17 Upper Palaeolithic Culture of India

D. K. Bhattacharya

This cultural period was not only defined but also described from Western Europe. It was taken to begin anywhere between 40,000 to 60,000 years ago, i.e., around the middle of the last glaciations in upper Pleistocene. It is identified by the emergence of a large majority of tool types which are finished a thick blades prepared by punching technique. Bone, ivory and antler are used profusely for making a variety of such tool types as the harpoons, eyed needles and spear throwers. In addition to these art executed on bones and on cave walls also characterize this chrono-cultural phase. In south-west Europe as many as 5 distinct litho-cultural traditions have been identified. In rest of Europe however only one or rarely two traditions are known to constitute Upper Palaeolithic.

In the back drop of this definition and description evidence from India would appear to be very poorly representing a classical Europoid Upper Palaeolithic culture. Further the absence of third gravel in the alluvial cycles of a majority of our rivers makes it practically impossible to straitigraphically demonstrate the existence of a classic Upper Paleolithic phase. However, the fact that Commiade and Burkitt described a cluster of blades identified by them as series III proves beyond doubt that blade tools does occur in India. The lack of stratigraphy makes it rather difficult for us to demonstrate the manner and pattern of transformation of each of the litho-cultural traditions. Upper Palaeothitic in India is essentially a typologically identified stage for most part of India. That is to say that except for the leaf points of Europe we have all the Upper Palaeolithic stone tool types of both Europe and Africa known from India. It is true that some sub-type specializations like the Basque burins or Noailles burins have still not been reported so far form this sub-continent but the profusion of worked blades, by no means should be considered any less significant. At many places the blade tools continue with flake tools in such a manner that one cannot demonstrate a break in the cultural flow. It is perhaps because of this that Ashoke Ghosh suggested that we should avoid using the term Upper Palaeolithic. Instead, he suggested, that the termed ‘flake-blade’ culture of India should be used in its place.

Here we need to pause a little while to consider the issue of Hominin dispersal in South Asia. Recent researches in mitochondrial DNA analysis suggest that Homo sapien or Anatomically Modern Homo Sapiens (AMHS) evolved in north east Africa around 60,000 years ago. This group migrated to Asia through the horn of Africa. Another branch crossed into Europe and northwest China through Senai. It is argued that AMHS replaced all those ancient hominin kinds who were living in the entire Old World. That means the hndaxes/cleaver makers of Lower Palaeolithic and the flake tools makers of Middle Palaeolithic were wiped out. Blade/bone tools makers (AMHS) invaded their habitat and established themselves. Thus, there is no question of looking for a smooth typological evolution from the preceding culture if one has to accept the molecular theory. In this light Ghosh’s “Flake-blade” culture shows that for majority of the region in India there is absolutely no break in cultural tradition. This is strongly contradicting the molecular theory. In the face of it one has no alternative but to accept that AMHS who come out of Africa did not always replace pre-existing hominid types. One is reminded of Hooton’s statement that whenever two groups met they either bled or bred, but they bred even if they bled. Thus, a sapianized erectus, the author of our Middle Palaeolithic bred with the invading AMHS and continued creating flake tools while adding the exogenous blade component into an amalgamation. Upper Palaeolithic blades have been found in association of microlithic blades in many open air sites. In this regard one of the best representations of a distinct Upper Palaeolithic comes from the site Renigunta in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh.

M.L.K. Murthy reported three-four localities along the river Ralla Kallava. These localities are called Timmayyagunta, Venkamanayanipalli, Chundi, Vedullacheruva and Nallagundlu. Of these the latter two localities yield Upper Palaeolithic mixed with microliths. A trial trench dug at Nallagundlu yielded 5973 artifacts from nearly 18 cm. below the surface. Murthy argues that the microbiths can be easily isolated because these are prepared on milky quartz while the Upper Palaoetithic types are prepared on fine grained olive green quartzite. The industry contains an overwhelming number of blades which at times attain length of as much as 10 cm. Many of these blades are 3 to 4 cm. in breadth and nearly as much as 1.5 cm. in thickness. The types identified by Murthy are: Burins (16 percent); Backed blade (67 percent) Awls (4 percent) and Points (2 percent); in addition to these blade tools side scrapers (8 percent) and Choppers (3 percent) have also been recorded.

Upper Palaeolithic is a considerably late phenomenon in India but the types described show very little difference from what is known as Aurignacio-Gravettian or East Gravettian of central and eastern Europe. One can make this kind of judgment about the culture only from what is possible to be identified from the illustrations given in these publications. It is important to state at this point that most of these publications do not adhere to the standard typological list of Denise Sonneville Bordes. Consequently their comparison cannot be correct.

In a cave site of district Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh named Muchchentera Chintamani Gavi, a large number of bone tools were recorded. This rendered the sites very famous in Indian Upper Palaeolithic. The site was excavated by Murthy. Only 9.7 percent of the total industry was stone tools and the rest of 90.30 percent were bone tools. The stone tools have unretouched blades, 1 burin and 5 side scrapers besides some retouched flakes. The bone implements are identified as scrapers, perforators, chisels, scoops, shouldered points, barbs and spatulae. Unfortunately despite the fact that barbs are isolated there was no evidence of a multiple barbed harpoon. Of the entire lot shouldered points are found in highest frequency. Sankalia feels that many of these bones show the evidence of ‘groove-and-splinter’ technique. While taking the survey of Upper Palaeolithic evidence in India one cannot miss the site of Bhimbetka.

These caves and rock shelters (Totaling more than 600 in number) in Raisen district of Madhya Pradesh have already been discussed in our Lower Palaeolithic section. The excavation in the cave number III-23 yielded a deposit between Middle Palaeolithic and Mesolithic which was distinctly Upper Palaeolithic in its character.

A proper typological analysis of this industry is not complete. On personal level the author has tried to view the tools and hence can comment that these are 6-10 cm. long blades, some of these being as much as 2cm. in breadth. These are both abruptly retouched like Gravettian or Perigordian of south west France and also semi-abruptly retouched like in French Aurignacian. Finished types identified by me include several burins (Dyhedral angle burin) and end scrapers.

Another cluster of Upper Palaeolithic evidence has been reported from Belan valley of Uttar Pradesh and Son valley in Madhya Pradesh. Belan is a small river in the district Allahabad of Utter Pradesh which received maximum attention from G.R. Sharma and his other team mates. There are many other such small rivers like Seoti or Kon which rise in the eastern Vindhyas and flow into the Gangetic system. A large number of Upper Palaeolithic evidences have been collected from these rivers from the days of Cockburn in the last century. Belan was excavated at Baboori and Jagdaha in 1965 through a cliff section of nearly 18 meters. The radio-carbon date from the Upper Palaeolithic layer was shown as 19000 BP or 17000 BC. Recently another joint expedition was undertaken by G.R. Sharma and J. Desmond Clark in an area between river Son and the Kaimur escarpment. Four major alluvial and three wide spread loess depositions were mapped by these experts.

Sihawal Formation- It was identified as the oldest Quarternary deposition formed by a conglomerate of colluvial/alluvial cobbles within a gray clay matrix. Lower Palaeolithic Acheulian handaxes have been found from this group.

Patpara Formation- It is a loessic clay deposition overlying the Sihawal formation. The artifacts collected from this level has been identified as “final Acheulian” or “Acheulian of Mousterian tradition”. This layer finally gives rise to Middle Palaeolithic lying slightly above. There is a TL date available for this deposit and it is recorded as 103,800 + 19,800 BP. The tools and their typological details are not adequately discussed. Further it would seem there is a confusion caused between what Francois Bordes identified as a purely south west European Mousterian facies named Mousterian of Acheulian tradition with what has been identified as Acheulian in transition of Mousterian tradition by naming this as Acheulian of Mousterian tradition. There is no such term described in international literature.

Baghor Formation- Close to the stream course two depositions have been identified. The lower one is a carbonised cemented gravel and coarse sand. This layer yields several faunal remains. The upper component is a layer of fine silt and clay. The lower layer contains Middle Palaeolithic artifacts and the upper one yields Upper Palaeolithic tools. Baghor loess with Upper Palaeolithic blades have been dated to approximately 26000 BP. Some Epi-Palaeolithic artifacts are reported from the upper four meters of this formation and this has a date of 12,000 to 10,000 BP.

Khetaunhi Formation- This is the youngest formation in this region and has a date of c 3000 to 4000 BP. It consists of gravels, sand and clay and contains Neolithic pot-sherds and microlith blades.

Baghor formation has yielded more than one locality. At Baghor, I the excavation revealed in-situ remains of macro and micro blades, prismatic cores backed and truncated blades and bladelets, shouldered blades, denticulate blades, large scalene triangles and borers. A small artificial stone structure uncovered in the excavation has been described as an Upper Palaeolithic shrine. It is a circular platform of sand stone blocks in the centre of which is a natural concrete/stone having a series of which is a natural concentric triangular etched by weathering. Similar stones are still used today in local folk worship. These are taken as representing mother goddess. The site is spread over an area of 200 sq meters and is about 10 cm. in depth. This is taken to be a very temporary kind of occupation. It can be hoped that extensive exploration in this zone would probably expose more permanent and extensive occupation evidences.

It will be important to mention in the sequel that several evidences of Ostrich egg shells have been found form both excavated as also open air sites. Many of these shells show delicate chevron design engraved on them. There are others which may have been used in making necklaces. One of the important evidences of this has been excavated from Patne in Maharashtra. Today Ostrich is found naturally occurring in parts of Africa only. It is, therefore, very significant that the eggs of this bird has been found almost 3000 to 4000 km. away in India. It could have been possible to explain this if there was a land connection between South Africa and India. But the huge ocean separating these two land mass makes it very difficult to attempt any explanation for this at the moment.

References and Suggested readings

• An outline of Indian Prehistory. Delhi: Palaka Prakashan. Bhattacharya, D.K. (2006).
• Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan. Pune: Deccan College. Sankalia, H.D.(1974)
• The Old Stone Age: A study of Palaeolithic Times. London: Bowes and Bowes. Burkitt, M. (1963).
• Prehistory of India. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Sankalia, H. D. (1977)