16 Middle Palaeolithic culture of India

D. K. Bhattacharya

For long time this specific stone age was not separately identified in India. The primary reason for this was not having a specific stratigraphic context for this in our country. Flakes of 5-8 cm length, often finely retouched into tool types have been recorded from as early as 1932 when Cammiade collected a large number of prehistoric tools from Andhra Pradesh. Since flake tools also form a part of Lower Palaeolithic culture, their occurring in a separate and younger context only can be taken to represent Middle Palaeolithic culture. Cammiade’s collection was sent to Burkitt in London for analysis. Since the tools were of unknown context Burkitt divided them in clusters of core, flake, blade and microliths. To avoid giving a culture nomenclature Commiade and Burkitt called them as series I, series II, series III, and series 1V respectively. Twenty nine years later India hosted the World Archeology Congress and the problem of terminology for Indian prehistory was discussed both at formal and informal level during this time. Several rivers had already been surveyed by then and it was found that majority of these rivers maintain only two gravels belonging to Pleistocene period. The first gravel yields core tools and the second and last gravel yielded flake and blade tools. Three fold divisions were not possible when we have only two stratigraphic units. Subbarao and Bridget Allchin suggested that because of this we have no possibility of naming Lower Middle and Upper Palaeolithic like we have in Europe. Instead Indian Palaeolithic should be considered as having two divisions- Early Stone Age and Middle Stone Age. Such nomenclature was in use in South Africa not so much for the lack of a stratigraphy but for the continuation of flake tools with blade tools well within late Pleistocene. Consequently, both in South Africa and as also in India the existence of a true Upper Palaeolithic was denied. Another 20 years later in 1980 G.R. Sharma described three implementiferous gravels form the river Belan in Allahabad. The third gravel not only yielded blade tools but could also be confirmed as a Pleistocene episode because of a radio carbon date of 19000 BC. Thus, there was now no difficulty in dividing Indian Palaeolithic into the European pattern of three fold structure, i.e. Lower Palaeolithic, Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic. Because of these later developments many consider Middle Stone Age and Middle Palaeolithic as synonyms. It should be important to point out here that this is not exactly correct. Because if we use the term Middle Stone Age we deny the existence of Upper Palaeolithic while if we use the term Middle Paleolithic it means we do accept the existence of a separate tradition of blade tools.

In 1956 Sankalia for the first time recorded and demonstrated these flake tools occurring in association with the second aggradational deposit of the river Pravara at Nevasa (Maharashtra). Similar tools were also recorded from the same context from Godavari in north Karnataka. At a site called Suregaon in this region a flake point was found imbedded in the frontal been of a fossil bovid identified as Bos falconer and this was found fixed within the second gravel context. Soon Sankalia could organize a large group of scholars to conduct river valley surveys along Narmada, Son, Burhabalang, Krishna and its various tributaries. He could demonstrate that what he had then provisionally called Nevasian was not a local feature but instead was a common feature in Indian Palaeolithic succession. He had, however, chosen to use the term Middle Stone Age to refer to these occurrences. While some of the river valleys have yielded huge concentration of Middle Palaeolithic tools, there are others where such evidences are not so distinct. This had led many early workers to feel that Middle Palaeolithic culture is best represented in central and Deccan India. The claims of Mohapatra of having found Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites form Solan-Kalka-Shimla ranges in this regard, is extremely significant. Allchin’s ‘Hokra and Bada Pushkar’ sites from Rajasthan are other examples of the fact that this Stone Age does occur in northern latitudes of India as well. With the excavation of Singi Talav we have more evidence of Middle Palaeolithic in Rajasthan. Similarly Kalpi near Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh also disprove the fact that Middle Palaeolithic is a regional development in India.

Another feature of Middle Palaeolithic in India that has generated a great deal of interest among archaeologist is that in almost 80-90 percent cases there is a complete change of raw material from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic. It is not surprising that such a situation was utilized to the hilt by some who wanted to prove that Middle Palaeolithic of India is exogenous in origin. Although it is difficult to find a suitable explanation for the total changeover of the raw material, yet it will be equally illogical to disregard the prolific evidence of Bhimbetka III F-23 or for that matter the secondary sites from Andhra Pradesh and Didwana in Rajasthan. These evidences clearly indicate that change of raw material is neither universal for India nor all that uniform in terms of the raw material chosen. The typological spectrum for all the diverse sites can be briefly listed below.

1. Sides scrapers of a large variety with such sub-types as including convergent side scraper often prepared on Levalloise flakes.
2. Rather sharp points with triangular cross-section and a sturdy body. There are few cases where these points are also bifacially worked. There are also isolated cases of points with one or two shoulders worked on them.
3. Fairly moderate frequency of borers with thick and sturdy body. Many of these specimens show such wide and open notches that Sonkalia termed them as Scrapers-cum-borer. In addition to the above the following types may occur in some sites.
4. Handaxes and cleavers
5. Choppers and chopping tools
6. Atypical end scrapers
7. Burins and
8. Retouched blades

The raw materials used for the tool types is a range of fine grained high silicate rocks such as jasper, carnelian chalcedony, agate and quartz. The last 5 types of the above list also are prepared in this changed raw material and hence are easily identifiable from the usual Lower Palaeolithic implements.

