“Consensus View?”

“Consensus View?”

I had planned to discuss the Haslam et al paper on the “youngest Acheulian” but Dennell’s statement in his perspective to the dating of Indian Acheulian to 1.5 myr (Pappu et al. 2011) that “the Indian Acheulian was less than 0.6 to 0.5 Ma” was the consensus view is disturbing me.  “Consensus” means agreed, discussed.  I was not part of this consensus.

There are a number of issues—

1. Some people’s opinions are taken more seriously than others.  Obviously I am one of the people whose opinion is not taken seriously.  Pappu et al’s paper shows that my expectations of the results of further work were closer to reality than the “consensus”.  However my (now) justified interpretation of the data faced strong opposition and worse — ridicule.
2. What is the consensus view?
3. How did the “consensus” come to such a wrong view?

The first point is one I am long used to but the second and third have really been “bugging” me the last week.  I have been piecing together the “consensus view “ from the publications of Dennell-Chauhan-Petraglia et al.

What was the “consensus view”?

1. The Indian Acheulian was less than 0.6 to 0.5 Ma

This view is actually first expressed by Dennell (2009) in his book “The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe”, although he cites Chauhan’s comment on our paper (Gaillard et al 2010 Chauhan 2010) for it in his perspective piece.  Chauhan (2009 a & b) and Petraglia (2006) have not strongly endorsed an earlier age for Indian Acheulian, but neither did they categorically state that the Indian Acheulian was less than 0.6 to 0.5 ma years as Dennell has.

2. The earliest lithic assemblages outside of Africa are all non-Acheulian

This I have inferred from the papers by Dennell, Chauhan and Petraglia in the recently published book “Out of Africa 1” which I am reviewing.  I therefore had to really read the papers carefully.  None of the above authors actually makes the statement above, but all of them totally ignore the Indian Acheulian in their discussion of the earliest hominin evidence in India!  They concentrate only on the “mode 1” entities, like Soanian and Durkhadi-Mahdeo Piparia-Samnapur.  My conclusion is that their strong opinion that the Indian Acheulian is younger than 0.6 to 0.5 Ma is because they think Acheulian did not disperse out of Africa until that time. A basic premise seems to be that Out of Africa 1 is non Acheulian. This fits with the European scenario, but why did they apply it to the Indian sub-continent?  Although the dates are not very reliable or numerous all the available evidence was that the Indian Acheulian was older.

3. India was not occupied in the Lower Pleistocene as there are no Mode I assemblages

After making valiant attempts (really Chauhan is exhaustive!) to find “good” mode 1 assemblages in the Indian sub-continent and failing, Dennell, Chauhan and Petraglia each concludes, somewhat reluctantly, that India was not colonized in the Early Pleistocene or if so, only sporadically.  Explanations then shift to the unfavorable factors within India for early hominins…. Large rivers, lack of stone etc.

This view which I have reconstructed from Dennell 2009 and the papers in the Out of Africa 1 volume is surprising.  The actual evidence from India is so contrary to this.

So why was the Pappu et al date not a surprise to me?

1. I interpreted the absence of mode 1 in the Indian sub-continent in a different way from the “consensus” .  I explain the absence of mode 1 as due to the early presence of mode 2.  I think the first lithic tradition in India is Acheulian.  I don’t think it is preceded by mode 1.  I don’t expect to find mode 1. Since Acheulian dates to around 1.6 ma in Africa, it could easily be similar in age in India.  I expected it to be a similar age.
2. The Indian and African Acheulian is different from the European Acheulian.  It is “Large Flake Acheulian” (LFA). It is not about “shaping” but about carrying artefacts habitually (see my earlier post of the Indian Acheulian, link in references) Most probably this difference in the LFA from European Acheulian is due to it being older.  Thus while the “consensus” thought the Indian Acheulian couldn’t be older than 0.5-0.6 Ma, I thought it couldn’t be younger.
3. Pappu et al. is not the only date for the Indian Acheulian.  All the dating evidence indicates probability of an age similar to that of Africa.  There never is a last word in research and the dates could be wrong and some Acheulian could be young (even youngest), but that is hardly a basis to conclude that all the Indian Acheulian is younger than half a million years.

So how did the “consensus” come to that particular view?

Perhaps they will tell me in the “comments” section…

I think since all the other “earliest” assemblages are non Acheulian  and the only Acheulian site comparable in age to the African Acheulian is Ubeidya, they concluded that the earliest dispersal from Africa was with mode 1 technology and mode 2 technology is a later dispersal. I think the further inferences followed from this interpretation of the available data.

References

Chauhan, P. R. 2010. “The Indian Subcontinent and ‘Out of Africa I’,” in Out of Africa I, Edited by J. G. Fleagle, J. J. Shea, F. E. Grine, A. L. Baden, and R. E. Leakey, pp. 145-164-164: Springer Netherlands

Chauhan, P. R. 2010. Comment on ‘Lower and Early Middle Pleistocene Acheulian in the Indian sub-continent’ by Gaillard et al. (2009) (Quaternary International). Quaternary International 223-224:248-259.

Chauhan, P. R. 2009. “The South Asian Paleolithic Record and Its Potential for Transitions Studies,” in Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions: Methods, Theories, and Interpretations. Edited by M. Camps and P. R. Chauhan, pp. 121-140. New York: Springer

Chauhan, P. R. 2009. The Lower Paleolithic of the Indian subcontinent Evolutionary Anthropology 18:62-78.

Dennell, R. 2011. An Earlier Acheulian Arrival in South Asia. Science 331 1532-1533.

Dennell, R. 2010. ““Out of Africa I”: Current Problems and Future Prospects,” in Out of Africa I, Edited by J. G. Fleagle, J. J. Shea, F. E. Grine, A. L. Baden, and R. E. Leakey, pp. 247-273-273: Springer Dorchect

Dennell, R. W. 2009. Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gaillard, C., S. Mishra, M. Singh, S. G. Deo, and R. Abbas. 2010. Lower and Early Middle Pleistocene Acheulian in the Indian Sub-Continent. Quaternary International 223-224:234-241

Mishra, S. 2010. Review of “The Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia”. Man and Environment 35:119-122.

Mishra, S. 2008. The Lower Palaeolithic: A Review of Recent Findings. Man and Environment 33:14-29.

Mishra, S. 2007. The Indian Lower Palaeolithic. Bulletin of the Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute 66-67:47-94.

http://sheilamishra.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/question-3-indian-acheulian-is-large-flake-acheulian/

Petraglia, M. D. 2010. “The Early Paleolithic of the Indian Subcontinent: Hominin Colonization, Dispersals and Occupation History,” in Out of Africa I, Edited by J. G. Fleagle, J. J. Shea, F. E. Grine, A. L. Baden, and R. E. Leakey, pp. 165-179: Springer Netherlands

Petraglia, M. 2006. “The Indian Acheulian in global perspective,” in Axe Age. Edited by N. Goren and G. Sharon, pp. 389-414. London: Equinox.

March 2011: Epoch making month for Indian Palaeolithic studies—the Oldest and the Youngest Acheulian in the World?

On Friday , the 25th of March, Shanti Pappu and her colleagues (Pappu et al 2011) published dates for the Acheulian from Attirampakkam, – in Science. They used a relatively new technique of cosmic – ray exposure dating in which the time elapsed since the burial of quartzite artefacts is estimated. The results are stunning—a minimum burial age of 1.51 ± 0.07 Ma. This is supported by palaeomagnetic studies which show the sediments were deposited in a reversed magnetic field. As the Jaramillo and Olduvai events are not present in the section, the palaeomagnetic data independently determines the age as between these two events, and therefore older than 1.07 ma. This is finally the “breakthrough” paper we have all been waiting for, which will force a re-evaluation of the importance of the India in human evolution.

Dennell has written the “perspective” on the paper and he states that “Previously, the general consensus was that the Indian Acheulian was less than 0.6 to 0.5 Ma and was thus much younger than that in the Levant (eastern Mediterranean).” This viewpoint has been erased by this paper. Calling it a “consensus” view is midleading. It was never one that I shared and I first encountered it in Dennell’s book, which I reviewed, finding it a shocking misreading of the available data. I don’t think this view was shared by many other Indian archaeologists. Dennell lists the demolition of this “consensus view” as the major consequence of the Attirapakkam date. Three additional consequences suggested by Dennell are
1. The density of hominin occupation of the Indian sub-continent is even less than previously thought
2. Acheulian in China is no longer older than the Indian Acheulian, making it more reasonable to relate it to Acheulian
3. finally it is important to “find out what type of hominin first brought Acheulian artifacts to South Asia”

I would like to suggest some alternative implications of the Attirampakkam dates:-

1. Acheulian originated in India rather than Africa
2. Emergence of Acheulian and Homo erectus are related phenomenon
3. Out of Africa I predates the earliest stone tools, if it was Out of Africa at all

I will be writing more on the points above. The point I want to make is that the implications of the Attirapakkam date are much greater than suggested by Dennell.

Not only is Attirampakkam now the oldest Acheulian site in India, but it is also the best excavated and studied site. The Supplementary Online Material gives important details about the excavated assemblage. Inspite of the large number of artefacts (3528), complete chaine operatoires are absent. Large flakes of quartzite were transported to the site from areas of gravel outcrop kilometers away from the site. The giant cores are absent. A large number of small flakes are present showing that retouching and shaping of the tools did occur on the site and that these flakes might be tools in their own right. This fits well with the idea that the really important innovation of the Acheulian was the ability to carry things rather than the complexity of the tools themselves. A monograph on the Attirapakkam excavation is awaited and from the small sample of results in this paper, the site is important for much more than the dates. The importance of the date cannot be underestimated, but that it being accepted is to a large extent due to the meticulous excavation procedures which did not leave any room for doubt about what was being dated. Shanti Pappu’s achievement is all the more remarkable as she had to create her own institutional support. She has obtained the collaboration of the dating experts and seen that new and innovative dating techniques were applied to her site and the results published in the most prestigious journal. I applaud her as well as her collaborators for sticking with the problem.

The Youngest Acheulian? I will turn to it in the next post.

References:
Dennell, R. W. 2009. Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dennell, R. 2011. An Earlier Acheulian Arrival in South Asia. Science 331 1532-1533.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog

Mishra, S. 2010. Review of “The Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia”. Man and Environment 35:119-122.

Pappu, S., Y. Gunnell, K. Akhilesh, R. Braucher, M. Taieb, F. Demory, and N. Thouveny. 2011. Early Pleistocene Presence of Acheulian Hominins in South India. Science 331:1596-1600. DOI: 10.1126/science.1200183

Indian Stone Age Sequence Question 12: Proposed changes in Indian Stone Age Sequence

Indian Stone Age Sequence Question 12: Proposed changes in Indian Stone Age Sequence

As discussed in the previous post, an earlier expectation that the stone age sequence in different parts of the world would be similar has been shown to be wrong.  Europe, Africa, Middle East, Eastern Eurasia, SE Asia, all have quite different sequences.  Even if one part of the sequence matches (such as LFA in India and Africa), it is one match only.  Use of the same words for different things creates misunderstandings and hinders communication.

I have been struggling to come up with some terms for the Indian Stone Age sequence but I have come to the conclusion that English does not have enough terms to differentiate the sequences in different parts of the world.  The words “Palaeolithic” with two sets of prefixes – Lower Middle and Upper and Early and Late are in use in Europe and China respectively.  In Africa Palaeolithic has been substituted with “Stone Age” to form a different terminology.  Any combination of these terms invites confusion with the entities they already are assigned to.

I suggest we introduce some new words into “English”.  The term “Ashmayug” is already in common use in Indian languages for “Stone Age”  I suggest that this term could be used—Early Ashmayug for the Earlier Palaeolithic and Late Ashmayug for the Later Palaeolithic.

An alternative?—Early Indian Palaeolithic and Late Indian Palaeolithic?

Indian Stone Age Sequence Question 11:Comparing Indian Stone Age sequence with Europe, Africa, SE Asia, and China

Indian Stone Age Sequence Question 11:Comparing Indian Stone Age sequence with Europe, Africa, SE Asia, and China

Europe

The terminology we are using in India today is derived from that used in Europe.

However new discoveries in Europe have made this terminology virtually obsolete in Europe itself.  The major division is no longer between the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic but between the “mode 1” sites which are found in Southern Europe during the Early Pleistocene, associated with Homo georgicus at Dmanissi and Homo antessor at Atapuerca.  The appearance of Homo heidelbergensis along with Acheulian is very significant.  Although it was initially thought that Acheulian appeared first in Southern Europe, it has recently been suggested (Falgueres et al 2010) that the earliest Acheulian in Europe occurs in the previously unoccupied Northern region rather than the already occupied Southern region.  Despriee et al. 2010 date some Acheulian sites in the Loire valley to between 600 and 700 kyr.  After the arrival of Homo heidelbergensis and Acheulian in Europe, the trend towards the evolution of Neanderthals begins.  Neanderthal derived features appear in a mosaic fashion with the full Neanderthal complex of traits seen at least by the Last interglacial times.  The Acheulian now forms a fairly small part of the European Palaeolithic story and many researchers now place the Acheulian/Middle Palaeolithic boundary at the appearance of the Levallois technique during Oxygen Isotope Stage 9.  There is a lot of variation in the stone tool assemblages during this time with the Rhine river being a boundary between the Handaxe zone of NW Europe and the non Handaxe zone of Central Europe.  A number of non Acheulian technologies flourish during the Middle Pleistocene including LPMT (Lower Palaeolithic Microlithic Tradition) and the Clactonian.  The Middle Palaeolithic/Upper Palaeolithic transition is one of replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans between aprox. 30-40 kyr.

The current understanding of the European Palaeolithic therefore shows sweeping changes from that of the early 1960’s when it was adopted for India.  Without formally repudiating the earlier terminology or replacing it with a new one, usage of the terms “Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic” have reduced drastically.

Two surprises have emerged from the new work—the similarity of the European sequence to that of Africa, with earlier appearance of Mode 1 followed by Mode 2 but with a different timing , and the failure to substantiate any obvious inferiority of the Neanderthals with Middle Palaeolithic technology to the Modern Humans with Upper Palaeolithic technology.

Middle East/Northern Africa

The palaeolithic of the Middle East and Northern Africa is very rich and has been studied for a long time.  European workers in this region interpreted the record through a European lens.  Equivalents to both “Middle Palaeolithic” and “Upper Palaeolithic” as well as modern humans and Neanderthals were found.  A big shock came in the 1990s’ when absolute dates on “Neanderthal” associated levels in Kebara and Amud caves  dated younger than those with “Modern Humans” at Skhul and Qafzeh.  The association of “Modern Humans” with non Upper Palaeolithic technology, the replacement of Modern Humans by Neanderthals created a very complex story.  This has led to a total rejection of any link between ancient human “species” and any particular technology.  The situation gets more and more complex with the recent paper by Barton et al.(2009) reporting Aterian levels interstratified  with non Aterian levels three times in the Dar es-Soltan I cave in Morocco!  The reversed relationship of “Middle Palaeolithic” and “Upper Palaeolithic” and the complexity of unraveling which of multiple hominin species is associated with which stone tool industries has made this area extremely challenging to understand.  Suffice it to say that any terminology in use in this region 20 years ago has only survived with greatly transformed meaning.

Sub Saharan Africa

The Acheulian of Sub-Saharan Africa has close similarities to that of India and has been labeled “Large Flake Acheulian”  However the lengthy pre-Acheulian Oldowan means that the term ESA encompasses both the Oldowan and the LFA.  Thus India and Sub-Saharan Africa do not have an identical ESA.

Modern Humans are found at the transition from Acheulian to Middle Stone Age.  The Middle Stone Age in the African context encompasses entities similar to both Upper palaeolithic (such as Howieson’s Poort) and Middle Palaeolithic.  Thus using the term Middle Stone Age in the Indian context confuses the issue as NO example of “Middle Palaeolithic” stratigraphically overlying “Upper Palaeolithic” has ever been found in India.  While early microlithic industries occur in Africa, they do not have continuity as they do in India.

South East Asia/China

I have recently (Mishra et al 2010) explored the relationship between India and Java.  I have argued that Homo erectus in Java has LFA technology, based on the artefacts from the 1993 Ngebung excavation.  Homo erectus in Java is is associated with fauna related to the Indian Siwalik fauna. Thus during the Lower and Middle Pleistocene India and Java (and probably part of mainland SE Asia such as Burma & Thailand) had a Savannah grassland ecosystem, LFA and Homo erectus The “chopper chopping tool” industries of SE Asia and Java most probably belong to the Late Pleistocene rather than Middle Pleistocene, as is the case with the Soanian.  In Java a major ecological shift occurs, probably during the Last interglacial.  At this time fauna (Punung fauna) more similar to that of Southern China, with species indicative of tropical rainforest such as gibbons and sun bears enters Java.  Probably modern humans are part of this fauna.

Chinese archaeologists divide China into a northern zone and southern zone and have recently suggested that “middle palaeolithic” phase does not exist.  The terminology of Early and Late Palaeolithic is becoming accepted.  The presence of handaxes in some assemblages has sparked extensive debate on the relationship of such assemblages to “Acheulian”  Some cleaver dominated assemblages also occur.

The Palaeolithic on a global scale has gained in complexity with our increase in knowledge.  The stages, chronology and transitions between stages differ from continent to continent.  Dispersals bringing homogeneity are followed by regional differentiation as should be expected due to varied ecological conditions.  The Indian sub-continent shows two major continuous sequences.  The first is the Large Flake Acheulian, likely to be as ancient in India as Africa, which continued with slow elaboration and refinement throughout most of the Lower and Middle Pleistocene.  Since Homo erectus in Java is associated with an Indian derived fauna, it is logical to consider that Homo erectus also reached Java from India and that during this phase the hominin in India was Homo erectus and advanced Homo erectus .  The Narmada homnin would belong to the endpoint of this phase. The second phase in the Indian palaeolithic is the Microlithic Blade Technology which continues from >40 kyr to the Chalcolithic.  Since by the Chalcolithic there is no doubt the population is “modern humans”, modern humans probably are responsible for this phase of the Indian Palaeolithic from the beginning.

 

Barton, R. N. E., A. Bouzouggar, S. Collcutt, J.-L. Schwenninger, and L. Clark-Balzan. 2009. OSL dating of the Aterian levels at Dar es-Soltan I (Rabat, Morocco) and implications for the dispersal of modern Homo sapiens. Quaternary Science Reviews

Ciochon, R. L. 2009. The mystery ape of Pleistocene Asia. Nature 459:910-91

Ciochon, R. L. 2010. “Divorcing Hominins from the Stegodon-Ailuropoda Fauna: New Views on the Antiquity of Hominins in Asia,” in Out of Africa I, Edited by J. G. Fleagle, J. J. Shea, F. E. Grine, A. L. Baden, and R. E. Leakey, pp. 111-126: Springer Netherlands

Despriée, J., P. Voinchet, H. Tissoux, M.-H. Moncel, M. Arzarello, S. Robin, J.-J. Bahain, C. Falguères, G. Courcimault, J. Dépont, R. Gageonnet, L. Marquer, E. Messager, S. Abdessadok, and S. Puaud. 2010. Lower and middle Pleistocene human settlements in the Middle Loire River Basin, Centre Region, France. Quaternary International 223-224:345-359.

Falguères, C., J.-J. Bahain, M. Duval, Q. Shao, F. Han, M. Lebon, N. Mercier, A. Perez-Gonzalez, J.-M. Dolo, and T. Garcia. 2010. A 300-600 ka ESR/U-series chronology of Acheulian sites in Western Europe. Quaternary International 223-224:293-298.

Mishra, S., C. Gaillard, C. Hertler, A.-M. Moigne, and H. T. Simanjuntak. 2010. India and Java: Contrasting Records, Intimate Connections. Quaternary International 223-224:265-270.

White MJ, Ashton NM. 2003. Lower Palaeolithic core technology and the origins of the Levallois method in north-western Europe. Current Anthropology 44: 598–609.

 

 

Indian Stone Age Sequence 10:Archaeological discontinuities and population replacements?

Indian Stone Age Sequence 10:Archaeological discontinuities and population replacements?

I decided this topic does not need a whole post.  I have discussed this in the last paragraph of the next post. Basically it seems likely that the first phase of Indian Palaeolithic is Large Flake Acheulian with Homo erectus and the second phase is modern humans and microlithic blade technology.  The first is argued from the Java evidence and the second by its continuity upto Chalcolithic

Indian Stone Age Sequence Question 9: Upper Palaeolithic Mesolithic continuity

Indian Stone Age Sequence Question 9: Upper Palaeolithic Mesolithic continuity

The division between Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in the Indian context is absolutely arbitrary.  While Murty (1979) made a case for typological differences between the Mesolithic and Upper Palaeolithic based on the occurrence of blade industries made on fine grained quartzite in Andhra Pradesh, in Western India Sali (1974, 1985, 1989) labeled microlithic blade assemblages from Patne and elsewhere “Upper Palaeolithic” solely on the basis of their Late Pleistocene age.

Microlithic Blade Industries

Microlithic blade industries were first dated to the Pleistocene at Patne by Sali.  Even before dating the Ostrich eggshells from Patne, Sali had concluded that microliths belonged to the Pleistocene period as he had observed them eroding from Late Pleistocene alluvium.  His excavation at Patne was motivated in part, to prove what he already knew to be true.  In Western Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh where I worked subsequently to Sali (1980’s onwards) I found his observation to be completely true.  Almost every exposure of Late Pleistocene alluvium yields at least a handful of microliths.  By 2003 a number of radiocarbon dates had accumulated from the alluvium of different rivers, and  these were also dates for  the associated microliths.  In 2003 I compiled the available dates, mainly to understand the relationship of river aggradation to Pleistocene climatic change.  The dates from microliths ranged from >42,900 to the Chalcolithic (3-4 kyr).  No doubt technological change did occur during this period but the Pleistocene microliths which represented the longest time span did not change a lot.  Recently Clarkson et al. (2009) have obtained 4 radiocarbon dates between 27-29 kyr (calibrated to 30-34 kyr) for microliths from the Jwalapuram loc 9 rockshelter.  The older dated horizon is not associated with many artefacts and the bulk of the cultural material from this rockshelter dates to the period of ~10-12 kyr with a single date inbetween of ~16 kyr.  Nevertheless the continuity of the microblade tradition upto ~35 kyr is seen.  Thus two widely separated parts of India yield evidence for the continuity of the microlithic blade tradition from 35-45 kyr until the last few millennia.  All parts of Peninsular India are in conformity to this finding but dates older than 25 kyr are not common.

These microlithic sites are rarely associated with animal bones.  Charred shells from sites like Mehtakheri (M.P.) and Kalas (Maharashtra) show that gathered component was significant in these sites.  In eastern India, many Pleistocene microlithic sites have yielded ringed stones and grinding stones (Raju 1988).  Sali (1989) also reports grinding stones from the microlithic horizons at Patne. It does not seem that subsistence changed drastically over the Pleistocene Holocene boundary in India unlike Europe, where a shift from big game hunting to gathering occurred.  In the Indian context, intensive gathering with some hunting occurs throughout the Pleistocene and the shift in subsistence is related more to the adaptation of agriculture and permanent settlements.

