Changes in Technology, Subsistence Strategies andBehavioural Pattern during the Late Upper Pleistocene in South

and Southeast Asia: A Microwear Analysis

Experimental studies and microwear analysis havebeen carried out on lithic artifacts from several late UpperPleistocene sites in India and Island Southeast Asia. Acomparative study of micro wear analysis has providedinformation on technology, subsistence strategies, craftactivities, and oftool grasping methods, exploitation ofregional resources, form/style vs. functional variabilityand behavioural pattern. Adaptation is a process ofbehavioural changes in time and space. The utilization ofplants and grains had become an important food sourcearound 12,000-10,000 years ago in North-Central India,if not earlier. In all parts of the world man proceededgradually towards perhaps a better understanding of hisenvironment which led him to refine and advance themethodology and technology for exploiting resources.Cultural ecology can be better understood with the aidof microwear analysis. Behavioral differences have beenobserved within a period in the region and between theregions and that led to development of various stagesof behavioral changes from the Late Pleistocene toHolocene. Generally, a cultural system adapted to aparticular environment gave rise to social changes orrise to socio-technic artifacts.

PRAKASH SINHA *

Technology has been defined by a number of scholarsfrom different perspectives. Its meaning and scope aremuch wider than what is generally believed by Kimura(1999). Kimura suggested that technology is a problem-solving strategy. There had has been various types ofproblems like social, cultural, regional, economical,religious, ideological, identity, gender, etc. Solvingissues related to these and other similar aspects of humanlife may not require technology. Crabtree's (1972)explanation regarding lithic technology still holds well.According to him, lithic technology is the combinationof two factors namely, the method and the technique.This may be elaborated further. The method includeswhatever is conceived in the mind - information,knowledge, understanding, planning, procedure,tools and/or fabricators to be used, while technique isconcerned with how the hands are used in executingand implementing whatever is conceived in the mind.This definition of technology is applicable to any phase/period of human history. In modern times computers androbots etc. are nothing but the extension of human mind(method) and hand (technique), respectively.

• Department of Ancient History, Culture & Archaeology, University of Allahabad, Allahabad - 211002, Email: passinha@yahoo.com

60

A change in any of the two factors may causealteration or variation in technology and in consequencechanges in strategies related to subsistence, huntingand gathering equipments, economic and finally tobehavioural differences/pattern. Reasons for changein method or technique may be related to changes inenvironments, ecozones, material cultures and cognitivemap - better understanding of the environments andcultural system. Problems related to social, cultural,religious, ideological, identity, gender and to someextent economic constrains may not require technique,i.e. use of the hands in resolving related issues. Theseissues may be tackled by applying method or mind alone."Behaviour variation is the byproduct of the interactionbetween the kinds and frequencies of environmentalstimulus and the kinds of cultural repertoire whichpersons bring to these stimulus situations" (Binford1973: 227-228). No substantial change in environmentand technology for a considerable time would involve,perhaps, more interaction (better understanding)between actor with his repertoire and environment.Actor may try to enhance the efficiency of his technology,and/or modify his behaviour for better cultural system.This may be reflected in curated technology (Binford1984) such as more efficient hafts or changes in thearrangements of tools in hafts. This again indicatesa change in behaviour that obviously is a result ofprolonged interaction. Thus adaptation is a process ofbehavioural changes.

In spite of the fact that no final proclamation can bemade on the genesis of polishes and the identification ofparticular microwear traces, microwear analysis is oneof the best components of our analytical repertoire toretrieve information on such changes related to tool use.

Microwear technique has been criticized (Nowcomeret al. 1986). It is true that unless and until work on thenature of polish formation, quantification of microwearpolishes and standardization to express microtopographyof polishes in words is standardized, we will not

Puriitattva 42

be able to convince fully the archaeological world.Microtopography of microwear traces in the high powermicroscopy is processed in analyst's mind contrary totexture analysis technique in which it is converted tocomputer. This may be one of the reasons why somemicrowear analyses have been successful (Keeley andNewcomer 1977, Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1981),while others have failed (Newcomer et al. 1986). Wedo not claim that all microwear traces can be identifiedcorrectly; a few errors do not substantially affectthe conclusions which are based not only on varioustypes of polish but also on other factors for examplelocation of polishes, edge damage pattern, types ofstriations, etc. A more or less similar opinion has beenexpressed by Edmonds (2001). If an image of a polishedsurface is studied in a specific scanned area at variousmagnifications, it may throw some light on the problemof clustering of different polishes.

Microwear Analysis and Results

The Dhanuhi Rock-shelter Site

Cultural material recovered from the excavation atthe Dhanuhi rock-shelter (24°37'10" Nand 82°13'55"E), Rewa district, Madhya Pradesh has been identifiedas late Upper Palaeo lithic on the basis of typo-technological attributes and comparative study withcultural materials from other sites in the region (Fig.1). The Dhanuhi rock-shelter site was excavated fortwo seasons in 1996 and 2002 (Sinha 2004, 2009). Outof 4631 artifacts recovered from spits 7-15 of grid C-6and from spits 7-9 of grids D-6, D-7 and D-8 in theyear 1996, 785 were studied by microwear analysisunder high power microscopy following the methodsand techniques used by Sinha and Glover (1984).These artifacts include, for example, blades, flakes,retouched/modified artifact, partly backed, straightbacked (Table 1, Plate 1). Out of these 785 artifacts,306 bear microwear traces (Table 1, Plate 1).

Changes in Technology, Subsistence Strategies and Behavioural Pattern

70 80 90 100

India 10

• ( i'.'1 ·-- 0\./rj 0:• 0·••.!f

a --

China

70 80 90

61

110 120 130

20

100 110 120 130Fig. I: Location of the sites ana lysed in the text of India and Island Southeast Asia: A. Chpani Mando, Belan Valley; B. Dhanuhi Rock-shelter, AdwaValley; C. Baghor III, Son Valley; D. Bankura district sites: Kara hill, Pareshnath, Beldanga, Amarkanan and Satighat; E. South Sulawesi sites:Leang Burung 2, Ulu Leang I and Tjampagalda; F. Timor sites: Uai Bobo I and 2, Bui Ceri Uato and Lie Siri; G. Seram Island site: Ruhuwa;H. Central Philippines site: Buad

Usewear traces were found on 94 flakes. The specifictypes of polish evident on archaeological examples issimilar to the polish resulting from use on the palmsCocus nucifera and Caryota milus (type A), ratton palm- Calamus longipinna and bamboo (type B), grassesas well as some plants of composite family (type C),Pandanus leaves (type D), and Ficus sp. and banyantree (type E) (Sinha and Glover 1984, Sinha 1989).These flakes were used mostly on plants and wood asevident from the presence of A (35%) and B (48%) typesof polishes (plate 2) and cutting activity predominate(72%). In the case of blades (72 pieces) cutting activity

(43%) has an edge over whittling (35%) and about87.5% were used on plants and wood (A, Band C typepolishes; Table 2). Vegetal polishes (69%) found onthe shaped tools dominate over non-vegetal polishes(31%) and whittling activity is least associated (3.6%).Out of306 used artifacts the frequency of vegetal typepolish - A, B, C and D is n = 98 (32%), 96 (31%),46(15%) and 6 (2%), respectively, while the percentagesof cutting, scraping, whittling and slicing activity are44.4% (136),13.8% (42) 11.4% (35) and 11.4% (35),respectively (Table 2).

01N

Table 1: Inventory of artifacts classified under high power microscopy from Baghor III, Bankura, Island Southeast Asia (surface sites:Uai Bobo 1 and 2, Bui Ceri Uato, Lie Siri in Timor, Tjampagalde in South Sulawesi, Buad in the Phillippines, and Ruhuwain Seram), Leang Burung 2, Ulu Leang 1 and Dhanuhi Rock-shelter

Baghor-II1 Bankura Island Southeast Asia Leang Burung 2 Ulu Leang 1 Dhanuhi

NUnused

Used NUnused

Used NUnused

Used N UnusedUsed N

UnusedUsed N Unused (?) UsedArtifact Types (?) (?) (?) (?) (?)

Blades/ Bladelets 103 44 59 9 3 6 - - - - - - - - - 153 81 72Flakes 12 12 - 8 2 6 - - - 31 2 29 96 3 93 405 306 94Flake-blade - - - 3 2 1 24 2 22 - - -

Retouched! Modified 5 - 5 1 - I - - - - - - - - - 21 5 16Partly backed 3 - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 5 11Straight backed 4 - 4 2 - 2 - - - - - - - - - 13 6 7Convex backed 9 1 8 3 - 3 - - - - - - - - - 22 5 17Truncated & backed 13 4 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 8 12Backed blade fragment . 60 21 39Denticulated blade 4 2 2Rectangle 7 2 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Truncated blade / flake 5 I 4 2 - 2 - - - - - - - - - 12 7 5End scraper 11 4 7Awl / Drill/ Percoir 2 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 7 7Lunate 3 2 I - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 6 8Triangle 8 4 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 11 9Trapeze 2 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOTAL 176 70 106 28 7 21 24 2 22 31 2 29 96 3 93 785 479 306

'"tl0::..,\:l.~~-l:>..N

Changes in Technology, Subsistence Strategies and Behavioural Pattern 63

Table 2: Inventory of activities and polishes found on artifacts from Dhanuhi Rock-shelter, Adwa Valley, MadyaPradesh. Polishes resulting from use, type A: on the palms Cocus nucifera and Caryota milus; type B: rattanpalm - Calamus longipinna and bamboo; type C: grasses as well as some plants of composite family; typeD: Pandanus leaves and type E: Ficus sp. and banyan tree

ACTIVITIES

ACTIVITY FLAKES 0/0 BLADES 0/0 SHAPED TOOLS % TOTAL %

Cutting 68 72.34 31 43.06 37 26.43 136 44.44

Whittling 5 5.32 25 34.72 5 3.57 35 11.44

Slicing 6 6.38 6 8.33 23 16.43 35 11.44

Scraping 8 8.51 3 4.17 31 22.14 42 13.73

Piercing 0 0 0 0 11 7.86 11 3.59

Boring 0 0 0 0 8 5.71 8 2.61

Chopping 4 4.26 J ; 4.17 18 12.86 25 8.17

Composite 3 3.19 4 5.56 7 5.00 14 4.58

TOTAL 94 100.00 72 100.00 140 100.00 306 100.00

POLISHES

POLISH FLAKES % BLADES 0/0 SHAPED TOOLS % TOTAL %

A type 33 35.11 24 33.33 41 29.29 98 32.03

B type 45 47.87 20 27.78 31 22.14 96 31.37

C type 7 7.45 19 26.39 20 14.29 46 15.03

Dtype 0 0 I 1.39 5 3.57 6 1.96

Etype 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Meat 4 4.26 4 5.56 10 7.14 18 5.88

Mear&Bone 5 5.32 4 5.56 17 12.14 26 8.50

Bone 0 0 0 0 12 8.57 12 3.92

Antler 0 0 0 0 4 2.86 4 1.31

Hide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 94 100.00 72 100.00 140 100.00 306 100.00

64

70.00

• Used Attifocts on V""olalMalerials

• Used Attifocts on Non-VCI\cI.3lMalcri<J1s

60.00

50.00 +1-:._-----------

40.00

.10.00 ~) __ -----------

10.00 a IHI--I--

10.00

0.00

BType CType [Type Moal Ioll'iIl& Bono ArlU." IlieoBon.

Fig. 2: Histogram comparing polishes on used artifacts from Baghor III

The Baghor III site

A single culture occupational site, Baghor III, in theMiddle Son Valley (240 34' 52" Nand 820 18' 40" E),Sidhi district, Madhya Pradesh, India was excavated fortwo seasons, in 1980 (Clark and Dreiman 1983) and in1982by J.D. Clark and the present author (Fig. 1). Its agehas been estimated to around 12000-10000 years ago atthe transition of the Pleistocene based on the stratigraphy(Clark and Dreiman 1983). Most of the lithic artifactsfrom the second year excavation were examined underhigh power microscopy. It is the first assemblage inIndia in which each class category - shaped, modifiedand waste (blade/bladelets and flakes) has been analysedfor microwear traces (Sinha 1989).

Microwear analysis indicated that about 57.3% ofbladelets (Table 1)bear signs of usewear and out of that88.1% were used on plant and wood as evident from thepresence ofB, C and E types of polishes and the rest onnon-vegetative materials like meat, bone, antler and hide(Fig. 2). Activities carried out with bladelets include,in decreasing order, 45.8% cutting, 23.7% whittling,13.5% slicing, 10.2% composite (tool associated with

Puriitattva 42

more than one activity) and 6.8% scraping. None ofthe analysed twelve flakes bear usewear traces (Table1). Out of 77% used shaped tools 55.3% were used onplant and wood and the rest on non-vegetal material(Fig. 2). The main activity associated with shaped toolswas cutting (44.7%), followed by chopping (19.1%),piercing (14.9%), slicing (8.5%), composite (4.2%),boring (4.2%), scraping (2.1%) and whittling (2.1%).B type polish was most common (66.7%) among otherplant and wood polishes on both shape tools and blade/bladelets and followed by C type polish (23.1%) (Fig.2). Evidence of hafting was also noticed on a numberof used pieces, such as patches of black or dark brownsubstances adhering to the stone usually nearer to thebacked or unused lateral side on ventral or dorsal and/or both faces. Edge damage, abrasive polish and criss-cross types of striations were also found.

The Chopani Mando site

Under 30x lens with light a total of 126 shapedtools (housed in the G.R. Sharma Memorial Museum,Department of An.cient History, Culture andArchaeology, University of Allahabad), recovered fromfour occupation phases (Phase-I, Phase-IIA, Phase-lIBand Phase-III) at Chopani Mando (240 55' 30" N. and8204' 45" E.), an epi-Paleolithic!Mesolithic site in theBelan Valley,Allahabad district, Uttar Pradesh (Sharmaet al. 1980: 33-76), have been analysed by the author(Fig. 1).These four phases have been estimated to date,based on the stratigraphy, between 17000-7000 BCE(Sharma et al. 1980: 33-76). The artifacts were cleanedwith warm water. On the basis of usewear, artifacts ofeach phase have been divided into three categories: (A)edge damage and polish, (B) only edge damage and (C)no edge damage and polish. Obviously, therefore onlyCategory (A) has been considered. Analysis shows thatthere is an increase in the frequency of artifacts fallingin the Category (A) (Table 3, Fig. 3) from Phase-I toPhase- III through Phase- IIA and Phase-lIB. In general,truncated and backed, retouched/modified and rectangle

Changes in Technology, Subsistence Strategies and Behavioural Pattern 65

~~ J _161412108

642o

Phase-I Phase-IIA Phase-liB Phase-Ill

Fig. 3: Column chart showing three categories - A, Band C (A. edgedamage and polish, B. only edge damage and C. no edge damageand polish) ofChpani Mando artifacts under low power microscopy

pieces have more edge damage than geometrical,truncated and backed artifacts. On triangles (Table 3),polish and edge damage is present on the un-backedside and at the end oflonger side, but on lunate no suchpattern is present. In all probability some artifacts ofCategory (B) might have been used on plant and wood.

The Bankura district surface sites

A total of 28 artefacts including 21which bear polish visible under 30xmagnification and 7 without polish wereselected by me from the surface collectionsmade by Chakraborti et at. (1979-80)in the Bankura district of West Bengal,India. These 28 artifacts are from five sitesnamely, Kara hill, Pareshnath, Beldanga,Amarkanan and Satighat (Fig. 1). Plant andwood polishes were found on twenty onepieces belonging to B type (16), A type (4)and one C type (Table 4, Fig. 4). Activitiesassociated with these used artifacts werecutting, whittling, composite, slicing,scraping and piercing (Table 5; Figure 6).Some pieces bear traces of hafting. In the

BANKURA

ULULEANGI

LEANGBURUNG2

case of activity involving mainly one face, dorsal orventral, ventral face was commonly used.

The Leang Burung 2 and Ulu Leang 1 sites

Microwear analysis carried out on flakes with glossfrom two caves in South Sulawesi, Indonesia, - LeangBurung 2 (31000-19000 BP) and Ulu Leang 1 (9000-3000 BP), have been reported by us (Sinha and Glover1984). Two samples of31 and 96 flakes with gloss fromLeang Burung 2 and Ulu Leang 1 (Fig. 1) respectivelywere examined by microwear analysis (Table 1). Fourtypes of plant and wood polishes could be identifiedas A, B, C and D. At Ulu Leang 1 B type polish wasmore common (46.2%) and the dominant activity waswhittling (47.3%) (Tables 4 & 5, Fig. 4 & 5). Pieceswith shallow striations were more and the dorsal facewas preferred for one face activity. Flakes with a curvededge may have been selected, especially concave, forwhittling activity (Sinha and Glover 1984).

DNH

80

• Hide

• Antler

Bone

• Meat & Bone

Meat

SEA • E

• D.C

• BaA

BGR-lll

10 20 7030 40

Fig. 4: Histogram comparing use-wear Polishes (%) on lithic artifats analysed fromBaghor III (BGR-III), Bankura, Island Southeast Asia (SEA), Leang Burung 2, UluLeang I and Dhanuhi (DNH)

66 Puriitattva 42

Table 3: Inventory of Chopani Mando artifacts classified under three categories - low power microscopy

Phase-I Phase-IIA Phase-lIB Phase-IIIArtifact Type

A B C A B C A B C A B C

Retouched! Modified 4 5 3 2 4 - 2 1 - 2 3 -

Backed bladelets - 1 1 I - 3 2 1 1 6 3 2

Truncated & backed - - - - - 2 - - 1 2 1 2

Truncated - - - - - - - I 2 - - -

Rectangle - - - - - - 1 - - - - -

Denticulate - - - - - - 1 I - 3 1 -

Percoir - - - - - 1 - - 2 - 4 -

Awl/Drill 1 1 - - - 3 I 2 - 2 1 -

Tanged bladelet - - - - - - - - - - - 1

Scraper 1 - 2 - - - - - - - - -Notch - - - 1 - I 1 1 - - - -

Lunate - - - - - - 1 - 1 2 1 1

Triangle - - - - - - 2 - 1 1 I 2

Trapeze - - - - - - 1 1 - 1 1 1

Tranchet - - - - - - - - - - - 1

Miscellaneous - - 4 1 - 1 2 4 1 - 2 1

TOTAL 6 7 10 5 4 11 14 12 9 19 10 11

Table 4: Inventory of use-wear Polishes on lithic artifats from Baghor III (BGR-III), Bankura, Island Southeast Asia(SEA), Leang Burung 2, VIu Leang 1 and Dhanuhi Rock-shelter (DNH)

POLISH BGR-III BANKURA SEA LEANG BURUNG 2 ULULEANG I DNH

A type 0 4 10 7 36 98

B type 52 16 8 18 43 96

C type 18 I 2 2 10 46

D type 0 0 2 2 4 6

E type 8 0 0 0 0 0

Meat 8 0 0 0 0 18

Meat & Bone 7 0 0 0 0 26

Bone 4 0 0 0 0 12

Antler 7 0 0 0 0 4

Hide 2 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 106 21 22 29 93 306

Changes in Technology, Subsistence Strategies and Behavioural Pattern 67

Table 5: Inventory of usewear activities on lithic artifats analysed from Baghor III (BGR-III), Bankura, IslandSoutheast Asia (SEA), Leang Burung 2, Ulu Leang 1 and Dhanuhi Rock-shelter (DNH)

ACTIVITY BGR-III BANKURA SEA LEANG BURUNG 2 ULULEANG 1 D H

Cutting 48 8 0 21 9 136

Whittling 15 5 13 3 44 35

Slicing 12 5 6 2 23 35

Scraping 5 I 0 2 7 42

Piercing 7 I 0 1 10 II

Boring/Drilling 2 I 0 0 0 8

Chopping 9 0 0 0 0 25

Composite 8 0 3 0 0 14

TOTAL 106 21 22 29 93 306

DNH

ULULEANG I

LEANG BURUNG 2

SEA

BANKURA

BGR-III

Composite

- Chopping

• Boring/Drilling

• Piercing_ Scraping

_,Slicing

_ Whittling

• Cutting

Fig, 5: Histogram comparing use-wear Activities (%) on lithic artifats analysed from Baghor III (BGR-III), Bankura, IslandSoutheast Asia (SEA), Leang Burung 2, Ulu Leang I and Dhanuhi (DNH)

68

Surface sites in Island Southeast Asia

Besides Leang Burung 2 and Ulu Leang 1 .about24 flake-blades with gloss from Island Southeast Asiawere also analysed (Table 1). These specimens arefrom Uai Bobo 1 and 2, Bui Ceri Uato, Lie Siri inTimor, Tjampagalde in South Sulawesi, Buad in thePhilippines, and Ruhuwa in Seram (Fig. 1). These sitescan be dated between 7000-2000 BP on the basis of typo-technological features and associated archaeologicalmaterial like pottery, grinding stones, etc. It was foundthat whittling was the dominant activity (Table 5, Fig.5) with the dorsal face preferred for one face activity.Utilization of type A worked material like palms - Cocusnucifera and Caryota milus had an edge over type Bmaterial for example ratton palm - Calamus longipinnaand bamboo (Table 4, Fig. 4).

Discussion and Interpretation

The lithic assemblage of Baghor III differs fromassemblages recovered from the sites of preceding andsucceeding periods in the region of the Middle Sonvalley in particular and other regions in general. Thesedifferences are mainly of two kinds. First, the BaghorIII artifacts are small in dimension and microlithic insize and second, geometric microliths such as trianglesand trapezes are also present. The recovery of geometricmicroliths in the excavations at Baghor III and BaghorI (Clark and Dreiman 1983, Kenoyer et al. 1983a)raised a serious doubt on the earlier suggesting threetier evolution of Mesolithic culture in the valleys ofthe Belan, the Son valleys and the Ganga plain. TheMesolithic culture has been divided into three phases:non-geometric phase, geometric phase and geometricphase with pottery (Sharma et al. 1980: 1-31). Ibelieve more excavations and reanalysis of excavatedassemblages would throw more light on the issue. Sofar, the claim of identifying the non-geometric phaseat excavated Mesolithic sites and also for the majorityof surface assemblages from the Belan and the Son

Puratattva 42

valleys and in the Ganga plain (Sharma et al. 1980:1-31) may be due to, at least, three factors. First, nosystematic sampling was made at any explored site assome assemblages consist of only 3-4 lithic artifacts;second, no proper and systematic analysis was done;and third, often the frequency of geometric tools inboth excavated and surface collected assemblages isquite low. For example, in the initial surface collection,no geometric tool was recovered at Baghor III andBaghor I in the Vindhyas and at Damdama (Warikalan)in the Ganga plain. One of these sites, Damdama, wasreported as a non-geometric site on the basis of surfacecollection analysis (Sharma et al. 1980: 130), while theexcavation at this site recovered geometric tools fromthe lowermost deposit (Varma et al. 1985). Further, anumber of truncated and backed bladelet fragmentsare present in non-geometric assemblages and even inphases I and IIA of Chopani Mando (Sinha 1996-97).

In the absence of excavated assemblages in theVindhyas and the Ganga plain that can be placed inthe Upper Palaeolithic period (except 17000 BCE, theestimated date for Phase I at Chopani Mando) we beginwith Baghor III and Dhanuhi assemblages of latestPleistocene and Early Holocene age (Fig. 1). Attemptsare being made to infer changes in behaviour related tothe factors adapted to in the region ranging from 12000-10000 years to 6000-5000 years. Environmental studiessuggest that the early Holocene climate in the study areawould have been relatively moister and warmer than ofthe present day and was dominated by grassland (Gupta1976, Pant and Pant 1980, Williams and Royce 1983).This grassland environment would have been followedby mixed forest by the mid-Holocene. Microwearanalysis of the Baghor III and Dhanuhi Rock-shelterartifacts indicates that at both sites the emphasis was onvegetal material for subsistence as well as craft activities.Shaped tools ofDhanuhi Rock-shelter were used a littlemore frequently on vegetal material than those ofBaghor III. At both sites, bladelets were commonly usedon vegetal materials and would have been, perhaps, a

Changes in Technology, Subsistence Strategies and Behavioural Pattern

component of expedient technology (Binford 1984); Btype vegetal materials were commonly used though Ctype materials were also exploited (Table 4, Fig. 4). Theexploitation of A type materials at the Dhanuhi Rock-shelter shows that in their vicinity this kind of materialcultural was present and they equally exploited A andB type vegetal materials. Piecing together microweartraces it may be suggested that inhabitants ofBaghor IIIand Dhanuhi would have been collecting wild grains,grasses, bamboo and other plants for food and to makeother objects like baskets, wooden hafts, arrow shafts,bamboo/wooden arrow and in the case of Baghor IIIprobably to make poles for temporary structures aswell (cf. Misra and Clark 1983). But a low percentageof whittling activity and a higher percentage of deepstriations showed a little stress towards finer objects.Piercing and boring activities were more frequent atBaghor III and use of A type vegetal material at Dhanuhisuggest that there had been differences in craft activitiesas well as in manufacturing items using vegetal materials(Fig. 4 & 5). The available hafting evidence revealedthat tools were hafted in more than one way. Bladeletsand backed bladelets were usually hafted along theirbacked or lateral side. Rectangles (Baghor III) wereprobably hafted in a rectangular socket specially madeon handles for such tools. Triangles would have beenhafted at least in four ways - as barbs, projectile points,saws and knives as is evident from the usewear andhafting traces (Sinha 1989).

It has been generally believed that geometricmicroliths were used for hunting activities (Clark1953, Clark et af. 1976: 328-88, Clark 1977: 127-50).Microwear analysis, however, suggests that geometrictools were also used as knives, saw or sickle on plant andwood (Sinha 1989). Further, Clark and Prince (1978)and Fujimoto (1983) have reported polishes on trapezes.Moreover, truncation was not always made for use onlybut for hafting too. This evidence may be interpretedin terms of changes in behaviour for using tech nomicartifacts (Binford 1962). The presence of polish visible

69

under 20x magnification on the lithic tools from BaghorI, at late Palaeolithic site (Kenoyer et al. 1983a), andfrom Baghor II, a Mesolithic site in the Middle Sonvalley (Sussman et al. 1983) and environmental studiesattested that the Baghor III and Dhanuhi people wouldhave started exploiting their catchments for bothsubsistence and other craft activities. For subsistencethey probably exploited a little more vegetal resources.Probably 'mother goddess' from gravel III in the Belanvalley (Sharma 1980) and the 'Shrine' at Baghor I, alate Upper Palaeo lithic site in the middle Son valley(Kenoyer et al. 1983b) suggest changes in behavior andboth objects may be classified as ideo-technic artifacts(Bindord 1962) of Upper Palaeolithic and late UpperPalaeolithic period, respectively (Plate 3 & 4).

