Paper No.

: 03 Archaeological Anthropology
Module
Paper No.: :03
15Archaeological
Lower Palaeolithic Culture of India
Anthropology
Module : 15 Lower Palaeolithic Culture of India

Development Team
Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor
Principal Investigator
Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi

Paper Coordinator Dr. M.K. Singh

Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi

Content Writer Dr. D.K. Bhattacharya (Retd.Prof.)

Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi

Content Reviewer Prof. Falguni Chakraborty

Vidyasagar University, Medinipur, West Bengal

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology Lower Palaeolithic Culture of India
 Description of Module

Subject Name Anthropology

Paper Name 03 Archaeological Anthropology

Module Name/Title Lower Palaeolithic Culture of India

Module Id 15

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

 Blade tools - Upper Palaeolithic

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

Sandy Gravel (III)

Dark Silt Upper
Upper

Palaeolithic
Pleistocene

Cemented Gravel (II) Middle

Yellow Silt
Middle

Boulder Conglomerate (I)

Lower

Mottled Clay
Lower

Primary Laterite

Middle Pleistocene is represented by two gravels and the older one records core tools and hence
represents Lower Palaeolithic while the second gravel records flake tools and hence represents Middle
3

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology Lower Palaeolithic Culture of India
 Palaeolithic. Today we have a number of absolute dates from our newly discovered Lower Palaeolithic
sites which push the date of arrival of man back to a date which is several times more than what was
estimated through geo-chronology.
For instance, at Attirampakkam near Chennai Lower Palaeolithic is dated to 1.5 million years, at
Isampur in Karnataka date for the same culture is estimated to be 1.2 million years. In Maharashtra
Bori and Moregaon are two Lower Palaeolithic sites which have dates beyond 600,000 years. In
addition to these early dates from the mainland, Dennel has now reported Palaeolithic tools from Riwat
and Pabbi Hills which are in Pakistan and are situated almost at the western gateway of India. And
these sites have been given a date of 2.1 million years. All these evidences almost conclusively prove
that our early ancestors arrived in India very soon after their emergence in Africa.
The geo-chronology for India was based by De Terra and Paterson on the succession observed by them
at Sohan near Rawalpindi and Narmada near Hoshangabad. The third gravel representing Upper
Pleistocene was not attested in majority of the rivers. In fact Zeuner and Sankhalia surveyed several
rivers in south Gujarat and demonstrated that there are only two gravels in these rivers that represent
the Pleistocene epoch. Gregory Possehl felt that unless attested by marker fossils these gravels should
not be considered as representing Pleistocene pluviation. He further suggests that in all likelihood even
these two gravels represent periodic wet phases within upper Pleistocene only. Now with the series of
absolute dates available the pendulum has swang to the opposite direction. Thus, basically geo-
chronology seems to be not very satisfactory road to approach dating Lower Palaeolithic culture of
India. Finally it is important to mention that Possehl was not entirely correct because now we have a
third gravel with an absolute date of 19,000 reported from Belan river near Allahabad.
De Terra and Paterson came to India in 1939, and published their discovery along The terraces of the
Sohan river near Rawalpindi. The context of the terraces were traced by the presence of distinct early
Pleistocene fauna identified as Elephas hysudricus which is also found in direct association of the first
Himalayan loess called Karewa-I near Malshahibagh in the vicinity of the Dal lake in Srinagar. On the
basis of the association of this fauna in the lacustrine bed of Tatrot it was argued that subsequent
deposits in the Potwar can be taken to represent- Middle Pleistocene episodes. The episodes from
Middle Pleistocene onwards were represented in a terraced stratigraphy. The vast amounts of tools
described from each of the terraces are described as the Sohan Industry. Tools from the topmost terrace
(TD-2nd Pluviation) are designated as Pre-Sohan exactly in the manner Gbriel de Mortillet designated
the earliest tools in Europe as Pre-Chellean. The next terrace (T1=2nd Inter Pluvial) contained tools
which were called Early Sohan. Following this occurs the Late Sohan gorup (from T2 =3rd Pluvial).
The next terrace i.e. T3 has a mere redepositon of late Sohan but following this in T4 (4th and last
Pluvial ) occurs another group identified as Evolved Sohan. Although both Early Sohan and Late
Sohan have been divided into several chronological phases the tool types in the entire Sohan complex
show an overwhelming number and also variety of chopper and chopping tools. Further although the
terraces cover the entire stretch of Pleistocene, one cannot really demonstrate a Middle or Upper
Palaeolithic in this succession. Absence of Handaxes and cleavers and continuation of chopper and
chopping tool led K.V. Sounder Rajan write an article questioning whether, ‘Sohan is an endogamous
culture’. The point missed in this argument is that Chauntra, another site near Rawalpindi shows a
4

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology Lower Palaeolithic Culture of India
 large variety of handaxes and cleavers. Consequently Sohan as an isolated development does not seem
to be acceptable. It is, however, significant to mention here that B.B. Lal has described a succession
similar to Sohan at Guler near Kangra in Himachal Pradesh. Also in Tadjikistan Prof. Ranov has not
only describe a succession similar to Sohan but also named his industry in the same pattern i.e. as Early
Sohan, Late Sohan and Evolved Sohan. On the other hand, scholars have recovered several Late
Acheulian handaxes and cleavers from surface in Punjab and Sindh. Prof. G.C. Mohapatra has
discovered several clusters of handaxes and cleavers from Shimla-Kalka region.
In several recent studies the chronology of Sohan has been heavily contradicted. It is believed that the
terrace identified by De Terra as caused by the climatic cycle are in fact caused by differential tectonic
movement and for all practical purposes should be taken to be of Upper Pleistocene date only. To sum
up one has to accept that Sohan does, indeed, represent a chopper dominated region possibly extending
to Tadjikisthan. This does not mean that the original claim of Middle Pleistocene date for Sohan can be
accepted any longer. Neither can one accept the vertical succession/evolution originally claimed
because of fresh evidences. If Sohan shows a link with central Asia, an Acheulian mobility from West
Asia cannot also be denied because of the evidences from Western Punjab (Pakistan), Sind (Pakistan),
Chauntra (Pakistan) and Shimla and Kalka (India).
Both Saurastra and Rajasthan also have received a great deal of attention from several other allied
sciences in the last few decades. Eustatic beaches, miliolite formation and their absolute dates from
Saurastra coast and pollen profiles and their dates from Rajasthan lakes and lately at Didwana near
Jodhpur provides an almost complete picture of climatic succession in this area. This shows that the
region has been passing through numerous wet or moist periods in the past. Besides helping the
development of a finer chronology for the region, these studies also carry a "moral" for the
archaeologists. Our trying to establish two wet phases in most of the Indian rivers on the basis of the
number of gravels observed might in reality be blanketing out finer details of climatic fluctuations in
these regions. Minor, moist phases might not deposit gravels and in common sense logic such phases
would seem more congenial to human colonization than an acute mid pluvial phase. In other words, if
between two Pluviations there were some moist phases, of say, 1000 to 5000 years duration, all the
‘Cultures’ of these phases are bound to be considered as contemporaneous if a subsequent Pluviation
sweeps them into one gravel deposit. We have no possible way to remedy this in-built problem unless
Didwana like excavations are conducted in suitable chosen alluvial zones in different areas.
In January 1980, Prof. V.N. Misra had organized a multidisciplinary investigation of a very rich
Acheulian site called Singi Talav near the town of Didwana in Nagour district of Rajasthan. Misra felt
that the tools show enough evidence of being in primary contest. The excavation shows three distinct
depositional phases. These are termed Jayal, Amarpura and Didwana formations. Of these the Jayal
group seems to have been laid down during late Tertiary and Lower Pleistocene period. These show an
extremely powerful drainage force. Huge deposits of boulders in concrete form measuring 20 meters to
60 meters in thickness have been found lying over a stretch of nearly 16 km. Apparently human
occupation occurred immediately after this period during the Amarpura stage. Acheulian tools are
found from the middle part of Amarpura and Middle Palaeolithic tools have been found to occur from
the upper part of the same phase.
5

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology Lower Palaeolithic Culture of India
 The lower Palaeolithic culture is taken to be anywhere between middle to upper Middle Pleistocene.
The tools collected from the excavations at a number of sites around the region show both early
Acheulian and middle Acheulian artifacts. The tool types shows a high frequency of choppers and
chopping tools with massive handaxes prepared only by stone hammer technique. The subsequent
stages of Acheulian show progressive development in both types and techniques. Most of these show
consistent association of choppers with handaxes while cleavers are rare. The exceedingly high
proportion of waste material found in almost all the digs leaves no doubt to the fact that in western
Rajasthan Lower Palaeolithic people concentrated around open rivers banks during milder climatic
phases.
Ever since vertical evolution of choppers through lower Acheulian to late Acheulian is stratigraphically
demonstrated in Olduvai Gorge in East Africa, there has been attempts to claim similar sequence in
both Europe as well as south Asia. In England Clactonian was claimed as ancestral to Acheulians. In
India A.P. Khatri claimed a similar sequence at Mahadeo Piparia on Narmada and even named his pre-
Acheulian evidence as "Mahadevian" as if to imitate the term "Oldowan" used in East African
prehistory. Recently Partha Chauhan and A.K. Patnaik identified a site near Narmada alluvial bank.
The site called Durkhadi is being excavated by these scholars. Here they have claimed an early
Acheulian level similar to the one known at Singi Talav. All these studies in Lower Palaeolithic period
show an attempt to demonstrate a vertical evolution. Bulk of our Lower Palaeolithic studies from
Odisha, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu, Karnataka,
Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh being surface collection from river valleys a
vertical evolution of Lower Palaeolithic stages could never be attempted.
All rivers from all the states have yielded rich Lower Palaeothitic material from the single gravel which
is referred to as Boulder Conglomerate. In the absence of any possibility of demonstrating internal
evolution from within a single gravel one may see if there is any regional variation demonstrable. In a
generalised sense one can say that the Odisha and Andhra sites show more pebble based specimens
than one can see in Maharashtra and Karanataka. Further the flake tools in the eastern region are
prepared in large & crude flakes while the western sites show well finished levalloise flakes worked
into such de-lux types as points and knives besides well finished side scrapers.
It was felt that once primary sites are discovered it will be possible to look for vertical evolution of
Lower Palaeolithic in India. Subsequently 5 primary sites were discovered and these are Bhimbetka in
Raisen district and Adamgarh in Hoshangabad district of Madhya Pradesh; Chirkhi-Nevasa from
Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra; Paisra from Jamui district of Bihar and Hunsgi from Bellary
district of Karnataka. All these sites were meticulously excavated but Lower Palaeolithic in none of
them is seen to occur in more than one layer. Further, almost all these sites show extremely rich upper
Acheulian tools occurring in association with fairly good number of chopper and chopping tools. The
only exception to this rule is seen at Bhimbetka, at least in the cave III F-23. This may be because large
boulders or pebbles were not available in this mountainous region. It is important to mention here that
in another cave dug by Wakankar in this region choppers have been identified. Adamgarh, which is
also a cluster of rock shelters barely 30 km. form Bhimbetka shows painting of same pattern as
Bhimbetka on its walls. The tools here are also prepared on quasi metamorphosed sand stone like in
6

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology Lower Palaeolithic Culture of India
 Bhimbetka. The techno-morphological traits of all the Adamgarh tools compare very well with those of
Bhimbetka with the only exception that here as much as 30 percent of the assemblage has been
identified as chopper and chopping tools. This significant difference can be explained by the fact that
Adamgarh caves are very close to the bank of Narmada.
To sum up one can say that a Pre-Acheulian stage with chopper and chopping tools preceding
Acheulian in stratigraphic context still alludes us in Lower Paleolithic development in India.

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology Lower Palaeolithic Culture of India