ABSTRACT: The Mesolithic of the Indian subcontinent is still an argument and ofdebatable by several authors. On the Indian background the term “Mesolithic” came to lifewith the British School of Archaeology. It was as early as 1867-68 when the term used by A. C.L. Carleyle, one of the pioneers of prehistoric research on the subcontinent, in reference todiscoveries of microlithic tools. In 1939, N. G. Majumdar first recorded the Microlithicassemblages of West Bengal from Durgapur which lies to the North of Bankura district. Thepresent article is an endeavour to understand the typological and technological characterizationof Mesolithic assemblages collected from the ‘Tapaban Pahar’ site (near the famous palaeolithicsite of Siulibona) of district Bankura, West Bengal. The study tried to explore and analyse theassemblages revealed from the site ‘Tapaban Pahar’ which seems to be an inclusion of Mesolithicsites in eastern India and particularly at Bankura district of West Bengal. Four consecutiveyears of field study equipped with surface collection and very short digging greatly resulted ina varied collection of artifacts and tools but the site mentioned above provided only anassemblage of only microliths.
†Assistant Professor,‡Research Scholar,*Junior Research Fellow
INTRODUCTION
The term, ‘Mesolithic’ has made its firstappearance in 1872, when it was used by H. M.Westropp to describe the hunting stage in hisevolutionist view of human society development(Rowley-Conwy 1996). In 1874 due to M. Torell itbegan to be understood as a transitional periodbetween the Paleolithic and Neolithic with microlithictools as a prominent feature (Milner and Woodman,2005). But it was not until the 1930’s when it waspopularised by the works of J. G. D. Clark (’32, ’36)and since then the term has started to be commonlyused. As time passes the meaning underwent two
major changes. Initially it was determined by itstypological-technological aspect; afterwardseconomical-environmental approach was alsoconsidered. The former assumed the presence ofmicroliths as a determinant of Mesolithic culture,while the latter highlighted the economical adaptationsto the changed environment. In this regard few notablepoints were raised by some scholars who made thedistinction between “mesolithic” and “microlithic”(Sali, ’90; Mohanty, 2000; Sinha, 2009). It was wellput by V. Jayaswal who stated that “microlithictechnology may be identified as the diagnosticcharacter of Mesolithic, but it is not synonymous toMesolithic” (Jayaswal, 2009).
On the Indian background the term “Mesolithic”came to life with the British School of Archaeology.
48 Pinak Tarafdar, Suvendu Kundu and Subhankar Roy
It was as early as 1867-68 when it was used by A. C.L. Carleyle, one of the pioneers of prehistoric researchon the subcontinent, in reference to discoveries ofmicrolithic tools. He understood it as a period of“alleged hiatus” between Paleolithic and Neolithic(Binford, ’68; Misra, 2002).
Climatic changes on the turn of the Pleistoceneand the Holocene played a fundamental role in theformation process of Mesolithic in Eurasia. Relyingon data acquired from palinological research fromRajasthan and Ganga Valley and cores from ArabianSea, it is possible to identify several climatic phasesduring the late Pleistocene and the Holocene. Shortlybefore the beginning of the latter (equivalent to DryasIII in Europe) the climate was much drier than atpresent, which manifested by dune formation in north-west India among the others. It is worth noting thatwhile in eastern part of India (Ganga Valley) increasein rainfall was related to the summer monsoon, in thedry western region it was the winter time, whichexperienced more intensified rainfall (Prasad andEnzel 2006; Sharma et al., 2004). After the phase ofamelioration, climate became drier, similar to present.
The Mesolithic of the Indian subcontinent is stillan argument of debate by several authors. G. L.Possehl (2003) believes that “confusion over thedefinition of Mesolithic settlement and subsistenceversus typology has mudded much writing on Indiansites with microlithic technology”. In contrast, Misra(2002) suggests that “the Mesolithic or Middle StoneAge represents a transition, lasting only a fewthousand years, between the Palaeolithic or Old StoneAge, spanning half-a-million years, and the Neolithicperiod”, while Allchin et al. (1978) considered that“the Mesolithic is a more comprehensive culturalterm, as it designates their position in the industriesof hunting groups, or communities partly dependentupon hunting, in many cases overlapping in time withsettled agricultural and urban communities”.
Even though there is little doubt that thestratigraphic sequence of the first post Pleistocenecommunities of the Indian subcontinent can be tracedwithin the deposits of a restricted number of siteswhich are distributed in various geomorphologic andclimatic environments (Misra, ’73, ’85; Sharma et al.,’80; Sali, ’89), their absolute chronology is stll poorlyknown. The results obtained so far cover a period of
a few millennia (Misra, 2001). This might be also dueto the small number of radiocarbon dates, the highstandard of deviation among the results, and thedifferent materials and laboratories in which thesamples have been processed (Agrawal, ’85;Chakrabarti, ’99). Nevertheless, the new assays fromthe site of Inamgoan near Pune would suggest that“the beginning of the microlithic industries cantherefore be assigned to c. 10,000 BC”, that is, to theEarly Holocene (Misra, 2002).
In 1939, N. G. Majumdar first recorded theMicrolithic assemblages of West Bengal fromDurgapur which lies to the north of Bankura district.Later, H. C. Chakladar discovered several microlithicclusters while exploring some parts of the districts ofMidnapur, Bankura and Burdwan. B. B. Lal excavatedthe site of Birbhanpur and explored many potentialmicrolith bearing areas viz. Dejuri, Malandighi andGopalpur. From 1960-61 onwards, the districts ofBankura, Burdwn, Birbhum, Midnapur and Puruliawere surveyed for several seasons by the Directorateof Archaeology and Museums, Government of WestBengal. During their survey the DAM traced severalmicrolith yielding sites such as Paharghata, Jaljali,Bharatpur, Babladanga, Dhankura, Ramnathpur,Biribari, Bankajor, Kushbona, Siulibona, Metela,Simulberia and Hapania. Besides these, Mitra (’57-’58) and Ghosh and Basu (’69) and Ghosh andChakrabarty(’68) also reported some microlithic siteslike Chiada (on the bank of the Kumari) and Jhilimiliin Ranibandh P.S.
For the present study a systemic survey wasundertaken in the Tapaban Pahar (hill) region ofGangajalghati, Bankura near the famous hill Susuniaand the famous site Siulibona (Tarafdar et al,. 2012-2013). The area is a newly identified Mesolithic siteand is situated in the left bank of river ‘Sali’ which isan important tributary of river Damodar and flows inthe northern part of district Bankura. The field studywas carried out throughout four successive years from2009 to 2012 during the months of January toFebruary. The tools were mainly found and collectedfrom the surface areas so it was convenient to conductfield work specifically in winter for more availabilityof tools and raw material due to dry weather andperfect soil condition. For the present study 164 wellfinished microliths are considered among more than
Microlithic Assemblages of Tapaban Pahar: An Emerging Mesolithic Site of District Bankura 49
450 of such tools collected from that particular siteduring the field work of four consecutive years.
GEOMORPHOLOGY
Geomorphologically the upland Bengal belongsto a compact geophysical unit lying betweenChotonagpur Plateau and Lower Ganga Basin (86°-87° 30� EL; 24°-22° 30�NL) which is basically aplateau pane plane region. The tract is bounded bythe Purulia-Dhalbhum upland on the west andRupnarayan plain on the east. The district Bankura isdivided in to three geomorphic categories- (i) the hillyzone of west, (ii) the undulating red soil area of thecentre and (iii) the alluvial flat plain in the east (Neogi,2011). The studied area, i.e., Tapaban Pahar (hill) issituated in the north-western part of the district. Amajor part of the north-western zone, being anextension of the Chotanagpur plateau is of LowerGondwana formation. A number of doleritic dykes ofthe Mesozoic age are found cutting across theGondwana rocks and the Archaean formations in thenorth-western parts of the district.
Chronologically, the geological history of theregion may be arranged as follows:
Tapaban Pahar (Lat: 23°38´88´´ Long:87°11´61´´) is a hilly terrain lies on the left bank ofriver Sali. Administratively the area situated in theGobindodham Gram Panchayat under Gangajalghatiblock of district
Bankura, West Bengal. The above site is formedas a result of volcanic eruption and having theevidences of Mesolithic industry nearly one squarekilometer area. The entire area is on hill slopes whichare not substantially spread but very roughly steep inits contour. Hill slopes are filled with the tropical
deciduous trees with gravelly and sandy undulatedsurface. The collection of microliths was made fromthat surface.
The assemblages of the site distributed inscattered way surrounding the hill slopes, gullies andpalaeo-channels. In general, they were collectedwithin one meter thick or so, alluvial-colluvial debrisof fragmented quartz, interspersed with silt and claysedimentation embodies the lithic industry. The tophorizon shows one meter thickness of calcareous clay-sand deposition (Chattopadhyay, R.K. 2010).
TYPOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGICALSTUDY ON COLLECTED MICROLITHS
The microlithic assemblages of Tapaban Paharare well versed with various raw material and typo-technological features. Chert is the most common raw
Satellite picture of the studied site (red circle) showing riverSali in the left
(Source: google satellite map)
50 Pinak Tarafdar, Suvendu Kundu and Subhankar Roy
on quartz are of two types, one is white in colour andanother is green. Fig. 4 shows the two division of thequartz on the basis of its colour. The white partindicates the tools made on white quartz where as thegreen part signifies the tools made on green quartz.
Microliths considered for the present study areconspicuously dominated by blade (20.12%), point(18.29%), scraper (17.68%) and burin (13.41%) alongwith Backed Blade (06.71%), Lunate (07.93%) andTriangle (03.05%) (see Table 1). Both geometric andnon-geomatric microliths revealed from the presentsite although the percentage of the former isconsiderable less than the later. Among the total 164identified tools only few are geometric in shape. Pointshould be noted that geometric shape of microliths isobviously advance than the non-geomatric one. Moreexistence of non-geomatric form of microlithsexemplifies once again the fundamental feature ofmost of the mesolitic sites of India (Sosnowska, 2011).
Blade: The assemblages of well developed bladetools (also known as micro-blade or blade lets onmicroliths) are one of the most remarkable featuresof the site. The blades of different shapes and sizeshad been struck off from variety of cores. A few cores,especially the fluted one, indicate that the blades wereremoved in one of several ways: in one direction, intwo directions either from one end and side or fromboth ends, in three directions or sometimes in multipledirections. The blades and flakes have been removedby a soft hammer of bone or wood, by the punch, orby pressure technique. All the blades having thecommon feature of two parallel sides along withblunted one side in some of the tools presumablyunfold the application of blunting technique. Most ofthe collected blades are made on chert, jasper, quartz
Figure 1 & 2: Tapaban Pahar, the emerging mesolithicsite of West Bengal
Figure 3: Distribution of the collected tools on the basis of raw materials
material exploited for manufacturing microlithicartifacts and for producing desired tools. The othermaterials, in descending numerical order, are jasper,quartz, rock crystal, chalcedony, basalt, whitedolomite and dacite (Fig. 3). The collected tools made
Microlithic Assemblages of Tapaban Pahar: An Emerging Mesolithic Site of District Bankura 51
and chalcedony (Table 2). Including backed blade atotal of 44 (26.83%) finished blades were identifiedfrom the total collected assemblages of Tapaban Paharregion which appear to be the highest number of samecategory of microliths depicted from the site(Table 1). Out of the 44 microblades 33 are bladesand 11 are backed blades. 42.42 per cent of totalcollected blades and 45.45 per cent of the totalcollected backed blades are made on chert. Apart fromchert the other identified raw materials used formaking blades are jasper, chalcedony, quartz, rockcrystal and basalt. The lowest range of length, breadth,thickness and weight of the collected blades are 1.1cm, 0.7 cm, 0.1 cm and 0.26 gm respectively.Whereas, the highest range of the same are 4.2 cm,1.9 cm, 0.9 cm and 6.79 gm (Table 3). The blades aremostly with sharp edging in one or both of the parallelsides. Concave blade, blade with the scraping end andpredominance of the unifacial blade are the importantfeatures of the assemblage.
Burin: Fine finished burin is another importantaspect of the industry. The burin (also known as micro-burin on microliths) can be easily identified by itschisel like shape. 13.41 per cent of the total collectedtools are identified in this category (Table 1); theseare the fourth largest assemblage of microliths underthe study where burin notch is distinctively present ineach of the selected tool. According to their length,breadth, thickness and weight the collected burins areranging from 1.1 cm to 4.2 cm, 0.8 cm to 2.5 cm, 0.2cm to 0.7 cm and 0.28 gm to 4.66 gm respectively(Table 3). Most of the bruins were made on chert(50.00%) but jasper, quartz, rock crystal and dacitewere also used for manufacturing such tools (Table2). Like the blades most of the burins are alsotypologically unifacial having single notch on one side
of the working edge. Although rare but occurrence ofbifacial burin is also identified. Generally the burinfeatures very prominent and perfect contour but someof them have less perfection might be due to workersless accuracy during the entire manufacturingprocedures while making such advance shapedmicroliths.
Point: Generally point is manufactured on smallor large flake after necessary trimming on its workingend and a convenient hafting presumably make itready for exercising hunting and fishing. There arefive different categories of points collected from thesite area. Among the 30 total identified points 30.00percent is micro point, 16.67 percent is backed point,43.33 per cent is arrow point, 06.67 per cent isshoulder point and 03.33 per cent is leaf point (Table1a). Micro points are mainly made on chert (66.67%)but there are also existence of chalcedony and quartzmade micro points (Table 2). The lateral margins ofmicro points are converging towards the pointedworking end. The length, breadth, thickness andweight of the collected micro points ranges from 1.3cm to 2.9 cm, 0.7 cm to 1.1 cm, 0.1 to 0.4 cm and0.29 gm to 1.40 gm respectively (Table 3). The backedpoints are mainly made on brick red jasper but thesame made on chert, chalcedony and quartz are alsoin the collection (Table 2). Some of the backed pointsare curved in nature and projected on the hafting end.Primarily unifacial variety is identified havingretouching at the effective end of the longitudinaledge, although rare but the existence of bifacialbacked points is also noticeable. The length, breadth,thickness and weight of collected backed points varyfrom 1.2 cm to 2.7 cm, 0.6 cm to 1.1 cm, 0.2 to 0.5cm and 0.33 gm to 1.41 gm respectively (Table 3).The arrow points collected from Tapaban Pahar siteare mainly made on quartz (38.46%) and rock crystal(23.08%). Chert (15.38%), jasper (07.69%) and basalt(07.69%) were occasionally used to make the abovevarieties of microliths (Table 2). Arrow point usuallyfixed at the tip of an arrow and used for hunting andfishing. Impression of few retouching is present atthe both side of the edge but the tang portion of thecollected arrow points is not well developed. Thelength, breadth, thickness and weight of the collectedarrow points range from 1.6 cm to 2.9 cm, 0.8 cm to2.1 cm, 0.3 to 0.9 cm and 0.52 gm to 5.85 gm
Figure 4: Division of quartz made tools on the basis of colour
52 Pinak Tarafdar, Suvendu Kundu and Subhankar Roy
respectively (Table 3). Two well finished singleshoulder points are also found from the site understudy. These shoulder points are made on chalcedonyand hafting portion of these points is well developed.The length, breadth, thickness and weight of thecomparatively larger single shoulder point are 1.7 cm,0.7 cm 0.4 cm and 0.46 gm respectively. While, thelength, breadth, thickness and weight of thecomparatively smaller single shoulder point are 1.4cm, 0.5 cm, 0.3 cm, 0.27 gm respectively (Table 3).One well finished leaf point was also collected fromthe site. Morphologically the point has someresemblance with small leaf as the name implies. Thelength, breadth, thickness and weight of the collectedleaf point is 2.2 cm, 0.8 cm, 0.2 cm and 0.44 gmrespectively.
Scrapers: 17.68 per cent of the total collectedmicroliths (Table: 1) are identified as scrapers thosewere manufactured for scraping bark of trees, dressingof the wooden or bamboo shafts and skin of huntedanimals. The total selected scrapers are typologicallycategories in to four (4) sub-divisions viz. (a) sidescraper, (b) nose scraper, (c) thumbnail scraper and(d) keeled scraper on the basis of shape, nature andposition of the cutting edge for diversified usages.Percentage of the side scraper (41.38%) is highestamong the above stated typological sub-divisions.
Most of the side scrapers are made on chert(41.67%) but basalt, jasper, quartz and rock crystalwere also used to produce side scrapers (Table 2).Sharp retouching are found in both of the surfacesintrinsically towards the effective end . On the basisof their length, breadth, thickness and weight thecollected side scrapers vary from 1.5 cm to 2.7 cm,1.0 cm to 1.8 cm, 0.2 cm to 0.7 cm and 0.78 gm to2.17 gm respectively (Table 3). Nose scraper consists31.03 percent of the total collected scrapers. Theseare more elongated in shape where scraping end is inthe upper direction and semi circular. Most of thecollected nose scrapers are made on chert (77.78%)and a few are made on rock crystal (Table: 2).According to their length, breadth, thickness andweight the collected nose scrapers range from 1.6 cmto 3.3 cm, 1.5 cm to 2.2 cm, 0.2 cm to 0.6 cm and0.74 gm to 3.50 gm respectively (Table 3). Thumbnailscrapers are very small in shape and have resemblancewith the thumb of the human finger. 20.69 per cent of
the total collected scrapers are identified as thumbnailscraper (Table 1b). These are mainly made with chertand jasper but quartz was also used to produce it(Table: 2). The cutting edge is semicircular fashion.The length, breadth, thickness and weight of collectedthumbnail scrapers vary from 1.1 cm to 2.0 cm, 1.6cm to 2.1 cm, 0.3 cm to 0.7 cm and 0.74 gm to 3.50gm respectively (Table 3). Keeled scraper is anotherimportant Mesolithic tool found from the site underthe study. Only two keeled scrapers were collectedwhich seems to be made up with jasper; one of themis significantly well-finished thus produced a goodworkmanship (Table 2). The unearthed keeledscrapers are bifacial in nature and show some flutedscars towards the working edge in both of the surfaces.The length, breadth, thickness and weight of thecomparative larger keeled scraper are 2 cm, 1.6 cm,0.6 cm and 1.41 gm respectively. The length, breadth,thickness and weight of the comparatively smallerkeeled scraper are 1.3 cm, 1.1 cm, 0.5 cm and 0.71cm respectively (Table 3).
Lunates collected from the site are mainly ofcrescent shape which is more advance type ofMicroliths. These are slightly curved and pointedtowards effective end and mainly made with chert andjasper. Among the total thirteen collected lunates,seven are made with chert and two are made withjasper, whereas the others are made with chalcedony,rock crystal and basalt. The length, breadth, thicknessand weight of the collected lunates varies from 1.5cm to 4.0 cm, 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm, 0.2 cm to 0.6 cm and0.30 gm to 2.60 gm respectively (Table 3). Mainlythe identified lunates are bipolar in feature.Technologically, the pieces were manufactured onbladelets. Functionally the tools were utilized as eitherin arrowhead, or as a transverse arrowhead coatedwith poison for hunting or those also used for makingcomposite microliths also known as microliths-per-excellence.
Triangle: Triangles are another advance type ofmicrolith collected from the site. Like the crescentshaped lunates, the triangles are also considered asthe geometric shape of microlith. Triangles might beused as scraping purpose or as a part of arrow point.03.05 per cent (Table 1) of the total collectedmicroliths identified as triangles which are mainlymade on chert (40%), jasper (20%), quartz (20%) and
Microlithic Assemblages of Tapaban Pahar: An Emerging Mesolithic Site of District Bankura 53
TABLE 1
Different types of microlith collected from Tapaban Pahar,Bankura
Total 07 10 02 10 29100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
rock crystal (20%). According to their length, breadth,width and weight the triangles have ranges from 2.7cm to 3.1 cm, 1.9 cm to 2.4 cm, 0.2 cm to 0.8 cm and1.52 gm to 3.86 gm respectively (Table 3).
Others: In each year of field work a substantivequantity of tools collected from the site but it was
rather a tough job to categories them in any of theexisting tool families. Composite character withpresumably multipurpose working features makeharder for any sort of exact categorization. Most ofthem were manufactured on chert (57.14%). Amongthe total 21 of such kind of tools two have resemblancewith trapeze but due to less perfection of conventionalshape it would be justified to state them trapeze liketools. Another tool identified with compositemorphological character of blade and burin with sharpworking edge like scraper in one side and anotherblunted edge having resemblance with knife, it alsohas a notch like portion with sharp trimming in thescrapping edge. Two of the tools have more or lesssimilar with end scarper but one of them has lessperfection in its working edge presumably for erosion,another more accurate in its shape and effective edgebut it might also be experienced by weathering andpatination. Three of the identified artifacts havesimilar structure with wide flat and sharp workingedges having diversified lateral sides but they do notshow any similarities with any of the conventionalmicrolithic tool typology. Another three artifacts havesimilar notch like burin but the overall contour doesnot looks like the same. According to the length,breadth, thickness and weight the collected tools ofthis category range from 1.0 cm to 4.3 cm, 0.8 cm to2.2 cm, 0.4 cm to 1.1 cm and 0.53 gm to 5.55 gmrespectively (Table 3).
Apart from the above discussed microliths thereare lots of unfinished artifacts collected from theTapaban Pahar site. These unfinished implements
54 Pinak Tarafdar, Suvendu Kundu and Subhankar RoyTA
BL
E 2
Raw
mat
eria
ls o
f th
e m
icro
liths
(Ta
paba
n P
ahar
, B
anku
ra)
Sl.
No
Mic
roli
ths
Raw
Mat
eria
lsC
hert
Jasp
erC
halc
edon
yW
hite
Gre
enR
ock
Bas
alt
Whi
teD
acit
eO
ther
sT
otal
Qua
rtz
Qua
rtz
Cry
stal
Dol
omit
e1.
Bla
de14
0703
0103
0201
--
0233
42.4
221
.21
09.0
903
.03
09.0
906
.06
03.0
306
.06
100.
002.
Bac
ked
Bla
de05
-01
-02
--
--
0311
45.4
509
.09
18.1
827
.27
100.
003.
Bur
in11
03-
0102
01-
-01
0322
50.0
013
.64
04.5
409
.09
04.5
404
.54
13.6
410
0.00
4.L
unat
e07
0201
--
0101
--
0113
53.8
515
.38
07.6
907
.69
07.6
907
.69
100.
005.
Poi
ntM
icro
Poi
nt06
-01
-01
--
--
0109
66.6
711
.11
11.1
111
.11
100.
00B
acke
d P
oint
0102
0101
--
--
--
0520
.00
40.0
020
.00
20.0
010
0.00
Arr
ow P
oint
0201
-05
-03
01-
-01
1315
.38
07.6
938
.46
23.0
807
.69
07.6
910
0.00
Sho
ulde
r Po
int
--
02-
--
--
--
0210
0.00
100.
00L
eaf
Poi
nt01
--
--
--
--
-01
100.
0010
0.00
6.S
crap
erS
ide
Scra
per
0501
-01
--
0201
-02
1241
.67
08.3
308
.33
16.6
708
.33
16.6
710
0.00
Nos
e Sc
rape
r07
--
--
02-
--
-09
77.7
822
.22
100.
00T
hum
bnai
l Sc
rape
r03
02-
-01
--
--
-06
50.0
033
.33
16.6
710
0.00
Kee
led
Scr
aper
-02
--
--
--
--
0210
0.00
100.
007.
Tri
angl
e02
01-
01-
01-
--
-05
40.0
020
.00
20.0
020
.00
100.
008.
Oth
ers
1202
--
01-
--
-06
2157
.14
09.5
204
.76
28.5
710
0.00
Tot
al76
2309
1010
1005
0101
1916
446
.34
14.0
205
.49
06.1
006
.10
06.1
003
.05
00.6
100
.61
11.5
810
0.00
Microlithic Assemblages of Tapaban Pahar: An Emerging Mesolithic Site of District Bankura 55TA
BL
E 3
Mea
sure
men
ts(c
m)
of i
dent
ifie
d m
icro
liths
(Ta
paba
n P
ahar
, B
anku
ra)
Mea
sure
men
tM
icro
lith
sT
ype
Sca
leB
lade
Bac
ked
Bur
inL
unat
eM
icro
Bac
ked
Arr
owS
houl
der
Lea
fS
ide
Nos
eT
hum
bnai
lK
eele
dT
rian
gle
Oth
ers
Bla
deP
oint
Poi
ntP
oint
Poi
ntP
oint
Scr
aper
Scr
aper
Scr
aper
Scr
aper
Len
gth
Hig
hest
4.2
3.9
4.2
4.0
2.9
2.7
2.9
1.8
2.2
2.7
3.3
2.0
2.0
3.1
4.3
(in
cm)
Low
est
1.1
1.5
1.1
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.4
2.2
1.5
1.6
1.1
1.3
2.7
1.0
Bre
adth
Hig
hest
1.9
1.7
2.5
1.5
1.1
1.1
2.1
0.7
0.8
1.8
2.2
2.1
1.6
2.4
2.2
(in
cm)
Low
est
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
1.6
1.1
1.9
0.8
Thi
ckne
ssH
ighe
st0.
90.
80.
70.
60.
40.
50.
90.
40.
20.
70.
60.
70.
60.
81.
1(i
n cm
)L
owes
t0.
10.
20.
20.
20.
10.
20.
30.
30.
20.
20.
20.
30.
50.
20.
4W
eigh
tH
ighe
st6.
793.
784.
662.
601.
401.
415.
850.
460.
442.
832.
173.
501.
413.
865.
55(i
n gm
)L
owes
t0.
260.
280.
280.
300.
290.
330.
520.
270.
440.
440.
780.
740.
711.
520.
53
56 Pinak Tarafdar, Suvendu Kundu and Subhankar Roy
Keeled Scraper; 50-51 Thumbnail Scraper; 52-54 Triangle; 55-65 Others.
Microlithic Assemblages of Tapaban Pahar: An Emerging Mesolithic Site of District Bankura 57
seem to be providing evidences for existed mesolithicindustry in and surrounding the site under the study.
CONCLUSION
The present article is an endeavour to understandthe typological and technological characterization ofMesolithic assemblages collected from the ‘TapabanPahar’ site (near the famous palaeolithic site ofSiulibona) of district Bankura, West Bengal. Earlierscholaristic works in the field of prehistoricarchaeology already unfolded numerous sites in thedistrict of Bankura and adjoining areas; the presentwork seems to be continuation of such effort. Alongwith a number of Paleolithic sites the district Bankurais also significant for considerable existence ofMesolithic sites.
Four consecutive years of field study equippedwith surface collection and very short diggingvehemently resultant for well-versed collection ofartifacts and tools but the site mentionable assembledwith only microliths. There was not any heavy-dutytool unearthed during the entire exploration. Thenumerical predominance of chert as a raw materialsignifies once again the availability and proficiencyof the material specifically for microliths in Indiansub-continent because of its accurate conchoidalfracture the entire manufacturing procedure eventuallybecame more convenient. A variety of chart which isred in colour known as Jasper also identified asconspicuous raw material used for the collectedmicroliths. Apart from other identified raw materialbasalt signifies the existence of volcanic substanceon that area.
Availability of microblades or bladelets(including backed blade) were significantly high incomparison to other collected tools. Consistenceavailability of such tools provides conspicuousdominancy of the same in the site under the study.Points also had prominent presence during the entirefour years of field work. To continue with moreaccurate hunting and fishing activities in the nearbyforest and palaeo-channel presumably indulged thedenizens for numerous productions of micro-points.Both micro-burin and scraper subsequently availablein all the phases of field works resultant theircontinuous existence in the entire site. As a prominentmark of Mesolithic culture burin also had remarkable
existence throughout the four phases of field work;so both blade and burin in a combination might beresponsible for delineating with specific typologicaltag for the site as blade-burin Mesolithic culture.
Collection and identification of triangle, trapezeand cresant shaped lunate confirm the presence ofgeometric microliths in the site ‘Tapaban Phar’;generally in case of Indian Mesolithic sites there wereless existence of geometric macroliths and that sitealso confirms such trends of having numericallyless availability of aforesaid advanced form ofmicroliths.
Inspite of its limitation the present study tried toexplore and analyse the assemblages revealed fromthe site ‘Tapaban Pahar’ which seems to be aninclusion of Mesolithic sites in eastern India andparticularly at Bankura district. Relative dating ofstar tigraphic method vehemently proved theapproximate age of the artifacts and labeled them asthe assemblages of Mesolithic period. Even afterintensive field work of four consecutive years theabsence of any heavy duty stone implementspresumably confirm the prominent feature ofexclusive microlithic industry. The existences ofnearby palaeo-channel suppose to be notified onceagain the proposition of Mesolithic environment. Soin nutshell all the collected and identified assemblagesof the site ‘Tapaban Pahar’ intrinsically unfold thetypological and technological specification of thetools manufactured and used during the period ofMesolithic culture.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to acknowledge the Department of Anthropology,University of North Bengal for providing infrastructural facilitiesfor the entire research endeavour.
REFERENCES CITED
Agrawal, D. P. 1985. The Archaeology of India. ScandinavianInstitute of Asian Studies, Monograph Series 46. CurzonPress: London.
Allchin, B., A. Goudie and K. Hedge 1978. The Prehistory andArchaeology of the Great Indian Desert. Academic Press:London.
Binford, Lewis, R. 1968. Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In: S. R.Binford and L. R. Binford, (eds.), New Perspectives inArchaeology, pp. 313-341. Aldine Publishing: Chicago.
Chakladar, H. C. 1951. The prehistoric culture of Bengal. Manin India, 31: 129-164.
58 Pinak Tarafdar, Suvendu Kundu and Subhankar Roy
Chakrabarti, D. P. 1999. India: An Archaeological History.Oxford University Press: New Delhi.
Chattopadhyay, R. K. 2010. Bankura: A Study o f I tsArchaeological Sources. Platinum Publishers: Kolkata.
Childe, V. G. 1936. Man Makes Himself. New American Library:New York.
Clark, J. G. D. 1932. The Mesolithic Age in Britain. CambridgeUniversity Press: Cambridge.
Mitra, Debala 1957-58. Cited by Ghosh, A. In: A. Ghosh (ed.),Indian Archaeology – A Review. (1957-58), pp. 69.Archaeological Survey of India, Government of India: NewDelhi.
Ghose, A. K. and D. K. Chakrabarty 1968. Prehistoric Metal Stagein West Bengal. Bulletin of Cultural Research Institute, 7(1-2): 112-123.
Jayaswal, Vidula 2009. Status of Archaeology of the MiddleGanga Valley: Stone and Early Iron Age Cultures.Presidential Address, 36 Congress Indian Society forPrehistoric and Quaternary Studies (November 14, 2009).University of Allahabad: Allahabad.
Lal, B. B. 1958. Birbhanpur, a micrilithic site in the Damodarvalley, West Bengal. Ancient India, 14: 4-48.
Majumdar, N. G. 1939. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Civilization.In: J. Cumming (ed.), Revealing India’s Past, pp. 116-117.The India Society: London.
Misra, V. N. 1973. Bagor: a Late Mesolithic Settlement inNorthwest India. World Archaeology, 5 (1): 92-110.
— 1985. Microlithic Industries in India. In: V. N Misra and P.Bellwood (eds.), Recent Advances in Indo-PacificPrehistory, pp. 111–122. Oxford and IBH: New Delhi-Bombay-Calcutta.
— 2001. Prehistoric human colonization of India. Journal ofBioscience, 26(4): 491-531.
— 2002. The Mesolithic Age in India. In: S. Settar, and R.Korisettar (eds.), Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, volume
1. Prehistory. Archaeology of South Asia, pp. 111–126.Manohar Publications: New Delhi.
Mitra, Panchanan 1979. Prehistoric India: Its Place in the World’sCultures. Bharatiya Publishing House: Delhi.
Mohanty, P. 2000. Mesolithic culture and ethnography ofKeonjhar district, Orissa. In: K. K. Basa and P. Mohanty(eds.), Archaeology of Orissa, vol. 1, pp. 114-152. PratibhaPrakashan: Delhi.
Neogi, Sayantani 2011. Scope of Geoarchaeology in depictingthe Early Hominin Environments in the Gandheswari RiverBasin of Bankura district, West Bengal. The Indian Journalof Spatial Science (e Traverse), 2(6): 1-4.
Possehl, G. L. 2003. The Indus Civilization. A ContemporaryPerspective. Vistaar Publications: New Delhi.
Prasad, S. and Y. Enzel 2006. Holocene paleoclimates of India.Quaternary Research, 20: 1-12.
Rowley-Conwey, P. 1996. Why didn’t Westropp’s ‘Mesolithic’catch on in 1872? Antiquity, 70 (270): 940-944.
Sali, S. A. 1989. The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Culturesof Maharastra. Deccan College Post Graduate and ResearchInstitute: Pune.
Sali, S. A. 1990. Stone Age in India. Shankar Publishers:Aurangabad.
Sharma, G. R. 1980. History to Prehistory: Archaeology of theGanga Valley and the Vindhyas. Department of AHC andArchaeoloogy: University of Allahabad.
Sharma, S., M. Joachimski, M. Sharma, H.J. Tobschall, I.B. Singh,C. Sharma, M.S. Chauhan and G. Morgenroth 2004.Lateglacial and Holocene environmental changes in Gangaplain, Northern India. Quaternary Science Review, 23: 145-159.
Tarafdar, P., S. Roy and D. Pandey 2012 & 2013. PalaeolothicTools of Siulibona, District-Bankura, West Bengal: ATypological and Morphometric Study. Journal of theAnthropological Survey of India, 61(2) & 62(1): 651-665.
![Pahar Ka samundar by Ishtiaq Ahmed [pdfstuff.blogspot.com].pdf](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/56d6c0961a28ab30169afd78/pahar-ka-samundar-by-ishtiaq-ahmed-pdfstuffblogspotcompdf.jpg)