Non Microlithic Blade Industries

Non microlithic blade industries  are not as prominent as microlithic blade industries in India.  None of them have been dated and their stratigraphic relationship to microlithic blade assemblages is also unclear.  Thus these industries might be earlier than the microlithic blade phase or they could be isolated episodes of use of large blades probably related to choice of raw material.

In the initial establishment of the Upper Palaeolithic phase in Indian Prehistory, the presence of large blade based assemblages from Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere was important in validating two blade tool phases in Indian Prehistory.  Murty’s Kurnool cave assemblages were not dated.  Dating by ESR of sandstone slabs used in construction of a fireplace (Nambi and Murty 1983) to only ~18 kyr implied that such assemblages with large blades were not older than those with microblades.  However the  ESR date, which was done as a dating experiment, might be an underestimation of  the true age.  The recent dating of microliths from Jwalapuram loc 9 rockshelter to 27-29 kyr (uncalibrated) 30-35 kyr (uncalibrated) indicates continuity of microliths in the region at least from that time.

At Patne, undated non microlithic blade assemblages stratigraphically underlie the microlithic blade assemblages. Varma and Pal (1997) report blades ranging in size from 4-8 cm from Amaradan near the Rehi and Son confluence which they assign to the first phase of the Upper Palaeolithic apparently on typological considerations.  A slightly more “advanced” stage is seen at Patwadh and Bhakraur with blades from 3-6 cm in length also from the Son river.

So?

Some large blade tool assemblages do exist in India, but almost no stratigraphic or absolute dating evidence is available to determine whether this phase is earlier than the microlithic phase or a regional facies of microlithic phase.  In regions where dates are available the microlithic blade assemblages show continuity over the last  at least 40 kyr.  This definitely shows that the division between Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic is unjustified.  On the other hand the transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic is far from clear.  This might have happened earlier than 40 kyr.  Although I have argued in an earlier post for a discontinuity between the Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic this period is actually a blank.  Perhaps when we have more sites dated to the time period of 80-40 kyr the picture will be different

Clarkson, C., M. D. Petraglia, R. Korisettar, M. Haslam, N. L. Boivin, A. Crowther, P. W. Ditchfield, D. Fuller, Q., P. Miracle, C. Harris, K. Connell, H. V. A. James, and J. Koshy. 2009. The oldest and longest enduring microlithic sequence in India: 35,000 years of modern human occupation and change at the Jwalapuram Locality 9 rockshelter. Antiquity 83:326-348.

Mishra, S., Naik, S., Rajaguru, S.N., Deo, S. and Ghate, S., 2003. Fluvial Response to Late Quaternary Climatic Change: Case Studies from Upland Western India. Proceedings of Indian National Science Academy, 69(2): 185-200.

Murty, M. L. K. 1979. Recent Research on the Upper Palaeolithic Phase in India. Journal of Field Archaeology 6:301-319.

Murty, M. L. K. 1966. Stone Age Cultures of Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, University of Poona.

Nambi, K. S. V., and M. L. K. Murty. 1983. An Upper Palaeolithic Fireplace in Kurnool Caves, South India. Bulletin of the Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute 42:110-116.

Raju, D. R. 1987. Fresh light on the Upper Palaeolithic from the Eastern Ghats, Andhra Pradesh Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 7:17-22.

Raju, D. R. 1988. Stone Age Hunter-Gatherers : An Ethnoarcheaology of Cuddapah Region, South-East India Pune: Ravish Publishers.

Sali, S. A. 1974. Upper Palaeolithic Research Since Independence. Bulletin of Deccan College Research Institute 34:154-158.

Sali, S. A. 1985. “The Upper Palaeolithic Culture at Patne, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra,” in Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory. Edited by V. N. Misra and P. Bellwood, pp. 137-146. New Delhi: Oxford-IBH

Sali, S. A. 1989. The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic cultures of Patne, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra. Pune: Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute.

Varma, R. K., and J. N. Pal. 1997. “The Upper Palaeolithic Cultures of the Vindhyan Region,” in Indian Prehistory:1980 Edited by V. D. Misra and J. N. Pal, pp. 94-102. Allahabad: Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology, University of Allahabad.

 

 

Indian Stone Age Sequence Question 8: Middle Palaeolithic – Acheulian continuity

Indian Stone Age Sequence Question 8: Middle Palaeolithic –  Acheulian continuity

The continuity between the Acheulian and the Middle Palaeolithic is generally accepted among Indian Prehistorians.  This is seen in widespread occurrence of retouched flake tools (scrapers, borers, etc) prepared cores which are typical of the Middle Palaeolithic along with handaxes and cleavers typical of the Acheulian.  The best documented site for this is Bhimbetka:–

Misra (1978b) states:

“The Bhimbetka Acheulian industry is characterized by a very low percentage of bifaces, high standard of workmanship in bifaces, especially cleavers, predominance and great diversity of non-biface tools, high percentage of end scrapers and levallois flakes and complete absence of chopper-chopping tools…It is to be noted that layer 5 which overlies the Acheulian deposit is stratigraphically and culturally a continuation of the Acheulian culture except for the disappearance of the biface element….”

The gradual transition from Acheulian to Middle Palaeolithic seen at Bhimbetka is also seen in other localities where “Late Acheulian” is identified.  This includes the Orsang valley in Gujarat (Ajithprasad 2005), the Malaprabha Basin, (Joshi 1955), and Andhra Pradesh (Raju 1985, 1989, Reddy 2003, Reddy & Bhaskar 1983).  The references cited are not exhaustive (uncited scholars, please don’t be offended!!).  The continuity between Acheulian and Middle Palaeolithic has never been seriously disputed in the Indian context.

Anyone who has an argument for discontinuity between the Acheulian and Middle Palaeolithic please comment!

 

Ajithprasad, P. 2005. Early Middle Palaeolithic:A Transition Phase between the upper Acheulian and the middle Palaeolithic Cultures in the Orsang Valley, Gujarat. Man and Environment 30:1-11.

Joshi, R. V. 1955. Pleistocene Studies in the Malaprabha Basin. Poona Dharwar: Deccan College

Karnataka University.

Misra, V. N. 1978a. The Acheulian Industry of Rock Shelter III F- 23 at Bhimbetka, Central India. Australian Archeaology 8:63-106.

—. 1978b. The Acheulian Industry of Rock Shelter III F- 23 at Bhimbetka, Central India – A Preliminary Study. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 1:130- 171.

Raju, D. R. 1985. Handaxe Assemblages from the Gunjana Valley, Andhra Pradesh : A Metrical Analysis. Bulletin of the Indo- Pacific Prehistory Association 6:10-26.

—. 1989. The Lower Palaeolithic Culture in the Gunjana Valley on the Southeast Coast of India. Bulletin of the Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute 47/48 283- 300.

Reddy, K. T. 2003. “Lower Palaeolithic cultures,” in Pre-and Protohistoy of Andhra Pradesh upto 500 BC Vol1 Comprehensive History and Culture of Andhra Pradesh. Edited by M. L. K. Murty, pp. 29-38. New Delhi: Indian History Congress in association with Dravidian University Orient Longmans.

Reddy, V. R., and S. Bhaskar 1983. “Maralipalem and Chintalapalem : Two Late Acheulian Sites in Southeast Andhra Pradesh,” in Rangavalli : Recent Researches in Indology. Edited by A. V. Narsimha Murty and B. K. Gururaj Rao, pp. 19-43. Delhi: Sandeep Prakashan.