical in ot*l.u:L:Tt"y"'"::H:::l::li:t
cuttings measuring 6 t:1 sq m
of a hectare and was associated
covers an area of three quarters
in the area reveared that the site
withaweatheredoutcropofsilicifiedlimestone'made*portriangular'rectangularandsquarish
(Fig. 13)' These blocks were an
10 to 12 cm in thickness and 30 to 50 cm across
biocks measuring the edge of a 2
close to
hominin frourr, as was the rocation of the spot
atrraction to the Acheulian spot also provides
which p-uuuty herd a perenniar body of water. This
to 3 m deep palaeochannel of game as well
surrounding plua"* and ttre valley floor and the movement
an exceilent view of the
u'no*Ti;.-,:H'^:.ifi:[iT:1'.ils (coverins a total area or 15e sq m) were excavared ar the
matrix of brownish
site. These exposed a 20 to 30 cm
thick Acheurian revel in a well-cemented
reft behind after
by 10 to 50 cm thick recently reworked so* overburden,
carcareous s*t, overlain
soilquarryingbythegovernment,slrrigationDepartment.Allthesestudieswarrantthefollowing
observations about the site: trial
obtained from plotting of all surface features and
of information
a) On the basis I to fD were recognized at the
pits, four dense patches (called Sub-localities

31
 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1

site. These consisted of cultural material comprising limestone blocks, cores,

finished tools, debitage, and hammerstones of chert, basalt and quartzite collected
from the viciniry of the site. The sub-localities are separated from each other by
diffuse scatters of lithics.
b) The area was a major quarry-cum-workshop geared to the exploitation of a weathered
bed of silicified limestone comprising blocks of various shapes and sizes well suited to the
needs of hominin groups.
c) The excavated trenches also yielded small quantities of fossilized dental and bone remains
of bovids and cervids and one piece of tortoise shell. This clearly shows that the site was
also used for occupation and food processing and consumption.

In Sub-locality II, the excavated area (Trench 1) measured 70 sq m in extent, and within
this area, seven chipping clusters, each measuring 6 to 8 sq m in extent, were identified and
carefully plotted.
Trench 2 is located in the southern part of the site. It exposed a secondary deposit eroded
from upper part of the site by a shallow overland water channel formed subsequent to quarrying of
silt from the area. No artefacts were collected from here.
Trench 3, situated in Sub-locality III, measured 7 x 6 m. It exposed 20 to 30 cm thick
Acheulian level below 20 to 50 cm thick black silt. It yielded a total assemblage of 1,420 artefacts
grouped under sir classes: shaped tools (54); cores (91); flakes (384); modified/utilized pieces (6);
and debitage (885). The shaped tools comprise handaxes (5); cleavers (10); chopping tools (4);
knives (3); scrapers (8); hammerstones (19); anvil stones (2), point (1); and flaked slabs (2).
Trench 4 (4 x 3 m), located in Sub-locality I, showed 15 to 20 cm thick cultural deposit
below 5 to 10 cm thick black soil resting on the limestone floor. It gave an assemblage of 4,037
specimens comprising shaped tools (34); cores (26); flakes (84); modified/utilized pieces (18) and
debitage (3, 885). The shaped tools include handaxes (8), cleavers (5), hammerstones (9), scrapers
(4), knives (2), perforator (1) and indeterminate pieces (5).
Trench 5 (also located in Sub-locality I) measured 5 x 4 m in extent with a thin soil cover (5
cm thick) over the Acheulian level (10 to L5 cm thick). The level yielded 6,477 artefacts comprising
shaped tools (57), cores (48), flakes (183), utilized,/modified pieces (8) and debitage (6, 181). The
shaped tools include handaxes (26), cleavers (2), hammerstones (11), chopping tools (8), scrapers
(3), knife (1), points (3), anvil stone (1) and indeterminate pieces (2).
Trench 1 in Sub-localiry II is the main trench excavated at the site. It covered 70 sq m and
exposed 20 cm thick Acheulian level (30 to 50 cm below surface) overlying limestone bed-rock (Figs.
14A-B). The top 10 to 20 cm deposit in the trench consisted of black clay overlying 5 to 10 cm thick
(20/25-30 cm below surface) colluvial gravel lens of chert yielding Middle Palaeoiithic artefacts. The
20 cm thick Acheulian level was excavated in 5 cm spits and each level was point-plotted. In the
bottom plotted level (50 cm), seven chipping clusters, each measuring 6 to B sq m, were identified
(Fig. 15). Each cluster was made up of cores, large flake blanks, finished tools, hammerstones, and
debitage including chips measuring less than 1 cm, all found in fresh, unabraded condition. Each
cluster also had an arrangement of limestone slabs which may have served as seats for the knappers.

32
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDiA

目 Ph"ansノ 】
日田
【EIS
I Modern Village
I l vauey Fl● or >- Stream
① contour01eters A■ lSL) Acheulian Sites:
=== Rcad6 r EarlY -C SecondarY Site
‐‐‐‐口 DIarayallpEE蝉 ― 帥 軸 O Late a Non-Site
… r Q-F rilittr Fauna 'o Excavated
…__ Disい butOrl h」
麒 sprng i, -(
l(ihmete6
W Water Pool f*-.H
iChbalソ αllqytt Karnatα たα.Notc the
FIG 12 Disaibuttion QfAchculian s責 ℃S in thc Hunsgi and Bα
pltr(COurtcsyf Paddり α2θθl)
cillsttring c∫ sites rlecLr ILInSgiと rld lledけα

33
 ANCIENT IND:A,NEW SERIES,NO.1

Fり ι

ゝ:
ら

機
●

●.
■
0“

´」

ag● И2
"“
参" FAR―
,ハ

暉A.4

﹂﹂
““ …

口
・
７﹁
:liIヽ
口
・ "

一 ヽ

f F

"
即
∵器瑞 餞_ まよ 罐
￨□
Z" 彎‐ " /

●.
tcnc● _sc wr"
“
・ ′
卜 ・
1夕
□
“
".
,

ZI rn rpn,rru.,a r cFrcc cc crcBrcoe6

El ,*-,-ur.r c @E a,oJ Flr.c cutrH
06 oarf,Iaf! O rc.ora*er x Lr€tB.Ex[tqfl
ISAMPUR 1998 ura€*fiotaE
F
ca
Fl.rXE
oiatroq(
Cfl! CTCFI HL.€l6fO|.G
Ht r-ratlocl{r.rEt8ru{E
o cHaI rcqrr xx xwE
0 ro. ta Ers{tluratEmrf c' CtOPft(ITOOt
r l.srl.t t oo(

FIc13 Site map of Isampur in Hunsgi valley, Karnatakg showing surface distribution of raw
material blocks and Acheulian artefacts found on limestone bed (Courtesy: padd.ayya 200g)

34
SC

alq uo pasodxa uoo{ Sutddtqt

Gooz offoppo4 :isa1mo2) 7a^al u) 0g
dn-aso11 :g :ndtunsl lD f q)uaq ut tpdap w) 09
p pasodxa p^al uDllnaq'y :VtI DIC
atp lo auo lo

矛
・
デ一

ゝ
一
、ル一

∀ICNI NI人 0010NHЭ ヨ■ヨ0∀ ヨNO■ S

 む ＱＱ﹃ もぃ０ ヽヽＧヽ 甍けミ ﹄ ｏｏ︺ ﹄ こ 幽超 ﹃ 電 Ｓ と だ﹃電 ‘ 勢 ﹁
ミ × Φ一にも﹃
︻３ 電 く 日 ｏｏ崎 ミ 匈だ０ でお いミ ０“ミ ﹄魯 ミｏ“だ﹃ ミｏミ∽騨り
ヽく め ［ 〇︼
ANC:ENTIND:A,NEW SER:ES,NO.1

Ｌ
，
口ＯＦ２８ｌ ・
［Ｏ］ 〓ｏ
９“ｚｏ
あ警〓 ︹
口 ］  Ｌ望
Ｓ、〓¨・
６［倒］
︲
拒 弩 羹 □ 言墨 醤 固 営 言 ョ ロ       Ｅ ｏｏｎ      ０
・
´    言 □ ２ ﹄要 萎 圏 言８言 Ｅ □
． ШＯくＬ∝⊃∽ Ｏ，Шトト０コＬ Ｅｏｏ崎
Ｅ ︰ ︰ □ 〓・・・垂 轟 □ Ｌ目 ︰ ｏ回 コ田 ＞ 四 コ Ｚ く 一
コ⊃ Ш 〓 ０ く
ピ８一 ここｍ□ ︺蚤コ・ビＮ
”ｃく
８□日  め ¨
２﹂Ｆニロ］ ｒ‘〓 Ｏ Ｚ Ш 匡 ト
０ ２ ШＯ Шコ 〇〇〇 劇〓０にく ２０一
卜く＞くＯＸШ ∝⊃ＬΣく∽一
，
ＦｒにだにＥｗ
︲

36
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGY iN INDIA

plotted level'
The assemblage from 40 cm plotted level, 40-45 cm digging ievel, 45 cm
13,043 specimens' of these
45-50 cm digging levll and 50 cm plotted leve1 comprises a total of
rocics. The assemblage consists
lO,g1g are on limestone and the rest on chert, quartzite and other
pieces (279) and debitage
of cores (1gB), flakes (301), shaped tools (169), utilized or modified
(15), knives (18), scarpers
(12,096) (Fig. 16). The shaped tools include handaxes (48), cleavers
(65), chopping tools (14), discoids (3), perforators (5) and others
(1)' The cores occur in various
stages of working. Noteworthy too is the occurrence
of steep-sided scrapers and perforators with a
zinken-like working end'
made it possible to identify
A careful analysis of this assembiage, including debitage, has
the various reduction strategies adopted by the Isampur
hominin groups:

a) suitable limestone slab pieces (30 to 40 cm long and 10

to 12 cm thick) readily available
onthesurfaceofrockoutcropwereselectedforworking.InsomeCasesthebiocks off
were pried from the ourcrop. These blocks were shaped
into cores by chipping
blocks so prepared flakes were
irregular projections from sides or corners. From the
detachedbymeansofunifacialorbifacialflaking.someofthelargeflakeswereinturn
used as cores for further flake production' '
b)Someoftheiargeflakes(20-25cmlong)soremovedweretransformedintoknivesand
chopping tools with a minimum of secondary chipping'
c)Insomecaseslargeflakeswereshapedintobifaces(bothcleaversandhandaxes)through
elaborate secondary flaking and chipping'
d)Thesmallerflakesweretransformedintoscrapers,perforatorsanddiscoidsthrough
secondary work.
2 to 8'5 cm in thickness' were used directly
e) In certain cases thin limestone slabs, measuring
chipping'
for making bifaces (handaxes) by means of bifacial
of Intertrappean chert'
f) The hammerstones (63) used for flaking consist of cobbles or blocks
isolated pieces both on the valley floor and the
basalt and quartzite which are availabie as
show pitted patches resulting from percussion'
tablelands. In almost all cases, their surfaces
i) above 4, 000 gm; ii) 1, 000-2,000 gm;
Fourweight classes ale present among these specimens:
ii| 500-1, 000 gm; and iv) uP to 500 gm'
g)Experimentalflakingoflimestoneundertakenatthesiteconfirmstheabove-mentioned 2009)'
(Shipton, Petraglia and Paddayya
flaking straregies adopted by the Isampur hominins
palaeolithic site in India which has prcivided a significant body of data
Isampur is the first Lower
source at a geologicar outcrop and the manufacturing
about hominin identification of raw material
From heie the shaped tools were being transported
processes adopted by them for various tool-types.
The occurrence of zinken-like perforators and
ro other locarities as parr of daily foraging activities. being
large, steep-sided hollow scrapers ,,rg!";
that a considerable amount of wood-working was
(Figs' 17A-B)'
preparation of spears, lances and points
practiced at the site, which probably included
Isampurhasalsogivenaddedweighttothelong-suspectedhighantiquityoftheAcheulian
the excavation
from bovine teerh found during
tradition in India. Three samples of enamel exrracted
Laboratory of williams College' Boston' u's'A'
were processed by ESR method in the chemistry

37
 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1

These samples Save an average age of 1.27 million years (Padd awa et al" 2OO2).
Some reservations
have been expressed about this date. Dennell (2009: 375) has called ir a 'rogue,date
as it strays far
from the known temporal spread of the Acheulian in the Indian subcontinenr (200
kyr to 700 kyr).
others have raised technical objections and pointed out thar the uranium uptake
of the sample could
be of the value of only 700 kyr' obviously, more dates are required
for setrling the issue or rrigrr
antiquity of rhe Acheulian in India. The Isampur date raises a possibiliry
which cannot be ignored
any longer, particularly in view of the propositions made recently
that the Achulian probably had its
beginnings in India itself (Mishra et aI.2009c).
our excavation and survey work at Isampur have also permitted certain
refinements in
the settlement system model of landscape use I had earlier
proposed for the Hunsgi and Baichbal
valleys' According to this, dry season aggregadon of the
hominin groups near spring-fed water pools
and reliance on large-game hunting and wet season
dispersal across valley floor and dependence
on wild plant foods and small game were the rwo main
annual resource-management strategies
adopted by the hominin groups of the area (padd
ayya 79g2)2. Ten other sites (many more likely
to be found beneath silt deposit) were found within
a radius of 5 to 6 km from Isampur (Fig. 1B).
These yielded a small number of limestone artefacts
similar to those r"""a i" Isampur excavarion
and probably represent the daily hunting-foraging
rounds of the hominin groups. Isampur served
as a localized hub for manufacturing and occupation
activities. Four or five such hubs could be
identified in the nvo valleys.
one of these new sites near Isampur, probably of
a later date, has given evidence of a new
facet of Acheulian technology. This is the site
of xolihal, lying about I.s km due west of Isampur
localiry (Paddayya and Jhaldiyal tggg).
This is also a foothill site where weathered limestone
bed once again served as the base for
a quarry-cum-worship' The cultural level
lies beneath black soil measuring 20 to 30 cm
The locality covers a farmland area measuring
in thickness.
about 100 x 35 m. Due to ploughing activiry
soil erosion, Acheulian cultural material comprising and also
30 cores, half a dozen bifacial tools and more
than 100 flakes, all in mint-fresh condition, was
found at this locality. An interesting aspect of
assemblage is that ail cores are of the discoid this
a\/ovalform measuring 15 to 25 cm in diameter
to 12 cm in thickness. and B
After regularizing the periphery of limestone blocks
by way of chipping off the irregular
projections, one of the surfaces is subjected
to convergent flaking or u Rattiri r.i"rra. art".
the surface in this way, using a flat portion on il;;;
the peiiphery as platform a fine flake is struck
from the flaked surface' This is the prepared core off
technique, foreshadowing the Levallois technique
of iater periods' over 100 flakes of this rype were
noted on surface at the localiry. These have
regular shapes with thin edges and were
used for making handaxes, cleavers, knives
implement types' Kolihal site belongs to the and other
middle stage in-the development of Acheulian
in the Hunsgi and Baichbal valleys (see Fig. tradition
19).
Another important outcome of the prolonged
research in the Hunsgi and Baichbal valleys
is the recognition of internal developmenral sequence
within the Acheulian tradition. A detailed
consideration of the stratigraphical contexts
of sites in both valleys, analysis rypo-technological

3B
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDIA

features of lithic assemblages obtained from them, and evidence of absolute dates available for
Isampur, Teggihalli and Sadab have made it possible to propose a division of the sites into Early,
Middle and Late stages (Paddayya 2008) (Figs. 16, 19-20).
Stratigraphically, the Early Acheulian assemblages occur invariably on bedrock (as at
Isampur), while rhe Middle Acheulian sites are found either on bedrock (Kolihal, Hunsgi etc.) or in the
overlying brow-n silt which is covered by black silt (as at Teggihalli). The late Acheulian assemblages
are always found in the upper levels of brown silt, as at Mudnur X locality in the Baichbal valley.
From the early to advanced stages, the assemblages not only show progressive refinement in flaking
techniques, but also record significant improvements in the shapes of implements and reduction in
their sizes.

Frc 16 EaLry Acheulian cores, flake andbifaces from Isampur excavation (Courtesy: Poddayya 2008)
・つ０
９
 ANCiENT IND:A,NEW SER:ES,NO.1

17A

0 5CM
17B
FIG 17A&B:罰 伍ck Pcrforα めr and s“ Ψ ― %m
sided concα ソe scrapθ ら respecι :ν cbち プ Trench l αιlsα ttpur
fCourた syf Pα ddara Ct αl._2θ θの

40
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDlA

ヽ.′

鮮フげ￨

r MODERI{VILAGE I -rcRtuLra,NLocAtlrv

LEFT BA:YK caNAL t ISAMPi'Ri

-."-*&Yntrpun
(.? cowrot|f,,(Mcters AMSL)' 2 tsAivrruR tl / lll
y'srnsAM 3 ISAMPUR W
/{ d KOLI,HALI
+JT] PLAT-E,AU EI,GE
I rcHsutLrrNoN-SITE
@ reu.rnonRAFrAGE TRAcr wrrE sILT covER

Frc 18 Map of lsampur sector of Hunsgivalley showing excavated site at Isampur in relotion to other
sites (CourtesY: PaddaYYa 2008)
・
４
 ANCTENT tNDlA, NEW SER|ES, NO.1

］ｃ ハ ︹ Ｍ 出
0s

Ｍ
CM

一
Ftc 19 Middle Aclrculian artefacts from Hunsgi and Baichbal valleys: discoidal core
and flake from Kolihal and bifaces from Teggihalli (courtesy: paddalrya 2008)

Frc 20 Late AchetLlain artefacts from Mudnur xlocality, Baichbalvalley

( Courtesy : P addayy o 200 B)

42
sTONE AGE TECHNttLOGY IN INDIA

Bo ⅣIiddle and Upper Palaeolithic

The number of technological studies dealing、 げith the lk/1iddle and Upper Palaeolithic Phases
is lilllited. As mentioned earlier, at Samnapur on the Narmada the Ⅳliddle Palaeolithic horizon
is asζ ociated■ vith a colluvial gravel forlning part of silt sedirnent(R/1iSra cど α[. 1990)(Fig. 21).
From a tOtal excavated area of 44 sq m 3,192 artefacts、 へ
/ere obtained. Using the chert rubble

gravel of COlluvial origin as a stable surface,the horninin groups brought blocks of cherty quartzite
from nearby hillsides as wvell as Vindhyan quartzite cobbles fronl riverbed.The presence of cores,
debitage chips and flakes clearly indicates that flalcing took Place on the spot.
The Samnapur assemblage allnost entirely consists Of flakes ranging fron1 5 to 20 cm in
length.1/1ost of then■ still carry patches of cortex on their dorsal surfaces,indicating that silnPle
hard/SOft hanllner techniques wvere employed.Hovvever, the edges are Sharp and show traces
Of honlinid use or damage resulting from natural causes.The assemblage also contains a small
yed for transforΠ ling flakes and blades
pl:p∬
:￨:::)L:131ilililili[麗 現
l:i:蝋 Iξlle_sided
empl° scrapers,end― scrapers,denticulates and

notched tools,points and bOrers(Fig。 22).There are alSO Some examples of knives with a thick
naturally forlned back.The assemblage lackS handaxes and cleavers.HoWever,these types are
presentin the lЛ iddle Palaeolithic assemblage from the rock shelter site of Bhilnbetka,also located
in the Narmada valley.
one ofthe interesting features noted in the Bhilnbetka assemblage is the use ofthin quartzite
slabs for shaping scrapers by silnple edge―
retouch(Ⅳ liSra 1985;Alaln 2001:15).
Atthe Devapur high― level gravel Site in the ShOrapur Doab,Chert cobbles iOm the high level
)f sirnple,prepared core and discoidaltechniques.
,and is totally lacking in handaxes and cleavers
)ha valley is also assoCiated with a chert vein.The
axes and cleavers.Flakes were obtained by lneans

of plain flalcing and prepared core techniques and shaped intO SCrapers,points and bOrers(Pappu
1974:89).
In the Deccan region,Patne has giVen exCellent evidence of local development froln the
Ⅳliddle to Upper PalaeohthiC and from the Upper Palaeolithic to 1/1esolithic.Careful excavation at
this site,located in the ttanta range of hills,exPoSed 10 m thiCk stratigraphical record(SiltS and
graVelSil落
晃 :Ittllil著
l:IIl」 fil署 s:lli輩
lil:IIirlT麒
111:l:1よ [l:￨:」 t:IT屁 :1『
:lil帽
∬ ∬Ⅷ 蹴;悧 躙 漁筆懲題Ettl∬:為 ソ ∬ぶ盤∬ぷ X
盤 冨翠
:蔦 ll:fili)普 ξ 1号 [il[1lCI::￨￨￨]illy:。
l character and are baSed on the working:f

lW暴暴∬
椰帯:肇 拙喜]榊 曇1辮I菫ユ
43

￨‐
 ANCIENT INDlA,NEW SERIES,NO.1

:7 :6 16 17 :● :9 20 2:

ヽキ
´ ‐
′ ・・ ｀ 、
、

・し
｀′
/り J＼ ヽ
￨￨キ t /21
ビ ′
_´ ′ 20
/´
ヽ
fヽ
・、
。ヽ .
ヽ
レ
.ム

/ノ
0(._￨￨11ヽ
イ/1
︶一
ヽ      ヽ

﹀■
／
:5

:4 ′″

13

由 γ/ ″
マ ニ
i
︷

1/。
教
︺

、
ヽ
ヽ
□

メ ∴ぜ・

￨
ヽ、．

＼｀
｀ 1＼ ‐
ヽ ‐ ダサ 2
、 、
・
・

。
、′ Ю

｀
ヽ
、ヽ｀
ヽ
、
`′

♀ :ME'lR J Y ヽヽ
′ ︰︲︰︲︲︲︲︲ｌ〓ヒ ”
﹁

RH^ N-0HAI.-/=;oA

ARsi“ GHPuR
“

O r‖ ‐ 32

FIG 21 COnめ ur mq)げ 読cAィ :ddlc Pα lα θ ο::ι たic si“ αt sα mnapurれ centrα I Indiα shο ″ing釘 たntげ
なたc site andのccα ναttd αttα s rcOurttyfル fお rα θ [α :.199の
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDIA

多
移
多

911… 1
CⅣ I

i〃

Frc22MiddlePalaeolithicartefacttypesfromsamnapurexcavotion,centrallndia
al. 1990)
(Courtesy: Misra et

45

― ‐一 ―
一 ― ― ― 一 ― 一 ― ― ― ―
 ANCiENTIND:A,NEW SERIES,NO.1

1:ギ 1主 lЮI主:■ 1■ 111111■

螢 〓卜一
工 c
!i, ttt : rrr -= tlt l ur i nt= tll = tlrr tri llt E lu E
hil: l|l= ru=|lt; rrralll= ril-: l[:lll:-ltl=lti

ロトく Ｊ
l= t,t : rtl:Iil=-lll:rt =-nl= lll

ＪＯ∽り〓

０一〓 卜 一ＪＯ∽ｕ〓
[,, =,,, trl -= ril= lnarr= Nl= tlt=l[=tu:rtl =llt:lll:
IB

〓¨  ０ 〇 一α ｕ Ｌ
= ut rlr
=,r, ur rlr!lrr-!nr!
f=,rr = = = =(9=u,
:,u =
hu = r,, = ilt Ul a llt=tlt=$r
E trr rrt =
: E lil E ltr -= ltt lll 3 t||
8- =lll:rttaulir
t$= ttr
=lrr =-
Il =- u, =til = rr sril= nt =$rgllr=trt!lll='r
ffiNcoNF,oR;4trl

０一〓 卜 一
/t, t. .., +lY /rl 3/ ,tt
"' ,,

Ｌ ∝くロ
6 # 't.
',:; -..,- ;- a.'ffi
.:i..:.,...'.:1
.ib -: -9,:".v.,'i:i':;

コ０ ●口
'., r^'
!,.i,' | :,9:,6.'- i. i,"-ro.,,..-.. : IA
-.o.
.-.:;I:'.'. ". '.:1: :; j.'.;::l
':i]
. . o..i D..--2P..... ...:

，
''.'...'A ....1
'€. .- '..1

)IE

０ 一〓 卜 一コ Ｏ ｕく Ｊく﹂
α ｕ ａ Ｌ ⊃  Ш 卜 く コ
6
ζ

01'″ =こ

０ 一〓 卜 一コ ０ 日 く Ｊ く ﹂   α り ﹂ ﹂ つ
口 Ｈ ｍ 刀 ∽

Qと
―
Z
/// イ
レ
_//7/// ″ ″ ID
ヽイ ー

一一

}Ic
  Ｏ 〇 一α 口 ﹂

￨
￨ ￨ ￨ ￨
￨ ￨ ￨ ￨

せ
ilitlllill]1611世 二彗tiど ,i彗
IB
∝ 国住 Ｌ ⊃ ＞Ｊ“くり
０ 一〓 卜 一ＪＯ ｕく Ｊく﹂

二:FLlll性
3 習 電lli=10i: 黛 島::

IA
〉
０ ¨〓 卜 一
Ｏ ｕ Ｏ 〓 く≫ ０ く
¨
  ０ 〇 一Ｅ Ｕ﹂

口 ＪＯ ● 一〓

I
ＪＯ ｕく Ｊ
¨
Λ︿
︵

一一﹃

︿ 
  ヘ

。く
Λ

︿
ヽ

Ｏ
Ｃ

Ftc23 stone Age stratigraphy and culture sequence exposed in the excavation patne,
(Courtesy: Sali 1989) at Maharashtra

46
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDIA

﹂    ふ
腑
鶉赳 編

一
            膨
一

 
Ｃ
Ｍ

Ftc 24 Middte Paloeolithic artefacts f-rom Patne excavation (Courtesy: Soli 1989)

47
 ANCIENT:NDlA,NEW SERIES,NO,1

赳闊緻３３秒
舅舅

ズ磋赳ポ〆
ぬＶ 写

硼 囲 鰐 ｙ
ヽ﹂ａ”
ｌ  ｔ

︶
﹁
      

９
鸞Ю
一

￨も
               

ｌきも７
︲
４

魃9
︲︲
２

:3

・
一
18
↓
彫
  御

__pM_
Frc 25 Upper Palaeolithic artefq.cts from Patne excavation

4B
 49
６
匁 瘍端仏 霧讐
ハ    ２
Ｊ                   ・
斃 鳳魃︲ １ ６  ５
同 Ｈ Ｍ Щ ｕ
１則
回 嘔 劉 酬
Ａ Ｒ 日
    ε   ω
                                               
︲
・
０
ｌ                  
´
上リデ         
亀酸曜
ヽ
繁   ヽ
鴨
α
Ｓ
鯉 鴫
︶ ４
︲
  Δ 日 目 割 ∬
                             
褥 Ｙ
イ ゝ ほ ｔ
趾 囲・Ｍ４ 範
購騨 嘲司錮輛熙υ Ｊ
︲下
鴻圏
３
暉
日目ゾ
陽
Ｂ ｃ
  ３３ 枷    
３         ７
＝１％
数
翻 整    ９７２
︲
肌  ¨
諷   ¨
ゐ 襲
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDIA

ｎ亜ｗ
ξ 輌＝
ｈ
ヽ い
︲          肝                           ６    
     
ｉ
留 田ヮ     ▲ 鯛 隠 翻 闘 題 Ｊ
      １
﹁劇 ＝ 川 ＝ ＝ ＝ Ｕ
一
魁彊Ｚ躍 ２
Ｇ
Ｆ
 ANCIENT:NDIA,NEW SER:ES,NO.1

Phases C to E represent a late stage and are marked by the use of chalcedony and occurrence of a
variety of backed tools on blades. The use of chalcedony continues inro the Mesolithic period. In
addition to backed tools such as backed, truncated and penknife blades, crescents and backed points,
, geometric forms such as trapezes and triangles make an appearance no!v. Patne thus constitutes an
excellent case study for understanding cultural transitions in the later part r:f the lndian Stone Age.
Maralbhavi is an open air workshop which developed on a cherr vein in limestone formation
forming part of plateau surface enclosing the Hunsgi valley. The handy chert nodules were
transformed into cylindrical cores for blade production. As compared to sites like patne, blades
are larger in size and are also cruder in workmanship. The types include simple blades, retouched
blades, scraPers and points. Backed tools are practically absenr in the assemblage (paddayya
1968:
73-7s).
vodikalu in the Gunjana valley of Cuddapah district in Andhra pradesh is another example
of
extensive Upper Palaeolithic workshop-cum-occupation site (Raju 19BB: 46-52).
The main localiry
covers an area of 340 x 180 m of land now brought under cultivation and the
artefact clusters occur
on red loam surface- Excavation exposed the main culrural level at a depth
of 140 to 190 cm below
surface. Fine-grained quartzite and lydianite, obtained as cobbles from
river bed and as nodules and
chunks from nearby hills, served as the two main types of raw marerial for
working. The Vodikalu
assemblages are extremely rich and are based on blade technology.
Baghor I on the river Son has produced a very developed Late palaeolithic
assemblage with
refined blade technology and reduced sizes of implements. It clearly
foreshador,vs the succeeding
Mesolithic stage. This is an extensive and rich occupation-cum-workshop
site (Kenoyer et al. 79g3).
The cultural level is associated with grey-black clay and lies
at a depth of 20 cm beiow surface. The
excavation covered an area of 717 sq m and exposed a large amount
of artefactual material made
of chert and other siliceous materiais. The assemblage is based on
developed blade technology and
consists of various backed blade types, triangles, points, etc.
The volume Indian prehistory: 1980,
edited by Misra and Pal (7997), contains useful papers on various palaeolithic
sites in the country.

C. Mesolithic
The Mesolithic is based on the mass production of blades from prismatic
or blade cores. Bagor in
Rajasthan is a classic example of this technological tradition (Misra
Lg73).'rhe experimental studies
in the son valley have revealed that three techniques were probably employed
in the production
of blades from cores, namely, direct percussion, indirect percussion
with the help of a punch and
pressure technique (Goerke 1983). These blades are
then transformed into various geometric and
non-geometric forms.
Although the number of examples available to us is limited, it is
most certain that these
artefacts were used as insets for preparing a variery of composite
tools in bone or wooden hafts. The
volume Mesolithic lndio edited byv. D. Misra and J. N. Pal (2002)
gives a detailed and up-to-date
account of the major features of Mesolithic phase in different
parts of the country. In particular,
attention is drawn to v.N- Misra's masterly 66-page-long synthesis
entitled ,Mesolithic culture

50
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGY IN INDiA

published a
in India: Keynote'published in this volume. Likewise, Misra and Nagar (2009) have
comprehensive paper on the rypology and technology of Mesolithic tools.
Besides microlithic implements on blade blanks, the Mesolithic assemblages from many
sites conraining evidence of habitation also include heavy equipments like
mullers, querns and
used as weights for
hammerstones for processing plant and animal foo<is, and ring-stones probably
which are worth
digging sticks. There are rwo other developments regarding Mesolithic technology
on coarse-grained
noting. One of these concerns the occurrence of heavy-dury edge-tools made
rocks like dolerite. These tools comprise regular choppers, chopping
tools, knives, core scrapers and
of Keonjhar and
picks. These have been found as an integral component of Mesolithic assemblages
(Fig' 27) '
Phulbani districts of Orissa (Ota 1986; Mohanty 1989, 1993)

Frc27 Heavy duty artefacts of dolerite (1, cttopping tool and- 2, horsehoof core) from Mesolithic sites
of Phulbhani dittiirt, Orissa (Courtesy: Ota 1986)

51

￨
 ANC:ENT IND:A,NEW SER:ES,NO.4

Such artefacts also occur in small numbers at other sites in different parts of the country, but
have unfortunately not received much attention in the literature. These were obviously meant for
clearance of vegetation from camping spors and for preparing wooden implements and weapons.
The other important development concerns the evidence for high antiquity of Microlithic
traditions based upon the use of blade blanks. For a long time the Microlithic traditions were
regarded as more or less synonymous w-ith the Mesolithic phase which is dated to the first half of
the Holocene period. Then, in the 1980s, excavations in the Sri Lankan caves of Beli lena Kitulgala
and Batadomba lena produced microlithic artefacts from levels dated between 10,500 years BP and
36,000 years BP (Deraniyagala 2007: 56). Excavations at Jwalapuram Locality 9 in Kurnool area of
Andhra Pradesh revealed a continuous sequence of microlithic traditions dated between 10,000 and
35,000 years BP (Clarkson et a\.2009) (Fig. 28).
It appears that at Mehtakheri on the Narmada the microlithic traditions are even older;
luminescence dating of sediments (flood silt) has stretched their antiquity to 48,000 years BP
癬魏 ｆ
(Mishra et al.20O9a).

Scrapers

￨ ￨
Ｄ

LIII鷺 饉麗
ｋ Ｄ ｌ Ｆ Ｉ Ｐ
一

T'---r

Burins
趙Ｈゝ

Ftc 28 Microlithic artefacts from Jwalapuram Locality 9, Kurnool district, Andhra prad.esh
(Courtesy: Clarkson et al. 2009)

52
sTONE ACE TECHNOLOGYIN INDIA

IO. GENERaL ?RENDS

ourrevier,vofevidencepertainingto:a)knowledgeofsources,propertiesandrrtilizationofraw loses its

hominins; and b) improvements in the rearms of technorogy and rypoiogy
ilarerials by the
the implications of these advances
in terms of overarl development
significance if we fail to realize
of Prehisto||nffifftt<orr*ur, between means or tools and
one could see a ciose rerationship
intensity of landscape
production on the one hand and rife processes and .ru,r." and
techniques of the recovery of a large
other. vvhiie admitting that eiaborate statements must await
use on the already some general trends
could be
prehistoric sites, I feel that
body of organic remains from
recognized ---:^- ^F -o.nr oraqc our knowledge, the Lower
Aq Der
Letusfirstconsidertheaspectofoccupationofnewareas.Asperourkn some
in certain basin-like topographic seffings'
palaeorithic sites by and rarge occur as cluste* viz' the
that the major sedimentary basins of peninsular India'
years ago t<orisettai iioo+r
p-.opor.d
cuddapai' Katadgi basins dating
Bastar, Prurruhitu-Godavari,
vindhyachal, chattisgarh, 'h1T,".und
zones oi palaeolithic settlement'
These zones
were the core or preferred
to the proterozoic period, ro,ligl:availabiliry of a variety
advantages such as basin-shaped topograpnl.
obviously held many perennial water springs' and
for toor-making, presence of caves and rock sheiters,
of suitabre rocks
thickcoverofUio*"supportingtittt*itafifeandplantfoods'
one but conveys a sense of
geographical determinism'
is a useful
so Korisettar's proposition areas covered by the
First, prehistoric sites are ,rot forrra a,' over the
It ca,s for some crarifications. in them much iater'
but are concentrated in valleys of erosional 0rigin formed
purana formations
occupied by the Archaean
rocks (granites and
also occur in areas
secondly, such erosional basins also' intensively occupied
by
and siwalik formatioris. These basins were
gneisses), u"..u.,iura1ts Archaean zone of
copper mountain south of Bellary town in the
the stone Age groups , ..g.,the
Karnataka,andtheupperBhimabasinandPatnevalleyintheDeccanbasaltzone.
Regionalsurveysclearlypointtobothanincreaseinthenumberofsitesfromphaseto
extent covering new tracts
of landscape'
widening of their spatial
phase within u gir"., ,r"u u.rd
a sq km, the
b-asin which an area of more than 5,000
sedimentary
For example, in the Bhima -clvers occupying only a small
restricted to the Hr.rrgi and Baichbar erosional valleys
Acheurian sites are Middle palaeolithic phase, sites not oniy occur
But r.o* aro" su-cceeding
area of about 500 sq km.
found in thof"",',lii'""1 onit'1 tablelands made up of
profusely in the valleys, but are atso :lO on chert veins
the Maralbhavi and Salvadgi workshops are l0cated
shaie and limestone. In fact,
exposed on$'i:;;1'J":; ^'
abiiitv to ::x:.t"T:ir",ili:iJil*ffi;:ffi:
-ex9]oit :t1"":'1' of flake-tools which faciiitates
urra purtty facrlitated by the smurl"r size
nodures or as river cobbles palaeolithic groups began to
distances from original sources, the Middle
their transport for some the
example' the i^"a of about 100 km between
basin tracts' For
colonize areas between "t"tthparaeorithic sites but has
is free rro* io*"r
yielded
grrimu basins ir, ,ro.tn rurnataka become more
Kaladgi and come to the Ivlesolithic stage, sites
palaeorithic and later sites. when we
many Middre zones hold no
terrains including hilly and forested tracts and coastal
common and even difficult
つ０
Ｌ０

rr ll I ,f
 ANCIENT iND:A,NEW SER:ES,NO.1

bar. Thus the Stone Age r:ccupation of the Indian landscape not only became regionaily intensive
but also laterally ertensive.
Secondly, there are some indications that refinements in technology iacilitated improvements
in subsistence practices. In this connection we need to note that, contrary to long-held views about
Early Man having been a mighty hunter, taphonomical studies of faunal materials from Olduvai
Gorge and other early sites have revealed that much of this bone material represents the remains
of skeletal Parts scavenged from death or kill-cum-consumption spots of carnivorous animals (e.g.
Binford 7982).
Some of the excavated Acheulian and Middle Palaeolithic sites in India such as Isampur,
Attirampakkam and Samnapur have produced small quantities of faunal remains along with cultural
material. These bones represent wild cartle, horse, elephant, and deerlantelope species. At some of
the non-sites such as Hebbal Buzurg, Teggihalli, and Yediyapur XII in Hunsgi and Baichbal valleys
the faunal material is associated with small inventories of cutting tools like kniyes, cleavers and
handaxes, thereby suSSesting that meat-processing was taking place at these spots. Some
of the
bones from sites in Hunsgi and Baichbal valleys bear taphonomic marks of cutting
and chopping.
while for want of direct evidence, we cannot ascertain the nature of hunting methods adoptea
uy
the hominins, it is clear that some amount of meat was derived from large mammals including
scavenged items from animal kill-cum-consumption sites.
The faunal material is much better represented from the succeeding Upper palaeolithic
phase' As menrioned earlier, Bruce Foote and his son Henry Foote
recoveretl remains of mammalian
fauna along with bone artefacts form Billasurgam caves in Kurnool area. Additional
faunal material
was found in these caves by Murty and Thimma Reddy (1976) in their excavarions
in the ZOs of the
last century. Murry reported still more faunal material in his excavation
of another cave site in the
same area, namely, Muchchatla Chintamanugavi (lvlurty 7g74).More
recentlR Jwalapuram Localiry
9 excavation in the same area has also made known faunal material from microlithic
levels datecl
between 12 W and 35 kyr (Clarks on et a|.2009). Considered rogerher,
these materials represent
over 30 species of animals. Some of the bones show clear cut and chop
marks and signs of charring,
thereby revealing that these form part of meal debris. The animals
include large and small game,
birds and aquatic fauna. The principal species are nilgai, blackbuck, four-horned
antelope, sambar,
barking deer, wild boar, gazelle, wild oVbuffalo, monitor lizard,jungle
cat, turtle, erc.
Their exploitation for food by the Upper Palaeolithic groups would hardly
be surprising for
the simple reason that the Yanadis, Yerukalas and Chenchus living in these
hill-tracts ,iitt .rptoi,
these animals by adopting various hunting and trapping methods (Murty
1985; Raju 19BB: g2-
86)' The occuffence of backed blades and microlithic implemenrs facilitating the preparation
of
composite tools and recovery of two bone harpoon-heads (one from
Belan valley and the second
from Jwalapuram) indicate that projectile weapons were already being
used for hunting purposes.
This is further strengthened by the occurrence of tanged points of stone
at some sites, which could
have been used for tipping spears and lances.
when we come to the Mesolithic stage, the picture becomes clearer. Not
only is the faunal
evidence much more Prominent but we have evidence of rock art depicting
scenes of hunting and
trapping, fishing, and collection of wild plant foods. Faunal material
was found in excavation at

s4
 sTONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDIA

man.v-- habiration sites such as Langhnaj in Gujarat, Bagor and Tilwara in Rajasthan, Ulahadaha in
'lhe
rhe Galga valiey. This material includes thirty species of mammals, fish, reptiles and molluscs.
principal species include the chital, wild boar, eiephant, rhinoceros, gaur, wild cattle, wiid buffalo,
porcupipe, and turtle or tortoise (Clutton-Brock 1965; Thomas 7975;7996; Thomas and Joglekar
1994; Joglekar et al. 2003). Cut-and-split marks and signs of charring are common on these
bones.

Ar sites like Bagor and Adamgarh bones of domestic sheep/goat and cattle were also found. It
is
phase and
presumed that hunting and trapping were being practised on a wider scale during this
that projectile technology including bow and arrow came into regular use'
There are clues from both archaeological and ethnographic record that, apart from hunting
strategies was
of large game anci scavenging actMties, small fauna which requires oniy collection
yielded from
a regular component of hominin diet right from early stages. Isampur excavation
and Jwalapuram in
the Acheulian levels a shell fragment of tortoise. Baradomba lena in Sri Lanka
of both land and
Kurnool area have produced good evidence of mollusc gathering and exploitation
phase. As mentioned earlier, the
freshwater snails. The picture becomes clearer with the Mesolithic
excavated Mesolithic sit"s have produced remains of reptiles like
monitor lizard, birds, rodents,
fishes, molluscs, and tortoise. This is futly corroborated by the
ethnographic studies'
Work on economically backward groups of village communities and hunting-gathering
chenchus, Yerukalas,
populations of peninsular india such as the van vaghris, Pardhis, Gonds,
yanadis and Musahars has revealed rremendous variery in the small fauna being expioited by
these
and a wide variery of birds
grollps for food purposes - monitor lizards, ro,Lents, fishes, insects,
Ansari 2005)'
(Misra 7990; Nagar and Misra 1993; Paddayya 7982; Murty 1981; Cooper L997;
exploitation basically requires only
Much of this fauna is particularly rich in the wet season and its
collection strategies which even women and men can easily adopt. .
The exploitarion of small fauna was surely supplemented by
the use of wild plant foods'
Basis (1978), the late David
In a very illuminating study entiried Mesolithic Europe: The Economic
having been a major part of
clarke raised objections to the long-held views about meat component
rhe prehistoric diet in Europe. He poinred out rhar the
post-glacial Mesolithic economy of Northern
Already attention has been drawn
Europe predominantly consisted of a wide range of plant foods.
so harsh nor as extensive
to Kosambi,s observation that the Pleistocene in south Asia was neither
as in Europe, Further, based upon the practices still current
among peasants and tribal groups' he
roots, and leafy vegetables would
inferred that a variety of plant foods from the wild like fruits, nuts,
have been garhered by the Prehistoric groups
(Kosambi 1965: 34).
among various hunter-gatherer
The ethnoarchaeological studies carried out subsequently
made knor''trn the use of a large
groups like the chenchus, Yanadis, Gonds, Musahars and others has
in the rainy season' It is
variery of plant foods which, like small fauna, are particularly abundant
of life have now begun to
gratifying to note that traces of this component of hunter-gatherer way
and hammerstones found at the
be identified in the drchaeological record. Mullers, rubberstones
processing these foods' Recently,
various Mesolithic sites in India were most probably meant for
from Yediyapur Locality vI
such implements have been recognized in the Acheulian assemblage
(measuring from B cm to
in the Baichbal valley (paddayya 2010). These are oval-shaped crushers
17 cm across) made iro- p"g*atite slab pieces by trimming
off irregular projections'

一 一 ――
― 口
ロ ― ― ― ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 口 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 口 ‐ 口 ‐ ‐ ■ Ч
_‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 口 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 口 ‐ ロ ロ
 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1

r'vhich could have

These arrefacts show pitted or scarred portions on their blunt peripheries
resulted onlyfrom pounding and crushing of soft food materials like
plant substances (Fig. 29A-B)'
Similar stone implemenrs wirh pitted surfaces have been found at the Acheulian of Gesher Benot
ya,akov in israel along with carbonized remains of nuts and seeds (Goren-Inbar et ol- 2002).In this
(Artocarpus nobilis), awild
regard it maybe recalled that archaeobotanical remains of wild bread fruit
nut (Canarium zeylanicum) and two species of wild banana were recovered from the Mesolithic levels
(8,000 to 10,000 years BP) of Belilena Kitulgata and Batadombalena in Sri Lanka (Kajale 1989). It is
hoped that with the adoption of betrer recovery techniques such plant materials will be recognized
even from Indian Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites.

291'

298
Frc 29A & B: Crushers of pegmatite from Acheulian levek of Yediyapur excovation, Baichbal valley,
Karnatka, showing scarring and pitting marks around periphery (Courtesy: Paddayya 2010)

56
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGY IN INDIA

lead to
Kosambi correctly inferred that improvements in the means of production generally
su.rveyed areas
an upward swing in the human demographic profile. The data from the intensively
and Baichbal
definitely show increase in the number of sites from period to period. In the Hunsgi
about two hundred
valleys of north Karnataka, where I carried out field studies for three decades,
Acheulian sites were found in an area of 500 sq km'
lVhen we come to the Mesolithic stage, the landscape is so filled up
with sites that it is
good in the case
difficult to say where one site ends and another starts. This situation also holds
cases, population densiry
of many other areas in peninsular india. My estimate is that in these
increased from about one person per 2 sq km in the Acheulian
to about five persons per square
of the landscape's resources
kilometer in the Mesolithic. This obviously implies a better knowledge
and their spatio-temporal attributes'

11.TnSKS AHEnD
into socio-economic as well as
Lithic studies have inherent potentialities to provide fresh insights
this purpose oirr investigations need to
cognitive and other mental aspects of past societies' For
grapple with certain extra tasks'

A. Regional AdaPtive Systems

and typologies of the Palaeolithic and
Till now prehistorians in India have treated lithic technologies
now give serious thought to the examination of
Mesolithic phases on a pan-Indian level. one should
systems'
Stone Age cultures as intra-regional adaptive
WeneedtoseriouslyconsidertheimplicationsoftheoccurrenceofPalaeolithicand
valleys of
Kashmir valley in the Himalayas, dun
Mesolithic sites in diverse geographical settings -
the Gangetic plains, the hili-tracts of north-east
the siwalik hills, the arid zone of western Rajasthan,
forest zones of central India and chotanagpur'
India covered with tropical rainforest, the hilly and
cuddapah and l(ortallayar basins of southern
the open landscape of D...or, the Bhima, Kaladgi,
India,andcoastaltractsalongtheArabianSeaandtheBayofBengai.
these diverse environmental
we need to document the finer biogeographical aspects of
settings - their terrain features, presence
or absence of caves ancl rock sheiters' nature of raw
and avaiiabiiiqy of surface water sources' and
materiais available in the area for working, nature
animal foods. The techno-rypological aspects of
narure ancl seasonal availabiliry of wild prlnt and
assembrages of a given region ,".d ,o
be understood in rerms of these regionai peculiarities
rithic
alone can lay bare the extremely rich and interesting
in the biophysical environment. This approach
past hunting-gathering cultures of the subcontinent'
organizational diversiry that exists among the
the scholars of prehistory in lndia'
This is one of the biggest challenges before

57

1---
 ANCIENT:ND:A,NEW SER:ES,NO.1

B. Functional Interpretations
\n 7967 , Sankalia published a seminal paper in which he highlighted the socio-economic significance
of chalcedony biade assemblages he had found earlier in the excavarions ar rhe Chalcolithic site of
' Navdatoli in central India (Sankalia 7967). His trench- and house-wise analysis of blade rools and
some experimental work involving the use of blades permitted him tg infer thar every Chalcolithic
household at the site made its own blade tools and that these were very eflective in various cutting,
scraping and paring activities.
in another interesting paper, presented as Presidential Address of Anthropology and
Archaeology Section of Indian Science Congress held at Kharagpur in 1970, Sankalia emphasized
the need to adopt this functional approach even in Palaeolitic studies (sankalia 7g77b:282-97).
From his experimental studies, Sankalia concluded that handaxes and other cutting
tools aie better
suited for carcass dismemberment. There is tremendous scope for pursuing such
functional studies
of lithic artefacts involving both experimental work and closer examination of excavated
lithic
assemblages.
A limited number of microwear studies have been undertaken in the
country and these have
provided some useful clues. R. K. Pant's (tg7g) work on the polished
srone rools from the Kashmir
Neolithic has shown that some of these implements were hafted in wooden
handles and used in
adze-like fashion for cutting the sides of clay pit-dwellings.
Gurucharan Khanna (personal communication) examined the Neolithic
blade tools from
Khunjhun on the son valley for detecting use-wear marks. J. N. pal (2002)
made an interesting
use-wear study of the microlithic assemblages from the Ganga
basin. Arunima Kashyap (2005) is
pursuing a similar study of microlithic artefacts from Bagor
in Rajasthan. Many more studies of this
kind are required. side by side, organic residues analysis also needs
to be introduced in the country.
Identification of organic residues on stone tools can provide us
many vital clues about plant and animal
foods of the past - their acquisition, processing and consumption.
some years ago, a blood smear of
wild pig was found on a Middle Paiaeolithic stone tool from the
shanidar cave in iraq. Reved in et al.
(2010) have identified evidence of starch grains from
grass seeds, roots, etc., on the surfaces of Upper
Palaeolithic arrefaos from Italy, Russia and czechoslovakia.
In this connection, attention may also be drawn to a limited number
of morphometric and
statistical studies that have been carried out on the Lower and palaeolithic
Middle lithic assemblages
of the country (e.g. Misra 1967 Jayaswal and Pant 1973; Joshi
and Marathe 1977;Marathe 1980;
Joshi and Marathe 1985; sinha 7984; Raju 1985; Gaillard
etal. t9g6; Gaillard and Murty 19gB;
AIam 2001)' But it must be conceded that these srudies, while
they have led to some useful typo-
technological comparisons between regional assemblages,
have not given any significant inferences
about socio-economic and related aspects of prehistoric
societies.

