Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-sbc4w Total loading time: 0.692 Render date: 2021-02-26T14:34:16.095Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

A Late Palaeolithic assemblage at Kunjaram, south-east India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2017

Malavika Chatterjee
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Deccan College, Pune 411006, India
Kumar Akhilesh
Affiliation:
Sharma Centre for Heritage Education, 28 I Main Road, C.I.T. Colony, Mylapore, Chennai 600004, India
Shanti Pappu
Affiliation:
Sharma Centre for Heritage Education, 28 I Main Road, C.I.T. Colony, Mylapore, Chennai 600004, India
Sudha Ravindranath
Affiliation:
Regional Remote Sensing Centre—South, (RRSC-S) NRSC, ISRO, Department of Space/Government of India, ISITE Campus, Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore 560 037, India
Udayaraj
Affiliation:
National Remote Sensing Centre, ISRO, Deptartment of Space, Balanagar, Hyderabad 500 037, Telangana, India
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Extract

In contrast to the Acheulian and Middle Palaeolithic, the Late Palaeolithic archaeological record of the south-east coast of India is poorly understood (Pappu 2001; Petraglia et al. 2010; Pappu et al. 2011). Considerable uncertainty surrounds the definition of the blade-based microlithic or non-Levallois, flake-based assemblages, largely as a result of the lack of chronometric dates from excavated sites and due to the paucity of lithic studies (Pappu 2001). The Late Palaeolithic is a crucial period in relation to questions about the dispersals of anatomically modern humans across India and Sri Lanka (Petraglia et al. 2010; Mellars et al. 2013; Roberts et al. 2015) and regional evolutionary trajectories of blade technologies. Here, we present an overview of the site complex of Kunjaram (KJ) in the Kortallaiyar River Basin, Tamil Nadu, south-east India. This represents one of the 43 Late Palaeolithic sites documented in this region (Pappu et al. 2010). While analysis of the lithics from other sites continues, we focus here on the lithic assemblage from KJ-3 because of its good preservation and potential to yield information on all stages of the reduction sequence, as well as its geographic proximity to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic site of Attirampakkam, which would enable the construction of regional cultural sequences.

Type
Project Gallery
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2017 

Introduction

In contrast to the Acheulian and Middle Palaeolithic, the Late Palaeolithic archaeological record of the south-east coast of India is poorly understood (Pappu Reference Pappu2001; Petraglia et al. Reference Petraglia, Haslam, Fuller, Boivin and Clarkson2010; Pappu et al. Reference Pappu, Gunnell, Akhilesh, Braucher, Taieb, Demory and Thouveny2011). Considerable uncertainty surrounds the definition of the blade-based microlithic or non-Levallois, flake-based assemblages, largely as a result of the lack of chronometric dates from excavated sites and due to the paucity of lithic studies (Pappu Reference Pappu2001). The Late Palaeolithic is a crucial period in relation to questions about the dispersals of anatomically modern humans across India and Sri Lanka (Petraglia et al. Reference Petraglia, Haslam, Fuller, Boivin and Clarkson2010; Mellars et al. Reference Mellars, Gori, Carr, Soares and Richards2013; Roberts et al. Reference Roberts, Perera, Wedage, Deraniyagala, Perera, Eregama, Gledhill, Petraglia and Lee-Thorp2015) and regional evolutionary trajectories of blade technologies. Here, we present an overview of the site complex of Kunjaram (KJ) in the Kortallaiyar River Basin, Tamil Nadu, south-east India. This represents one of the 43 Late Palaeolithic sites documented in this region (Pappu et al. Reference Pappu, Akhilesh, Ravindranath and Raj2010). While analysis of the lithics from other sites continues, we focus here on the lithic assemblage from KJ-3 because of its good preservation and potential to yield information on all stages of the reduction sequence, as well as its geographic proximity to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic site of Attirampakkam, which would enable the construction of regional cultural sequences.

