82

Chapter VI

ARCHAEOLOGY

The writer begins his account of archaeological finds from

Goa by providing a backdrop of the Indian archaeological scene:

the terminological concepts, various cultural phases in Indian

prehistory and their chronology.

The writer describes the characteristics of the Lower and

Middle Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic industries and the

Megalithic monuments of this region. This description includes

the following aspects and spread over Section II, III and IV.

(1) Stone Age Terminology

(2) Prehistoric Cultural Background of India
(3) A Short History of Research in the Region Under Study
(4) Descriptive Typology, Methodology, Classification
(5) Quantitative study of the Handaxes and cleavers
(6) A Study of the Faunal Material from the Malanguinim Cave
and also their dating by the relative dating method
(7) A Study of Prehistoric Rock Engravings and
<8) Summary and Iterpretation of the data

Stone Age Terminology

Archaeology in India is a British foundation, archaeological

study, as in Africa is an outgrowth of European tradition, the

concepts and methods of approach have a parallel with the

European. Since the first discovery of a Palaeolithic by

R. B. Foote (1863), the periodization of Indian prehistory has been

a Crux of Indian archaeologists. However, researches during the

last two decades has made it possible to arrive at a broad based

terminology as elsewhere in the Old World.

 83

Bruce Foote (1916) first classified the prehistoric cultures

of the Peninsula into Pn 1 m-'nlithic, Neolithic and an Early and

Later Iron Age. With the discovery of new sites a further

systematization was called for and a scheme was proposed by

Cammiade and Burkitt (1930). This was concerned only with the

pre-Neolithic cultures which they divided into 4 groups (Four

fold sequence) - Series i,u,TII and IV. This stratigraphic

typologic model roughly corresponded with the European sequence

of Lower, Middle, Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic.

The assemblages corresponding with series I to IV were found

to have a widespread distribution throughout the Subcontinent. A

significant difference between series I and its European

counterpart, however, was that the former contain, in greater or

smaller numbers, an admixture of choppers and chopping tools.

Series II and III theoretically the equivalent of the Levallois-

Mousterian and the Upper Palaeolithic of Europe respectively did

not appear to have parallels in India. The industries which

occupied the stratigraphic position between handaxes and

microliths seemed to form a single major variants (Allchin 1963:

213). Consequently, with the recognition of this intermediate

group, the Indian pre-Neolithic cultures were regrouped into the

Early, Middle and Late Stone Ages, corresponding broadly with the

Lower and Middle Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Europe (at the

First Asian Archaeological Conference, New Delhi, 1962).

Terminological differences, however, persisted. Misra

(1962) proposed a division of cultures into Early, Middle and
 84
Upper Palaeolithic, with the later phase variously termed

Mesolithic, Microlithic and Late Stone Age. In a paper on the

Middle Stone Age in India and Pakistan Sankalia (1964) stated

that the term Middle Palaeolithic was preferable to Middle Stone

Age for those areas and assemblages where such tools could

definitely be assigned to the second wet and dry cycle observed

in the stratified sections of the rivers of peninsular India.

The last three decades witnessed significant advancement in

research strategies. Many regional studies were initiated, which

incorporated the intensive survey of the areas and the excavation

of primary sites. This not only resulted in widening the

geographical distribution of stone Age cultures but also in the

recognition of blade-and-burin industries, an equivalent of

European Upper Palaeolithic with the discovery of a district

blade and burin industry in the Subcontinent, from a regions as

far apart as the Belan Valley, U.P. (Sharma 1973), Gujarat

(Allchin and Goudie 1971) and Kurnool, A.P. (Murty 1968),

terminological revision was once again necessary. Since 1968,

therefore, the trend has been to revert to the earlier

classification of Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic and

Mesolithic. The blade and burin industry being techno-

typologically distinct from its predecessors, bridges the gap

between Middle Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Although the opinion

among archaeologists still remains divided as to which system is

most suitable. The Indian Scholars reiterate that flake blade,

blade tool and blade and burins industries are distinctly Upper

Palaeolithic and are post Middle Palaeolithic (Murty 1979).

 85

Therefore, the writer, is obliged to follow the four fold

division of pre-Neolithic cultures. This terminology has been

adopted to designate the material culture from Goa region.

The Lower Palaeolithic

The terms Acheulian and Lower Palaeolithic are synonymous in

the archaeological terminology. By now the Acheulian is known

from the whole of the Subcontinent. Until recently the Lower

Palaeolithic in India was known to represent two distinct,

industrial traditions, where in one the handaxe cleaver
components predominated and in the other the chopper-chopping

tools. They were called the Madrasian and Soanian respectively.

The former had its parallels in Africa and Western Europe and the

latter had its origin in Southeast Asia (Movious 1957). This

arbitrary division was no longer tenable as the Madrasian culture

was found to have flourished along side in the Soan valley. The

continued surveys and excavations of primary cave and open air

sites, have brought to light an industry with an admixture of

bifaces choppers, scrapers, etc. However, in the sub-Himalayan

region the Palaeolithic evidence is represented by the chopper

assemblages. The question of relationship between the Soanian and

the Acheulian in India has always been an important subject of

discussion among prehistorians. In the absence of precise

chronological and environmental data it is unlikely to come to

any conclusion. Soanian industries are mostly composed of pebble

tools and devoid of handaxes or cleaver, but flakes, cores and

other large tools are present. Much of the Acheulian evidence

has been obtained from riverine localities and are therefore
 86

£hM-.uiidniy occurrences. However, the excavation of primary and

semi-primary localities by Joshi <1964), Wakankar (1973), Misra

(1977), Singh (1956), in Central India, Sankalia (1952), Corvinus

(1973), in Western Indian, Pappu (1974) and Paddayya (1982) in

southern India has rendered in distinguishing two phases in the

Acheulian viz., the early and late Acheulian. The sequential

development in a single stratigraphic situation is as yet not

known.

The first effective colonization of the country was achieved

by the makers of the Acheulian culture. The archaeological

remains of this culture almost entirely in the form of stone

tools, have been found extensively from the Siwalik Hills in the

north to near Madras in Peninsular India (Misra 1978b). The only

areas which were devoid of Acheulian occupation until the present

discovery are the Western Ghats and the coastal region running

parallel to them (Guzder 1980; Goudeller and Korisettar 1993),

northeast India, and the Ganga plains. Claims for Acheulian finds

in the Garo Hills in Meghalaya (Sharma 1974) need to be confirmed

by the discovery of such tools in stratified context and without

the admixture of later tools. According to prehistorians working

in these area heavy rainfall and dense vegetation probably

lnhibtt<ec| early rr>ar> fro^ colonizing, the ^CSXtXA Ghats rest’on. ancf

northeast India.

Acheulian hunter-gatherer populations were adapted to a wide

variety of Ecozones. Their cultural remains have been found in

semi-arid western Rajasthan (Gaillard et ai. 1983, 1985; Misra

 87
and Rajaguru 1986; Misra et al. 1982), the Mewar plain (Misra

1967), Saurashtra (Sankalia 1965a; Chakrabarti 1978; Marathe

1981), the Gujarat alluvial plain (Sankalia 1946; Wainwright

1964) in the sub-humid dry as well as the moist deciduous

woodland zones of central India (Krishnaswami and Soundara Rajan

1951; Khatri 1958, 1961, Sen and Ghosh 1963; Singh 1965; Ahmed

1966; Sharma 1973; Jacobson 1970, 1975, 1976, Pal 1983; Semans

1981; Pant 1982; Kenoyer and Pal 1983; Sharma and Clark 1983;

Supekar 1968, 1985, Mishra 1986; Pandey 1987) the Deccan Plateau

(Joshi 1955; Sankalia 1952, 1956, Corvinus 1981, 1983; Paddayya

1968, 1982; Pappu 1974; Korisettar 1979; Kale et al. 1986), Chota

Nagpur Plateau (Bose and Sen 1948; Mohapatra 1962; Ghosh 1970)

and the Eastern Ghats and the southeast coast (Soundara Rajan

1952; Isaac 1960; Murty 1966, 1981; Rao 1968; Reddy 1968; Reddy

1968; Rao 1979; Jayaraj 1983;Raju 1983, 1985b).

The Middle Palaeolithic

As elsewhere in the Old World, the Acheulian culture slowly

developed into the Middle Palaeolithic by shedding some of the

older tool types and by incorporating new forms and new

techniques of making them. In western Europe, the Near East,

north Africa and Central Asia the Middle Palaeolithic occupation

sites are associated with the physical remains of Homo Sapiens

neanderthalensis or Neanderthal Man. Though rather robustly built

and with prominent supraorbital ridges and residual prognathism

of the face. Neanderthal man had attained the brain size of

modern man and was of equal intellectual capacity. Though no

physical remains of Nen4eY trha I 'Have, kee.19 $3unc| in In<4la,
 88
stone tools very similar to those found with this species in

Europe and other areas are widespread in the subcontinent.

The Middle Palaeolithic culture developed during the Upper

Pleistocene, a period of intense cold and glaciation in high

altitudes and northern latitudes. Areas bordering glaciated

regions experienced strong aridity. That is perhaps the reason

why Middle Palaeolithic sites are comparatively sparse in western

Rajasthan, the Mewar plateau and the Gujarat plain. In general,
however, we may say that the Middle Palaeolithic populations

occupied the same regions and habitats as the previous Acheulian

populations (Sankalia 1964) Middle Palaeolithic stone tool

assemblages have been found in the Sanghao cave near Peshawar

(Dani 1964), Sohan valley <de Terra and Paterson 1939; Salim

1986) and near Rawalpindi on the Potwar Plateau <Rendell and

Dennell 1987), all in Pakistan, the Luni valley (Misra 1961),

around Didwana (Misra 1987a; Misra and Rajaguru 1986), and around
Budha Pushkar (Allchin et ai. 1974, 1978), in western Rajasthan,

at numerous sites in the valleys of the Chambal, Son and Narmada

and their tributaries in central India (Allchin 1959; Khatri

1958, 1962b; Ahmed 1966; Pant 1982; Sharma and Clark 1983; Misra

1985a; Pandey 1987). On the Chota Nagpur Plateau (Mohapatra 1962;

Ghos 1970), on the Deccan Plateau (Joshi 1955; Sankalia 1956;

Malik 1959; Paddayya 1968, 1974; Pappu 1974), and in the Eastern
Ghats (Isaac 1960; Murty 1966; Rao 1966; Reddy 1968; Reddy 1968;
R-»o 1979; Nanda 1984).
Middle Pal ftCO I £ Ph i C OCCiiji;) I. i mi!; i it :< •. 11 (■ r i -t I cit OjH'ii CL i V 6{

along perennial as well as seasonal streams, along hillslopes and

 89
on stable dune surfaces.

Significant changes took place in technology during this

period. The use of bifaces (handaxes and cleavers) as also of

heavy core tools like choppers, polyhedrons and spheroids slowly

disappeared. Instead, tools made on flakes and blades (parallel

sided thin flakes ) become more common. Side scrappers of

various types, and scrapers, denticulates, notches, points and

borers are the most common tool types of this period. These were

made by the application of retouch, that is, by finely trimming

the edges of parent flakes by the removal of tiny thin flakes or

chips.

There was also a significant change in the choice of rocks

for making tools. While quartz, quartzite and basalt continued to

be used, in many areas they were replaced in varying degrees by

chert and jasper and other ftne-^v'o.Lnee^ ^(Wceous rocks. RcW

material for making tools was some times brought from

considerable distances.

Mesolithic

The hunting gathering cultures of the Early and Middle

Holocene are collectively assigned to the Mesolithic period.

Whenever found in a stratified context they succeed the Upper

Palaeolithic and precede the Neolithic and Chalcollthic. For a

number of reasons our knowledge of the Mesolithic cultures and

their ecological setting is much better than that of the earlier

cultures:

First, there have been no significant natural changes in the

 90
i
landforms since their occupation by Mesolithic communities.

Therefore, the sites of this period are preserved in larger

numbers and are in better condition.

Second, the preservation of biological matter, especially

animal remains, at these sites is much better. These remains

provide us with useful information about subsistence,

environment, technology, and ornaments.

Third, for the first time human burials make their

appearance in the archaeological record, adding substantially to

our knowledge about the mode of the disposal of the dead and

' Four, the rich rock art of this period throws a valuable

light on the aesthetic content as well as on many other aspects

of the cultures of Mesolithic societies.

