Hunting-Gathering

UNIT 5 HUNTING-GATHERING
Structure

5.0 Introduction
5.1 Nature of Evidence
5.2 Geographical Spread
5.3 Characteristics
5.4 Regional Variations
5.5 Summary
5.6 Exercises
5.7 Suggested Reading

5.0 INTRODUCTION
Hunting-Gathering is generally considered that earliest stage in the social
evolution of human groups for which evidence for organized community
life appears with a regularity. The bulk of this evidence is archaeological
in nature and it is supplemented by anthropological data. Records of the
any other kind, with the exception of painted depictions of community
life, are not available. The archaeological evidence, it must be said, is
rich and is quite useful in reconstructing an account of the hunting-
gathering stage of society. The archaeological method accounts for
both ethnographic connotation and technological context and thus helps
us understand the features of hunting-gathering stage in a fairly detailed
manner. We plan to initially examine the nature of evidence and
subsequently use this evidence to reconstruct, as far as helped by the
evidence, the characteristics of hunting-gathering societies. It is our
intent to simultaneously understand the eco-environmental context in
which hunting-gathering societies emerged and flourished. We also aim
at trying to understand regional variations among hunter-gatherers and
the subsistence pattern of regional groups among the hunting-gathering
societies.

It is an interesting feature that the time span occupied by the hunting-

gathering societies is overwhelmingly long as compared with minuscule
span shared by all the subsequent stages of social evolution. During the
hunting-gathering stage the human groups were totally dependent on
natural resources for their sustenance as they did not possess any
knowledge of agriculture with the help of which they could have grown
their food. Hunter-gatherers collected their food from the natural
surroundings in which they lived. This food consisted of fruits, edible
roots, forest produce such as honey and berries, and at places fish and
birds. In addition they also hunted animals for meat.

This complete dependence of hunting-gathering societies on resources

obtainable naturally from their environment during the major part of
17
Environment and human existence has curious implications. It means that the way they
Early Societies
acquired their food determined the attitude of hunter-gatherer
communities to their environment. Again, since these communities
lived in groups and were not necessarily homogenous, considerable
differences in traditional attitudes and practices appear to have existed.
Another significant feature of the early human groups on the Indian
subcontinent is that distinct social stages at different levels of cultural
and technological development have often co-existed and survived for a
long time. Thus hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists, shifting
cultivators and even settled agriculturists have survived in self-contained
co-existence. There have been some regional variations which are a
result of divergent climatic and environmental conditions. Even with
regional variations these communities have survived as self-contained
social groups. As a matter of fact this kind of interchange with
environment has attributed a peculiar character to South Asian life -
styles.

5.1 NATURE OF EVIDENCE

The most plentiful material remains connected with hunting-gathering
communities are stone tools and implements. In fact the other material,
if any, might have been of perishable type and therefore has not survived.
Stone being a hard imperishable substance has succeeded against all
natural odds and has revealed to us the information on hunter-gatherers.
This principal evidence is ably supplemented by the pictorial depictions
made by hunting-gathering communities of later periods. These have
survived on the walls, ceilings etc. of the cave shelters that were
seemingly used by these communities. No other records pertaining to
them have survived and we have to bank almost solely on the surviving
assemblages of stone implements and tools for reconstructing the living
patterns of hunting-gathering communities. In this task we are greatly
helped by the methods, techniques and reconstructive devices developed
by the archaeologists and the anthropologists, though this also entails
some limiting possibilities.

The bulk of the evidence relates to stone tools and implements which
were crafted by the contemporary people for their use. These tools
were made of selectively chosen stone material. They were also crafted
with a definite purpose and with an economy of effort and material both.
The assemblages of these stone tools survive at specific locations which
conform to one or more requirements of their manufacture. Besides
the availability of suitable material, the other considerations were perhaps
an abundant supply of water and food. The archaeologists unearth this
material evidence and relate it with the cultural context of its assemblage
so that the seemingly mute stone tools assume a vibrant character. This
makes it possible to reconstruct the main contours of contemporary
societies, that is the life-styles of the hunting-gathering communities.
In the process we are further helped by the pictorial depictions made by
the hunting-gathering people as they give us an idea about the economy
and society of the pre-historic people. These pictures which apparently
18
are visual expressions of the occurrences in the life of contemporary Hunting-Gathering
communities, on a detailed scrutiny communicate for more intense
tidings. Together they – the material evidence of stone tools and
implements and the rock art – help us recreate the ambience of hunting-
gathering communities in much sharper focus than ever before.

The emergence of the stone age is generally attributed to the Pleistocene

period – that began at about 1.8 million years ago. We would have been
lucky to possess material remains in a state of pristine preservation
from such a remote past. But that was not to be. This remoteness has
in fact been a disadvantage as environmental changes during the in
between period have disturbed the context of the stone tool assemblages.
Our evidence on stone tools and implements has therefore to be weighed
carefully for its value in reconstructing the social life of the
contemporary humans. V.N. Misra suggests: “Because of the length of
time involved and the changes in landscape and climate, most of the
early (Pleistocence) sites have been either obliterated or disturbed by
natural and human agencies. Also, the contemporary biological material
which could tell us about subsistence, ecology, technology, structures,
etc. has in most cases not been preserved. What has survived is a
plentitude of stone tools, often dislocated from their original context,
and buried in secondary deposits. Such archaeological material has very
limited value for cultural, ecological and chronological reconstruction,
though there are some relatively undisturbed surface sites which could
be usefully exploited for palaeoecological reconstruction using the
present as a key to the past. From the beginning of the Holocene the
preservation of both sites and biological material is better. But, in the
final analysis, precise information for cultural and ecological
reconstruction can come only from excavated primary archaeological
sites. The number of such sites is, however, as yet very small. The
cultural and ecological reconstruction of early hunter-gatherer societies
which follows has therefore to be seen against the background of these
limitations” (‘Stone Age India: An Ecological Perspective’ in Man and
Environment, XIV(I), 1989, p.17).

The stone tool assemblage pertaining to the hunting-gathering

communities have been classified by the archaeologists as belonging to
two major stages of evolution – the Palaeolithic stage and the Mesolithic
stage, based on a set of noticeable differences between the two. Since
stone tools and implements are the principal evidence providing leads
into the social structures of hunting-gathering communities, the
evolutionary features discernible from these differences are of great
value. They may help us understand, at least, the outer contours of
hunting-gathering societies and their interchange with their environments.

The Palaeolithic stage relates to the early period of the use of stone
tools by human groups. Even here the manufacture and use of stone
tools has not been a static process. Significant evolutionary changes are
quite visible within the stage. As stated by Allchins, “the Palaeolithic
industries of the Pleistocene can be divided into three major groups, on
the basis of the shape, size and methods of manufacture of the principal 19
Environment and artifact types. The Lower Palaeolithic is characterized by hand axes,
Early Societies
cleavers, chopping tools, and related artifact forms. Middle Palaeolithic
industries are characterized by smaller, lighter tools based upon flakes
struck from cores, which in some cases are carefully shaped and prepared
in advance, the Upper Palaeolithic by yet lighter artifacts, and parallel-
sided blades and burins”.(Bridget and Raymond Allchin, The Rise of
Civilization in India and Pakistan, CUP, Great Britain, 1982, p.33). It
is clear that the sequential order of the three sub-stages indicates a
continuous process of technological development which must have
adjusted with the contemporary environmental setting.

The Mesolithic stage appears after the end of the Upper Palaeolithic
period. It is generally considered as a transitional phase between the
Palaeolithic period and the beginning of agriculture during the Neolithic
period. There was rise in temperature and the climate became warm and
dry. The climatic changes affected human life and brought about changes
in fauna and flora. The technology of producing tools also underwent
change and the stone tools of microlithic variety were used. “A
progressive change and development in the stone industry towards
smaller, more delicately made and varied artifact types” was distinctly
noticeable, (Bridget & Raymond Allchin, op.cit., p.79). Man was still
in the hunting-gathering stage but there was a shift in the pattern of
hunting from big game to small game hunting and fishing and fowling
also began to be practiced. These material and ecological changes are
also reflected in rock paintings.

5.2 GEOGRAPHICAL SPREAD

At present the general agreement among the archaeologists and
anthropologists is that the early emergence of man in India belongs to
the Lower Palaeolithic stage. The geographical expanse in which the
stone tools belonging to this stage have been found runs over the entire
country except a few areas. The region of its spread is mainly covered
by the Siwalik hills in north-west India and Pakistan and upto Chennai in
the South. The area from where stone tools of the Lower Palaeolithic
stage have not been found mainly consists of Western Ghats and the
adjoining coastal region, north-east India, and the plains of the river
Ganga.

On the basis of their typology, the stone tools and implements of the
Lower Palaeolithic stage have been classified into two technological
traditions – the Sohanian and the Acheulian. The Sohanian tools mainly
consist of choppers, flakes and cores and the Acheulian tools mainly
consist of cleavers, hand-axes, scrapers and blades. This difference is
notable since it indicates a difference in the eco-environmental settings
of the two traditions. Likewise the absence of Lower Palaeolithic tools
from a few regions, as indicated above, also suggests a peculiar
environmental setting not conducive for the growth of this stage.

The Sohanian tools were first reported from the Sohan river which is a
20 tributary of the Indus. “The faunal remains from this deposit included
the horse, buffalo, straight-tusked elephant and hippopotamus, suggesting Hunting-Gathering
an environment characterized by perennial water sources, tree vegetation
and grass steppes,” (V.N. Misra, op.cit. p.18). The Acheulian tools have
been found so extensively that it is suggested that the “first effective
colonization of the country was achieved by the makers of the Acheulian
culture.” The hunter-gatherer populations practicing this tradition were
adapted to a wide variety of ecozones. These zones ranged from semi-
arid western Rajasthan, Saurashtra and Gujarat alluvial plain to sub-humid
dry as well as the moist deciduous woodland zones of Central India, the
Deccan Plateau, Chhota Nagpur plateau and the Eastern Ghats and the
south-east coast (Cf. V.N. Misra, op.cit, p.19).

There is a particularly dense and rich concentration of the sites of this

tradition in central India and in the southern part of the Eastern Ghats.
The reason for this concentration seems to be a favourable environment
– adequate rainfall giving rise to good vegetation cover which in turn
sustained a rich variety of wild animals. This also explains the absence
of Acheulian sites from Western Ghats, north-east India and the Ganga
plains. In the Western Ghats and north-east India perhaps heavy rainfall
resulted in the growth of such dense vegetation that human settlements
became difficult. The absence from Ganga plains is explained by the
paucity of stone as raw material for making tools and implements.

The next major change was the emergence of the Middle Palaeolithic
stage. The hunter-gatherers of this stage occupied largely the same
regions and the same habitats as occupied by the Achculian tradition.
The only regions which showed sparse occupation were western Rajasthan
and the Mewar region and Gujarat plain. Most of the “Middle Palaeolithic
occupations occurred at open-air sites along perennial as well as seasonal
streams, along hill slopes and on stable dune surface… and in rock
shelters as in Central India.” (V.N. Misra, op.cit., p.21).

At about 10,000 years from now the Upper Palaeolithic stage appeared
accompanied with arid climate and sparse vegetation and animal life.
This restricted the food resources of hunters-gatherers and with that the
population might also have fallen. There is a noticeable sparsity of sites
in Rajasthan and Gujarat as also in Central India. Only in the Eastern
Ghats do we notice more extensive occupations. Some of the sites in
this area are exceptionally large covering nearly five acres and yielding
an assemblage that runs in thousands.

The Mesolithic hunting-gathering communities are generally considered

the last of the group, a successor of the Upper Palaeolithic stage and the
predecessor and sometimes a coexisting community with the
agriculturists. The Mesolithic sites far out number all the other sites of
the preceding periods. The density of these sites, it may be noted, also
increases greatly.

The main areas occupied by Mesolithic people covered the arid and
semi-arid plains of western Rajasthan and north Gujarat, the rocky Mewar
plateau, hills and forests in central India and Orissa, the Chhota Nagpur
21
Environment and plateau and Deccan plateau, the Mumbai coast and Telengana plateau and
Early Societies
Eastern Ghats. Some of those territories are also occupied by Mesolithic
people that had remained uninhabited in the previous periods. These
included the Ganga valley, Damodar valley, the Kerala coast and the
Southern Tamil Nadu coast. The forest-covered alluvial plains of the
Ganga valley were effectively colonized by the Mesolithic pioneers.
Nearly 200 sites of this period have been located in the south central
part of the valley in Allahabad, Pratapgarh, Jaunpur, Mirzapur and Varanasi
districts. (Cf. G.R. Sharma, V.D. Misra, D. Mandal, B.B. Misra and J.H.
Pal, Beginnings of Agriculture: Excavations at Chopani – Mando,
Mahadaha and Mehagara, Allahabad, 1980.)

The diversity in occupation available from this period has been aptly
described by V.N. Misra: “Mesolithic communities exploited a greater
variety of habitats than their predecessors. In the Gujarat plains they
settled on sand dunes on the shores of interdunal lakes and in the Mewar
plain on elevated rocky ground as well as on river bank dunes. In the
woodland zones of the Vindhyas and the Kaimur Range they occupied
caves and rock shelters as well as open-air locations. The limestone
caves in the Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh were also occupied
during this period. In the wooded ecosystems of the interior Peninsula
there are numerous sites right in the habitat of the shifting cultivators
of the present day. Along the west coast, near Bombay, the Mesolithic
groups settled on the tops of hills and rock outcrops near the sea coast.
Near the tip of the Peninsula, on the east coast, there are occupations
on coastal sand dunes (Teris). These coastal occupations are suggestive
of marine food exploitation. Likewise, the occupations on the shores
of ox-bow lakes in the Ganga valley (e.g. Sarai Nahar Rai, Mahadaha and
Damdama), those close to water falls in the Telangana plateau (e.g. Gauri
Gundam and Pochara), around Chitrakot Falls in Bastar, and in the riverine
niches of the Eastern Ghats indicate considerable dependence on aquatic
food resources,” (V.N. Misra, op.cit., p.25).

5.3 CHARACTERISTICS
The popular perception that hunting-gathering communities lived a
primitive life closer to barbaric behaviour is a far-fetched imagination.
Based on the stone tool assemblages, the sites of their find, and the
pictorial depictions available at rock shelters it is possible to deduce
important details. Some of the characteristic features that emerge from
this indicate that hunters-gatherers lived a social life that was composed
of family, local groups and wider social ties beyond the immediate family/
local group. The stone tools and implements associated with them
strongly suggest that the more notable ones came from large factory
sites, each of which would have catered to a large area, and as suggested
by Allchins, “perhaps also been used by communities of many different
kinds and sizes.” Further, “The means of distribution of this high quality
raw material must have been either through many people visiting the site
or by those living near it having a system of exchange with people from
other groups. There are examples of trade or exchange from many early
22
settlements, which overlap in time with Mesolithic communities” (Bridget Hunting-Gathering
& Raymond Allchin, op.cit., pp. 62-3).

The information on stone tool assemblages and the pictorial depictions

at rock shelters collated together present an interesting scenario. Alchins
say that “dancing scenes in the caves of Central India depict gatherings
which must have included quite a number of families or bands. Occasions
such as these are known to have provided hunter-gatherers in many parts
of the world, including groups in Central India, South African Bushmen
and the Australian Aborigines, with the means of exchanging objects of
interest and value, and also of strengthening wider social ties, beyond
the immediate family or local group. Therefore it seems highly probably
that they did so in the case of the Stone Age inhabitants of many parts
of India. Such gatherings would also facilitate the passing on of stone
working and other techniques” (Bridget & Raymond Allchin, op.cit., pp.
63).

Accounting for different stages of stone tool manufacture we find that

the quality of stone tools and implements evolved with each succeeding
stage coming into existence and along with this the interchange between
hunting-gathering communities and their environments also got altered.
The stone tools of the Palaeolithic period were used for different
functions which besides hunting and butchering also included shattering
and breaking open bones for taking out the marrow. These tools were
also used for digging the roots and tubers and in some cases for making
other tools. In the succeeding periods the heavy tools of the core-
variety such as choppers gradually went into oblivion. Their place was
taken by tools mainly made of flakes and blades. Several kinds of
scrapers, points and borers now came into vogue. The sites now preferred
places which provided quartz and basalt as the basic raw material. Clearly,
many of these tools were used for making spears with the help of which
the animals could be hunted from a distance. Pictorial depictions on the
rocks clearly give scenes where animals were killed with the help of
several spears thrown by the hunters-gatherers, from distance without
making a direct physical contact.

The microlithic stone tools suggest a distinctly changed behaviour. The

hunting was now undertaken with the help of devices that were the proto-
types of traps, snares, nets. It is suggested by V.N. Misra that the hunter-
gatherers of this period also used the gum of several species of Acacia,
lacquer from the nests of tree ants, and a kind of milky juice which
hardened on exposure to air into a black catechu–like substance for
hafting purposes. Similarly, various strands of thin cords were made
into a net for fishing (V.N. Misra, op.cit., p.24).

The characteristics of the Mesolithic hunting-gathering communities

are vivdly presented in the pictorial depictions in caves and rock shelters
in the Vindhya Region and Kaimur Hills. “The hunting scenes at
Bhimbetka and other caves and rock shelters show the hunt of a variety
of game with spears, bows and arrows, all tipped and barbed with
microliths, hunters chasing (in one scene there are 80 individuals in the
23
Environment and expedition) and cornering the game; shooting arrows at the prey;
Early Societies
transporting the kill (to the home base); butchering; fishing by using net
traps (26 varieties of fish have been recorded in the rock painting); and
trapping of small game, birds, rats and turtles (See Nos. 526). Women
are shown participating in cornering the game. Other food gathering
activities shown in the paintings are collection of fruits, women carrying
baskets full of fruits; honey collection; and using rubbers and
querns.(V.N.Misra, op.cit.,p.26).

Another significant feature connected with this stage relates to the

evidence on the mode of the disposal of dead. The practice of burying
their dead appears in the archaeological record for the first time from
the Mesolithic stage.

5.4 REGIONAL VARIATIONS

The discussion given above must have made it clear to you that the
hunting-gathering communities existing during the Palaeolithic and
Mesolithic stages were by no means homogenous communities sharing
in common all the characteristics. The surviving evidence, in fact, makes
a strong case for considerable regional variations among them mediated
largely by the interchange between the hunting-gathering communities
and their specific environmental settings. In this section we shall examine
this interchange and shall make an attempt to delineate the consequent
regional variations.

In the Lower Palaeolithic stage we have already noted the existence of

two different strands of hunter-gatherers – the Sohanian and the Acheulian,
and their different environmental setting. While Sohanians remained
located in the valleys of the Himalayan flank, the Acheulians adapted to
a wide variety of ecozones and within these broad zones occupied
microhabitats that show quite a diversity. The camping sites of Acheulian
hunter-gatherers were located:

l along lakes and pools in wide flood plains of shallow meandering

streams;
l on stable dune surfaces and on extensively exposed gravel beds;
l in rock shelters in Central India;
l in the open, along perennial as well as seasonal streams; and
l on gravels in peninsular rivers.

Similarly the regional variations in Acheulian hunter-gatherers did also

come about based on the raw material used for tool making. While
quartz and quartzite were the most preferred material, use was also made
of dyke basalt as in western Maharashtra and even limestone as in
Karnataka and coarse grained granite as in northern Bundelkhand.

The middle Palaeolithic stage developed at a time when glaciations in

high northern altitudes was taking place. This had given rise to conditions
24 of strong aridity in regions bordering the cold northern altitudes.
Rajasthan, Mewar and Gujarat had come under the spell of aridity and Hunting-Gathering
therefore show sparsely located sites belonging to the hunter-gatherers.
The valleys of central Indian rivers, Chambal, Narmada & Son along with
their tributaries abound with camping sites of hunting-gathering
communities.

Some notable changes in tool making technology also took place during
the Middle Palaeolithic stage. The use of bifaces declined and flakes
and blades took over. “These were made by the application of retouch,
that is, by finely trimming the edges of parent flakes by the removal of
tiny thin flakes or chips.” (V.N. Misra, op.cit, p.21). The use of quartz
and quartzite, and basalt was slowly shifted to include the use of chert
and jasper and fine-grained siliceous rocks. An important point to
remember here is that transport of raw material over long distances for
tool making had come to be practiced even if in rudimentary form. The
hunting-gathering communities regularly visited the sites of tool factories
from where they collected finished tools.

The regional variation became more clearly discernible during the Upper
Palaeolithic stage as they got associated with some significant
environmental changes in the Indian sub-continent. A major part of
Rajasthan suffered from the drying up of Himalayan drainage. Except
for the north-western corner of the state between Jaisalmer and Ramgarh
there developed sand deposits and sand dunes. Similar aridity engulfed
the other northern and north-eastern areas. The green environment now
survived in the peninsular India. There was thus a notable shift in the
hunting-gathering communities’ camping sites towards south. The main
stone tools from this stage were scrapers, burins and retouched blade
tools. From a site in Kurnool Caves an assemblage of bone tools have
also been found. The ecosystems in South were rich in plant foods like
fruits, nuts, bamboo shoots and grain and leafy vegetables and
mushrooms. Another significant feature of these sites is that some of
them yield evidence on fishing, both riverine and marine and the
exploitation of other aquatic foods such as prawns, crabs, tortoises etc.

As we have seen in the earlier sections our understanding about

Mesolithic stage is rich. The distribution of sites belonging to the
hunting-gathering communities of this stage has been quite wide and a
large number of these sites have also been investigated. The principal
regional variants come from the Thar desert – Aravalli Hills area in
north-west, and Gujarat – Central India, Ganga plain in Uttar Pradesh,
and Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in peninsular India. We shall briefly
discuss here the principal sites belonging to these regional variants.

Budha Pushkar and Bagor are two most important sites from the Rajasthan
area. Budha Pushkar is a fresh water lake and has a unique distinction
of supporting habitation beginning with the harbouring of a concentration
of microlithic sites to the present day. Analysis of the finds indicates
that the microlithic sites here were primarily living or camping sites. It
also suggests an overlap with the subsequent semi-urban chalcolithic
stage. Bagor site is to the east of the Aravalli hills situated on a dune
25
Environment and Lower Palaeolithic Sites in India
Early Societies

26
Middle Palaeolithic Sites in India Hunting-Gathering

27
Environment and Upper Palaeolithic Sites in India
Early Societies

28
Mesolithic Sites in India Hunting-Gathering

29
30
Early Societies
Environment and

Rock painting from Jaora near Bhimbetka depicting a hunter with basket or carring net filled with different animals from the forest and river
(After Neumayer 1983)
 Hunting-Gathering

Morhana Pahar, Central India: rock painting of chariot ambushed by men

on foot (After Bridget & Allchin, 1982)

Rock painting from Jaora near Bhimbetka depicting women engaged in

catching rats (After Neumayer 1983) 31
Environment and on the bank of a seasonal tributary of Chambal. The key findings from
Early Societies
this site are:

l a distinctive mincrolithic factory;

l human burials of the dead;
l evidence of huts with paved floors;
l evidence of domesticated sheep and goat, different species of deer,
wild boar, jackal, rat, monitorizard, river turtle and fish;
l pottery and three copper arrow heads.

It is also suggested that over a period of time the hunting-gathering

communities associated with this site shifted to crop based agriculture
as their mode of living.

The Gujarat region site is at Langhnaj. It shows a cultural sequence

similar to the Bagor site. The Central India sites are located on small
hills and give evidence on the making of tools and implements and waste
material left after finishing the tools. There are several larger sites
which fit the size and features of factory sites. Perhaps these larger
sites were serving the communities coming there from distant places.

The situation in the Ganga plain in Uttar Pradesh was different. An

important site located at Sarai Nahar Rai appears to have been a site
under occupation by communities that lived their permanently. It is
suggested that such communities received their supplies of tools and
implements from central India sites and had thus developed a pattern of
relationships between two geographically different regions.

The peninsular sites in Raichur and Bellary districts of Karnataka yield

interesting evidence. They seem to use raw material predominantly
consisting of milky quartz. It is argued by Allchins that this was “in part
due to the granite rocks underlying so much of the country, in which
quartz veins and dykes are readily found. The jaspers and chalcedonies
so common in the volcanic rocks farther north are in short supply, but
they do occur in places and they are present in some river gravels. Both
earlier and later peoples undoubtedly found these sources, but many of
the southern microlithic assemblages are almost a hundred per cent
quartz” (Bridget & Raymond Allchin, op.cit, p.86).

5.5 SUMMARY
The Pre-historic societies of hunter-gatherers are studied on the basis
of archaeological remains with the help of anthropological theories.
The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic ages represent the hunting-gathering
stage of social evolution. The Palaeolithic Culture has three phases in
terms of the nature of stone tools and changes in climate. The handaxes,
cleavers, choppers and chopping tools are predominantly early
Palaeolithic artifacts. The Middle Palaeolithic tools are mainly flakes.
The Upper Palaeolithic Culture is characterized by burins and scrapers.
32
The Mesolithic age started around 8000 B.C. and the age is associated Hunting-Gathering

with changes in climatic conditions. There was further technological

development reflected in the production of microliths and small stone
tools. The Mesolithic tools are mainly the blade, core, point, triangle
and lunate.

Faunal remains give us considerable idea about the subsistence pattern

of palaeolithic and Mesolithic people. During the palaeolithic age people
were primarily in the hunting and gathering stage. People seem to have
hunted large and middle size mammals such as elephant, ox, nilgai, deer,
wild boar and a variety of birds. At the same time they also exploited
the plant foods like fruits, seeds etc. The hunting-gathering pattern
continued during the Mesolithic age. Some animals like wild goat, fox
etc. appeared during this time. From the Palaeolithic age to Mesolithic
Age, there seems to have been a shift from big animal hunting to small
animal hunting and fishing. The pre-historic paintings give us insight
into the economic, social and cultural life of the people. By the time
communities reached the peak stage of microlithic industry they
developed their ecological knowledge base to make a transition from
hunting-gathering mode to animal husbandry and settled agriculture,
possible.

Budha Pushkar and Bagor are two most important sites from the Rajasthan
area. Budha Pushkar is a fresh water lake and has a unique distinction
of supporting habitation beginning with the harbouring of a concentration
of microlithic sites to the present day. Analysis of the finds indicates
that the microlithic sites here were primarily living or camping sites. It
also suggests an overlap with the subsequent semi-urban chalcolithic
stage. Bagor site is to the east of the Aravalli hills situated on a dune
with changes in climatic conditions. There was further technological
development reflected in the production of microliths and small stone
tools. The Mesolithic tools are mainly the blade, core, point, triangle
and lunate.

Faunal remains give us considerable idea about the subsistence pattern

of palaeolithic and Mesolithic people. During the palaeolithic age people
were primarily in the hunting and gathering stage. People seem to have
hunted large and middle size mammals such as elephant, ox, nilgai, deer,
wild boar and a variety of birds. At the same time they also exploited
the plant foods like fruits, seeds etc. The hunting-gathering pattern
continued during the Mesolithic age. Some animals like wild goat, fox
etc. appeared during this time. From the Palaeolithic age to Mesolithic
Age, there seems to have been a shift from big animal hunting to small
animal hunting and fishing. The pre-historic paintings give us insight
into the economic, social and cultural life of the people. By the time
communities reached the peak stage of microlithic industry they
developed their ecological knowledge base to make a transition from
hunting-gathering mode to animal husbandry and settled agriculture,
possible. 33
Environment and
Early Societies 5.6 EXERCISES
1) Examine in detail the nature of evidence pertaining to hunting-gathering
communities.

2) Carefully describe the geographical spread of hunting-gathering

communities and the main stages of their expansion.

3) Write an essay on the characteristics of hunting-gathering communities

and give an idea about any notable features found by you.

4) How do regional variations in the hunting-gathering sites relate with

eco-environmental settings? Explain with the help of details provided
in Section 5.4.

5.7 SUGGESTED READING

Bridget and Raymond Allchin, The Rise of Civilization in India and
Pakistani, Great Britain, 1982.

V.N. Misra, ‘Stone Age India: An Ecological Perspective’ in Man and

Environment, XIV(I), 1989, pp 17-64.

S. Settar, Ravi Korisettar ed. Prehistory, Archaeology of South Asia,

Vol.I of Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, New Delhi, 2002.

Irfan Habib, Prehistory, in People’ History of India Series, 1 New

Delhi, 2001.

34