15 Lower Palaeolithic Culture of India

D. K. Bhattacharya

Palaeolithic refers to the culture occurring during the entire Pleistocene epoch. This has been further divided into Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic on the basis of typological attributes as follows.

• Blade tools – Upper Palaeolithic
• Flake tools – Middle Palaeolithic
• Core tools – Lower Palaeolithic

Technically these divisions refer to type characteristics; however, a chronological bracket for Lower Palaeolithic in India generally is taken to range between 2.8 million to 50,000 years. Middle Palaeolithic is taken to range between 50,000 to 19,000 and finally Upper Palaeolithic ranges between 19,000 to 9,000 BC. Initially Pleistocene chronology in India was based on the succession of alluvial depositions of the various pluviations as worked out by De Terra and Peterson in 1939. This suggested that during the first pluviation there was no river. This heavy rainfall created an in-situ change of the rock surface and created a red crust referred to as primary laterite. Subsequent dry phase witnessed a meandering flow and this brought about a fine consolidated clay deposit which is referred to as mottled clay. The rivers of India became massive with huge flow during the second pluviation and this brought about a huge deposit on of boulders. Subsequently these boulders were fixed with natural time into a conglomerate. This pattern is repeated with clay or silt interspersed between two successive gravels. The Pleistocene geo-chronology for Indian rivers, as such, was constructed as shown below.

Middle Pleistocene is represented by two gravels and the older one records core tools and hence represents Lower Palaeolithic while the second gravel records flake tools and hence represents Middle Palaeolithic. Today we have a number of absolute dates from our newly discovered Lower Palaeolithic sites which push the date of arrival of man back to a date which is several times more than what was estimated through geo-chronology.

For instance, at Attirampakkam near Chennai Lower Palaeolithic is dated to 1.5 million years, at Isampur in Karnataka date for the same culture is estimated to be 1.2 million years. In Maharashtra Bori and Moregaon are two Lower Palaeolithic sites which have dates beyond 600,000 years. In addition to these early dates from the mainland, Dennel has now reported Palaeolithic tools from Riwat and Pabbi Hills which are in Pakistan and are situated almost at the western gateway of India. And these sites have been given a date of 2.1 million years. All these evidences almost conclusively prove that our early ancestors arrived in India very soon after their emergence in Africa.

The geo-chronology for India was based by De Terra and Paterson on the succession observed by them at Sohan near Rawalpindi and Narmada near Hoshangabad. The third gravel representing Upper Pleistocene was not attested in majority of the rivers. In fact Zeuner and Sankhalia surveyed several rivers in south Gujarat and demonstrated that there are only two gravels in these rivers that represent the Pleistocene epoch. Gregory Possehl felt that unless attested by marker fossils these gravels should not be considered as representing Pleistocene pluviation. He further suggests that in all likelihood even these two gravels represent periodic wet phases within upper Pleistocene only. Now with the series of absolute dates available the pendulum has swang to the opposite direction. Thus, basically geo-chronology seems to be not very satisfactory road to approach dating Lower Palaeolithic culture of India. Finally it is important to mention that Possehl was not entirely correct because now we have a third gravel with an absolute date of 19,000 reported from Belan river near Allahabad.

De Terra and Paterson came to India in 1939, and published their discovery along The terraces of the Sohan river near Rawalpindi. The context of the terraces were traced by the presence of distinct early Pleistocene fauna identified as Elephas hysudricus which is also found in direct association of the first Himalayan loess called Karewa-I near Malshahibagh in the vicinity of the Dal lake in Srinagar. On the basis of the association of this fauna in the lacustrine bed of Tatrot it was argued that subsequent deposits in the Potwar can be taken to represent- Middle Pleistocene episodes. The episodes from Middle Pleistocene onwards were represented in a terraced stratigraphy. The vast amounts of tools described from each of the terraces are described as the Sohan Industry. Tools from the topmost terrace (TD-2nd Pluviation) are designated as Pre-Sohan exactly in the manner Gbriel de Mortillet designated the earliest tools in Europe as Pre-Chellean. The next terrace (T1=2nd Inter Pluvial) contained tools which were called Early Sohan. Following this occurs the Late Sohan gorup (from T2 =3rd Pluvial). The next terrace i.e. T3 has a mere redepositon of late Sohan but following this in T 4 (4th and last Pluvial ) occurs another group identified as Evolved Sohan. Although both Early Sohan and Late Sohan have been divided into several chronological phases the tool types in the entire Sohan complex show an overwhelming number and also variety of chopper and chopping tools. Further although the terraces cover the entire stretch of Pleistocene, one cannot really demonstrate a Middle or Upper Palaeolithic in this succession. Absence of Handaxes and cleavers and continuation of chopper and chopping tool led K.V. Sounder Rajan write an article questioning whether, ‘Sohan is an endogamous culture’. The point missed in this argument is that Chauntra, another site near Rawalpindi shows a large variety of handaxes and cleavers. Consequently Sohan as an isolated development does not seem to be acceptable. It is, however, significant to mention here that B.B. Lal has described a succession similar to Sohan at Guler near Kangra in Himachal Pradesh. Also in Tadjikistan Prof. Ranov has not only describe a succession similar to Sohan but also named his industry in the same pattern i.e. as Early Sohan, Late Sohan and Evolved Sohan. On the other hand, scholars have recovered several Late Acheulian handaxes and cleavers from surface in Punjab and Sindh. Prof. G.C. Mohapatra has discovered several clusters of handaxes and cleavers from Shimla-Kalka region.

In several recent studies the chronology of Sohan has been heavily contradicted. It is believed that the terrace identified by De Terra as caused by the climatic cycle are in fact caused by differential tectonic movement and for all practical purposes should be taken to be of Upper Pleistocene date only. To sum up one has to accept that Sohan does, indeed, represent a chopper dominated region possibly extending to Tadjikisthan. This does not mean that the original claim of Middle Pleistocene date for Sohan can be accepted any longer. Neither can one accept the vertical succession/evolution originally claimed because of fresh evidences. If Sohan shows a link with central Asia, an Acheulian mobility from West Asia cannot also be denied because of the evidences from Western Punjab (Pakistan), Sind (Pakistan), Chauntra (Pakistan) and Shimla and Kalka (India).

Both Saurastra and Rajasthan also have received a great deal of attention from several other allied sciences in the last few decades. Eustatic beaches, miliolite formation and their absolute dates from Saurastra coast and pollen profiles and their dates from Rajasthan lakes and lately at Didwana near Jodhpur provides an almost complete picture of climatic succession in this area. This shows that the region has been passing through numerous wet or moist periods in the past. Besides helping the development of a finer chronology for the region, these studies also carry a “moral” for the archaeologists. Our trying to establish two wet phases in most of the Indian rivers on the basis of the number of gravels observed might in reality be blanketing out finer details of climatic fluctuations in these regions. Minor, moist phases might not deposit gravels and in common sense logic such phases would seem more congenial to human colonization than an acute mid pluvial phase. In other words, if between two Pluviations there were some moist phases, of say, 1000 to 5000 years duration, all the ‘Cultures’ of these phases are bound to be considered as contemporaneous if a subsequent Pluviation sweeps them into one gravel deposit. We have no possible way to remedy this in-built problem unless Didwana like excavations are conducted in suitable chosen alluvial zones in different areas.

In January 1980, Prof. V.N. Misra had organized a multidisciplinary investigation of a very rich Acheulian site called Singi Talav near the town of Didwana in Nagour district of Rajasthan. Misra felt that the tools show enough evidence of being in primary contest. The excavation shows three distinct depositional phases. These are termed Jayal, Amarpura and Didwana formations. Of these the Jayal group seems to have been laid down during late Tertiary and Lower Pleistocene period. These show an extremely powerful drainage force. Huge deposits of boulders in concrete form measuring 20 meters to 60 meters in thickness have been found lying over a stretch of nearly 16 km. Apparently human occupation occurred immediately after this period during the Amarpura stage. Acheulian tools are found from the middle part of Amarpura and Middle Palaeolithic tools have been found to occur from the upper part of the same phase.

The lower Palaeolithic culture is taken to be anywhere between middle to upper Middle Pleistocene. The tools collected from the excavations at a number of sites around the region show both early Acheulian and middle Acheulian artifacts. The tool types shows a high frequency of choppers and chopping tools with massive handaxes prepared only by stone hammer technique. The subsequent stages of Acheulian show progressive development in both types and techniques. Most of these show consistent association of choppers with handaxes while cleavers are rare. The exceedingly high proportion of waste material found in almost all the digs leaves no doubt to the fact that in western Rajasthan Lower Palaeolithic people concentrated around open rivers banks during milder climatic phases.

Ever since vertical evolution of choppers through lower Acheulian to late Acheulian is stratigraphically demonstrated in Olduvai Gorge in East Africa, there has been attempts to claim similar sequence in both Europe as well as south Asia. In England Clactonian was claimed as ancestral to Acheulians. In India A.P. Khatri claimed a similar sequence at Mahadeo Piparia on Narmada and even named his pre-Acheulian evidence as “Mahadevian” as if to imitate the term “Oldowan” used in East African prehistory. Recently Partha Chauhan and A.K. Patnaik identified a site near Narmada alluvial bank. The site called Durkhadi is being excavated by these scholars. Here they have claimed an early Acheulian level similar to the one known at Singi Talav. All these studies in Lower Palaeolithic period show an attempt to demonstrate a vertical evolution. Bulk of our Lower Palaeolithic studies from Odisha, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh being surface collection from river valleys a vertical evolution of Lower Palaeolithic stages could never be attempted.

All rivers from all the states have yielded rich Lower Palaeothitic material from the single gravel which is referred to as Boulder Conglomerate. In the absence of any possibility of demonstrating internal evolution from within a single gravel one may see if there is any regional variation demonstrable. In a generalised sense one can say that the Odisha and Andhra sites show more pebble based specimens than one can see in Maharashtra and Karanataka. Further the flake tools in the eastern region are prepared in large & crude flakes while the western sites show well finished levalloise flakes worked into such de-lux types as points and knives besides well finished side scrapers.

It was felt that once primary sites are discovered it will be possible to look for vertical evolution of Lower Palaeolithic in India. Subsequently 5 primary sites were discovered and these are Bhimbetka in Raisen district and Adamgarh in Hoshangabad district of Madhya Pradesh; Chirkhi-Nevasa from Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra; Paisra from Jamui district of Bihar and Hunsgi from Bellary district of Karnataka. All these sites were meticulously excavated but Lower Palaeolithic in none of them is seen to occur in more than one layer. Further, almost all these sites show extremely rich upper Acheulian tools occurring in association with fairly good number of chopper and chopping tools. The only exception to this rule is seen at Bhimbetka, at least in the cave III F-23. This may be because large boulders or pebbles were not available in this mountainous region. It is important to mention here that in another cave dug by Wakankar in this region choppers have been identified. Adamgarh, which is also a cluster of rock shelters barely 30 km. form Bhimbetka shows painting of same pattern as Bhimbetka on its walls. The tools here are also prepared on quasi metamorphosed sand stone like in Bhimbetka. The techno-morphological traits of all the Adamgarh tools compare very well with those of Bhimbetka with the only exception that here as much as 30 percent of the assemblage has been identified as chopper and chopping tools. This significant difference can be explained by the fact that Adamgarh caves are very close to the bank of Narmada.

To sum up one can say that a Pre-Acheulian stage with chopper and chopping tools preceding Acheulian in stratigraphic context still alludes us in Lower Paleolithic development in India.