The number and density of sites of the Mesolithic period is

far greater than those of all the phases of the preceding

Palaeolithic period. The Mesolithic people inhabited more

intensively the previously colonized habitats, like the arid and

semi-arid sandy plains of western Rajasthan (Misra 1973b; Allchin

et al. 1974, 1978) and north Gujarat (Subbarao 1952; Sankalia

1965b; Malik 1966; Allchin and Guodie 1971; Allchin et al. 1978),
the rocky plateau of Mewar (Misra 1967), the hilly and forested

country of central India (Brown 1889; Gordon 1950 ; Jacobson

1970a, 1976; Wakankar 1973b, 1975; Misra 1976; Sussman et

al.1983; Cooper 1983; Pal 1986; Varma 1986), The Chota Nagpur

plateau (Ray 1975, 1985), the semi arid and rocky Deccan plateau

(Joshi and Bopardikar 1972; Sankalia 1974; Sali 1989), the Bombay

coast (Todd 1950; Gordon 1950), Telangana plateau (Murty 1970;

 91
Singh 1984), and Eastern Ghats (Isaac 1960, Murty 1966; Rao 1968;

Reddy 1968; Reddy 1968; Rao 1979). Elsewhere they extended their

colonization into virgin territories like the Ganga valley

(Sha.rmo. 1973b; Gharma e£ al. 1980). Dawodar valley (Lai 1950),

the hilly tracts of Gujarat (Sonawane 1983), the Kerala

(Rajendran 1983, 1984), and the southern Tamil Nadu coast

(Allchin 1956). The effective human colonization of the forest

covered alluvial plains of the Ganga valley was achieved by the

Mesolithic pioneers. Nearly 200 sites of this period have been

located in the south central part of the valley in Allahabad,

Pratapgarh, Jaunpur, Mirzapur and Varanasi districts (Sharma et

al. 1980).

Palaeolithic Cultures of Coastal India

All the Palaeolithic material from coastal regions is commonly

associated with the fluvial gravels. There is no site showing

the association of such cultures with the coastal (marine)

deposits. In Saurashtra the miliolites which are littoral or

submarine deposits occur in the stratigraphic context overlying

or underlying the fluvial formation. These littoral deposits,

have, however, provided extremely important evidence of marine

transgressions and their probable age during the Quaternary. In

the rest of the areas along the west coast Palaeolithic artefacts

occur as surface scatters on the stream banks or lateritic

surfaces. In the east coast region they are found in association

with the lateritic gravels and basically most of them are surface
sites. The only known evidence of their stratigraphic occurrence

is perhaps from Vadamadurai and Poondi area in Tamil Nadu. In

 92
Andhra Pradesh in the lower Godavari basin Palaeoliths occur in

association with the stream gravels. Some of them show a mixture

of lateritic material.

Reviewing the evidence it becomes at once clear that the

development of these cultures had not taken place uniformly on

the west coast. The Lower Palaeolithic cultures (Acheulean)

developed well in the Saurashtra and south Gujarat <Dang> area,

but in the area south of the Tapi basin no standardized tool

types like handaxes and cleavers have yet been found. The Middle

Palaeolithic is again better represented in Saurashtra and to a

lesser extent in Konkan. It is rarely met with in the Karnataka

coast and Kerala. The Upper Palaeolithic has been identified

around Bombay, but the evidence is not indisputable. Other areas

have not yielded any sites of this culture, although there

indications in some of the mlcrolithic element from the cave site

near Hatkhamba in Konkan.

The situation on the east coast stands in contrast with that on

the west coast. On the east coast from Tamil Nadu to the Andhra

coastal areas both the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic cultures are

well represented; in fact some of the richest sites like

Attirampakkam and Vadamadurai as well as Poondi are from this

coastal region. The streams which drain into the Bay of Bengal

crossing the eastern slope of the low Eastern Ghats have yielded

rich Middle Palaeolithic sites. Besides, this region has brought

forth interesting Upper Palaeolithic locations as well. North of

Andhra, in the Orissa coastal area, Palaeolithic sites are almost

absent although in the interior regions they are well

 93
represented.

Saurashtra and the sites on the east coast which have yielded

handaxe industries have more or less the same characters as those

from the inland regions.

Typologically no inferences can be drawn from the Palaeolithic

cultures from the coastal and inland regions as there are no

differences in size and tool types. The apparent similarity of

the artefacts across the Subcontinent is suggestive of the human

habitation having taken place in similar environmental conditions

that prevailed in the past.

The prehistoric exploration carried out during the last one

hundred years have proved that no region u.f India was totally

unsuitable for early human habitation. We get all kinds of Stone

Age cultures in all types of geographical regions of this

country. Unlike the inland areas the coastal tracts were

relatively areas of isolation but they were never completely

neglected for settlements during prehistoric or later periods of

human history, as attested by the discovery of Palaeolithic sites

in the area under consideration.

The Indian coastal region forms one of the most clearly

demarcated geomorphic units of India. India possesses nearly

7500 kms long coastline. Some information of ini.-: coastal region

io noW available on its; genesis, ecology and cultural aspects due

to mul t. i (I i i:c i f'l i n;ir y .'itudics curried curt in India during the

last two decades.

 94

A large number of prehistoric sites have been brought to

light in the inland regions all over India and the attempts have
been made to understand the ecology, chronology and general

settlement pattern at different cultural levels of the Stone Age,

However, very little information is so far available on the

coastal adaptation during the prehistoric period.

Recent discussions in the anthropological literature have

focussed on the origins and development of maritime adaptation as

part of the larger process of human cultural evolution. There

are, however, problems as how to establish the earliest use of

coastal regions, as the sites situated on the coastal tracts are

subjected to continuous destruction by sea action; as also how to

estimate the reliance of such early settlements on seafoods. The

only evidence of ancient human occupation of coastal Indian

region is in the form of Stone Age artefacts. By and large these

prehistoric implements technologically are not different from

those occurring in the inland upland regions.

Taking into consideration the so far available published

data on the Quaternary environments and Stone Age cultures of the

coastal region of India the following observations could be made

which remain. The lack of Palaeolithic sites suitable for

excavations in these areas which could have provided evidence for

firmly establishing the relationship of the Palaeolithic cultures

with the contemporary environment, makes the assessment on this

count extremely difficult. The stone artefacts are the sole

evidence of the ancient occupation of the coastal landscapes.

 95
But sadly even their typological analysis does not throw any

light on the exploitation of the coastal resources by prehistoric

men from time to time, for the variety of tools obtained in the
coastal region and those from the inland regions have identical

characters.

A Short History of Archaeological in Goa

The first recorded collection of prehistoric stone artefacts

in Goa, that was made in 1964. Sali's survey of Goa in the Mid­

sixties had revealed the archaeological potential of the Goa

region (IAR 1964-65: 8-10). His discovery of quartz Mesolithic

assemblages in many part of Goa, and evidence of Middle

Palaeolithic flakes and Arali and Fatorpa along the coast, had

hinted at the presence? of early man in this region during the

Pleistocene.

His identification of solitary pebble chopper from Sigao on

the Dudhsagar River was, however, not sufficient evidence to

include Goa in the lower Palaeolithic of India.

Exploration in Goa by the ASI (IAR 1964-65 and 1979-80) were

followed by cursory explorations of the region by K.

Venkateshwara Rao also of the ASI while reproducing the list of

sites of Early, Middle and Late Stone Ages reported by Sali, he

discovered only one new Late Stone Age site at Rivona (1978).

These two workers did not, however, extend their investigations

to reconstructing either the culture history or man-land

relationships during the stone Age.

A further survey in the region, Marathe (1983) made a small

 96

collection of pebble choppers and scrapers from the Mandovi Basin

and added a couple of Mesolithic sites, the latter, however,

described a Pebble tool assemblage collected from the Mandovi

Basin, though details of site location were not given and also

expressed inability to comment on "typology, technology and

industry".

To date, the investigations by Kale and Rajaguru (1982) and

Kale (1983) are the most scientific and authentic works on the

Quaternary geomorphic environment of this region, but provide

only a cursory account of the archaeology.

These discoveries made earlier have established the presence

of the Early Man since Lower Palaeolithic period in the Goa

region.

Site Discovered During the Present Survey

Field work was undertaken in Goa from 1989 to 1994 February

by the writer, this has yielded Lower and Middle Palaeolithic

sites, Mesolithic and Neolithic sites.

However, none of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites

occur in stratified contexts and the artefacts were found in the

river bed, on the surface of lateritic low lands and on the

plateau, even Mesolithic tools also do not come from stratified

contexts and they were found on the lateritic surface and in a

couple of caves.