The Kunjaram complex comprises three distinct localities with extensive artefact spreads: KJ-1, KJ-2 and KJ-3—the latter forming the focus of this study (Figure 1). The site has been sporadically investigated and was previously categorised as ‘post-Middle Palaeolithic’ (Pappu Reference Pappu2001). To the west of the site lie the Allikulli Hills, running north-north-east to south-south-west and rising to 200–380m asl, as well as comprising a Cretaceous boulder-conglomerate, rich in quartzite clasts. This constitutes the principal source of raw lithic material used regionally from the Acheulian onwards. Kunjaram is located on a pediment—a gently sloping bedrock surface, extending eastwards from the Allikulli hill ranges—with artefacts lying at elevations of 45–59m asl, occurring in the context of ferricrete gravels (Pappu et al. Reference Pappu, Gunnell, Akhilesh, Braucher, Taieb, Demory and Thouveny2011).

Figure 1. Location of Kunjaram 3, Kortallaiyar River Basin, Tamil Nadu (13°15′38.168″ N; 79°53′24.129″ E, 59m asl), showing A) the general view of the region located in northern Tamil Nadu, south India; and B) IKONOS satellite image of the area under investigation, with white circles indicating prehistoric sites, and the yellow box indicating the Kunjaram site-complex. ATM indicates the Palaeolithic site of Attirampakkam, which is located in the vicinity.

Stratigraphy

The KJ-3 artefacts rest on the surface of, and are eroding from, the upper levels of ferricrete gravels overlying shales attributed to the Sriperumbudur Formation. Elsewhere in the vicinity, the Kunjaram-complex artefacts overlie ferricretes with Middle Palaeolithic artefacts, which in turn rest on a ferricrete profile developing on shales. The ferricrete gravels are capped by rubified sands located in the vicinity that were dated to ~9 ka at KJ-1 (Pappu et al. Reference Pappu, Shinde, Akhilesh, Gunnell, Ganbavale, Ravindranath, Raj and Singhvi2009) (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Stratigraphic sequence showing lithological unit-1: ferricrete gravels containing Late Palaeolithic artefacts; lithological unit-2: ferricretes containing Middle Palaeolithic artefacts.

Lithic assemblage

Artefacts extend over the pediment surface, with a density exceeding ~4–5 artefacts/m2. The KJ-3 artefacts studied (n = 522) are a sample of the total collected from the site (Pappu et al. Reference Pappu, Akhilesh, Ravindranath and Raj2010). Fine- to medium-grained quartzites were preferred (n = 507, 97.13 per cent), sources for which occur off-site within a radius of ~4km (Pappu Reference Pappu2001). Nodules of quartz and chalcedony occurring on-site were also used. Of the 41 cores, single-, double-, opposed- and multiple-platform blade cores (n = 26; mean dimensions of 36.87 × 31.06 × 19.22mm) slightly exceed those for flake production. Platform and blade-core-rejuvenation flakes (n = 9) also occur. Of the sample of 43 blades (mean dimensions of 27.93 × 15.33 × 7.7mm), only 10 were retouched into tools. A high percentage of blades are broken (79.06 per cent), ending in step termination. Single- and multiple-platform flake cores are present. Most tools are on flake blanks (n = 99, 81.1 per cent), which may be derived both from blade and flake reduction. Tools include a range of scrapers and borers, amongst other types (Figures 3–4). Most artefacts are broken (68.77 per cent), with numerous step terminations. Experimental knapping with a hard stone hammer indicates that breakage patterns reflect knapping errors in blade production (Figure 5). High proportions of waste (64.56 per cent) indicate on-site core reduction.

Figure 3. Simplified schematic lithic reduction sequence at Kunjaram 3.

Figure 4. Artefacts from Kunjaram 3: A) blade cores; B) scrapers on blades; C) borers on flakes.

Figure 5. Experimental knapping showing: A) mesial breakage of blades; B) distal breakage of blades; C) breakage of blades towards the distal end; D) flakes produced during blade reduction.

Conclusion

The KJ-3 assemblage, although dominated by flakes, has a distinct blade technology. The regional preference for blade technology is rooted in the preceding Middle Palaeolithic, although technological trajectories are as yet unclear (Pappu Reference Pappu2001). Blade-breakage patterns are, in general, indicative of knapping errors. Regional mobility strategies and planning are reflected in the transport of quartzite to the site for further reduction, and in the removal of blades/blade tools from the site (research into the transport of these tools to other local sites is ongoing). Reuse of blade-rejuvenation flakes and extensive core-reduction suggests raw material conservation. The KJ-3 site illustrates strategies that differ from the preceding Middle Palaeolithic, particularly with the absence of Levallois reduction strategies and with the presence of a significant blade component. It also lacks microblade technologies, standardised blade-reduction sequences and microlithic assemblages dated to ~38–48 ka in other parts of India and Sri Lanka (Mishra et al. Reference Mishra, Chauhan and Singhvi2013; Roberts et al. Reference Roberts, Perera, Wedage, Deraniyagala, Perera, Eregama, Gledhill, Petraglia and Lee-Thorp2015). This site adds new dimensions to the study of the Late Pleistocene in India, demonstrating variability in the chronological development and regional distribution of blade technologies across South Asia.

Acknowledgements

This study is part of M.C.’s MA dissertation at Deccan College, Pune, entitled ‘Investigating prehistoric lithic assemblages of Kunjaram, Tamil Nadu’ (supervisors: S.P. and K.A). S.P. & K.A. thank the Indian Space Research Organisation under the ISRO-GBP scheme for the project ‘Prehistoric Landscapes in the Palar River Basin, South India’. The Archaeological Survey of India and Department of Archaeology, State Government of Tamil Nadu, granted licences. Data is ©Sharma Centre for Heritage Education. K.A. also thanks the Homi Bhabha Fellowships Council (2014–2016).

References

Mellars, P., Gori, K.C., Carr, M., Soares, P.A. & Richards, M.B.. 2013. Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 110: 10699–704. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306043110 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mishra, S., Chauhan, N. & Singhvi, A.K.. 2013. Continuity of microblade tehnology in the Indian subcontinent since 45 ka: implications for the dispersal of modern humans. PLoS ONE 8 (7): e69280. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappu, S. 2001. A re-examination of the Palaeolithic archaeological record of northern Tamil Nadu, south India (British Archaeological Reports International series S1003). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Pappu, S., Shinde, D.P., Akhilesh, K., Gunnell, Y., Ganbavale, G., Ravindranath, S., Raj, U. & Singhvi, A.K.. 2009. Luminescence dating of prehistoric archaeological sites and Quaternary fluvial and Aeolian deposits in northern Tamil Nadu, south India. Paper presented at the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Luminescence and Electron Spin Resonance Dating, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India, November 12–15, 2009.Google Scholar
Pappu, S., Akhilesh, K., Ravindranath, S. & Raj, U.. 2010. Applications of satellite remote sensing for research and heritage management in Indian prehistory. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2316–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Akhilesh, K., Braucher, R., Taieb, M., Demory, F. & Thouveny, N.. 2011. Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian hominins in south India. Science 331: 1596–99. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200183 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petraglia, M.D., Haslam, M., Fuller, D., Boivin, N. & Clarkson, C.. 2010. Out of Africa: new hypotheses and evidence for the dispersal of Homo sapiens along the Indian Ocean rim. Annals of Human Biology 37: 288311. https://doi.org/10.3109/03014461003639249 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, P., Perera, N., Wedage, O., Deraniyagala, S., Perera, J., Eregama, S., Gledhill, A., Petraglia, M.D. & Lee-Thorp, J.A.. 2015. Direct evidence for human reliance on rainforest resources in Late Pleistocene Sri Lanka. Science 347: 1246–49. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1230 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 223
Total number of PDF views: 383 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 06th December 2017 - 26th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A Late Palaeolithic assemblage at Kunjaram, south-east India
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A Late Palaeolithic assemblage at Kunjaram, south-east India
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A Late Palaeolithic assemblage at Kunjaram, south-east India
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *