Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T05:24:33.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palaeolithic occupation and cultural transition in the Wainganga River Basin, India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2020

Prachi Joshi
Prachi Joshi*
Affiliation:
Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Pune, India (✉ [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Pleistocene archaeological record of South Asia is important for addressing questions relating to the origin and evolution of Palaeolithic cultures, continuity or change in lithic technologies, and population dispersals across Asia. Here, the authors report on intensive regional studies to investigate variability within this record, employing field survey, lithic analysis and experimental knapping. They examine Palaeolithic hominin behavioural change in the Wainganga Basin, central India, focusing on variability in spatial distribution, stratigraphy and lithic reduction strategies in Acheulian to Late Palaeolithic sites. This emphasises the diversity of cultural sequences in South Asia and contributes to questions of transition and change based on cultural preferences, raw materials and lithic strategies in different regions.

Keywords

AsiaIndiaAcheulianPalaeolithiclithics
Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 94 , Issue 374 , April 2020 , pp. 300 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akhilesh, K., Pappu, S., Rajapara, H.M., Gunnell, Y., Shukla, A.D. & Singhvi, A.K.. 2018. Early Middle Palaeolithic culture in India around 385–172 ka reframes Out of Africa models. Nature 554: 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25444CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bailey, G. 2007. Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 198–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2006.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blinkhorn, J. & Petraglia, M.D.. 2017. Environments and cultural change in the Indian subcontinent: implications for the dispersal of Homo sapiens in the Late Pleistocene. Current Anthropology 58: S463–79. https://doi.org/10.1086/693462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corvinus, G. 1983. A survey of the Pravara River system in Western Maharashtra, India, volume 2: the excavations of the Acheulian site of Chirki-on-Pravara, India. Tübingen: Institut für Urgeschichte.Google Scholar
Diez-Martín, F., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Sánchez, P., Mabulla, A.Z.P., Tarriño, A., Barba, R., Prendergast, M.E. & Luque, L.. 2009. The Middle to Later Stone Age technological transition in East Africa: new data from Mumba Rockshelter Bed V (Tanzania) and their implications for the origin of modern human behaviour. Journal of African Archaeology 7: 147–73. https://doi.org/10.3213/1612-1651-10136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaillard, C., Mishra, S., Singh, M., Deo, S.G. & Reza, A.. 2010. Lower and early Middle Pleistocene Acheulian in the Indian subcontinent. Quaternary International 223–24: 234–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2009.08.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geological Survey of India. 1993. District resource map, Chandrapur. Calcutta: Geological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Geological Survey of India. 2000. District resource map, Nagpur. Calcutta: Geological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Goren-Inbar, N. & Sharon, G.. 2006. Axe age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard: approaches to anthropological archaeology. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Inizan, M.L., Reduron-Ballinger, M., Roche, H. & Texier, J.. 1999. Technology and terminology of knapping stone (Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée 5). Nanterre: CREP.Google Scholar
James, H. & Petraglia, M.D.. 2009. The Lower to Middle Palaeolithic transition in South Asia and its implications for hominin cognition and dispersals, in Camps, M. & Chauhan, P. (ed.) Sourcebook of Palaeolithic transitions: methods, theories, and interpretations: 255–64. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76487-0_16Google Scholar
Joglekar, J. 2017. A note on Acheulian findings near Nagardhan, Nagpur District, Maharashtra. Man and Environment 42: 114–17.Google Scholar
Joglekar, J. & Imchen, A.. 2018. Recently discovered Middle Palaeolithic locality at Nagardhan, eastern Maharashtra, India: placing it in context. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 261–75.Google Scholar
Joshi, P.B. 2018. Prehistoric investigation in the Wainganga Basin, Maharashtra: issues in continuity and change. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.Google Scholar
Joshi, R.V. 1964. Acheulian succession in central India. Asian Perspectives 8: 150–63.Google Scholar
Leder, D. 2018. Lithic variability and techno-economy of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic in the Levant. International Journal of Archaeology 6: 23–36. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ija.20180601.14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellars, P., Gori, K.C., Carr, M., Soares, P.A. & Richards, M.B.. 2013. Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of Southern Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 110: 10699–704. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306043110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mishra, S. 2007. The Indian Lower Palaeolithic. Bulletin of Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute: 66–67: 47–94.Google Scholar
Mishra, S., Chauhan, N. & Singhvi, A.K.. 2013. Continuity of microblade technology in the Indian subcontinent since 45 ka: implications for the dispersal of modern humans. PLoS ONE 8: e69280. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069280CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Misra, V.N. 1985. The Acheulian succession at Bhimbetka, central India, in Misra, V.N. & Bellwood, P. (ed.) Recent advances in Indo-Pacific prehistory: 35–48. New Delhi: Oxford-IBH.Google Scholar
Ota, S.B. 1993–1994. Indian archaeology—a review: 78–79. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Ota, S.B. & Deo, S.G.. 2014. Investigation of Acheulian localities TKD-I and TKD-II at Tikoda, District Raisen, Madhya Pradesh (2010–12), in Deo, S.G. & Paddayya, K. (ed.) Recent advances in Acheulian culture studies in India: 57–66. Pune: ISPQS.Google Scholar
Paddayya, K., Blackwell, B.A.B., Jhaldiyal, R., Petraglia, M.D., Fevrier, S., Chaderton, D.A. II, Blickstein, J.I.B. & Skinner, A.R.. 2002. Recent findings on the Acheulian of the Hunsgi and Baichbal Valleys, Karnataka, with special reference to Isampur excavation and its dating. Current Science 83: 641–47.Google Scholar
Pappu, R.S. 2001. Acheulian culture in peninsular India: an ecological perspective. New Delhi: D.K. Print World.Google Scholar
Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Akhilesh, K., Braucher, R., Taieb, M., Demory, F. & Thouveny, N.. 2011. Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian hominins in south India. Science 331: 1596–600. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200183CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petraglia, M.D. et al. 2007. Middle Palaeolithic assemblages from the Indian subcontinent: before and after the Toba super-eruption. Science 317: 114–16. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1141564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petraglia, M.D. et al. 2009. Population increase and environmental deterioration correspond with microlithic innovations in South Asia ca. 35 000 years ago. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106: 12261–66. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810842106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roe, D.A. 1994. A metrical analysis of selected sets of handaxes and cleavers from Olduvai Gorge, in Leakey, M.D. & Roe, D.A. (ed.) Olduvai Gorge: 146–234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sali, S.A. 1989. The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic cultures of Patne, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra. Pune: Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute.Google Scholar
Sharon, G. 2007. Acheulian large flake industries: technology, chronology and significance (British Archaeological Reports International series S1701). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Taylor, G. & Eggleton, R.A.. 2001. Regolith geology and geomorphology. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Joshi et al. supplementary material

Joshi et al. supplementary material

Download Joshi et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.4 MB