The study of the Chopani Mando artifacts pointstowards a gradual increase in the exploitation of vegetalresources that had began by Dhanuhi and BaghorIII people. This is evident from a gradual increasein the C type polish and/or plant and wood polishesat Dhanuhi and Chopani Mando. The evidence alsosuggests changes in subsistence strategies with humansdepending increasingly on gathering grains, grasses, etc.This is further attested by the recovery of querns andmulIers from Chopani Mando as well as other Mesolithicsites like Baghor II in the Son valley and Mahadahaand Damdama in the Ganga plain (Sharma et al. 1980:77-132, Sussman et al. 1983, Varma et al. 1985) andultimately the presence of pottery with rice husk inPhase III of Chopani Mando (plate 5). No change inthe tool types and technique from Phase II to Phase IIIsuggests that by this time the use of technomic artifactswould have been better adapted to the prevailingenvironment. Structural remains also support thisargument (Sharma et al. 1980: 37-40, Sussman et al.1983) (Plate 6). The recovery of pottery, bone tools,stone beads, bone objects and ring stones in phase IIIand their continuation with the addition ofNeoliths atMahagara and Koldihwa and a possible cattle pen (?) inthe Neolithic period at Mahagara (Sharma and Mandai

70

1980) further indicate a relatively better adapted life andchanges in technomic artifacts. The emergence of mixedforest as revealed by environmental studies (Singh 2002)led to the advent ofNeoliths and herding followed by thedomestication of animals and cultivation of plants (rice)

. around 4000-3000 BCE in the region as suggested byradiocarbon dates (Sharma and Mandai 1980). Artifactslike a necklace and ear rings made of antler at Mahadaha,beads made of stone and clay, shell pendant and earthendisc at Chopani Mando and Mahagara may be a partof socio-technic artifacts (Binford 1962). Indeed, thepresence of ear rings made of antler only with two maleskeletons and one of them with a necklace made ofantler too, out of32 excavated skeletons (Sharma et al.1980: 77-132, Sinha 1983) suggests a high probabilityof these as socio-technic artifacts (Plate 7 & 8). It maybe suggested that from the Mesolithic period a socialstratification would have begun and that would have ledto change in cognitive ecosystem. However, the use ofsome of these stone and clay beads as weights for fishingnets cannot be ruled out.

In Island Southeast Asia a gradual increase in thefrequency of flake-blades with gloss from 31000 BPto 3000 BP (Fig. 1) and especially around 7000 BPshows that plants, wild grains and grasses becamean important food source (Sinha and Glover 1984).Sediment analysis suggests that Late Pleistocenerainfall patterns were less seasonal than now (Frank1981). Thus, rainfall patterns gradually became moreseasonal in the Holocene, perhaps, around 6000-5000BCE (Glover 1981, Frank 1981) and would probablyhave had a direct impact on plants and animals. Tosome extent this may be inferred from the introductionof new lithic technology and tool types like backedblades, geometric microliths, maros points and bonetools etc. around 6000-5000 BCE. Backed pieces - goodfor hafting, would have improved the efficiency of toolsor curated technology. Increased seasonality probablyled to the cultivation and domestication of plants andanimals and the emergence of pottery around 4000-3000

Puriitauva 42

BCE. Thus, all the evidence indicates that there weresome changes in behavior, especially in manufacturingnew technomic artifacts around 6000-5000 BCE whichfinally adapted around 5000-4000 BCE. The absenceof socio-technic artifacts does not necessarily meanthat they were not produced. More likely they wouldhave been manufactured on perishable materials asis suggested from the high percentage of whittlingactivity (Sinha and Glover 1984) and ethnographic data(Thomson 1964, Gould et al. 1971, Cranstone 1973).

Mainly two interesting points emerge from themicrowear analysis of the Bankura artifacts. In more orless similar climatic regions, namely West Bengal andIsland South East Asia, there is evidence of similaritiesin the exploitation of vegetal resources and differencesin how artifacts were used.

In considering the microwear analysis on microlithsin the Palmyra Basin, Syria, and other factors forexample introduction of geometric tools, Fujimoto(1983) opined that there was a change in plant utilizationprobably because of a change in palaeoclimaticconditions, rather than human preference. A decreasein plant utilization and the emergence of new tools doindicate that there were some changes in subsistence,and tool using behaviour and technomic artifacts.

Use wear analysis carried out by Clark and Prince(1978) on later Stone Age microliths from Loga OdaRock-shelter, Haraghi, Ethiopia, indicated that a highproportion ofmicroliths with edge damage and polish,used on plant materials. Hafting evidence suggestedthat these were hafted like sickle bladelets and knives(Clark and Prince 1978). They opined that this rock-shelter remained in use between 15590 ± 460 BP and325 ± 78 BP which might be a stage of adapted economybased on the regular use of wild grasses that later gaverise to cultivation. Geometric tools were also used forexploiting plant resources. Here too, we have evidenceof a change in tool using behavior, and subsistence

Changes in Technology, Subsistence Strategies and Behavioural Pattern

strategy, ultimately giving rise to a different behavioralpattern.

It has been claimed that the utilization of plant grainsas an important food source had a long tradition in thePalestine and the Levant, which started around 20,000BP (Noy et at. 1973: 93-93, Bar-Yosef 1975). On thebasis of grinding stones and lustrous edged micro lithicflakes, Wendorf and Schild (1976: 390-91) assumedthat grains became an important food source in latePalaeolithic in the lower Nile valley.

Conclusions

Hereby I will attempt only to collect together andsummarise some of our observations primarily basedon microwear traces and archaeological context.Behavioral differences have been observed within aperiod in the region and between the regions and that ledto development of various stages of behavioral changesfrom the Late Pleistocene to Holocene. These changesappear to have been geared towards the refinement andadvancement of economic methodology and technology.Such changes may be better understood if we take intoconsideration the classification of artifacts in termsof technomic, ideotechnic and socio-technic artifacts.Generally, a cultural system adapted to a particularenvironment gave rise to social changes or rise tosocio-technic artifacts. Adaptation is thus, a process ofbehavioral changes.

Differences in tool using behaviour have also beennoticed for similar and different tasks. For example,triangles, trapezes, backed blades, lunates, burins andprojectile points were used for both hunting-gatheringand craft activities. Such diversity and changes are morecommonly found in curated technology like varioustypes of hafts and arrangement of working edge oredges of tools in hafts. Variations have been foundin lithic technology, tool kits and the way tools wereused for more or less similar jobs between India (West

71

Bengal and Northern Vindhyas) and Island SoutheastAsia, including South Sulawesi in nearly similar period.It shows a pattern of behavioral differences. If weaccept the time span as proposed for the four Phasesat Chopani Mando - 17000-7000 BCE, then we havesimilar evidence in India too regarding the utilizationof plants and grains around c. 20,000-18,000 years agoas suggested for Palestine, Levant, Egypt and IslandSoutheast Asia (see above). But this would require adetailed scientific study in the Indian region, includingradiocarbon dating.

Wandering in and around Hanoi during the IPPAConference 2009, Hanoi, Vietnam, a number ofobservations were made by the author. There aredifferences even today in tool using behavior betweenIndia and Island Southeast Asia. For example, in Hanoi,people commonly move a knife at an angle away fromthe body in cutting or chopping material, while in Indiait is directed towards the body at an angle.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to I.C. Glover, Institute of Archaeology,London, UK, who kindly let me conduct microwearanalysis on flakes with gloss from Island Southeast Asia.The work was carried out at the Institute ofArchaeology,London, and this support is gratefully acknowledged.I am thankful to D.K. Chakrabarti, Delhi University,who gave me artifacts collected by him in the BankuraDistrict of West Bengal. For laboratory support, I amgrateful to D.P.Agrawal, Physical Research Laboratory,Ahmedabad. I am thankful to Susan G. Keates,University of Victoria, Canada for editing and valuablesuggestions.

72 Puriitattva 42

References

Bar- Yosef, O. 1975. The Epipalaeolithic in Palaestine and Sinai.In Problems in Prehistory: Northern Africa and the Levant, eds.F. Wendorf andA.E. Marks, 363-78. Dallas: Southern MethodistUniversity Press.

Binford, L.R. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. AmericanAntiquity 28 (2): 217-225.

Binford, L.R. 1973. Interassemblage variability - the Mousterianand the 'functional' argument, In The Explanation of CultureChange, ed. C. Renfrew, 227-54. London: Gerald Duckworth.

Binford, L.R. 1984. An Alyawara day: flour, spinifex gum, andShifting Perspective. Journal of Anthropological Research 40:157-182.

Chakrabarti, D.K., D.K. Bhattacharya and R.K. Chattopadhyay.1979-80. Lithic industries of Bankura. Puratattva 11: 39-48.

Clark, J.D. 1977. Interpretations of prehistoric technology fromancient Egyptian and other sources, part II: prehistoric arrowforms in Africa as shown by surviving examples of the traditionalarrows of the San Bushmen. Palaeorient 3: 127-50.

Clark, J.D. and R. Dreiman. 1983. An occurrence with small bladetechnology in the upper member of the Baghor formation at the'Baghor III locality. In Palaeoenvironments and Prehistory in themiddle Son Valley, eds. G.R. Sharma and J. D. Clark, 197-204.Allahabad: Abinash Prakashan.

Clark, J.D. and G.R. Prince. 1978. Use-wear on Late StoneAge microliths from Laga Oda, Haraghi, Ethiopia and possiblefunctional interpretations. Azania 13: 101-10.

Clark, J.D., J.L. Phillips and P.S. Stanley. 1976. Ancient Egyptianbows and arrows and their relevance for African prehistory.Palaeorient 2: 328-88.

Clark, J.G.D. 1953. Prehistoric Europe: Economic Basis.London: Methuen.

Crabtree; D.E. 1972. An Introduction to Flintworking, part-I: AnIntroduction to the Technology of Stone Tools. Occasional Paperof the Idaho State University 28.

Cranstone, B.A.L. (ed.). 1973. The Australian Aborigines.London: The Trustees of the British Museum.

Edmonds M. 2001. Lithic exploitation and use. In Handbook ofArchaeological Sciences, eds. D.R. Brothwell and A.M. Pollard,461-470. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Frank, R. 1981. Sediments from Leang Burung 2. ModernQuaternary Research in Southeast Asia 6: 39-44.

Fujimoto, T. 1983. Microwear analysis of microliths from theUpper and Epi-Palaeolithic assemblages from Palmyra Basin.Bulletin 21, University Museum: University of Tokyo.

Glover, r.c. 1981. Leang Burung 2: An Upper PalaeolithicRock Shelter in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Modern QuaternaryResearch in Southeast Asia 6: 1-38.

Gupta, H.P. 1976. Holocene Palynology from Meander Lake inthe Ganga Valley, district ofPratapgarh, U.P. The Palaeo botanist2: 109-19.

Gould, R.A.D., A. Koster and A.H.L. Sontz. 1971. The lithicassemblage of the western desert aborigines of Australia.American Antiquity 36 (2): 149-69.

Keeley, L.H. and M.H. Newcomer. 1977. Microwear analysis ofexperimental flint tools: a test case. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 4: 29-62.

Kenoyer, J.M., D. Mandal, V.D. Misra and J.N. Pal. 1983a.Preliminary report on excavations at the late Palaeolithicoccupation site at Baghor I locality. In Palaeoenvironments andPrehistory in the middle Son Valley, eds. G.R. Sharma and J.D.Clark, 117-42. Allahabad: Abinash Prakashan.

Kenoyer, J.M., J.D. Clark, J.N. Pal and G.R. Sharma. 1983b.An Upper Palaeo lithic shrine in India? Antiquity LVII: 88-94.

Kimura, Y. 1999. Tool-using strategies by early hominids at BedII, Olduvai Gogrge, Tanzania. Journal of Human Evolution 37:807-31.

Misra, B.B. and J.D. Clark. 1983. Contemporary abandonedshelters and temporary camps: some implications for ethno-archaeological interpretation. In Palaeoenvironments andPrehistory in the middle Son Valley, eds. G.R. Sharma and J.D.Clark, 251-59. Allahabad: Abinash PrakashaIi.

Changes in Technology, Subsistence Strategies and Behavioural Pattern

Newcomer, M.H., R. Grace and R. Unger-Hamilton. 1986.Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests. Journal ofArchaeological Science 13: 203-17.

Noy, T., A.J. Legge and E.S. Higgs. 1973. Recent excavationsat Nahal Oren, Israel. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society39: 75-99.

Odell, G. and F. Odell-Vereecken. 1981. Verifying the reliabilityof lithic usewear assessment by "blind tests": the low-powerapproach. Journal of Field Archaeology 7: 87-120.

Pant, D.D. and R. Pant. 1980. Preliminary observations on pollenflora of Chopani Mando (Vindhyas) and Mahadaha (GangaValley). In Beginnings of Agriculture, eds. G.R. Sharma, Y.D.Misra, D. Mandai, B.B. Misra and J.N. Pal, 229-30. Allahabad:Abinash Prakashan.

Sharma, G.R. (ed.). 1980. History to Prehistory. Allahabad:Kausambi Museum.

Sharma, G.R. and D. MandaI. 1980. Excavations at Mahagara,1977-78 (A Neolithic settlement in the Belan Valley). Allahabad:Abinash Prakashan.

Sharma, G.R., Y.D. Misra, D. Mandai, B.B. Misra and J.N. Pal(eds.). 1980. Beginnings of Agriculture. Allahabad: AbinashPrakashan.

Singh, LB. 2002. Late Quaternary of Ganga plain and proxyrecords of climate change, neotechtonics and anthropogenicactivity. Pragdhara 12: 1-25.

Sinha, P. 1983. Mesolithic human skeletal remains from canaldump of Mahadaha, district Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh: a casestudy. Man and Environment VII: 147-53.

Sinha, P. 1989. Economic and subsistence activities at Bagho III,India: a microwear study. In Old Problems and New Perspectivesin the Archaeology of South Asia, ed. lM. Kenoyer. WisconsinArchaeological Reports 2: 47-53.

73

Sinha, P. 1996-97. Archaeological evidences and archaeologists.Bharati 23 (I & II): 27-41.

Sinha, P. 2004. Retrieving, recording and analyzing archaeologicalevidence: a modified approach. Journal of InterdisciplinaryStudies in History and Archaeology 1(1): 119-29.

Sinha, P. 2009. Cogitating Prehistoric Archaeological Landscapewith Pattern Recognition. Computer Applications to Archaeology2009, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA. March 22-26,2009. OnlinePDP publication http://www.caa2009.orglPapersProceedings.cfm

Sinha, P. and LC. Glover. 1984. Changes in stone tools use inSoutheast Asia 10,000 years ago: a microwear analysis of flakeswith use gloss from Leang Burung 2 and Ulu Leang 1 caves,Sulawesi, Indonesia. Modern Quaternary Research in SoutheastAsia 8: 137-84.

Sussman, C., R. Blumenschine, J.D. Clark and B.B. Misra. 1983.Preliminary report on excavations at the Mesolithic occupationalsite at Baghor II locality. In Palaeoenvironments and Prehistoryin the middle Son Valley, eds. G.R. Sharma and J.D. Clark, 161-96. Allahabad: Abinash Prakashan.

Thomson, D.F. 1964. Some wood and stone implements of theBindibu tribe of Central Western Australia. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society XXX: 400-22.

Varma, R.K., Y.D. Misra, J.N. Pandey and J.N. Pal. 1985.Apreliminary report on the excavations at Damdama (1982-1984).Man and Environment IX: 45-65.

Wendorf, F. and R. Schild. 1976. Prehistory of the Nile Valley.New York: Academic Press.

Williams, M.A.J. and K. Royce. 1983. Alluvial history of themiddle Son Valley, North Central India. In Palaeoenvironmentsand Prehistory in the middle Son Valley, eds. G.R. Sharma andJ.D. Clark, 9-21. Allahabad: Abinash Prakashan.

Plates 13

Sinha, PI. 1: Artifacts recovered from excavation at Dhanuhi Rock-shelter,Adwa Valley, Madhya Pradesh

Sinha, PI. 2: A, B, Unused edge; C, Polishes -A type - experimental; D, Archaeological;E, B type - experimental; F, Archaeological;G, C type - experimental; H, Archaeological;I, D type - experimental; J, Archaeological

Sinha, PI. 3: Mother Goddess, Lohanda Sinha, PI. 4: Shrine, Baghor I locality,Nala, Belan Valley, Allahabad district, middle Son Valley, Sidhi district,Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh

14

Sinha, PI. 5: Hand-made pottery from Phase III, ChopaniMando, Belan Valley, Allahabad district, Uttar Pradesh

Sinha, PI. 7: Male skeleton wearing bone earrings,Mahadaha, Pratapgarh district, Uttar Pradesh

Puriuattva 42

Sinha, PI. 6: Post holes showing phases of structural activities atChopani Mando, Belan Valley,Allahabad district, Uttar Pradesh

Sinha, PI. 8: Evidence of bone ring preparation at Mahadaha,Pratapgarh district, Uttar Pradesh