If we take a river valley survey of the country we find that the western dry zone shows quite rich, although, isolated, pockets of occupation. Sites around Pushkar lake or for that matter Didwana show no clear indication of these being purely Middle Palaeolithic occupation centers. Luni is an extinct river several kilometers south and east of this region and it has yielded another rich industry of Middle Palaeolithic culture. Repeatedly re-worked flakes present an interesting feature of this find. The Nevasa and northern Karnataka sites yield rather chunky large jasper flakes of several shades. Levalloise flakes are found in large number in this region. The most predominant type among these is the side scrapers. Borers form the next frequent type among these, while points occur with a frequency of as much as 10 to 15 percent. Several of these are thin and leaf shaped and often carries a suggestion of shoulder formation. Abrupt retouching as also alternate retouching are quite common.

In Andhra Middle Palaeolithic is not known in as clear a stratigraphic context as in Maharashtra and Karnataka. Nor is there as clear a break in the raw material as is observed in the western region. Chittoor and Nalgonda districts were systematically explored in this state. Rmatirthampaye and Raigirvgu on Krishna are two of the riches sites. The tools are prepared on five grained quartzite and show extensive use of cylinder hammer technique. Many of these tools maintain pebble cortex and at times some are prepared on cores. There are several Discs or round scrapers and elongated blades with burin edges prepared on them. Likewise typical end scrapers are also prepared on such thick blades. It is significant that levalloise technique in these sites is not frequent as in Nevasa, and Karnataka sites. In Madhya Pradesh and Bundelkhand region the Middle Palaeolithic culture is perhaps best represented. Besides the main Narmada deposits, the Betwa, Shivna, Chambal and numerous other water courses in the general area have yielded rich evidences of this cultural phase. Gonchi and Sihora on Betwa show patinated chest tools which include small handaxes, cleavers, choppers as also numerous flakes and flake cores. The important types include side scrapers of various kinds measuring 13 cm to 7 cm in length. Levalloise technique is well marked although not as frequent as in the western zone.

The absence of a primary habitational site prevents us from understanding Middle Palaeolithic of India adequately. The classic section exposed at Bhedaghat on Narmada however, exposes the stratigraphic context of this Stone Age in an unambiguous manner. Sheila Mishra (1993) reports the details. The section reveals two distinct quaternary phases, the lowest among these also yielded few Acheulian tool types. The layer overlying this had a radio carbon date of 25,160 BP. This layer yields Middle Palaeotithic tools prepared on chert and include varieties of side scrapers besides medium sized cleavers made on chert. If one compares these evidences from Narmada and its affluents with Bhimbetka one can clearly see a distinct variation right with in the central zone. While Bhimbetka shows a distinct Mousteroid (West European Middle Palaeolithic is termed Mousterian) development from right within an upper Acheulian without change of raw material, rest of the region shows an indigenous development with total change of raw material.

Maharashtra and Karnataka adopts a proper levalloise based Middle Palaeolithic and hence comes closer to Mousteroid character. Even thin leaf shaped tanged points are also known from these sites. Kurnool to Chhattisgarh, on the other hand, develop a Middle Palaeolithic which although quite effective was entirely a local development. Narmada by the very fact of maintaining two distinct varieties of Middle Palaeolithic as explained above, would tend to suggest that perhaps we are dealing with two different kinds of groups under this period. Those adapted to the arid and selected mountain abodes were the groups which developed Mousterian like characteristics. In contrast to these an indigenous population was developing quite independently in the forested low lands along large rivers courses. The entire Andhra Pradesh Middle Palaeolithic or for that matter those from Odisha can serve as the best example of this differential development. The leaf shaped points or the emphasis on levalloise technique are no longer important. In fact borers increase tremendously in frequency while points become peripheral. The remarkable decrease of good points in this industry renders it a very benign look. In fact, it becomes difficult to visualize how these scrapers and borer dominating tool kit could be of any use for an actively hunting and gathering forest dwellers. In this regard Sankalia seems to have a point when he proposes that most of the Middle Palaeolithic tools in India were probably designed to shape ultimate weapons of hunting and trapping in wood, bone and antler.

Assuming that river valley cultures are indigenous development one is left with the problem of explaining where does not the Mousteroid group come from. Mrs. Allchin speculates that a Mousteroid group is known to occur in Afghanistan and Zagros between 45,000 to 25,000 BP. These western cultures may have influenced the Mousteroid clusters. If one accepts this possibility one has to then accept that the Middle Palaeolithic in forested river valleys are older in date then the later penetration of Mousteroid element.

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).