C. Aspects of Non-Utilitarian Behaviour

Lithic technology also throws open the possibility of drawing
inferences about the cognitive and other
dimensions of non-utilitarian behaviour of the hominin
iloups. Bringing the principles of genetic

5B

―‐
STONE AGE TECHNOLoGYIN INDIA

epistemology of Jean Piaget to bear upon the spatial and morphological attributes of ancient stone
implementi, Tho*m Wynn (7979,1993 and 1995) inferred that the Acheulian Sroups possessed
cognitive abilities closer to those of modern humans. The work on the Acheuiian culture of areas
llke the Hunsgi and Baichbal valleys lends support to this view.
Recognition of features like the basin-like topography of the area, and seasonal and
locational attributes of surface water resources as well as plant and animal foods is a clear proof
of the hominin cognitive abilities. Wynn believes that the manufacture of handaxes and other
bifacial tools presupposes the use of four major components of operational thought characteristic
of modern hr*rri, viz., whole-part relations, qualitative displacement, spatio-temporal
substitution and symmetry. He further stares that these operations could also have afforded the
hominins competence to deal with a variety of phenomena in day-to-day life, e.g-, geographical
positions
space marked with hills, rivers and other landmarks occupying constant, measured
in relation ro one another, ability to serialize things, ability to create kinship systems and cognition
of causality.
like tool-
. Lithic technology also reflects sociality prevalent among the hominins in mattersrecognized
production and learniii and transmission of skills. The Acheulian chipping clusters,
in Trench 1 at Isampui, required the participation of two or three Persons for prying blocks
and reduction
from the limestone Uea, ieaucing them into smaller blocks, actual flake production,
give expression
into implements. It is also porilbl" some of the symmetrically shaped bifaces
cognitive, social and
to the hominin aesrhetic sensibilities. It is the interplay of these adaptive,
a stable way of
aesthetic faculties of Stone Age groups which not only enabled them to devise
biological and
life spanning long stretches oitime but also facilitatecl their evolution into higher
cultural stages.

D. Ethnography as a Source of Learning

While it is true that
Ethnography can serve as a rich source of learning about Prehistoric technology.
practise exclusively stone
India lacks simple communities like the Australian aborigines who still
outlived the Prehistoric
tool technology, it should at the same rime be noted that the use of stone
and protohistoric periods and continued into the historical periods. In
fact stone is still widely used
the use of chaicedony
in both rural and urban areas. For instance, Kosambi (7962:129) reported
plateau' And there is more
blades for casrrating rams by the Dhangar shepherd grouPs of the Deccan
to this phenomenon.
present-dayuse of stone in India is of three kinds: a) its use for preparation of grinding stones,
of underprivileged
rubberstones and hammerstones which still form part of the kitchen equipment
and images; and c) its use for
sections of the society (Figs. 30A-B). b) its use for preparing sculptures
preparing stone blocks
preparing stone metal required for road and building construction, and for
required for construction purposes (Figs' 31A-B)'
basically meant for
One of my recent papers titled 'Stone Breaking and Stone Flaking'was
first tried to draw attention
highlighting this ethnographic aspect (Paddayya 2OO4J.In this paPer, I
on account of natural
to the characteristics which one notices on stone blocks which are fractured
ploughing, river action,
processes like thermai fracture, roc6alls and rockslides, animal trampling,
etc. In all these cases the fractured surfaces are clean and flattish and do
not show any traces of

59
 ANCIENT:ND:A,NEW SER:ES,NO.1

conchoidal fracture. Features like platform and bulb of percussion are aiso absent.
At stone metal production sites large block: of basalt, granite and other rocks are brought
from hiilsides and are subjected to the process of fragmentation by male and female workers with
the help of metal hammers. In this rype of stone-working the workers do not aim at the production
of pieces of any regular shapes; their aim is merely to produce smaller pieces. So they direct their
hammers randomly ar the larger block without paying attention to availability of a suitable platform,
etc. The fractured pieces, while they are not as featureless as the naturally fractured specimens, still
do not shor,v conchoidal fracture sensu stricto and bulbs of percussion are generally absent.
At construction sites, where stone is employed for raising walls and also at sites where
skilled workmen shape stone blocks into domestic implements like flat grinding stones (pathas
in Marathi) and pestles, I have noticed a third process of stone reduction r,r,hich is quite different
from the two processes mentioned above. Workmen have the task of bringing rough blocks of
stone to a regular shape so that these blocks could be used for coursed masonry. Flaking is
adopted as the technique for this purpose; it involves the use of metal hammers and chisels. The
parent blocks are brought to regular shapes by slicing or flaking off irregular projections form
sides and surfaces.
Far from being a matter of delir,rring blows at random, this flaking involves selection of
suitable spots as platforms and directing hammer blows at specific points of impact. The resultant
flakes share all the characteristics of flake blanks we find in Stone Age assemblages. They have some
regulariry of shape and show platform w-ith a point of impact and a weli-formed bulb of percussion
bearing ripple marks.
The above-mentioned instances of contemporary use of stone serve as excellent occasions
for learning about Prehistoric stone technology. There is tremendous scope for pursuing this
ethnographic line of research (Paddayya 2007b).
We may conclude this rapid survey of Prehistoric technology in India by reminding ourselves
of Kosambi's statement with which we began. Kosambi clearly recognized the manufacture and use
of stone tools as the defining attributes of man and also the role played by rhese attributes both in
the process of hominization and in subsequent cultural history of man.
Seen from this point of view, prehistory and its principal data bank, i.e. Prehistoric technology,
are not mere linguistic prefixes to history but constitute the very basis on which all developments
of the Protohistoric and Historic periods rest. what I mean ro say is that not only lithic technology
survived into later periods but also hunter-gatherer societies themselves continued to exist either in
isolation or in a symbiotic reiationship with higher cultural forms, thereby producing a rich cultural
mosaic which the country is known for. But this is a topic fit for another review.

60
 もヽ ヽ も に りだ総 ﹃ ¨
ｍ
Ｔ ｏｓ一部こ 囃鸞 む 部Ｌ場 〓ｏｏ ﹁じｏＬ 囃¨り﹃ぉ 共Ｌ ﹁ぃ配
む ミ て いや ¨

￨
く 。さ ヽ ぃばヨヽ 属 “属 ギ δ ミ ωだ￡ ∽だも 、０ヽく ︻∞ Ｏ直

61
試 ﹄ だＬミ ω騨 ミ ∽﹄りヽ ぃだミ ８ Ｌ ｃ，ｅ 、υ贅むヽ 製ｏｏ冨 Ｖ ︻。一∽ ¨
８ ｏ属 財 ︺
だｏ∽ｕ〓﹂ヽい趙 ︺
く ［∞
ｍ ［∞
:
ヽ

ｏＮ ｌ ｓヽ
  ｌ ｏ
ア
_三二
ljl_J二 _二
に Ｏ﹃一ＣＬυ ヽωＬ、 Ｌりヽ Ｃ コ ∽¨暉”
０ば〇一
∽ 電だ¨
ｔ島。
選出 総¨
ヽωＥ禽ヽＥ中ｏ
¨場。Ｅ。Ｑ 一
ｍ
へ〓 ｏ﹃一Ｏω〓 ｏＯ ♂ Ｌ。Ｃ一３ ヽ︶
、 一 ｏ ”〓 ョヽ ば ﹃ “ だ ︺ミＬＯ、Ｐ ω口 ０一∽ 〓ＬＯヽ ０﹁く  〇 ∞ ０︼﹄
ぉ軍ぬυヽ ¨ば﹃ ０出υ∽
製もヽ ヽＬ。 鰺ヽｏ一 ミ ｏミ∽ヽ。曜型ＬｅＳ ¨
もぬ ミ“ョＯＬ“ば﹃ く ．
く 〇∞
“ 〇∞

`
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDIA

」
￨￨
〕
Ｌ Ｌ■
尋■ ■■■〓 Ｅ Ｉ 〓 ｒ
１
■田 ，
 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO,1

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the authorities of the Deccan College (Deemed University), Pune, for providing library and
other facilities. Sunil Jadhav and D. D. Phule helped me in the preparation of illustrations. Pratibha Hole
patiently processed the text on computer.

Endnotes
1
This is not to say that Sankalia did not attempt interpretative syntheses. On the contrary, as a sequel
to 1974 edition of Prehistory and Protohistory of lndia and Pakistan, he published two excellent works
of synthesis which are widely cited even today, viz., Prehistory of lndia (1977a) and lndian Archaeology
Today (1 979).
2
Somewhat similar seasonal mobility strategies have been proposed in respect of the Palaeolithic groups
of Raisen area of central lndia (Jacobson 1985)and Kurnool and Cuddapah basins of south lndia (Murty
1981), and also the Mesolithic populations of the mid-Ganga valley and Mirzapur hills of north-central lndia
(Sharma 1973).

References
Alam, Md. Shafiqul 2001. Palaeolithic lndustries of Bhimbetka, Central lndia: A Morphometric Study.
Bangla Academy, Dhaka.
Ansari, Shahida 2005. Ethnoarchaeology of Prehistoric Sefttement Pattern of South-Central Ganga
Valley.lndian Society for Prehistoric and Quaternary Studies, pune.
Armand, J. 1980. Excavations in Durkadi, Volume l. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Pune, pune.
Biagi, P., M. Kazi and F. Negrino 1996. An Acheulian workshop at Ziarat Pir Shaban on the Rohri Hiils,
Sindh, Pakistan. Soufh Asian Studies 12:49-62.
Binford, L. R. '1982. Bones:Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New york.
Cammiade, L. A. and M. C. Burkitt 1930. Fresh light on the Stone Age of southeast lndia. Antiquity 4:
327-339.
Chauhan, P. R. 2004. The technological organization of the Soanian Palaeolithic: A general 'typo-
technological' description of a large core and flake assemblage in surface context from the Siwalik hills of
northern lndia. ln lssues and Themes in Anthropology (Srivastava, V. K. and M. K. Singh eds.) 2g7-336.
Palaka Prakashan, Delhi.
Chauhan, P. R. 2007. Soanian cores and core-tools from Toka, northern lndia: Toward a new typo-
technological organization. Journal of Anthropotogicat Archaeology 26: 412-44j.
Chauhan, P. R. 2010. Comment on'Lower and Early Middle Pleistocene Acheulian in the lndian sub-
continent' by Gaillard ef a/. (2009). Quaternary lnternationat30: 1-12.
clarke, D. L. 1978. Mesolithic Europe: The Economic Basis. Duckworth, London.
Clarkson, C., M. Petraglia, R. Korisettar, M. Haslam, N. Boivin, A. Crowther, p. Ditchfield, D. Fuller,
P. Miracle' Clair Harris, Kate Connell, H. James and J. Koshy 2009. The oldest and longest enduring
microlithic sequence in lndia: 35,000 years of modern human occupation and change at the Jwalapura,i
Locality I rock shelter. Antiquity 83: 326-348.

62
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGYIN INDIA

Clutton-Brock, J. 1965. Excavations at Langhnaj1944-63, Part li: The Fauna. Deccan Coilege, Pune.
Cook, iill and Hazel E. il,4artingell 1994. The Carlyle Collection of Slorie Age Artefacts frorn Central lndia.
British Museum, London. Occasional Paper 95.
Cooper, 2.1997. Prehistory of the Chitrakot Falls, Centrallndia. Ravislr Publishers, Pune.
Dennell, R. W. 1995. The Early Sione Age of Pakistan: A methodological review. Man and Environment
20(1):21-28.
Dennell, R. W. 2009. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Deraniyagala, S. U. 2007. The Prehistory and Protohistory of Sri Lanka. ln The Aft and Archaeology of
Sri Lanka (Premtilleke, L. S., L. S. Bandaranayake, S. U. Deraniyagala and R. Silva eds.) 1-96. Central
Cultural Fund, Colombo.
de Terra, H. and T. T. Paterson 1939. Sfudies on the lce Age in lndia and Associated Human Cultures.
Carnegie lnstitution, *Washington, D.C.
Foote, R. B. 1884. Mr. H. B. Foote's work at the Billa Surgam caves. Records of the Geological Survey
af I ndia17 (4): 200-208.

Foote, R. B. 1914. The Foote Collection of lndian Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities: Catalogue
Raisonne. Government Museum, Chennai.
Foote, R. B. 1916. The Foote Collection of lndian Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities:
Notes on Their Ages and Distribution Government Museum, Chennai.
Gaillard, C., D. R. Raju, V. N. Misra and S. N. Rajaguru 1986. Handaxe assemblages from Didwana
region, Thar desert, lndia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52: 189-214.
Gaillard, C. and M. L. K. Murty 1988. Typotechnological comparison of twoAcheulian assemblages at
Renigunta, South lndia. Man and Environment 12:123-132.
. Gamble, Clive 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge.
Gamble, Clive and M. Porr (eds.)2005. The Hominid lndividualin Context: Archaeological lnvestigations
of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales and Aftefacfs. Routledge, London and New York.
Goer(e, Betty 1983. Preliminary report on the manufacturing sequence of blades in the Baghor tradition.
ln Palaeoenvironments and Prehistory in the Middle Son Valley, Madhya Pradesh, North-Central lndia
(Sharma, G. R. and J. D. Clark eds.) 241-246. Abhinash Prakashan, Allahabad.
Goren-lnbar, N., S. Gonen, Y. Melamed and M. Kislev 2002. Nuts, nut cracking and pitted stones at
Gesher Benot Ya'akov, lsrael. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sclences 99 (a); 2455--2460.
Jacobson, J. 1985. Acheulian surface sites in central lndia. ln Recent Advances in lndo-Pacific Prehistory
(Misra, V. N. and P. Bellwood eds.)49-57. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi.
Jayaswal, V. and P. C. Pant 1973. Statistical studies with reference to technique of manufacture of
Palaeolithic artefacts. ln Radiocarbon and lndian Archaeology (Agrawal, D. P. and A. Ghosh eds.) 38-53.
Tata lnstitute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai.
Joglekar, P. P. ln press. A report on the faunal remains from Kalpi, Jalaun district, Uttar Pradesh.
Joglekar, P. P., V. D. Misra, J. N. Pal and M. C. Gupta 2003. Mesalithic Mahadaha: The FaunalRemains.
University of Allahabad, Allahabad.
Joshi, R. V. and A. R. Marathe 1977. Correlation analysis of handaxes and cleavers and the functional
interpretation. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research lnstitute 37: 48-60.
Joshi, R. V. and A. R. Marathe 1985. A comparative study of metrical data on handaxes and their cultural

63
 ANCiENT INDiA,NEW SERIES,NO.1

(Misra, V' N' and P' Bellwood eds') 77-79'

interpretations. ln Rece nt Advances in lndo-Pacific Prehistory
Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi'
in sri Lanka:Archaeological study at thecave
Kajale, M. D. 1g8g. Mesolithic exploitation of wild plants
Ptant Exptoitation (Harris, D' R' and G' C'
site of Belilena. ln Foraging and Fiarming: The Evolution of
Hillman eds.)269-281. Unwin Hyman, London'
Lithic Technology 30:7-11'
Kashyap, Arunima 2005. Lithics in lndia: Current research trends.
Preliminary report on excavations at the
Kenoyer, J. M., D. Mandal, V. D. Mishra and J. N. Pal 1983.
and Prehistory in the Middle
Late palaeolithic occupation site at Baghor I locality. ln Palaeoenvironments
G. R. and J. D' Clark eds') 117-142' Abhinash
Son Vattey, Madhya Pradesh, North-Centrat tndia linarma,
Prakashan, Allahabad.
purana and Gondwana basins of peninsular lndia: Peripheral
Korisettar, R. 2004. Geoarchaeology of the
or paramount. Presidential address, Archaeology Section, 65th Session of lndian History Congress'
Bareilly: 1-40.
of lndian culture. Popular Prakashan,
Kosambi, D. D. 1962. Myth and Reality: Sfudies in the Formation
Mumbai.
and Protohistory in lndia and Pakistan
Kosambi, D. D. 1964. Review of H. D. Sankalia's book Prehlstory
(1963). The Times of tndia 13 October 1964'
Kosambi, D. D. 1965. The cutture and civilization of Ancient tndia
in Historical outtine. Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London'
assemblages. Bulletin of the Deccan
Marathe, A. R. 1ggo. A method for discrimination of handaxe
Cottege Research lnstitute 4A: fi2-116'
of recent absolute and relative dating
Mishra, S. 1ggs. Chronology of the lndian Stone Age: The impact
attempts. Man and Environment 20: 11-16'
site of Mehtakheri, district
Mishra, s., N. chauhan and A. singhvi 2009a. Earliest dated microlithic
of modern human dispersals' ln
west Nimar, Madhya pradesh, lndia: lmplications for the archaeology
Spin Resonance Dating (Abstracts), 12-
SecondAsi a pacific Conference on Luminescence and Etectron
15 November 2009, (Murari, M. K., P. Morthekai, N. Chauhan,
R' H' Biswas' D' P' Shinde' K' Nag and P'
R'Chauhaneds.)'PhysicalResearchLaboratory,Ahmedabad.
N. Rajaguru 2009b. Excavation at
Mishra, S., S. Deo, R. Abbas, S. Naik, G. shete, N. Agrawal and s.
In Recent Research Trends in
the Early Acheulian site of Morgaon, district Pune (2000-2007): A report.
R. Sawant eds') 121-137' Deccan
Soufh Asian Archaeology (Paddlyya, K., P. P. Joglekar, K. K. Basa and
College, Pune.
Mishra, s., c. Gaillard, s. Deo, M. Singh, R. Abbas and N. Agrawal 2009c' Large flakeAcheulian in lndia:
lnternational30: 1-2'
lmplications for understanding Lower Pleistocene human dispersals. Quaternary
of Allahabad, Allahabad'
Misra, V. D. and J. N. pal (eds.) 1997. tndian Prehistory:1980. University
of Allahabad, Allahabad'
Misra, V. D. and J. N. pal (eds.) 2002. Mesotithic tndia. University
Deccan College, Pune'
Misra, V. N. 1967. pre-and protohistory of the Berach Basin, Soufh Ra7'asthan.
V.N. 1g73. Bagor - A late Mesolithic settlement in northwest lndia. Wortd
Archaeology 5(1): 92-110'
Misra,
Bhimbetka, central lndia -Apreliminary
Misra, v. N. 1g78. TheAcheulian industry of rock shelter lll F-23 at
study. Ausfra lian Archaeology B:63-106.
Misra, v. N. 1gg5. The Acheulian succession at Bhimbetka, central lndia. ln Recent Advances in lndo-
pacific prehistory(Misra, V.N., and p. Bellwood eds.) 35-47. oxford and IBH Publishing co, New Delhi'

64
sTONE AGE TECHNOLOGYlN!ND:A

Misra, V. N. '1987. Evolution of the landscape and human adaptation in the Thar desert. Presidential
Address at Anthropology and Archaeology Section, 74th Session of lndian Science Congress, Bangalore.
Misra, V. N. 1989. StoneAge lndia:An ecological perspective. Man and Environment 14:17-64.
Misia, V. N. 1990. TheVan Vagris: 'Lost'hunters of theThardesert, Rajasthan. Man and Environment
15(2): B9-108.
Misra, V. N., S. N. Rajaguru, R. K. Ganjoo and R. Korisettar 1990. Geoarchaeology of the Palaeolithic
site at Samnapur in the central Narmada valley. Man and Environmenf 15(1): 107-116.
Misra, V. N.2002. Mesolithic culture in lndia: Keynote. ln Mesolithic /ndra (Misra, V. D., and J. N. Pal
eds.) 1-66. University of Allahabad, Allahabad.
Misra, V. N. and M. Nagar 2009. Typology of lndian Mesolithic tools. Man and Environment34(2): 17-45.
Mohanty, P. K. 1989. Mesolithic Settlement Sysfem of the Keonihar District, Orissa. Ph.D. Thesis.
University of Pune, Pune.
Mohanty, P. K. 1993. Mesolithic hunter-gaiherers of Keonjhar district, Orissa. Asian Perspectives 32:
B5-1 04.

Mohapatra, G. C. 2009. Aspects of Stone Age in the Punjab Siwaliks. ln Recent Research Trends in
Soufh Asian Archaeotogy (Paddayya, K., P. P. Joglekar, K. K. Basa and R. Savyant eds.)95-102. Deccan
College, Pune.
Murty, M. L. K. 1968. Blade and burin industries near Renigunta on the southeast coast of lndia.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34: 83-101.
Murty, M. L. K. 1974. A Late Pleistocene cave site in southern lndia. Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society 118: 196-230.
Murty, M. L. K. and K. Thimma Reddy 1976. The significance of lithic finds in the cave areas of Kurnool,
lndia. Asran Perspectives 1B(2): 214-226.
Murty, M. L. K. 1979. Recent research on the Upper Palaeolithic phase in lndia. Journal of Field
Archaeology 6(3): 301 -320.
Murty, M. L. K. 1981. Hunter-gatherer ecosystems and archaeological patterns of subsistence behaviour
on the southeast coast of lndia:An ethnographic model. World Archaeology.12:47-58.
Murty, M. L. K. 1985. Ethnoarchaeology of the Kurnool cave areas, South lndia. World Archaeology
17(2):192-205.
Nagar, M. and V. N. Misra 1993. The Pardhis: A hunter-gathering community of central and western
lndia. Man and Environment 18(1): 115-140.
Ota, S. B. 1986. Mesolithic culture of the Phulbani district (Orissa), with special reference to the heavy-
duty implements. Bul/efln of the Deccan College Research lnstitute 45: 47-56.
Paddayya, K. 1968. Pre- and Protohistoric lnvestigations in the Shorapur Doab. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Pune.
Paddayya, K. 1978. New research designs and field techniques in the PalaeolithicArchaeology of lndia.
World Archaeology 10: 94-110.
Paddayya, K. 1982. The Acheulian Culture of the HunsgiValley (Peninsular lndia): A Settlement Sysfem
Perspective. Deccan College, Pune.
Paddayya, K. and R. Jhaldiyal 1999. A new Acheulian site at Kolihal, Hunsgi valley, Karnataka. Puratattva
29:1-7.

65
 ANCIENT INDIA,NEW SERIES,NO.1

Paddayya, K., R. Jhaldiyal and M. D. Petraglia 2000. The significance of theAcheulian site of lsampur,
Karnataka, in the Lower Palaeolithic of lndia. Puratattva 30: 1-24.
Paddayya, K. 2001. TheAcheulian culture project of the Hunsgiand BaichbalValleys, peninsular lndia.
ln Human Roofs: Africa and Asia in the Middle Pleistocene, (Barham, L., and K. Robson-Brown eds.)235-
258. Western Academic Press, Bristol.
Paddayya, K., B. A. B. Blackwell, R. Jhaldiyal, M. D. Petraglia, S. Fevrier, D. A. Chanderton ll, L l. B.
Blickstein and A. R. Skinner 2002. Recent findings on the Acheulian of the Hunsgi and Baichbal valleys,
Karnataka, with special reference to the lsampur excavation and its dating. Current Sclence B3(5): 641-657.
Paddayya, K. 2004. Stone breaking and stone flaking. ln /ssues and Themes in Anthropology (Srivatsava
V. K. and M. K. Singh eds.)71-82. Palaka Prakashan, Delhi.
Paddayya, K., Richa Jhaldiyal and M. D. Petraglia 2006. TheAcheulian Quarry at lsampur, Lower Deccan,
lndia. ln Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard (Goren-lnbar, Naama and Gonen Sharon
eds.)45-73. Equinox, London and Oakville.
Paddayya, K.2007a. The Acheulian of peninsular lndia with special reference to the Hunsgi and Baichbal
valleys of the lower Deccan. ln The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asra (Petraglia,
M.D., and BridgetAllchin eds.) 97-119. Springer, Dordrecht.
Paddayya, K. 2007b. Lithic studies: An overview. Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training,
Kolkata. Occasional Paper.
Paddayya, K. 2008. Evolution within the Acheulian in lndia: A case study from the Hunsgi and Baichbal
valleys, Karnataka. Bulletin of the Deccan C'oltege Research lnstitute 66-67 (2006-2OOT):95-111.
Paddayya, K. 2010. Excavation at Acheulian locality Vl near Yediyapur, Baichbal valley, Karnataka.
Bulletin of the Deccan College Research lnstitute 68-69,31-69.
Pal, J.N. 2002. Subsistence activities among Mesolithic people of north lndia as revealed by microwear
studies of microliths.ln Mesolithic lndia (Mishra, V.D. and J.N. Pal eds.) 3'13-326. University of Allahabad,
Allahabad.
Pal, J.N. 2005. Palaeolithic art activities and their stratigraphic context in the \/indhyas. Purakata 14-15:
69-76.
Pant, R.K. 1979. Microwear studies on Burzahom Neolithic tools. Man and Environment 3: 11-17 .

Pappu, R.S. 1974. Pleistocene Sfudies in the Upper Krishna Basin. Deccan College, Pune.
Pappu, R. S. and S. Deo 1994. Man-Land Relationshrps during Palaeolithic Times in the Kaladgi Basin,
Karnataka. Deccan College, Pune.
Pappu, S., Y. Gunnell, K. Akhilesh, R. Braucher, M. Taieb, F. Demory and N. Thouveny 2011.Early
Pleistocene presence of Acheulian hominins in South lndia. Science 331 (25 March): 1596-1599.
Paterson, T. T. and H. J. H. Drummond 1962. Soan, the Palaeolithic of Pakistan Department of
Archaeology, Karachi.
Petraglia, M. D., R. Korisettar, N. Boivin, C. Clarkson, P. Ditchfield, S. Jones, J. Koshy, M. M. Lahr, C.
Oppenheimer, D. Pyle, R. Roberts, J. L. Schwennigel L. Arnold and K. White 2007. Middle Palaeolithic
assemblages from the lndian subcontinent before and after the Toba super-eruption. Science 317: 114-116.
Raju, D. R. 1985. Handaxe assemblages from the Gunjana valley, Andhra Pradesh: A metrical analysis.
Bulletin of the lndo-Pacific Prehistory Associafion 6: 10-26.
Raju, D. R. 1988. Stone Age Hunter-Gatherers: An Ethnoarchaeology of Cuddapah Region, Southeasf
/ndra. Ravish Publishers, Pune.

66
STONE AGE TECHNOLOGY IN INDiA

Revedin, A., B. Aranguran, R. Becattini, L. Longo, E. Marconi, M.M. Lippi, N. Skakun, A. Sinitsyn,
E.spiridinovaz and J.Svobada. 2010. Thirty thousand-year-old evidence of plant food processing. i,''rww.
pnas.org/cgil doil 10.1073/pnas. 1 -5.
Sali, S. A. 1g8g. Ihe Upper Pataeotithic and Mesotithic Cuttures of Maharashfra. Deccan College, Pune.
Sankalia, H. D. 1956. Animal fossils and Palaeolithic industries from the Pravara basin at Nevasa, district
Ahmednagar. Ancient lndia 12: 35-52-
Sankalia, H. D. 1963. Prehistory and Protohistory in lndia and Pakistan. University of Bombay, Mumbai.
Sankalia, H. D 1964. Sfone Age Tools: Their Techniques, A/ames and Probable Functions. Deccan
College, Pune.
Sankalia, H. D. 1967. The socio-economic significance of the lithic blade industry of Navdatoli, Madhya
P radesh, lndia. C u rre nt Anth ro pol ogy B: 262-268.

Sankalia, H. D. 1g70. SomeAspectsof PrehistoricTechnologyin lndia.lndian NationalScienceAcademy,

New Delhi.
Sankatia, H. D. 1974. Prehistory and Protohistory of tndia and Pakistan (Revised Edition). Deccan
College, Pune.
Sankalia, H. D. 1977a. Prehistory of /ndia. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, Delhi.
Sankalia, H. D. 1977b. The human and functional approach in archaeology. ln Aspects of lndian History
and Archaeology (Collected Papers of H. D. Sankalia), (Gupta, S. P., and K. S. Ramachandran eds.): 282-
291. B. R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi.
Sankalia, H. D. 1979. tndian Archaeotogy Today. Ajanta Publications, Delhi.
Sel[et, F. 1993. Chaine operatoire: The concept and its apptications. Lithic Technology 18: 106-112.
Seshadri, M. 1 962. Stone Age tools from Salvadgi, Bijapur district, Mysore State. Journ al of the University
of Mysore 21(2): 1-5.
Shipton, C. B. K., M. D. Petraglia and K. Paddayya 2009. Stone tool experiments and reduction methods
at the Acheulian site of lsampur quarry, lndia. Antiquity 83:769-785.
Singh, Rameshwar 1965. Palaeotithic lndustries of Northern Bundelkhand. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Pune, Pune.
Sharma, G. R. 1973. Mesolithic lake cultures in the Ganga valley. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
39:129-146.
Sinha, P. 1984. Stone Age Cultures of Satna District (Madhya Pradesh). Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Allahabad.
Thieme, H. 2005. The Lower Palaeolithic art of hunting: The case of Schoningen 13ll-4, Lower Saxony,
Germany. ln The Hominid tndividuat in Context: Archaeological tnvestigations of Lower and Middle
Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales and Artefacfs (Gamble, C. and M. Porr eds.) 115-132. Routledge,
London.
Tewari, R., P. C. Pant, l. B. Singh, S. Sharma, M. Sharma, P. Srivatsava, A. K. Singhvi, S. Mishra, and H
J. Tobschall 2002. Middle Palaeolithic human activity and palaeo-climate at Kalpi in Yamuna valley, Gangz
plain. Man and Environment 27 (2): 1 -13.
Thomas, P. K. 1g75. The role of animals in the food economy of the Mesolithic culture of western ancl
central lndia. ln Archaeozoologicalsfudles (Clason, A. T. ed.) 322-328. North Holland, Amsterdam.
Thomas, P. K. and P.P. Joglekar 1994. Holocene faunal studies in lndia. Man and Environment20:179-204.

67
 ANCIENT IND:A,NEW SER:ES,NO.1

Wheeler, R. E. M. 1960. Early lndia and Pakistan. Thames and Hudson, London.
Wynn, Thomas 1979. The intelligence of later Acheulian hominids. Man 14:371-391 .

Wynn, Thomas 1993. Two developments in the mind of early Homo. Journal of Anthropological
Arch aealogy 1 2: 299-322
Wynn, Thomas 1995. Handaxe enigmas. World Archaeology 27: 10-24.
Zeuner, F. C. Sfone Age and Pleistocene Chronology in Gujarat. Deccan College, Pune.

68