Zeuner, F.E., 1952. The microlithic industry of Langhnaj, Gujarat. Man 52: 129-131, pl.1, figs. 1-2
|
|
|
|
| |
| Location: |
Asia - South Asia - India |
| Subject: |
Taxonomy - Evolution |
| Species: |
Indian Rhino |
 |
|
Langhnaj, Gujarat - shoulderblade anvil
In 1946 H. D. Sankalia described a prehistoric site at Langhnaj in Gujarat. It yielded a large number of microlithic artifacts which, in the higher. levels, were associated with the remains of pottery. I have since investigated the environmental conditions and the position of the site within the framework of climatic fluctuations. The site has further yielded human remains and a large amount of mammalian bones which were originally regarded as representing a domesticated fauna. These faunal remains, at present under investigation, are in a bad state of preservation. They are broken not only by man but by lime concretions which formed in the cracks and disintegrated many of the bones which at the time of deposition were still relatively intact. Moreover, all the bones are covered with a calcium carbonate crust of the 'kunkar' type, so that few details are available for investigation unless the bones are treated. The bone matter being softer than the kunkar, they could not be prepared mechanically. They were immersed in dilute acetic acid, which dissolves carbonates more rapidly than phosphates, and a careful check was kept on the progress of the reaction, especially in order to prevent the bone falling to pieces where it was held together by the calcium carbonate cementing the cracks.
This long-drawn-out preparation has, however, brought forth some interesting results. Though the identification of the species present still requires sonic time, it has become certain that game animals are conspicuous in the fauna. Of these, the Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis L.) is the most remarkable, the Hog Deer (Hyelaphus porcinus (Zimm.)) is frequent, and the bovine remains appear in part to be Indian buffalo, quite possibly a wild form. Some small horn cores, which superficially resemble those of the Neolithic longifrons cattle of Europe and were presumably interpreted as taurine remains in the previous identification, may belong to the Nilgai Antelope (Boselaphus tragocamelus Pall.).
It is possible that the presence of domesticated animals can be established after all, but game animals are so conspicuous in the food debris of this site, that its microlithic occupants' economy must have been largely dependent on them.
[130]
When found, the shoulderblade, which is the main subject of this article, was lying with its spine downwards in the sand. It is a left one, about 43 cm. long. Its characters agree with the species Rhinoceros unicornis, though the teeth found at Langhnaj suggest the possibility that a subspecies occurred in Gujarat which is not identical with the surviving Nepal and Bengal races. The spine of the shoulderblade of this species is produced into a remarkable overhang which forms the roof of the infraspinous fossa (Plate la), much as in the European pig. This overhanging portion of the spine was detached from the blade when it was found, along a fracture parallel to the axis of the shoulderblade. It was incompletely preserved in several fragments. These were pieced together and mounted in their correct position on the shoulderblade. When the preparation was complete, it was discovered that there were at least eight artificial pits measuring 10 to 25 mm. across, on the upper side of the blade. Since there are numerous other pits on the specimen due to partial solution of the bone (Plate Id), and also a few scratches resulting from damage in the course of excavation, the true nature of these pits was not noticed until the incrustation had been removed almost completely (Plate lb, c). It then became evident that these pits were present on the bone before the incrustation began, and in order to preserve the evidence one of them (No. 8) was left with part of the incrustation remaining. Surprisingly enough three of these pits (Nos. 3, 4 and 5) were in a position so close to the overhang of the spine that they could not have been made unless the spine had been removed previously. The fracture of the spine, therefore, is artificial, in other words the spine had been removed by man before these pits were made.
The pits in question are either circular.(Nos. 1, 2and 5) or oval (Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 8), whilst one (No. 6) is only partially preserved. What is available of it suggests that it was very shallow and made up of three separate centres. The pits are all crowded with short cut marks which are mostly arranged radially (Plate lb). A few run across the pits without passing through the centre, so that it looks as if the pits are the result of the frequently repeated action of sharp cutting edges, which were impressed upon the bone in all manner of directions, though more or less exactly on the same spots. The result of this repeated operation was a wearing-away of the bone, which naturally was deepest where the largest number of cuts were superimposed. It is clear that these cuts, the longest of which is of the order of 12 mm cannot have served any purpose such as cutting or carving the bone. The explanation which suggests itself is that the bone was used as an anvil for the manufacture of microliths, the cores being placed on the bone and the cuts being produced either by the sharp edge of the core or by the edge of the flake when it was being struck off. The fact that the overhang of the spine had been removed deliberately and that parts of the surface had been used, which would rest flat on the ground, suggests that a bone anvil was considered an advantages in making small microliths. The thickness of the bone would prevent it from splintering and its weight made it stable. It might be worth while to experiment with bone anvils in order to find out whether they are more suitable than stone anvils for the manufacture of microlithic blades and flakes.
The bone was lying upside-dovm when found, so that it must have been turned over after the pits had been made. On the underside thus exposed there is one further place where ancient cut marks occur. It is on the underside of the infraspinous fossa near the upper end, on the crista or edge which is formed by the main underside surface of the blade and its upturned margin. The cuts on the edge are all parallel and extend over about three centimetres of the crista, being at right angles to it. They may have been made in one of two ways; either by a knife-like instrument drawn across this crista or by means of chisel blows, like the cuts in the pits on the upper side, except that the core, or whatever else acted as a chisel, was held always in the same position at right angles relative to the crista. The odd tliing is that the cuts do not extend far on the underside of the shoulderblade but are virtually restricted to its upturned flange. If they are the result of a cutting operation, it would have been necessary to hold the shoulaerblade upright, resting on its left edge. On the other hand, the same position would have been required for the making of the cuts by percussion. It is, however, so unstable a position that the shoulderblade would have had to be held securely between the feet or knees, or by the hands of another person, and this is probably the reason for the removal of the spine. Experiments have shown me that a shoulderblade of this shape cannot be held securely between the knees unless the spine is taken off. It is difficult to interpret the incisions except as the result of a deliberate cutting operation, since they are too long, deep and regular to be percussion marks of the kind found in the pits, and their location would be inexplicable. Experiments were therefore made on the shoulderblade of a horse and using blades of different sizes made from fluted cores. It became at once evident that the position is indeed awkward for percussion. It is, however, convenient for retouching by pressure since the shoulderblade, held between the knees, allows the hands to be used freely on the two sides of the narrow 'anvil' platform afforded by its edge. But the marks left on the bone by pressure retouching are vague, since the artifact is liable to slip. A cross-cut was then made at right angles to the edge of the bone, much like the cuts present on the Langhnaj specimen. It was then found that, if the blade was placed close to the cut, being rightly held with the fingers on both sides, and then pressed so as to slip into the cut, retouching became an easy matter. Chips tip to four mm. long could be readily detached. It was easy to produce the steep retouch so characteristic of backed blades and small scrapers, to carve notches into blades to make micro-burins by twisting off the end portion, and to produce the rounded back of a lunate. For this reason, the rhinoceros shoulderblade from Langhnaj may tentatively be regarded as the anvil of a microlith-maker, the pits being the places where the blades were struck, and the cuts on the edge the places where the 'backing'.operation was carried out.
Plate 1 has 4 figures of the rhinoceros shoulderblade anvil, Langhnaj, Gujarat
Specimen in Deccan College, Poona
|
|
|
The microlithic industry of Langhnaj, Gujarat
File available
details
Original text on this topic: