Palaeolithic Cultures

Subject: History

Unit: Pre-Historic Hunter Gatherers

Lesson: Palaeolithic Cultures

Lesson Developer : Shibani Bose
College/Department : Ph.D Scholar, Department of History,
University of Delhi

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

Table of contents

Chapter 2: Pre-historic hunter-gatherers

• 2.2: Palaeolithic cultures
• Summary
• Exercises
• Glossary
• Further readings

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

2.2: Palaeolithic cultures

Palaeolithic

Palaeolithic, according to the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology, is the more technical

name for the Old Stone Age. It is the longest phase of prehistory covering the time from the
first use of stone tools by humans c.2.5 million years ago to the retreat of glacial ice in the
northern hemisphere c. 10,000–8500 BC. The palaeolithic was characterized by the making
of chipped or flaked stone tools and weapons and by a hunting-gathering way of life. It is
usually divided into the lower, middle and upper palaeolithic on the basis of tool types and
technology. Lower Palaeolithic, c. 2.5 million–200,000 BC witnessed the earliest forms of
humans (Australopithecus and Homo erectus) and the predominance of core tools of hand
axe, cleaver and chopper-chopping type; middle palaeolithic, c. 150,000–40,000BC, the era
of Neanderthals and the predominance of flake-tool industries and upper palaeolithic,
c.38,000 BC–10,000 BC the Homo sapiens sapiens, blade and burin industries and the
development of cave art. The palaeolithic was originally defined by the use of chipped stone
tools but later an economic criterion was added, and the practice of hunting and gathering is
now regarded as a defining characteristic (Kipfer 2009, 418).

Following the trail: aspects of the Indian palaeolithic

As the revolutionary ideas proposed by Darwin, Frere, Lyell, de Mortillet, Boucher de Perthe,
John Evans and others were overturning traditional beliefs regarding human origins in 19th
century Europe, the same deeply influenced Robert Bruce Foote, a young British geologist
working in the heart of South India. What followed marked the birth of Indian prehistory. In
1863, Foote discovered the first palaeolithic tool, a hand-axe at the village of Pallavaram
near Madras (now Chennai). Following his death, Indian prehistoric research lapsed into
obscurity only to pick up momentum in the 1930s with the Yale-Cambridge expedition of H.
de Terra and T.T. Paterson. Other notable contributions before 1950 included the work by
M.C. Burkitt and C.A. Cammiade in Andhra Pradesh, the work in Mayurbhanj, Orissa by N.K.
Bose, D. Sen and their colleagues of Calcutta University in 1940 and F.E. Zeuner’s
investigations in 1948, mostly in Gujarat. Subsequent advances focused on the discovery of
new prehistoric sites, the study of palaeoenvironments and the use of modern techniques
for dating like radiocarbon dating, thermoluminescence or TL dating, potassium argon or K-
AR dating, palaeomagnetic dating, uranium thorium (U-TH) dating and electro spin
resonance (ESR). Yet, even after more than 150 years of research, the paucity of fossil
faunal and hominid remains has resulted in our knowledge of the Indian palaeolithic
scarcely extending to little beyond stone tools.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

Value addition: life stories

Getting to know the father of Indian prehistory
The year 1863 proved to be particularly special for Robert Bruce Foote. The
joy of his discovery of a palaeolithic artefact at Pallavaram, on 30th May
1863 came almost immediately after the birth of his eldest and favourite
son, Henry Bruce Foote. Birth records list Henry Bruce, son of Robert Bruce
Foote and Elizabeth Ann, as born on April 22nd, 1863, and baptized on May
24th, 1863. In addition to his scholarship, Foote stands out as a family man:
whose family was supportive and involved in his passion for studying
India’s past. His wives (he married Elizabeth Ann and after her death, Eliza
Mellisa Wells), children and an extended network of family and friends
helped him in his passion for research, documentation and collection of
antiquities. Foote’s last will and testament provide remarkable insights into
his personality. Names and relationships are clearly defined, likes and
dislikes are aired, and the varied nuances of family life are glimpsed amidst
the stilted legal language. A clear division of possessions and finances,
including stocks and shares held, and debts and amounts to be recovered
from various children and relations, all portray a practical man; – a man
whose passion for the past did not translate into otherworldliness and
vague abstraction.
“And I appoint my dear wife Eliza Melissa Foote during her life and after her death
my trustees to be the guardian and guardians of my infant children. I give (excepting
my collections of Indian Prehistoric Antiquities or the proceeds thereof which shall
form part of my general estate and the articles hereinafter specifically bequeathed)
all my plate, linen, china, glass, books, pictures, prints, wines, liquors, furniture and
other household effects and all my carriages and horses to my said wife absolutely”.

