A Review of the Early Acheulian Evidence from South Asia by Parth R
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A review of the Early Acheulian evidence from South Asia by Parth R. Chauhan Abstract South Asia represents the easternmost geographical occurrence of typical Acheulian biface assemblages in spatial and temporal abundance. All Acheulian evidence from this region is found in a rich mosaic of diverse palaeoenvironmental, geographical, and landform contexts, highlighting the dynamic adaptive and behavioral strategies of South Asian hominins during the Pleistocene. These assemblages have been traditionally categorised as either Early or Late Acheulian, based primarily on the absence or presence of certain tool-types or evident techniques. The earliest Acheulian evidence in South Asia is represented by unique technological attributes such as the absence of the Levallois technique, a relatively low number of cleavers, and a higher presence of core-tools and choppers, when compared with the Late Acheulian. Recent excavations and associated dating efforts by investigators working in several parts of peninsular India have revealed that the Early Acheulian in South Asia may extend well beyond the Matuyama/Brunhes transition. However, the frequency of these early occurrences within the subcontinent is low, reasons for which are currently unknown. In contrast, there is a significant and marked intensification in hominin activity and land-use from the Middle Pleistocene and onwards. South Asian Acheulian tool-types are generally comparable in techno-morphology with similar assemblages known from other parts of the Old World and represent direct technological influence from Africa, where the earliest Acheulian sites are documented. This paper reviews the evidence for the Early Acheulian in South Asia and discusses the unique attributes that separate such assemblages from the Late Acheulian, generally found in younger geomorphological contexts. Introduction Until about two decades ago, most prehistorians estimated that early hominin specie(s) did not migrate from Africa much earlier than 1 myr ago. In fact, older evidence outside the African continent, in the form of hominin fossils and/or stone tool assemblages, had usually been met with skepticism. However, a growing body of recent evidence has challenged the younger chronologies from several regions and this new data points to a significantly earlier exodus of Homo from Africa. This is supported by the early dates for hominin fossils, by Swisher et al. (1994) in Southeast Asia and by Gabunia et al. (2000) in Eurasia. Simultaneously, this new evidence raises important issues about the rate and temporal/geographical extent of this dispersal. The earliest archaeological evidence outside of Africa compliments the known fossil evidence and comes from such localities as 'Ubeidiya (Tchernov 1995), Java, Longuppo Cave (Wanpo et al. 1995), Riwat and Pabbi Hills (Dennell et al. 1988; Hurcombe and Dennell, 1989), Dmanisi (Gabunia et al., 2000), potentially Dursunlu, southern Anatolia (Gulec et al. 1999) and c. 2.0 mya artifacts from the Jordan valley (Tchernov 1995). Interestingly, the earliest lithic assemblages outside the African continent are found in the form of core-chopper (non-biface) artifacts (Mode 1). All bifacial material (Mode 2) known from these regions of the Old World post-dates most Mode 1 assemblages. Some recent reviews and discussions on regional hominin dispersals and colonization are offered by Arribas and Palmqvist (1999), Dennell (2003), Larick and Ciochon (1996), and Rolland (1998). The technological innovation and maturation of the Acheulian Industrial Complex (Mode 2) represents the intellectual success of Pleistocene Homo. The earliest Acheulian sites are found in East Africa at approximately 1.6 to 1.4 myr. While the dates vary broadly, some well-known examples of this phase are found at Konso-Gardula (Asfaw et al., 1992), Peninj (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2002; Isaac and Curtis, 1974), Olduvai Gorge (Leakey, 1971), Kariandusi (Gowlett and Crompton, 1994), Olorgesailie (Potts et al., 1999), and Kilombe (Crompton and Gowlett, 1993). When hominin remains and Early Acheulian tools are associated within a given horizon in Africa, the species is always either Homo ergaster orHomo erectus, rather than Homo habilis or Paranthropus boisei (Larick and Ciochon, 1996). The Acheulian tradition is represented by a suite of attributes that have been progressively standardized over time. For example, the selection of raw materials, preparation of cores, and bifacial flaking techniques are all hallmark characters of the Acheulian tradition. The Initial Dispersal of the Acheulian out of Africa From Africa, the Acheulian gradually spread throughout the Old World until it reached its eastern-most geographical domain, the Indian subcontinent. Clark (1994) has reviewed the Acheulian evidence in global ~ 1 ~ context and highlights the geographical distribution of both Mode 1 and Mode 2 assemblages. The absence of Acheulian bifaces within early Pleistocene sediments in East and Southeast Asia suggest that Homo must have initially left Africa before the Acheulian stage appeared in East Africa. Furthermore, in recent years,Homo erectus is being viewed as an Asian development rathern than an African species (Klein, 1999). In addition to these early sites, a second dispersal from Africa is represented exclusively by Acheulian sites dating to the Middle Pleistocene - signifying the first appearance of Mode 2 in northwest and southern Europe. The European bifaces are generally manufactured on flint and from nodules. Bifaces here are also produced on large flakes but the sites are not as common or rich as in Africa and other regions. The actual timing of the initial colonization of Europe is still an intense debate, where some researchers favor either a lengthy chronology reaching into the Early Pleistocene or a shorter chronology dating to the Middle Pleistocene (Dennell, 1983; Carbonell et al., 1995). The upper time-bracket for the Acheulian varies from region to region, but most evidence points to its gradual transformation into Middle Palaeolithic flake-based assemblages (Mode 3) at ca. 250 kyr, when Acheulian bifaces decrease significantly (Foley and Lahr, 1997). The Middle Pleistocene site of Boxgrove (age of ~500 kyr) is a prime example of occupation throughout the interglacial Oxygen Isotope Stage 13 (Roberts et al., 1997). However, the southern margin zones of Europe remain poorly known, but localities with Mode 1 and Mode 2 assemblages have been identified (Bailey, 1995). The Acheulian sites of Torralba and Ambrona in Spain represent one of the ideal geoarchaeological investigations, carried out by Butzer (1965) and Howell (1966). At Torralba for example, the large quantities of elephant fossils in association with Acheulian handaxes were originally interpreted by Howell (1966) to reflect early hominin hunting and butchering strategies. Later work by Binford (1987) and Shipman and Rose (1983) challenged these interpretations and proved that site- formation processes were responsible for the 'cut marks' on the elephant bones, rather than human activity. An estimate based on the fauna and geology places Torralba between 500 and 200 kyr (Klein, 1987). A recent review of the investigations at Torralba and Ambrona is provided by Freeman (1994). The distribution of the Acheulian in West Asia is generally restricted to Transcaucasia, eastern Anatolia, and the Levant. The evidence from Iran is limited and only isolated bifaces have been collected (Smith, 1986). The various assemblages from this region can be grouped into two general types: core-chopper industries and assemblages with bifaces. The bifacial industries are usually represented as Early Acheulian, Middle Acheulian (only in the Levant), Upper Acheulian, and the Acheulo-Yabrudian (Bar- Yosef, 1998). As in Africa, core-chopper and the Acheulian industries in West Asia are temporally and spatially distributed. In Lebanon and Syria, the Early Acheulian is also recognized as an industry with high occurrences of core-choppers and some crude, large handaxes exhibiting large flake scars and jagged edges. Some of what is known from the regions of Lebanon and Syria was obtained through the study of terraces and the majority of these sites were classified as Early and Middle Acheulian, first on the basis of associated stratigraphy and later through typological characteristics (for example, see Bridgland et al., 2003). At the site of Latamne (Clark, 1969) in Syria, for example, researchers view 500 ka as the latest potential date. Acheulian bifaces are found as far north as the Jordan Valley of Israel (at 'Ubeidiya) by 1.4 mya (Bar- Yosef, 1998). The site is located on the edge of the western escarpment of the Jordan Rift valley. The geological structure is an anticline with several folds disturbed by faults. The lithostratigraphy has exposed the lithic and bone assemblages, accumulated within complex alluvial and delta deposits. Another early site is Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, which lies on the eastern edge of a vast, basalt-covered region on the River Jordan in the Hula Valley in Israel (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti, 1996). The cultural layers at this locality are set in a depositional sequence that has collected above a lava flow with normal polarity and dated to ca. 780 kyr (Feibel et al., 1998; Verosub et al., 1998). Along with 'Ubeidiya, this site is interpreted to be the evidence of a group of hominins that migrated from Africa at the initial level (Bar-Yosef, 1987). The presence of Mode 1 and Acheulian assemblages in the Arabian peninsula may