Recent investigations of the early prehistory of the Wainganga River basin, eastern Maharashtra, India

Abstract

The Pleistocene archaeological record of South Asia is important for questions relating to the origin and evolution of Palaeolithic cultures, continuity or change in lithic technologies, and the dispersals of humans across Asia. With these issues in mind, the research project presented here has set out to investigate the basin of the Wainganga River of the Deccan Plateau, southern India.

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

“…The survey included documenting site areas and artefact densities, categorised as low (less than 2/m 2 ), medium (greater than 2/m 2 and less than 5/m 2 ) and high (greater than 5/m 2 ). Systematic transect surveys to sample artefacts were conducted at key sites (see Joshi 2018: 19) characterised by higher artefact densities. To investigate site formation, a gridded survey was conducted at the artefact-rich site of Telang Kheri, where all artefacts, along with sediment and natural clast samples, were collected.…”

“…The clast samples were subjected to thin-section analysis at the Savitribai Phule Pune University to establish provenance. Lithic analysis was conducted to reconstruct the changing chaîne opératoire over time (see Joshi 2018: 20) and supplemented by experimental knapping to investigate blade debitage.…”

“…The major geological formations are Archaean, Vindhyan, Gondwana and Deccan traps (Geological Survey of India 1993, 2000) (Figure 2a & 3a–b), which represent the sources of raw materials used by prehistoric populations. Quartzite from the Vindhyan formation, for example, was used during the Acheulian, while chert from the Deccan traps and Kamthi formations were exploited during the Late Palaeolithic (Joshi 2018: 68 & 82). The region is drained by the Wainganga River and its tributaries.…”

“…2013). The second issue lies in the overwhelming reliance on ‘index-tool types’, such as bifaces equated solely with the Acheulian or Levallois, and blade components identified exclusively with the Middle and Late Palaeolithic (for a review, see Joshi 2018: 11). As bifaces continue into the Middle Palaeolithic and blade technologies endure from the Late Acheulian and Middle Palaeolithic onwards (Misra 1985; Akhilesh et al 2018), the type-tool approach is somewhat unreliable.…”

“…Joshi 1964; P.B. Joshi 2018: 5), with numerous Palaeolithic sites documented, and excavations at an Acheulian and microlithic site at Papamiya-ki-tekadi (Maharashtra) (Ota 1993–1994). Despite this, numerous questions related to stratigraphic contexts and lithic assemblages remain unanswered.…”