(Extract from the Will of R.B. Foote.

1899)

Prehistoric antiquities are a particularly unusual item to be listed in one’s last will and
testament. Perhaps not so in the case of personalities such as that of Robert Bruce
Foote, whose life was intimately linked with the many worlds of India’s ancient past.
In the will of 1899, it is significant that in the distribution of his property he
specifically left out, ‘…my collection of Indian Prehistoric Antiquities or the proceeds
thereof which shall form part of my general estate….’

Very clearly, he had definite plans for these antiquities. Here, it is significant to
note that as early as 1868, in the course of the International Congress of
Prehistoric Archaeology at Norwich, the Swedish archaeologist, Prof. Nilsson, was
said to have greatly admired and desired to purchase artefacts No. 2204–9; an
offer turned down by Foote. However, in the same year, Foote allowed the
greater part of his early collection of tools to be distributed by John Evans to

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

Charles Lyell, John Lubbock, Colonel Lane-Fox (Pitt-Rivers), C. Wickham Flower,

and James Wyatt. Later his collections also found their way to the Blackmore
Musuem amongst many others. In 1873, during the International Exhibition in
Vienna he received many offers to purchase some of these antiquities from Prof.
Hochstetter, and other German scholars, but refused on the grounds that he
wished these to remain in India. These were later presented to the museum of
the Geological Survey of India, and then transferred to the Indian Museum,
Kolkata. When the codicil to the Will was drafted in 1908, Foote had already sold
his collections to the Madras Museum. This was done in 1904 for a sum of
Rs.33,000 when Edgar Thurston was Superintendent.

With this exception he left everything to his wife, also specifying individual
legacies to various family members.

Source: Pappu, Shanti. 2008. Prehistoric Antiquities and Personal Lives:

The Untold Story of Robert Bruce Foote, Man and Environment XXXIII
(1), 30–50.

Figure 2.2.1: Robert Bruce Foote (1834-1912)

Source: http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=29748

However, we should not conclude from the excerpt above that today one can freely collect
and sell antiquities. Legislation like The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and
Remains Act, 1958 and Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 presently regulate such
activities.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

Chronology

The beginning of the manufacture of stone tools in India goes back to the beginning and
early part of the Pleistocene. Accordingly, the entire phase of the Indian palaeolithic is
bracketed between 2 mya to roughly 12,000–10,000 years BP (Before Present) with the
lower palaeolithic falling between 2mya to 100,000 years BP while the middle and upper
palaeolithic spanning 100,000 to 40,000 years BP and 40,000 to 10,000 years BP
respectively.

Environment

D. K. Chakrabarti (2006,71-2) laments the lack of a coordinated approach to the study of

the environmental backdrop of the Indian palaeolithic. But he acknowledges a growing
agreement regarding the late Pleistocene having been semi-arid/arid followed by the onset
of wetter conditions during the Holocene. Early and the middle Pleistocene are postulated to
have been generally wetter than the late Pleistocene. However, broad generalizations for
the subcontinent he contends, seem difficult keeping in mind three points. First is the
absence of information from vast areas; second, in a vast landmass as India, it is only
natural to assume differences in climate during the Pleistocene and finally, the uncertainty
about the extent to which the Pleistocene fauna and vegetation differed from the current
Indian landscape.

Regional distribution and settlement patterns

Palaeolithic sites occur in almost all parts of the Indian subcontinent, spanning the foothills
of the Himalayas in the north to Tamil Nadu in the south and from Peshawar and Sind in the
west to Bengal in the east. The availability of stone seems to have been a crucial
determining factor in the choice of sites. This is evident from the near absence of
palaeolithic remains in the alluvial stretches of the Indus and the Ganga valleys (with the
exception of Kalpi in UP), a region known to be deficient in stone resources. The wide
geographical spread of palaeolithic sites clearly indicates adaptations to diverse ecological
zones.
The lower palaeolithic contexts at Didwana, Rajasthan haveyielded a date of 390,000 BP; a
date of 190,000–69,000 BP in the Hiran valley in Gujarat; 103,800+19,800 BP in the Son
valley, Madhya Pradesh; 350,000 BP at Nevasa in Maharashtra and 350,000 BP at the site
of Yedurwadi in Karnataka.
As for middle palaeolithic contexts, Didwana in Rajasthan has yielded two
thermoluminiscence dates of 150,000 BP and 144,000 BP while a date of 56,800 BP comes
from the Hiran valley of Gujarat. The tool bearing level at Kalpi has been dated about
45,000 years ago.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

Among a few dates for upper palaeolithic contexts, mention may be made of site 55 at
Riwat which gives the earliest date for the upper palaeolithic c.45,000 years ago. The Son
valley in central India yielded a date of 12,000–10,000 BP while two dates from the Kurnool
caves in Andhra are 19,224 BP and 16,686 BP.

Starting from the north, the earliest evidence of a lower palaeolithic context in the form of
pebble tools dating back to 2 million years comes from Riwat in the valley of river Soan in
the Potwar plateau. Later dates come from Dina and Jalalpur in the Jhelum basin (c.
700,000–500,000 years ago), the river terraces of Beas and Banganga in Himachal Pradesh
and Ladakh and Pahalgaon in the Kashmir valley. Acheulian tools have also been reported
in the Sukkur Rohri hills in Sind. Evidence of both middle and upper palaeolithic occupation
comes from the Sanghao cave near Peshawar.

In Rajasthan, lower, middle and upper palaeolithic tools have been found around Ajmer and
Jodhpur. The occurrence of middle palaeolithic artefacts in reddish brown soil in the Thar
region, it has been suggested, indicates a cooler, wetter and more humid climate with more
abundant vegetation and more surface water compared to the lower palaeolithic. Middle and
upper palaeolithic tools are also found around Jaisalmer. The vicinity of the now extinct Luni
river system has also yielded middle palaeolithic sites. The Luni tradition refers to the
middle palaeolithic assemblages west of the Aravalli hill ranges. Compared to the stone
tool-kits of the regions lying east of the Aravallis, we find sites to the west displaying
greater variety in tool types and larger number of reworked flakes.

In western India, palaeolithic artefacts have been located in south Gujarat, Saurashtra and
Kutch.

In Maharashtra, Nevasa and Patne are the most important sites. The latter revealed a
continuity of cultures from the middle palaeolithic to the mesolithic.

Similar evidence of continuity in cultures from the lower palaeolithic to the mesolithic comes
from the rock shelters of Bhimbetka near Bhopal and Adamgarh in district Hoshangabad,
Madhya Pradesh. Upper palaeolithic and mesolithic tools were also retrieved from the site of
Baghor in Sidhi district.

The Belan valley of Uttar Pradesh, in the region stretching from Allahabad to Varanasi,
revealed a complete sequence from the lower palaeolithic to the neolithic and even later
times. Artefacts ranging from the upper palaeolithic to the neolithic have been retrieved
from the site of Chopani Mando, near Allahabad.

Heading eastwards, Assam and other parts of the north-east lack sufficient palaeolithic
evidence. Palaeolithic artefacts occur in Birbhum, Burdwan, Purulia and Midnapore regions
of West Bengal. The richness of palaeolithic material in the districts of Sundargarh,
Sambalpur, Bolangi and Mayurbhanj in Orissa also adds significantly to our prehistoric
heritage. The districts of Singhbhum and Hazaribagh in Jharkhand have yielded palaeolithic
artefacts. Acheulian floors of a stone working site containing finished and semi-finished tools
were recovered from Paisra in district Munger, Bihar.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

Moving towards peninsular India, the districts of Kurnool, Chittoor and Nalagaonda in
Andhra Pradesh are significant for their palaeolithic remains. The site of Muchchatha
Chintamani Gavi in Kurnool stands out for revealing the earliest traces of bone tools and
hearth-fire in India.

Hunsgi district Gulbarga and Anangwadi (district Bijapur) are important palaeolithic sites in
the Malaprabha-Ghatprabha region in Karnataka. The site of Isampur in Gulbarga district
yielded evidence of Acheulian as well as middle palaeolithic occupation going back to
between 500,000 and 600,000 years ago. The expanse of the site and the large number of
tools found here in different stages of preparation indicate its status as a center of stone
tool manufacture. Some of the tools are weathered and display use-marks suggesting that it
was also a habitation site where people lived and carried out subsistence activities.

Attirampakkam in district Chingleput in Tamil Nadu is considered as one of the classic sites
in the history of Indian palaeolithic archaeology. Excavations have revealed a multicultural
site with stratified lower, middle and upper palaeolithic deposits in well preserved contexts.

Value addition: interesting details

Animal footprints and fossil teeth at Attirampakkam
An Acheulian living floor was exposed 3.6 m below the surface with large boulder
cores, artefacts and debitage found in association with a set of animal footprints,
the first of their kind to be documented in South Asia.

The discovery of three fossil teeth is also significant, as fossils are rare at Indian
lower and middle Palaeolithic sites. These include an upper molar of Bovini,
possibly representing Bubalus (water buffalo) or Bos; a lower molar of Equus sp.
(genus comprising horses, donkeys), and a left lower molar, Caprinae or
Boselaphini (Boselaphus: nilgai). These indicate at least three different fossil
species suggestive of an open and wet landscape.

Source: antiquity.ac.uk/projGall/pappu/pappu.html

The scant evidence of palaeolithic habitation sites notwithstanding, it can be assumed that
early humans chose to live along the banks of rivers or streams and in caves and rock
shelters, close to sources of food, water and stone tools. Sites such as Bhimbetka and
Hunsgi indicate continuous occupation over centuries. The rock shelters at Bhimbetka were
probably occupied only during the monsoon and winter months, humans preferring to camp
in the open in summer months (Jain, 2006, 53). The sites were basically seasonal camps
where hunter-gatherers returned after venturing out in search of food. Still others seem to
have been associated with specific activities and could have been stone working sites. These
sites were generally located close to the sources of raw materials and had abundant stone
tools in various stages of preparation. Certain sites in Hunsgi valley (Karnataka) and Belan
valley (UP) have been characterized as stone working site where tools of local raw material
were made and sent to other places.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

There are only few traces of the dwellings or habitation structures of early hominids.
Evidence of alignment of slab-like pieces or granite blocks at Hunsgi in Karnataka and Paisra
in Bihar have been considered indicative of some thatched roof-like structures. Palaeolithic
hunter-gatherers are likely to have lived in small groups, corresponding to a ‘band society’
and their movement was largely determined by the seasonal availability of food resources.
Bands are small communities, usually consisting of less than 100 people who tend to be
nomadic to some extent. Members are usually related to each other through kinship and
division of labour is based on age and sex. Exchange of goods is based on rules of
reciprocity rather than commercial exchange. The band itself owns the natural resources all
its members depend on. There is no formal government but members are regulated through
customs, norms and social etiquette (Singh 2009, 81).

Value addition: common misconceptions

About the location of stone age sites
Contrary to what we think, stone age sites are not so distant after all. From what
archaeology reveals, we are well in the midst of them. In 1956, four lower
palaeolithic stone tools were found on the Delhi ridge near the main gate of the
University of Delhi. Similarly, in 1983, a late Acheulian handaxe was retrieved from
the campus of Jawaharlal Nehru University. As many as 43 sites ranging from lower
palaeolithic to the microlithic have been identified in south Delhi and adjoining
areas.

Source: Singh, Upinder. 2009. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India
from the Stone Age to the 12th Century. New Delhi: Pearson Longman, 70–
71.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

Figure 2.2.2: Map showing principal palaeolithic sites in the Indian subcontinent
Source: Jain, V. K. 2006. Prehistory and Protohistory of India: An Appraisal: Palaeolithic
Non-Harappan Chalcolithic Cultures. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 49.

Unlocking the palaeolithic tool-kit

Archaeologist Louis Leakey’s (1903–1972) telling statement, “Stone tools are fossilized
human behaviour”, immediately drives home the vital importance of stone tools as mute
remains which hold the key to our understanding of prehistoric ways of life.

Based on tool types, broadly three tool making techniques can be identified (Jain 2006, 42-
43): direct percussion, indirect percussion and pressure application. Each of these
techniques refers to a varying degree of force applied on the core to produce the tool of a
desired shape. Before understanding each of these, it is important to know the difference
between core and flake tools. When a stone is broken into two or more pieces, the largest
piece is called a core and the smaller piece or pieces are called flakes. Stone tools made out
of the largest piece are called core tools while tools made out of the smaller pieces are
called flake tools. Humans also realized that flakes once removed could be retouched in

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

order to acquire shapes and edges for specific jobs. Hence, while earlier tools were all-
purpose implements, developed by hit and trial method, later ones became task specific.

In direct percussion technique, a stone was hit perpendicularly on the edge of another stone
to produce a big flake with wide angles or uneven edges. Gradually improving motor skills
enabled man to control his strokes and direct his blows at specific angles near the edges, to
produce flakes with sharper and better cutting edges.

In indirect percussion technique, pressure on the core was exerted indirectly with a stone,
bone or hard wood object in order to acquire flakes of a desired shape and size. Pressure
flaking involved a method in which flakes were removed not by hitting directly or indirectly
but by putting pressure at one specified point to make flakes jump out of the core. This
technique was more suitable for use on softer-grained stones like agate and chert which
served as raw materials in the middle and upper phases of the palaeolithic.

Within the palaeolithic, we notice a gradual improvement in tool-types and a shift in

preference from coarse-grained to fine-grained stone. Changes in tool types also indicate
changes in subsistence strategies. It is however, important to remember that the transition
from one stage to another was neither sudden nor drastic. Stratigraphic profiles have
revealed a clear evolution of lithic technology from lower to middle to upper palaeolithic.
Hence though early palaeolithic tools including large chopping tools, handaxes and cleavers
did not cease to be used, smaller, lighter flake tools were the evident choice by the middle
palaeolithic. In the upper palaeolithic also, while older tool types continued to be used for
activities that required heavier tools, the preference was for smaller tools. An increase in
the number of burins and the making of parallel-sided blades now characterized the tool kit.
The successive reduction in the size and weight of tools is not only indicative of better motor
skills but also an increasing brain size that facilitated the planning of such varied techniques
requiring precision. Changes in the tool-kit may also have been in response to changes in
subsistence strategies. The tool-types of the three phases are believed to represent three
stages of hominid evolution: Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens.
Micro-wear analysis of palaeoliths suggests their use for purposes ranging from hunting,
butchering, skinning of animals, digging of roots to making wooden tools and weapons.

Traditionally, the Indian lower palaeolithic has been divided into two tool traditions — the
Soan or Sohan culture and the Acheulian (named after the site of St. Acheul in France) or
'Madrasian' traditions. The Soan culture, named after river Soan and found over parts of
Pakistan and northwestern India, was dominated by pebble or core tools and characterised
as a predominantly chopper/chopping tool tradition. The Acheulian culture, once known as
the ‘Madrasian’ culture, since hand-axes were first discovered near Madras in 1863, was a
popular tool making tradition in peninsular India, characterised by bifacially flaked artefacts
— handaxes and cleavers. Some scholars believe that this difference need not be attributed
to differing cultures, but may signify varied technological strategies, devised to suit different
environmental conditions.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

Figure 2.2.3: Acheulian hand-axe vertically embedded in clay

Source: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/pappu297/

Figure 2.2.4: An early Acheulian assemblage from the central Narmada Basin, peninsular
India
Source: http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/issue8/chauhan.html

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

Technologically, the middle palaeolithic period was characterised by tools made on medium-
sized flakes. The assemblage now comprised of tools thinner and smaller than those of the
lower palaeolithic and included a variety of scrapers borers and points. The technique
predominantly followed in this period is called Levallosian, after a French site. This
technique involved the dressing and trimming of the core to obtain a flat surface or a
‘tortoise’ shape. Striking specific points with a soft hammer then produced symmetrical and
thinner flakes. H.D. Sankalia first identified these flake-based tools in 1956 at Nevasa in
Maharashtra and called it the Nevasa culture. Subsequent excavations revealed that these
tools were not part of a local culture but a general feature of middle palaeolithic cultures in
India.

Figure 2.2.5: Middle palaeolithic artefacts

Source: antiquity.ac.uk/projGall/shidrang/index.html

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

The upper palaeolithic assemblage was marked by further reduction in the size and weight
of tools which were now dominated by blades and burins. The technique used was of
pressure flaking (explained earlier) which produced smaller tools with more effective cutting
edges and also resulted in less wastage of raw material. It has been argued that the main
advantage of upper palaeolithic tools was that being lighter, they could be carried over long
distances if necessary. Bone tools formed an integral part of the upper palaeolithic tool-kit
in Europe, but in India, scrapers and chisels made of bone come forth only from the cave of
Muchchatta Chintamani Gavi at Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh. Hence we are uncertain whether
bone tools were a general component of the upper palaeolithic tool-kit or were limited only
to this part of Andhra.
Watch this video on the making of palaeolithic tools:
www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/stsmith/classes/ant...

Figure 2.6.6: Burin shaped stone tools

Source: http://archaeology.jp/sites/2008/taro.htm

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

Figure 2.2.7: Stone blades

Source: http://archaeology.jp/sites/2008/taro.htm

The raw materials humans chose for tool-making varied from region to region, depending
on its availability. Thus, while quartzite, easily available in hill ranges in India, was used
over most of the subcontinent in the early palaeolithic period, in Maharastra basalt and in
Hunsgi region of Karnataka limestone were preferred. Fine grained stone like agate, jasper
and chert were chosen for middle and upper palaeolithic tools. The growing preference for
fine grained raw material not only hints at an expanding knowledge of the properties of
different stones but also seems to have been regardless of whether it was available in the
vicinity or not. Raw material was often transported over several kilometres.

Value addition: did you know?

What the palaeolithic tool kit comprised…
Lower Palaeolithic Tools:

A chopper is worked on one side and is hence unifacial.

A chopping tool is worked on both sides and is bifacial. It is made on a core or

pebble and is flaked alternately on both sides to produce a wavy cutting edge.
A handaxe is basically a core-tool, roughly triangular in shape, broad at one end and
pointed at the other. Some hand axes might have been hafted onto handles.
A cleaver is a flat tool made on a broad rectangular or triangular flake and has a
broad cutting edge.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

Middle Palaeolithic Tools:

A scraper is a tool with a scraping edge that is manipulated by the force of fingers
rather than that of the palm as in the case of the hand-axe.

A borer is a tool used to drill a hole in an object.

A point is a tool having a sharp pointed end that could be used as an
arrowhead or a hole-making device.
Upper Palaeolithic Tools:

A blade is a flake tool, the length of which is more than twice its width. A blade with
more or less even, parallel sides is known as a parallel-sided blade.
A burin is a small tool made on a blade with a screw-driver edge. Burins were
probably used as engraving tools or for making grooves in wood or bone for hafting
stone tools.

Source: Singh, Upinder. 2009. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India
from the Stone Age to the 12th Century. New Delhi: Pearson Longman, 70–
71.

Of art, beliefs and practices

Unlike in Europe, Australia and southern Africa, there is very little and uncertain evidence of
palaeolithic art in India. Though some of the paintings at Bhimbetka have been attributed to
the upper palaeolithic period, there is no definite evidence to support this view. There are
problems in dating and interpreting whatever archaeologists have unearthed till now in this
realm. Some of these include a damaged upper palaeolithic carved bone object found at
Lohanda Nala in the Belan valley (UP) which was identified as a mother goddess figurine by
some and as a harpoon by others. A piece of ostrich eggshell engraved with two panels of
criss-cross designs was found at Patne. Similarly a circular disc of chalcedony at Bhimbetka
and a soft sandstone disc at Maihar found in Acheulian contexts are equally perplexing.
The upper palaeolithic layer at Baghor in Madhya Pradesh yielded fascinating evidence of a
roughly circular platform made of sandstone rubble at the centre of which was a piece of
natural stone. Nine other fragments of this stone were found mostly on or near the platform
and the ten pieces when joined together formed a triangle which was originally placed on
the platform. It has been interestingly pointed out that the Kol and the Baiga tribal people
who live in this part of the Kaimur hills today make circular rubble platforms and worship
similar triangular stones as a symbol of the female principle (Singh 2009, 80).

Value addition: did you know?

About ostrich eggshells…
The ostrich now found only in Africa and on the verge of extinction, roamed over
parts of Asia, including India, till the end of the Pleistocene or early Holocene. They

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

may have been hunted for food and their eggs must also have been eaten. Ostrich
eggs are big and the shell is so hard that it has to be broken with a hammer and
saw. Shells could have been used as bowls and containers. Fragments of ostrich
eggshell have been found in upper palaeolithic contexts in India. Beads and discs for
ornaments were made out of ostrich shells. Ostrich eggshell beads occur in upper
palaeolithic contexts at Patne and Bhimbetka.

Source: Singh, Upinder. 2009. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India
from the Stone Age to the 12th Century. New Delhi: Pearson Longman, 79.

Moving beyond stereotypes

Archaeological investigations supplemented with a cautious use of ethnographic studies of

modern hunter-gatherers can provide valuable insights into the palaeolithic past. Underlying
such an enterprise, is the assumption of certain broad similarities arising out of a similar
subsistence base. In doing so, we have to keep in mind, what Singh (2009, 81) cautions.
She warns us against the folly of drawing parallels between the belief systems of prehistoric
people and modern hunter-gatherers since the latter have some degree of contact with
more complex societies.

Popular belief has it that the hunting-gathering way of life was a constant, relentless
struggle for survival with little or no time for leisure. However, argues Singh (2009, 81) that
the limited material desires of palaeolithic humans coupled with the lack of technology that
would permit them to hoard food beyond a point, were also the factors that ensured that
subsistence related activities ceased once there was enough food. This must have left them
with some leisure time for other activities. Many modern hunter-gatherers exhibit sufficient
leisure time for activities not related to subsistence.

The perception of hunting-gathering as an inefficient mode of subsistence also calls for

reconsideration in view of the continuation of this mode even into our time. Ethnographic
studies have shown that hunting-gathering groups often do not exploit the natural resource
potential of their area and rather exercise a conscious restraint in their exploitation of the
environment in order to conserve its resources.

A close look at modern hunter-gatherers, points out Singh (2009, 81) also suggests a
greater role of gathering rather than hunting in this mode of subsistence. This, she argues,
holds vital clues regarding subsistence patterns and gender roles and relations in
palaeolithic societies. If plant food contributed more to the diet, then it can be inferred that
women had a major role to play in the subsistence base of palaeolithic communities. Also
since in most modern hunting-gathering communities, men hunt and women gather food,
we may well be close to reality in postulating a similar division of labour in palaeolithic
times.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

2.2 Summary

• Paucity of fossil, faunal and hominid remains has resulted in palaeolithic evidence
largely consisting of stone tools.

• A hunting-gathering mode of subsistence based on the exploitation of diverse

ecological zones.

• Tool types and technology form the basis of the division into lower, middle and upper
palaeolithic.

• A gradual reduction in the size and weight of tools accompanied with a shift in the
choice of raw materials.

• Little evidence of habitation sites. Camps were basically seasonal and some served
as stone working sites.

2.2: Exercises

Essay questions

1) What does the term palaeolithic convey to you? Discuss the changes in the
palaeolithic tool-kit.

2) Discuss the regional distribution of palaeolithic sites in India.

3) Bring out the salient features of the palaeolithic way of life.

Objective questions

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

Question Number Type of question LOD

1 True or False 1

Question
Modern day humans or Homo sapiens sapiens correspond to lower
palaeolithic cultures.

Correct Answer
False
/ Option(s)

Justification/ Feedback for the correct answer

Homo sapiens sapiens appeared during the upper palaeolithic period.

Resource/Hints/Feedback for the wrong answer

Reviewer’s Comment:

Question Number Type of question LOD

2 Match the following 2

Question
Culture Tools

a) Middle palaeolithic i) Hand-axes and chopper-chopping tools

b) Lower palaeolithic ii) Blades and burins

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

c)Upper paleaolithic iii)Flake tools comprising scrapers, borers, points

Correct Answer
a) and iii), b) and i), c) and ii)
/ Option(s)

Justification/ Feedback for the correct answer

There is a gradual reduction in the size and weight of tools. The lower
palaeolithic is characterized by the use of big hand-axes and chopper-
chopping tools. The middle palaeolithic witnesses the use of flake tools
while blades and burins dominate the tool assemblage in the upper
paleolithic period.

Resource/Hints/Feedback for the wrong answer

Reviewer’s Comment:

Question Number Type of question LOD

3 Multiple choice question 3

Question
Which is the site that attests to the use of bone tools in the upper
palaeolithic age in India?

a) Hunsgi

b)Paisra

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

c)Muchchatha Chintamani Gavi

d)Isampur

Correct Answer
c)
/ Option(s)

Justification/ Feedback for the correct answer

c) A cave in Kurnool where tools made on shafts of long animal bones

were discovered. This cave yielded the only evidence of hearth fire in
India during the upper palaeolithic age.

Resource/Hints/Feedback for the wrong answer

Reviewer’s Comment:

Question Number Type of question LOD

4 Multiple choice question 3

Question
‘Sohan culture’ is another name for:

a) Lower palaeolithic culture

b) Middle palaeolithic culture

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

c) Upper palaeolithic culture

d) Mesolithic culture

Correct Answer
a)
/ Option(s)

Justification/ Feedback for the correct answer

a) It is so because it was from here (the Sohan river in northwest India) that
the first sequence was located.

Resource/Hints/Feedback for the wrong answer

Reviewer’s Comment:

Question Number Type of question LOD

5 Multiple choice question 3

Question
The middle palaeolithic tool assemblage in the southern Thar desert is
known as:

a) Teri tradition

b) Madrasian tradition

c) Ganeshwar tradition

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

d) Luni tradition

Correct Answer
d)
/ Option(s)

Justification/ Feedback for the correct answer

The Luni tradition refers to the middle palaeolithic assemblages west of

the Aravallis.

Resource/Hints/Feedback for the wrong answer

Reviewer’s Comment:

Question Type of question LOD

Number

6 3
Multiple choice question

Question
In terms of the raw materials used, how do you distinguish between lower
and middle palaeolithic tools?

a) Lower palaeolithic primarily used quartzite whereas in the middle

palaeolithic dolomite was primarily used.

b) Lower palaeolithic primarily used dolomite whereas in the middle

palaeolithic quartzite was primarily used.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

c) Lower palaeolithic primarily used sandstone whereas in the middle

palaeolithic quartzite was primarily used.

d) Lower palaeolithic primarily used quartzite whereas in the middle

palaeolithic crypto-crystalline silica were primarily used.

Correct Answer d)
/ Option(s)

Justification/ Feedback for the correct answer

Lower palaeolithic cultures primarily used quartzite while crypto-

crystalline silica such as agate, jasper, chert and chalcedony were used
during the middle palaeolithic.

Resource/Hints/Feedback for the wrong answer

Reviewer’s Comment:

2.2 Glossary

Acheulian: pertaining to, or typical of a lower palaeolithic culture characterized by large

hand axes and cleavers
Assemblage: a group of objects of different or similar types found in close association with
one another and thus considered the product of one people from one time
Codicil: modifying clause added to a will
Debitage: waste material
Electron Spin Resonance: method is used for a material which decomposes when heated,
and is useful for dating objects such as tooth enamel
Ethnographic studies: a branch of anthropology involving studies dealing with the
scientific description of individual cultures
Micro-wear analysis: the study of wear marks on tools in order to understand their
function
Palaeoenvironment: the environment of a given region in ancient times
Palaeomagnetic dating: based on the analysis of particles contained in sediments which

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Palaeolithic Cultures

can indicate the time when old rocks containing human artifacts or fossils were formed.
Percussion: the striking of one body against another with some sharpness
Potassium-argon dating: the method used to determine the age of a rock by measuring
the proportion of potassium (K40) and argon in the volcanic ash containing prehistoric
remains. It has facilitated the dating of objects as far back as 5,000 mya and early fossils
and foot-prints in eastern Africa
Radiocarbon dating: is the most commonly used dating technique, based on the principle
that all living things such as humans, plants and animals contain a fixed proportion of C12
and C14 - after their death or decay, while C12 remains stable, C14 decreases at a steady
rate, and if the ratio between C12 and C14 is calculated, its original date can be specified
Thermoluminiscence: a scientific method in archaeology to date inorganic material that
has been heated rapidly like pottery
Stratigraphic: the exact archaeological layer in which an object is found
Uranium Thorium dating: based on the radioactive decay of uranium isotope, the method
is useful in dating objects belonging to a period from 5,00,000–50,000 years which lie
outside the time range of C14 dating

2.2 Further readings

Chakrabarti, D. K. 2006. The Oxford Companion to Indian Archaeology: The Archaeological

Foundations of Ancient India: Stone Age to AD 13 Century. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.

Ghosh, A. 1989. An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology, Ed., A. Ghosh. Volume I. New

Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Jain, V. K. 2006. Prehistory and Protohistory of India: An Appraisal: Palaeolithic Non-

Harappan Chalcolithic Cultures. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld.

Kipfer, Ann. 2000. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology. New York: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Paddayya, K. and Petraglia M. 1997. Isampur: An Acheulian Workshop in the Hunsgi Valley,
Gulbarga District, Karnataka. Man and Environment, 22: 95–100.

Singh, Upinder. 2009. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to
the 12th Century. New Delhi: Pearson Longman.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi