Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita 9780199474660

Table of contents :
oso-9780199474660-miscMatter-1
Title Pages
Manjil Hazarika
Title Pages
Manjil Hazarika
(p.i) Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India (p.ii) (p.iii) Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India
Title Pages
oso-9780199474660-miscMatter-4
Dedication
Manjil Hazarika
Dedication
Manjil Hazarika
oso-9780199474660-miscMatter-5
Epigraph
Manjil Hazarika
Epigraph
Manjil Hazarika
oso-9780199474660-miscMatter-7
(p.xi) Illustrations
Manjil Hazarika
(p.xi) Illustrations
Manjil Hazarika
Figures
(p.xi) Illustrations
Maps
oso-9780199474660-miscMatter-8
(p.xiii) Tables
Manjil Hazarika
(p.xiii) Tables
Manjil Hazarika
oso-9780199474660-miscMatter-9
(p.xv) Foreword
Manjil Hazarika
(p.xv) Foreword
The Epistemological Event Horizon in Archaeology
George van Driem
(p.xv) Foreword
(p.xv) Foreword
oso-9780199474660-miscMatter-10
(p.xix) Acknowledgements
Manjil Hazarika
(p.xix) Acknowledgements
Manjil Hazarika
(p.xix) Acknowledgements
(p.xix) Acknowledgements
oso-9780199474660-chapter-1
Introduction
Manjil Hazarika
Introduction
Manjil Hazarika
Abstract and Keywords
Introduction
Introduction
The Study Area
Introduction
The Problems and the Hypothesis
Introduction
Introduction
The Scope of the Research
Introduction
The Potential of Archaeological Research in Northeast India
Introduction
Drawbacks of and Obstacles to Archaeological Research in Northeast India
Introduction
Introduction
Aims and Objectives of the Present Volume
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Methodology
Introduction
Introduction
Notes:
oso-9780199474660-chapter-2
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Manjil Hazarika
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Manjil Hazarika
Abstract and Keywords
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Ethnic Situation
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Geographical Divisions
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
(p.26) Quaternary Geological Formations
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Drainage Systems
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Soil
Floral and Faunal Resources
Roots, Tubers, and Fruits as Food Resources
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Herpetological Resource
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Aquatic Resource
Ornithological Resources
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Wild Plant and Animals: Sources of Subsistence and Medicine
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Hunting as Livelihood
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Animal Husbandry
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Agriculture
Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective
Notes:
oso-9780199474660-chapter-3
Linguistic Groups
Manjil Hazarika
Linguistic Groups
Their Origin and Dispersals
Manjil Hazarika
Abstract and Keywords
Linguistic Groups
The Linguistic Situation in Northeast India
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups and Theories of Their Dispersals
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
The Austroasiatic Language Family
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
The Tibeto-Burman or Trans-Himalayan Language Family
Linguistic Groups
Synthesis of Historical Linguistics and Prehistoric Archaeological Data
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
Emerging Genetic Data and Its Implications
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
Memories of Origin and Migration: Data from Folklore
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
Trade Links between Northeast India and Neighbouring Regions
Linguistic Groups
Linguistic Groups
oso-9780199474660-chapter-4
The Archaeological Record
Manjil Hazarika
The Archaeological Record
A Synthesis of Earlier Research
Manjil Hazarika
Abstract and Keywords
The Archaeological Record
Early Hominid Dispersals
The Archaeological Record
Palaeolithic Period
The Archaeological Record
Lithic Industries from the Garo Hills
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Evidence from Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh
The Archaeological Record
Stratigraphic Contexts
The Archaeological Record
Fossil Wood Assemblages of Burma, Tripura, and Bangladesh
The Archaeological Record
The Hoabinhian Connection
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Situating the Palaeoliths in Context
The Archaeological Record
Neolithic Remains
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Important Surface Finds
The Archaeological Record
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
The Archaeological Record
Manipur
Meghalaya
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Mizoram
Nagaland
The Archaeological Record
Sikkim
The Archaeological Record
Tripura
Important Excavations
Parsi-Parlo
The Archaeological Record
Daporijo
Daojali Hading
The Archaeological Record
Sarutaru
The Archaeological Record
Marakdola
Nongpok Keithelmanbi
The Archaeological Record
Napachik
The Archaeological Record
Selbalgiri 2
The Archaeological Record
Pynthorlangtein
Lawnongthroh
Myrkhan
The Archaeological Record
Chungliyimti
The Archaeological Record
Purakha
Zolapkhan at Mimi
Data from Adjoining Parts of Eastern India
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Western and Northern Bengal
Orissa
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Mid-Gangetic Plain and Vindhyan Hills
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Data from Adjoining Areas of East and Southeast Asia
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Comparison of Neolithic West Asia and Monsoon Asia
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Megalithic Tradition
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
oso-9780199474660-chapter-5
The Archaeological Record
Manjil Hazarika
The Archaeological Record
Field Explorations at Garbhanga Reserve Forest
Manjil Hazarika
Abstract and Keywords
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Garbhanga Reserve Forest
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Archaeological Reconnaissance at Garbhanga Reserve Forest
Stray Finds of Celts around Bargaon
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Archaeological Record at Bargaon
Pottery
The Archaeological Record
Spouts
Iron Objects
Saddle Quern
The Archaeological Record
Stone Dish
Other Objects
Animal Teeth
Megaliths
The Archaeological Record
Purani Basti
Purani Garbhanga
Pilinku
The Karbis: An Introduction
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Memories of Origin and Migration among the Karbis
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Karbis of Garbhanga Reserve Forest: Some Ethnoarchaeological Observations
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Settlement Pattern
Village Dwelling Structures
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Granaries
Courtyard
Sheds for Animals
The Archaeological Record
Settlement History of the Karbis in the Garbhanga Area
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Subsistence Pattern
Jhum Cultivation
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Lowland Valley Cultivation
The Archaeological Record
Animal Husbandry, Gathering of Wild Plant and Animal Resources, and Hunting–Fishing
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Culinary Practice
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Rice Beer Culture
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Festivals Related to Jhum Cycle
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Birth, Disposal of the Dead, and Associated Ceremonies among the Karbis
The Archaeological Record
Jhum: A Model for Early Agricultural System
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
Concept of Thunderstones in Northeast India
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
The Archaeological Record
oso-9780199474660-chapter-6
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Manjil Hazarika
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Manjil Hazarika
Abstract and Keywords
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Wild Relatives of Crops
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Rice
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Traditional Rice Cultivation in Northeast India
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Lowland Settled Rice Agriculture
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Upland Shifting Rice Agriculture
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Rice Culture
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Traditional Rice Beer Culture
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Agricultural Cycle and Festivals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Banana
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Citrus
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Roots and Tubers
Domestic Animals and Their Wild Counterparts
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Cattle Species
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Elephants
Silkworms
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
What Does the Archaeology of Northeast India Have to Say about Early Plant and Animal Domestication?
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals
oso-9780199474660-chapter-7
Synthesis and Conclusion
Manjil Hazarika
Synthesis and Conclusion
Manjil Hazarika
Abstract and Keywords
Synthesis and Conclusion
Prehistoric Evidence
Synthesis and Conclusion
Evidence of Early Farming and Rice Domestication
Linguistic Evidence
Synthesis and Conclusion
Linguistic Palaeontology and Rice Agriculture
Population Genetics
Synthesis and Conclusion
Trade and state formation
Archaeological Explorations at Garbhanga Reserve Forest
Synthesis and Conclusion
Ethnoarchaeology
Synthesis and Conclusion
Synthesis and Conclusion
Ethnobotanical Observations
Synthesis and Conclusion
Synthesis and Conclusion
Scope and Prospects for Future Research
Synthesis and Conclusion
oso-9780199474660-bibliography-1
(p.273) References
Manjil Hazarika
(p.273) References
Manjil Hazarika
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
(p.273) References
oso-9780199474660-indexList-1
(p.322) Index
Manjil Hazarika
(p.322) Index
(p.322) Index
(p.322) Index
(p.322) Index
(p.322) Index
(p.322) Index
(p.322) Index
oso-9780199474660-miscMatter-11
(p.326) About the Author
Manjil Hazarika
(p.326) About the Author
Manjil Hazarika

Citation preview

Title Pages

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

Title Pages Manjil Hazarika

(p.i) Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India (p.ii) (p.iii) Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India

(p.iv)

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries. Published in India by Oxford University Press

Page 1 of 2

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Title Pages YMCA Library Building, 1 Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110 001, India © Oxford University Press 2017 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted. First Edition published in 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. ISBN-13: 978-0-19-947466-0 ISBN-10: 0-19-947466-4 Typeset in ScalaPro 10/13 by Tranistics Data Technologies, Kolkata 700091 Printed in India by Replika Press Pvt. Ltd

Access brought to you by:

Page 2 of 2

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Dedication

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

Dedication Manjil Hazarika

(p.v) To Dr Bhupen Hazarika (8 September 1926–5 November 2011) (p.vi)

Access brought to you by:

Page 1 of 1

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Epigraph

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

Epigraph Manjil Hazarika

(p.vii) Mahabahu Brahmaputra, mahamilanar tirtha, shatajug dhari ahise prakashi samannayar artha …

—Dr Bhupen Hazarika ‘The mighty Brahmaputra, holy site of the great synthesis has for untold centuries been propagating the message of unity and harmony …’

(Translated from Assamese by Arup Kumar Dutta, 2001) (p.viii)

Access brought to you by:

Page 1 of 1

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Illustrations

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

(p.xi) Illustrations Manjil Hazarika

Figures F.1 The 2012 Benares Recension: A revised East Asian phylogeny xvi 4.1 Megalithic structures of Assam: (A) Xilsang, (B) and (C) Topatali, (D) Rani 149 5.1 Stray finds from Garbhanga Reserve Forest: (A) dorsal and (B) ventral faces of the artefacts 160 5.2 Rims recovered from Bargaon 162 5.3 (A) Iron artefacts from the site of Bargaon and (B) a knife used by the Karbis 163 5.4 Menhirs at the site of Bargaon: (A) the surface after cleaning, (B) scattered pottery, and (C) a tooth of cattle species 165 5.5 (A) Cooking in bamboo tubes in jhum plots and (B) wild plants and vegetables collected for cooking in bamboo tubes in jhum fields 183 5.6 Iron implements used in jhum activities 186 5.7 Rice beer ready for consumption and the spouts (in insets) recovered from Bargaon resembling the wooden bowl for distributing rice beer 194 (p.xii) 5.8 (A) and (B) Comparison of archaeological stone celts with modern-day iron implements; (C) and (D) comparison of archaeological stone doubleshouldered celts with modern-day iron implements 206 6.1 (A) Grains and (B) panicles of Oryza rufipogon from Khatiakhali village, Golaghat; (C) panicle and (D) grains of Oryza nivara from Hajo, Kamrup 228 6.2 Wild rice grown in the Garbhanga Reserve Forest: (A) a panicle of Oryza granulate, (B) leaves and panicles of Oryza granulate, (C) panicles of Oryza officinnalis, and (D) grains of Oryza officinnalis 229

Page 1 of 2

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Illustrations 6.3 (A) Udi dal (Oryza rufipogon), (B) sungal bao (Intermediate rice), (C) wild bao, and (D) bao (Intermediate rice) 229 6.4 (A) Sikun sali, (B) aijong, (C) prasad bhog, and (D) bogi bor 230 6.5 (A) Masuri, (B) ranga maniari, (C) sungal prasadbhog, and (D) paijong 230 6.6 (A) Maniari, (B) gethu, (C) sungal aijong, and (D) aki sali 231 6.7 (A) Bora (B) seni sakua, (C) kola bora, and (D) kola sakua 231

Maps 2.1 Topographic details of Northeast India 25 2.2 Administrative units of Northeast India 26

Access brought to you by:

Page 2 of 2

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Tables

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

(p.xiii) Tables Manjil Hazarika

4.1 List of important sites bearing artefacts with elements of Palaeolithic culture 86 4.2 Comparative data of Neolithic sites from eastern India with details of the material remains 118 4.3 Comparative data of Neolithic sites from eastern India including the earliest evidence of agriculture 130 4.4 Luminescence and radiometric dates of Neolithic culture from eastern and Northeast India 132 6.1 Rice varieties grown by Shri Biren Hazarika of Khatiakhali village, Bokakhat, Assam 237 (p.xiv)

Access brought to you by:

Page 1 of 1

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Foreword

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

(p.xv) Foreword The Epistemological Event Horizon in Archaeology George van Driem

Archaeology, historical linguistics, and human population genetics present three distinct windows on the past. Archaeology delves into material culture but, in the absence of decipherable written testimony, tells us little about the ethnolinguistic identity of the people behind the cultural assemblages that are discovered, dated, and documented. The time depth accessible to historical linguistics is an order of magnitude shallower than the time depth accessible to either archaeology or genetics. Language families represent the maximal time depth accessible to historical linguists because the relatedness of languages belonging to a recognized linguistic phylum represents the limit of what can be demonstrated by the comparative method. This epistemological barrier represents the linguistic event horizon. Languages, genes, and material culture are independent. Yet the probabilistic basis for possible correlations between the genetic markers and the language of a speech community lies in the fact that genes are invariably inherited by offspring from their parents, whereas languages are in most cases, but not invariably, inherited by offspring from either or both of their parents. The relationship between languages spoken by people and their material culture is even more fraught. The challenge is, therefore, great when undertaking to correlate the different sets of evidence and reconstruct episodes of prehistory by (p.xvi) means of careful epistemologically defensible inferences and sound argumentation on the foundation of hard data and a correct understanding of the findings in diverse disciplines. Manjil Hazarika presents the archaeological case that the northeastern portion of the Indian subcontinent served both as a thoroughfare and the staging area for the peopling of East and Southeast Asia. The Page 1 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Foreword descendants of ancient migrants through this region ultimately settled lands as far away as New Zealand, Madagascar, Lappland, and the Americas. His interpretative model of the ethnolinguistic data in light of the archaeology and the subsistence patterns which persist in the region to the present day lends support for both Michael Fortescue’s Uralo-Siberian theory as well as for the East Asian linguistic hypothesis proposed by Stanley Starosta in Périgueux in 2001, of which I presented a tweaked version in Benares in 2012. East Asian is conceived as an ancient linguistic phylum encompassing Kradai, Austronesian, Trans-Himalayan, also known as Tibeto-Burman, Hmong-Mien, and Austroasiatic (Fig. F.1). In this meticulous piece of work, Hazarika presents the arguments for understanding the archaeology and the palaeobotany of the

Fig. F.1 The 2012 Benares Recension: A revised East Asian phylogeny

region as preserved in the archaeological record as well as in the extant forms of vegeculture practised throughout the region in terms of the likely ethnolinguistic identities of the people behind these ancient cultures. Particularly, with reference to the domestication of Asian rice, perhaps (p.xvii) japonica, indica as well as ghaiyā rice may have first been domesticated roughly in the region of northeastern India. Not only the population genetics of human populations, but also the population genetics of rice appear increasingly to support Hazarika’s reconstruction and his central hypothesis. At the same time, his detailed documentary study of ancient subsistence patterns which persist to the present day throws down an epistemological gauntlet to archaeologists and palaeobotanists who, particularly with regard to Asian rice, continue to construe the absence of evidence as constituting evidence of absence. Hazarika’s work annihilates the argumentation of archaeologists who continue to disregard (a) areas where archaeological research has not been undertaken, (b) areas where archaeological remains, even if they could have been plentiful if the substrate were conducive to preserving them, would instead have been washed out to sea and obliterated by regular flooding, and, especially, (c) types of subsistence which are unlikely to have left archaeologically recoverable remains despite their paramount importance to the first domestication and cultivation of staple crops. Just as there is an epistemological event horizon in historical linguistics, Hazarika has outlined the contours of a very real but often ignored epistemological barrier which we might refer to as the archaeological event horizon.

Page 2 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Foreword George van Driem Professor and Director, Institute of Linguistics, University of Bern, Switzerland (p.xviii)

Access brought to you by:

Page 3 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Acknowledgements

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

(p.xix) Acknowledgements Manjil Hazarika

The present work is an outcome of the research conducted at the Bern University, Switzerland, for my PhD. Throughout the period of the doctoral research process and preparation of this manuscript, I have been supported by several individuals who provided encouragement and suggestions and helped me in various ways. The suggestions I received from several of my teachers and scholars in the field on my published papers have been instrumental in the formulation of the book. I am grateful to all these individuals and institutions for their help. It was on 19 February 2008 that I received a reply from Professor George van Driem regarding my request to work under his guidance on Northeast Indian Prehistory for a doctoral dissertation. His email said, ‘In view of your topic of interest … I should very much like to act as your PhD supervisor.’ His instant positive response and constant encouragement in all these years have acted as a driving force for completing the dissertation and the current book. He has also kindly agreed to write the Foreword to the book. I am grateful to him for his keen interest in my work, valuable advice, and his guidance and care. I am also thankful to Professor Miroslav Novák, Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Bern University, for his kind suggestions. This modest attempt would not have been possible without the help of my respected teacher, Professor Vasant S. Shinde, Vice Chancellor, Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Pune, who provided valuable advice during my research work. His (p.xx) encouraging words on a sunny day during the first semester—‘Yes, we can do it’—as acceptance of my proposal to work under his guidance for my master’s dissertation at my alma mater is still fresh in my memory. Special thanks go to Professor Sheila Mishra and Dr Claire Gaillard Page 1 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Acknowledgements for their untiring care and suggestions at every step of my academic life. My heartiest thanks go to all my teachers at Deccan College: Professors K. Paddayya, S.N. Rajaguru, R.K. Mohanty, P.P. Joglekar, Sushma G. Deo, and Arati Deshpande Mukherji for providing me valuable references for the research work. Many of my mentors and friends through phone calls and meetings forced me to publish this book, and for that encouragement I wish to thank Professor D.K. Bhattacharya, Dr Jonali Devi, Dr Sangeeta Gogoi, Mrs Ye hom Buragohain, Dr Sarat Kumar Phukan, Dr Sangeeta Dutta, and Dr Malaya Gogoi. Special thanks to Professors Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Ofer Bar-Yosef, and K. Paddayya for kindly agreeing to write testimonials about the book which have been incorporated on the back cover. Thanks are also due to many of my friends living in the Garbhanga Reserve Forest, without whose help and hospitality it would not have been possible for me to conduct explorations and observe their traditional lifeways and culture. Shri Bhola Bongjang, a resident of the Ulubari gaon of the reserve forest, informed me about the large deposit of potsherds at Bargaon. Shri Bongjang and his family took care of me whenever I visited Garbhanga. Shri Tapan Teron, Jogeswar Teron, Mohesh Phangcho, and Dipali Bongjang assisted me in the field. Shri Tridib Sharma and Dibyajyoti Das also accompanied me during fieldwork. Throughout my career in archaeology, I have been encouraged by the suggestions, love, and care of a considerable number of individuals whom I had the pleasure of meeting during seminars and conferences and with some of whom I corresponded via emails all these years. I take the opportunity to thank each of them: Drs Abby Cohn, P. Ajithprasad, Anne Dambricourt-Malassé, Atsushi Noguchi, Ben Marwick, P. Binodini Devi, B.R. Mani, Cameron Patrie, Louise Cort, D. Nath, Jahnabi Nath, Rajib Handique, Danny Burke, Darja Grossman, Dave Cowley, D.P. Agrawal, J.B. Bhattacharjee, J.N. Phukan, A.R. Sankhyan, G.L. Badam, Madhu Rajput, Rowan Flad, François Sémah, Sunil Gupta, Harry Fokkens, Hongliang Lu, Jeewan Kharakwal, John Bellezza, D.K. Medhi, Ravi Korisettar, Leonard van der Kuijp, Li Chaorong, Li Yongxian, Marc Oxenham, Michael Petraglia, Michel Danino, Mihael Budja, Mohammad Sahnouni, (p.xxi) Mukesh Singh, Nicole Boivin, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Oliver Raendchen, Oli Pryce, Toshiki Osada, Parth Chauhan, Peter Bellwood, Philippe Ramirez, Pranab Chattopadhyay, Ranjana Ray, Dilip K. Chakrabarti, R. Shankar, Uddhav Rai, Ramakrishnan Sitaraman, Richa Jhaldiyal, Robert Sala, Roger Blench, Sajal Nag, S.B. Ota, Vinod Nautiyal, Kanak Haloi, and V.N. Misra. Thanks are due to Amalava Bhattacharya, Amarendra Nath, Dorian Fuller, Franklin Southworth, Kathryn March, Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, Magnus Fiskesjo, Mark Aldenderfer, Ola W. Jensen, and Peter Carelli for providing me several useful references and study material. Benjamin Vis, Courtney Work, Lise Harvig, and Pradyumna Sarma hosted me at their lovely homes at different times. Thanks are also due to Anke Hein, Dolly Kikon, Jade d’Alpoim Guedes, Page 2 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Acknowledgements Madhulika Samanta, Marco Mitri, Xonzoi Barbora, Tiatoshi Jamir, Uttam Bathari, and Vinay Kumar Rao for useful discussions. My special thanks go to Drs Pranab Jyoti Sarma and Neetu Agrawal who have been a constant source of help and criticism with my research work with useful suggestions. Anjana Reddy and Gazala Singh provided timely editorial help for which I am thankful to them. Drs Sayantini Neogi and Neetu Agarwal always extended help in collecting references. I must thank Shri K.N. Dikshit of the Indian Archaeological Society, and my colleagues at the Society, Shri Kulbhushan Mishra and Dr Ankit Agrawal, for lively discussions and Shri Bharat Singh for helping in collecting reference materials. I would also like to express gratitude and thanks to the authorities of Indian Archaeological Society (India), Indian Council for Historical Research (India), International Institute for Asian Studies (Netherlands), National Research Council (Italy), Harvard-Yenching Institute (USA), and Cornell University (USA) for providing support for attending several conferences and seminars at which I could present papers based on this manuscript. The library staff of the Deccan College, Indian Archaeological Society, Archaeological Survey of India, Sichuan University, Cotton College, and the North East Regional Centre of the Indian Council of Historical Research helped me in collecting reference material. I am grateful to all of them. I wish to thank Oxford University Press, New Delhi, for accepting the manuscript for publication and the editorial team for giving the book its present shape. (p.xxii) It would not have been possible for me to write without the active support of my parents and my uncle Shri Dulal Dutta. I express deep gratitude and indebtness to all of my family members: Aita, Koka, Ma, Deta, Mahi, Moha, Dangor Mama and Mami, Xoru Mama and Mami, Bumoni, Munin, Munu, Mamon, Rebo, Niha, Sumu, Botu, Tuk, Bitu, Palki, and Tiktiki. My dearest friend Amal has been a great source of inspiration throughout these years. I must thank some of my friends for staying close to me through times of joy and sorrow: Anupam, Arijit, Bikash da, Bitu, Diganta da, Jintu, Redian, Rinti, and many others. Lastly, I must thank all my well-wishers who extended support during the hard times of financial constraints.

Access brought to you by:

Page 3 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

Introduction Manjil Hazarika

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199474660.003.0001

Abstract and Keywords Most of the research on the prehistoric archaeology of the Northeast shows that many such research attempts are confined mainly to surface sites, and that excavated sites from the Neolithic and even the historical period are comparatively rare. It is now time to scrutinize the nature of the studies done so far on Northeast Indian archaeology and assess the historiography, together with the recent theoretical developments in the discipline. The area is a contact zone between the East and the West and will only be fully known when a complete picture emerges of its prehistoric cultural growth through sustained archaeological and interdisciplinary palaeoecological research. This chapter spells out the rationale behind the research, the problem, the working hypotheses, aim, objectives, and methodologies followed in the book. Keywords:   Northeast India, prehistoric archaeology, historiography, archaeological research, prehistoric cultural growth, archaeological research problems, multidisciplinary methodologies

Northeast India … offers excellent scope for investigating diversity in human adaptations. Forming as it does a halfway house between the Indian mainland and Southeast Asia, this area probably enabled early societies to develop individual identities of their own. —K. Paddayya (2002–3: 296) The issues addressed in this book had germinated in my mind some ten years back while attending some lectures on archaeology delivered by Professor K. Paddayya when I was pursuing my Master of Arts degree in ancient Indian history, culture and archaeology (2003–5) at Deccan College Post-Graduate and Page 1 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction Research Institute, Pune. Professor Paddayya, a distinguished archaeologist of the country, introduced us to a wide range of literature on the theoretical aspects of the discipline, including an intriguing paper by Irving Rouse who considers people as basic to archaeology, and emphasizes that archaeologists ‘dig sites not only to obtain artefacts but to learn all we can about the people who lived in the sites’ (Rouse 1965: 2). Rouse (1965: 1–15) addresses four questions pertaining to the ‘people’ that are to be investigated by an archaeologist: (a) Who were the people? (b) When did each people live? (c) What culture did the people have? (d) How did the culture change? Since then, with further reading on the subject, I started to link these four questions with the context of the archaeology of Northeast India, by and large, due to my inclination towards the matribhumi (motherland) and, to a certain extent, my undergraduate background in anthropology. (p.2) The curiosity was just the beginning and, as a consequence, by the end of my master’s programme, I could submit a dissertation entitled ‘Neolithic Culture of Northeast India with Special Reference to the Origins of Agriculture and Pottery’ (Hazarika 2005) in partial fulfilment of the master’s degree. The dissertation offers an exhaustive account of the Neolithic sites and the discoveries and interpretations made till then, and attempts to visualize the viable research prospects for further studies. The experience of working on the dissertation for two years made me realize that the set of four questions (Rouse 1965: 1–15) that overwhelmingly captivated me, and still does, needs much more time to be sensibly addressed than what is possible within the scope of a master’s thesis—possibly a lifetime. Hence, the present work has been envisaged as a beginning in this line with the prophetic purview of addressing those four basic questions in the framework of Northeast India: 1. Who were the prehistorical people in Northeast India? 2. When and where did each people live in their respective areas? 3. What culture did the people have during the prehistorical period? 4. How did the culture change throughout the period of prehistory? Against this background, the present work attempts to address the prehistorical ‘people’ responsible for the array of sites found, albeit sporadically, across the entire length and breadth of the region. Conspicuously, the historiography of archaeological research in this area painfully surprises us in that, barring a handful of sites of both prehistorical and historical context, most of them are yet to be properly studied or excavated and treated with recent developments in the field of archaeological science. Nevertheless, sites like Ambari (Dhavalikar 1973), Daojali Hading (T.C. Sharma 1966), Nongpok Keithelmanbi (O.K. Singh 1993), Pynthorlangtein (IAR 1992–3), Sarutaru (Rao 1977), Sekta (A.K. Sharma 1994), Selbalgiri 2 (IAR 1966–7 and 1967–8), and Vadagokugiri (A.K. Sharma 1993) have proved to be of immense potential in the study of the ‘people’ and their cultures and, in a broader sense, in the reconstruction of history.

Page 2 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction The majority of the literature dealing directly or indirectly with the history of the region provides a sequence of arrival of people of different linguistic stocks, on the basis of philological and ethnographical (p.3) considerations (Gait 1926: 1– 10; Choudhury 1987: 74–108; Barpujari 1990: 1–24). However, the formulation of the sequence lacks a detailed examination of the archaeological–linguistic– genetic data. The people of the Austroasiatic linguistic group are considered to be the earliest inhabitants of the region who were later followed by various Tibeto-Burman linguistic groups that came in several waves. The advent of the Indo-Aryan linguistic group is correlated with the early historical development in the region, whereas the Tai-speaking groups are considered to have penetrated not before 12th century AD, as can be confirmed with the testimony of the Buranjis, the royal chronicles of the Ahom, a Kradai-language community. The present work aims at a fresh investigation of the ethnolinguistic prehistory of the region based on archaeological data currently available at our disposal, and thus come up with certain historical specifications.

The Study Area Northeast India, roughly encompassing the area between 21°5′ N to 29°5′ N latitudes and 85°5′ E to 97°3′ E longitudes, includes the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura, popularly known as the ‘Seven Sisters’, and the recently included state of Sikkim. These Indian states are surrounded by the five present-day international boundaries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Myanmar,1 and Nepal. The region geographically connects South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia, as this area lies at the junction of these three important regions of Asia. Considering this unique geographical location, it is not surprising to note that this region must have played an important role as a cultural bridge between the three broad areas of the Asian landmass just mentioned. This region is a part of the Vavilovian2 centre of biodiversity (Agarwal 1996) and has unique geographical settings of both plain and hilly areas, covering the valleys of the mighty Brahmaputra and Barak Rivers and several of their tributaries, surrounded by the eastern Himalayan mountain ranges and several other hills. Again, Northeast India is also known as the wettest place in the world as Mouchinram in the state of Meghalaya receives the highest rainfall in a year. The region is bestowed with southwest monsoon, characterized by wet summers and dry winters (Sharma 1986: 1), and is home to some of the densest evergreen forests in the world. (p.4) An old-fashioned somatological analysis of the racial composition of the presentday populations suggested that this area was the home of two major races of mankind, the Caucasoid and the Mongoloid, and modern population genetic studies now provide us with an even more fine-meshed and complex view of population prehistory. Close proximity of these populations in terms of settlements led to exchange of genes between the two groups. The diverse Page 3 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction ethnic strains contributed to the ‘evolution and development of different racial groups and culture’ (Das 1990: 24). Hence, this region forms a kaleidoscope of a variety of people having their own distinct culture, ethnicity, religion, language, and physiology, and can be considered as a melting pot of various ethnic cultures of different backgrounds, shaping the cultural heritage of the present inhabitants. So, what are the root causes of the bewildering ethnic diversity in this region? The movements of people since the prehistorical period may be considered to be one of the core factors besides several other sociocultural, genetic, physical, and environmental explanations for the mosaic ethnic situation of present-day Northeast India (Hazarika 2011a). Considering the movements of people of different cultural, linguistic, physical, and geographical backgrounds, it will not be impertinent to anticipate some archaeological signatures left by the ‘people’ who colonized, inhabited, and migrated through the region.

The Problems and the Hypothesis The post-Pleistocene period witnessed a dramatic change in the lifestyle of our ancestors from being food-collecting ‘hunter-gatherers’ to food-producing ‘farmers’. Given the changes occurring in the cultural gamut during this transitional period, the stage has been termed as ‘Neolithic Revolution’ (Childe 1951) and considered as epoch-making. It has been observed that the pathways towards domestication of plants and animals and growth of complex social systems were not uniform and identical across the globe. The enquiry into the initial domestication of plants and animals, including the transition from food procurement to food production, a central question of research in archaeology, has provided innumerable data to support separate and independent origins of agriculture of different plants and animals in different geographical regions in different time frames. At least seven different regions have been identified as ‘primary (p.5) centres’ on the basis of long-term research. These are the Fertile Crescent of the Near East, North China, the Yangtze Corridor of southern China, sub-Saharan Africa, the south-central Andes, central Mexico, and the eastern seaboard of North America (Smith 1998). Moreover, active research has yielded interesting results outside these areas, too, where the transition to food production was not based on the domestication of local or indigenous plants and animals. Rather, the knowledge was imported from neighbouring regions. Among many such areas, mention must be made of Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent, into which domesticates were introduced from the Yangtze Corridor (Higham 1995) and the Near Eastern region (Smith 2001: 204) respectively. However, recent archaeobotanical discoveries support an independent domestication event and an early agricultural development based on rice farming in the Gangetic valley (Fuller 2005–6; Tewari et al. 2008: 347– 73). Instead of resolving the problem of agricultural origin in India, recent studies have raised certain issues which call for active and long-term sustained research. In this context, the geographical location of the northeastern part of India, which has been long been favoured as an important area for the Page 4 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction domestication of a number of food plants essential to man, including rice (Chang 1976: 143–57; Glover 1985: 266; Sharma 1991: 41–58; Sung-Mo 1993), underscores the need for rigorous new research. This area is geographically situated in the periphery of the important agricultural ‘primary centre’ of the Yangtze Corridor, the ‘secondary’ centre of Southeast Asia, and the Ganga valley, recently hypothesized as an ‘independent’ centre of origin of rice cultivation. Whether or not Northeast India was an independent centre for domestication of rice, the crop has a deep ancestry in the region, visible and embedded in the culture, life, and economy of the inhabitants. Rice has played a crucial role in the economic development of societies in varied environmental and cultural contexts. The economic backbone of historical as well as present-day societies of the region is rice cultivation. The historical, linguistic, genetic, and ethnobotanical data suggest a long antiquity of rice cultivation in this part of India (van Driem 1998, 2002, 2005, 2008a, 2008b, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2012a; Hazarika 2006a, 2006b, 2011e, 2013a). However, there are issues of a lack of clear markers of an indigenous origin of rice and non-availability of plant fossils, possibly due to poor preservation (p.6) conditions and, more importantly, because the sieving technique had not been used in earlier excavations. Consequently, the vital problem of the domestication of local crops and introduced domesticates is difficult to address. The issue of introduced domesticates from the presumed neighbouring ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ centres of rice cultivation warrants a fresh investigation that would rigorously consider relevant archaeological, ethnolinguistic, ethnographic, and plant genetic data. In this regard, the origin of a possible farming-linked dispersal of linguistic groups seems to be relevant to the question of cultural change in Northeast India. The agricultural and linguistic group dispersal hypothesis has been elaborately examined on a global scale by Diamond and Bellwood (2003) in a paper published in Science, entitled ‘Farmers and Their Languages: The First Expansions’. According to this theory, the time period between 8500 and 2500 BC witnessed several independent centres of origin of food production based on the domestication of relatively few wild plant and animal species. Food production resulted in an outward dispersal of farming populations and an associated dispersal of their languages and lifestyle advantages. Higher food yields, complex technology, social stratification, centralized states, professional armies, and resistance to epidemic infectious diseases were some of the multiple advantages that the farming populations had in comparison with the huntergatherers who persisted until the end of the Pleistocene. Their theory has attempted to draw upon five sets of interdisciplinary data—archaeology, records of plant and animal domestication, human skeletal remains, modern human genes and sometimes ancient DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), and the dispersal histories of existing or extinct but attested languages (Diamond and Bellwood 2003: 597).

Page 5 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction Here we shall examine the problems of the dispersal of Austroasiatic and TibetoBurman languages in Northeast India, considering the same five distinct parameters used for examining the basic hypothesis that ‘prehistorical agriculture dispersed hand-in-hand with human genes and languages [and that] farmers and their culture replace neighboring hunter-gatherers and the latter’s culture’ (Diamond and Bellwood 2003: 598). Although the nature of the available archaeological evidence is a restrictive factor, we shall also take into account the data from ethnography and folklore related to memories of migrations of the present inhabitants. (p.7) There are several independent sources of evidence suggesting the expansions of Austroasiatic, Kradai, and Tibeto-Burman language families from their agricultural homelands in China, at different times and over different geographic ranges (Diamond and Bellwood 2003: 600). These three language families form a major constituent of the languages spoken in Northeast India, apart from the Indo-European languages. Considering the hypothesis that the original homeland of these language families is China, an urgent necessity to compare the archaeological record from both these regions—India and China— has been felt for addressing the ancient dispersals of linguistic groups. The hypothetico-deductive method has been applied to test various hypotheses and has led to generalizations (Binford 1972: 20–32). We also aim to use the scientific method not just in terms of using scientific techniques, but also to refer to ‘different stages of research leading to the formation of new knowledge in a given discipline’, which ‘cross-cuts all content-bearing sciences, both natural and socio-cultural’ (Paddayya 1985a: 9). For this purpose, evidence from different disciplines available at our disposal has been taken into account.

The Scope of the Research Northeast India covers a considerable part of the Himalayan region which is one of the most ethnolinguistically diverse parts of the planet. Keeping in view the phylogenetic heterogeneity and endangered nature of many of the languages spoken in this mountainous region, descriptive linguistic work such as grammars have been and continue to be compiled on a large scale, containing detailed analyses of the phonetics and phonology, morphophonological regularities, and the morphology and syntax. These languages are considered to possess the key to the reconstruction of prehistorical background and cultural development and enable the interpretation of archaeological data and the tracing of ancient population movements throughout the Asian heartland (van Driem 2001). A study by van Driem (1999) outlines the historical and prehistorical developments of these languages, including correlations of archaeological data and mapping and tracing of routes of dispersals or migrations of ancient language families. There has been increasing refinement in our understanding of the ancient migrations of linguistic groups in the (p.8) extended Himalayan region (van Driem 2006, 2007c, 2007d, 2008c, 2011a). Specific emphasis has Page 6 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction been given to language families such as Tibeto-Burman (van Driem 1998), Austroasiatic, and Hmong-Mien (van Driem 2011b). In view of the ethnolinguistic and cultural diversity of the region, the present work has been envisaged to scrutinize the archaeological record in detail for the linguistic hypotheses made so far on ancient population migration, particularly the theory of an agricultural origin and founding linguistic dispersal (Diamond and Bellwood 2003). Notwithstanding my lack of formal training in linguistic science, I shall make a modest attempt to address the agricultural and linguistic group dispersal hypothesis in the context of Northeast India, which has definitely enhanced our idea about the ethnolinguistic prehistory of the region. The approach used here is purely archaeological but includes inputs from ethnographical, linguistic, genetic, and folkloristic data.

The Potential of Archaeological Research in Northeast India A detailed review (Sharma 2003) of the research on the prehistorical archaeology of this region shows that many such research attempts are confined mainly to surface sites, and that excavated sites from the Neolithic and even the historical period are comparatively rare. In this regard, mention may be made of the statement by J.P. Mills in the 1930s that ‘the spade, the chief tool of archaeologists, had hardly been used in research in Assam’ (Mills 1933: 6), an observation which still rings true in the present context. The surface finds and excavated material have so far failed to provide details of the subsistence and settlement patterns of the early farming communities, further impeding a holistic understanding of the nadir and zenith of this very important stage of human culture (Chakrabarti 1998, 2006). Furthermore, due to very limited research undertaken in the field of archaeology, this region can still be considered as a terra incognita. So, in this conjecture, a basic question arises: Is the limited research in this field due to a lack of interest in archaeological research or because Northeast India lacks potential as an area of research? (p. 9) It is a paradox that the person who first reported a stone artefact from the region was none other than Sir John Lubbock (1867: 822), who coined the term ‘Neolithic’ to denote a cultural stage of man in which stone tools were made more carefully and skilfully, and in a more varied form, often polished (Lubbock 1865). This discovery was made just after four years of the well-known first discovery of prehistorical tools in the Indian context made by Robert Bruce Foote in 1863 at Pallavaram, Madras. However, if one compares the present understanding of the prehistorical past of the region with research done on the southern part of India or, say, France, the state of archaeological research in this area appears to be far from satisfactory. Hence, it is time to scrutinize the nature of the studies done so far on Northeast Indian archaeology and assess the historiography, together with the recent theoretical developments in the discipline. To achieve this goal, theoretical debates in the context of Northeast Page 7 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction India will also be examined. Archaeological ‘theory’ has been used in the sense of serving as a watchdog by ‘gatekeepers’ in the debate on the nature, scope, and goal of the discipline in the Indian context (Paddayya 1985a: 6). Our analysis of the theoretical debate will throw light on what has been accomplished so far during the last 150 years (1867–2017) of archaeological research, and the reader may judge whether or not the discipline has achieved what Clarke (1979: 83) would call its ‘self-consciousness’ in the context of Northeast India. The achievements appear, by and large, still to be in the ‘cultural history’ stage, as is evident from the credentials given to the area’s archaeological research in recent publications addressing the role of ‘processual’ or ‘post-processual’ methods in Indian archaeology (Paddayya 2002: 117–57; Fuller and Boivin 2002: 159–90; Boivin and Fuller 2002: 191–215; Pratap 2009: 27–37). If one peeps into the voluminous records of discovery of stone artefacts in the entire region, it becomes obvious that the region has much to offer and should be given much more importance than it has received thus far. The influence of East Asia and Southeast Asia (Worman 1949; Dani 1960; Sharma 1966, 1986) on the development of the Neolithic personality of Northeast India has always been put forward. However, there is no clear indication of the exact location or cultural zone in spatio-temporal terms as to where the point of genesis might lie. How much Indian and how much (p.10) alien cultural influence has gone into the development of the cultural personality of the region? The area is a contact zone between the East and the West and will only be fully known when a complete picture of its prehistorical cultural growth emerges through sustained archaeological and interdisciplinary palaeoecological research. Moreover, there is no concrete chronology for the prehistorical cultures of the region due to the lack of absolute dates and proper archaeological investigations. Because of the great diversity of plants useful to man and due to favourable climatic conditions, this region has been regarded by geographers and botanists to be very important and an ideal place for early plant domestication and food production (Vavilov 1949; Sauer 1952; Harris 1973). The discourse of many specialists heard at the Indo-Pacific Prehistorical Congress held in Pune on 20–3 December 1978 stressed the importance of this region as a potential area for the domestication of a number of important plants and also as a physical and cultural bridge between the body of India and Southeast Asia, as proposed by Professor W.G. Solheim II (Misra and Bellwood 1985: vii–viii). One of the imperatives of this book is to address the role of this region in the domestication of certain plants and animals.

Drawbacks of and Obstacles to Archaeological Research in Northeast India Despite immense archaeological potential, this region has drawn only marginal attention in the academic arena due to several drawbacks such as the dearth of academic departments dealing with archaeological research in India, the habit of relying on traditional approaches, a lack of adequate technical knowledge, the Page 8 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction scarce use of a multidisciplinary approach, poor infrastructure, and neglect due to attention being diverted towards the more fashionable interests in archaeology. These are the main factors behind the limited growth of problemoriented research and large-scale explorations and excavations utilizing recent technical improvements in the discipline (Hazarika 2008a: 3). This region is often left blank and is rarely dotted in the archaeological maps of India due to the limited number of well-excavated sites with stratigraphic cultural sequence corroborated with chronometric absolute dates. The archaeological record (p. 11) hardly finds a place in the discussions of human origins and evolution and subsequent cultural developments in India. Apart from the several drawbacks indicated earlier, there are also certain physical problems which hamper archaeological research in this area. Some of the main obstacles are the following: 1. Northeast India is highly vulnerable to frequent floods, riverbank erosion, and landslides. Furthermore, the area is one of the most seismically active zones in the world, and this often results in severe damage to the archaeological landscape. 2. The extensive valley of the Brahmaputra River, spreading across Assam, floods almost every year, and a huge amount of sediments are deposited, which may potentially have covered the earlier deposits. The Pleistocene deposits, if they existed, might have been covered by the present Holocene deposits in most of the areas of the Brahmaputra valley. 3. The hilly areas are extensively covered by thick vegetation. The fastgrowing vegetation cover impedes prospecting for archaeological objects scattered on the surface and in in situ contexts. 4. Incessant rain in many parts of the region during the summer season is another problem for archaeological field investigations. This region falls under Tropical Rain Forest Zone, and the long duration of the rainy season renders exploratory archaeological fieldwork a difficult task (Sharma 1972). 5. Much of the hill tracts have been subjected to slash-and-burn cultivation, which is also the prevalent form of agriculture among the present-day inhabitants. In this kind of cultivation, the jungles are cleared and burnt, and then the surface is used for cultivation, a process which affects the surface soil cover, resulting in displacement of the physical context of archaeological material. These cultivation fields are shifted from one hill to another, frequently affecting the soil surface areas and possibly the archaeological record. 6. Another issue is the high level of groundwater creating problems during excavation and thus preventing the establishment of whole stratigraphical sequences. This problem occurred during the excavation of the historical site at Ambari in Guwahati (Dhavalikar 1973: 137–49). A similar problem also occurred at Sisupalgarh, an early historical site Page 9 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction located in Orissa, and was solved by the use of a water pumping machine (personal communication, R.K. Mohanty 2011). (p.12) 7. Scant evidence for archaeological reconstruction is also due to the poor preservation conditions of the archaeological material, owing to the high percentage of humidity, as all objects other than stone perish very fast in humid conditions. It is painful to have to admit that the palaeoenvironmental data in the region is negligible. 8. As most of the areas are inaccessible due to the insurgency problem and political turmoil, the area covered by scientific explorations so far in Northeast India is very limited. In spite of its enormous potential, the area has not been able to draw the attention it merits. Against this background, the need is obvious for serious attempts to develop an apposite and relevant methodology to confront the drawbacks and problems. Until such time, the archaeological potential of this region will never be explored to its fullest, and we shall be far from understanding the role of this region in shaping the Indian subcontinent from the east on the basis of concrete archaeological evidence. Meanwhile, attempts to link the archaeological data with recent theories on linguistic dispersal supported by genetic evidence has proved to be very promising.

Aims and Objectives of the Present Volume This book adopts a multidisciplinary approach and has as its objective the reconstruction of the subsistence strategies and ways of life of the early farming communities in the region, and their movements, dispersals, and settlements. The essential nature of this work is dictated by the reality that the scanty nature of archaeological data from the region has compelled us to gather evidence from all possible scientific lines of enquiry in order to paint a vivid picture of the development of early farming societies, who must have been the ancestors of some or all of the present-day indigenous ethnic groups. This evidence has been gathered from ecological, ethnographical, anthropological, and genetic sciences to inspire an interpretation of the available archaeological data for examining linguistic hypotheses of early migration and dispersals of people in this region. The study strives not only to gather a holistic understanding of the early farmers but also to lay a foundation for future research strategies and to set a relevant methodology suitable for the region. It aims to interpret the meagre archaeological record in an integrated ecological framework, (p.13) with environmental determinations being considered a major factor of cultural growth. The broad aims and objectives of the present study are as follows: 1. This work aims to address four questions pertaining to the ‘people’ (Rouse 1965: 1–15) of Northeast India. The question as to how culture changes during the prehistorical period will be addressed in order to test the hypothesis of the linguistic/farming dispersals of the Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman groups. The examination of invention, Page 10 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction diffusion, and migration was considered by Kroeber (1948: 344–571) to be of primary importance to the understanding of culture change in prehistory. Invention indicates the creation of a new idea and the conception of something not previously known to the inventor, particularly socially significant innovations. Diffusion denotes the process by which an innovation gains social acceptance and new ideas or new units of culture spread from one person or group to another. More specifically, diffusion refers to the spread of traits from individual to individual, finally from group to group, involving social spread rather than actual geographical population movement. The latter is intended by the concept of migration. The spread of people by migration may result due to the geographical expansion of a culture without the spread of their culture to a new group. On the other hand, physical movement of people can also lead to cultural diffusion (Trigger 1970: 297–300). This research will discuss archaeologically discernible traits pertaining to cultural change in terms of invention, diffusion, and migration in prehistorical Northeast India. 2. Since the formal introduction of the settlement pattern study as a ‘strategic starting point for the functional interpretation’ in archaeological studies (Willey 1953: 1), research devoted to settlement patterns has been conducted in different parts of the world to interpret the archaeological record. Among the two dominant approaches, the ecological approach of studying settlement pattern reflects ‘the adaptation of a society and its technology to its environment’ whereas the second approach entails making inferences about the social, political, and religious organization of prehistorical cultures (Trigger 1970: 239). Settlement pattern studies have been successfully applied to various cultural contexts in different parts of India, that is, the Acheulean culture of the Hunsgi valley (Paddayya 1982), the Mesolithic cultures of Keonjhar in Orissa (Mohanty 1989), the Ganges basin (Chattopadhyaya 1996), and the Tarafeni valley (p.14) (Basak 1997), the Chalcolithic culture of the Deccan (Dhavalikar 1976, 1977), the middle Bhima valley (Panja 1995) and the central Tapi basin (Shinde 1998), and the early historical culture of the Ganga–Yamuna Doab (Lal 1984). Ethnoarchaeological investigations of the living as well as of abandoned settlements of the hunter-gatherers or marginal agriculturists of the south-central Ganges basin have revealed considerable similarities with the Mesolithic and Neolithic–Chalcolithic settlements (Ansari 2005), highlighting the importance of conducting such studies in other parts of the county as well. In the Northeast Indian context, the sole example of such research is Sharma (2007), where he addressed crucial questions such as site formation processes, contexts, and cultural links in the Dhansiri–Doyang valley of Assam, which represented an independent culture during the historical period of Assam. There is ample scope for settlement studies in Page 11 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction the context of prehistorical cultures, particularly in the context of early farming cultures. In this work, attempts have been made to understand the settlement pattern of Neolithic sites of Northeast India in general and the archaeological sites of Garbhanga Reserve Forest in particular, which lies on the Assam–Meghalaya border, where intensive foot surveys have been conducted. The book also aims at understanding the spatial distribution of settlements and sites, and analogies have been drawn from ethnography to outline the settlement history in the region. 3. By drawing analogies with the modern-day use of plant and vegetable food, this book attempts to understand their role in prehistorical economic contexts, and this has been useful in interpreting site-specific data of fossilized plant remains and in making inferences about the broad-spectrum subsistence base of prehistorical societies (Fagan 1970: 168–74). In archaeological deposits where organic remains are poorly preserved, it becomes necessary to supplement the scanty data by methodical collection of ethnobotanical and ethnozoological information (Paddayya 1985b: 60). Listing the wild plants consumed by local inhabitants—that is, the plants occurring in the ecosystem in which they live—has proved to be useful in drawing analogies for plant consumption during the prehistorical period. Similar studies have been carried out in different parts of India, that is, the Hunsgi valley (Paddayya 1982), the Eastern Ghats and coastal plains of Andhra Pradesh (Murty 1985), and the Raisen complex (Nagar 1985), contributing to the larger question of the relationship between humans and environment in prehistory. The lack (p.15) of palaeobotanical record calls for such an ethnobotanical approach as an alternative to undertaking a ‘purely conjectural reasoning in conformity with the knowledge of archaeological validity and environmental reality’ (Murty 1985: 334). Moreover, optimum utilization of natural resource in a sustainable manner can be observed among many of these ethnic groups. In this work, I have listed a plethora of wild plants consumed by tribal populations in Northeast India in general and, more specifically, incorporated the data of plant use by the Karbis residing in the explored area. 4. The book also aims to understand the role played by this region in context of the question ‘How, when, where and why people first domesticated plants and animals and abandoned the foraging life for that of farming?’, which has been regarded as focal to our understanding of the history of humanity (Harris 1996a: 1). I have studied the biodiversity of the region while addressing the question mentioned earlier. I have also recorded various wild and intermediate species of rice for future research on the differentiation and diversification of annual wild forms into the early prototypes of cultigens. Traditional and indigenous farming systems practised by different tribal groups in both hilly and lowland areas have

Page 12 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction been documented, providing insight into the different adaptation strategies employed in different ecological zones. 5. It is noteworthy that slash-and-burn or shifting or swidden cultivation is the lifeline of many of the inhabitants of the hill regions. This form of cultivation is locally called jhum. This subsistence pattern is an intrinsic part of their folktales, folksongs, and customs, which reflect the sentiments and emotions attached to it. The lexis of their cultural expressions recounts the joys and sorrows of bygone days. In the absence of literary data for reconstructing their past, these cultural expressions have been of immense value. Even in dance forms, the tradition of jhum is depicted. Documentation of cultural tradition helps us to make inferences about the long-term use of jhum cultivation in the region. The shifting cultivation of Northeast India is a continuous process which survives to the present day in the hilly areas. The antiquity of lowland cultivation in the area has yet to be established. However, the emergence of urban societies in which lowland rice cultivation must have played a vital role has been recorded only from the fourth/fifth centuries AD. The growth of urban centres during the first half of the first millennium does not indicate cessation of Neolithic ways of life in areas located in the vicinity of these centres. Accordingly, the term ‘Neolithic’ (p.16) should be construed to denote a cultural stage rather than to refer to a period of time. Moreover, there is no evidence to date of separate cultural stages of either the Copper Age or the Iron Age in the region. The cultural gap from the end of the Neolithic to the beginning of historical period will be investigated to gain an understanding of this ‘Dark Age’ of Northeast India. 6. One of the intriguing issues pertaining to the polished stone axes or adzes in archaeological studies is an understanding of the vital role that these objects played in the prehistorical economy. The trading activities of finished or partly finished tools made of stone of superior quality and their limited distribution have been intensively surveyed in the context of northwestern Europe (Clark 1952: 244–51). Apart from casual references made about the provenance of stone artefacts (Lahiri 1992: 240), there have been no studies dealing with the issue of a possible prehistorical stone axe trade in Northeast India. Moreover, little emphasis has been placed on gaining an understanding of the ideological significance of stone artefacts. It is a worldwide phenomenon that stone axes or adzes have traditionally been considered ‘thunderbolts’ (Carelli 1997; Jensen 1999; Johanson 2009). Several beliefs and traditions persist among the indigenous people of Northeast India, who collect stone artefacts mostly from their agricultural fields and keep them for various magico-religious purposes. The ideological approach of the people towards prehistorical artefacts needs more attention and calls for a systematic recording of the belief systems. It has been observed that the Karbis of the Garbhanga Page 13 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction area perform day-long religious ceremonies due to their beliefs that look upon these artefacts as heavenly objects. In this work, I have addressed the ideological significance of these artefacts in Northeast India, and I have recorded the religious traditions associated with the belief system of the Karbis of the Garbhanga Reserve Forest. The overall issue addressed in this work has implications for the current turmoil about ethnic identities in the Northeast Indian states as well as the claims by certain communities over a particular area as their own territory. Many of the areas have been exploited in a way that can be characterized by the synchronization of resource use by communities living in close proximity. If the current ethnic identity of each of the groups is observed, notwithstanding several linguistic, biological, and cultural variations, we may be astonished by the level (p.17) of similarity among them in terms of resource utilization, ecological adaptation, and involvement with nature. Some communities appear to have shared an ecological boundary with each other for ages. As nature shapes man, the majority of these communities have adapted to similar ecologies in an analogous manner, and hence share much of their cultural identity with each other.

Methodology In Northeast India, the landscape differs significantly from other parts of India, and this has implications for our methodology. The four paradigms, morphological, anthropological, ecological, and geographical, can be distinguished in the clear exposition of methodology proposed by Clarke (1972: 6–7). In Northeast India, no synergy has yet been observed between these four paradigms. The methodologies followed in this work are the following: 1. Archaeological interpretations are mostly drawn by using analogy which can be defined as ‘assaying any belief about non-observed behaviour by referral to observed behaviour which is thought to be relevant’ (Ascher 1961: 318), in which it is the task of an archaeologist to select the possible analogue, from a wide range of analogues, offering the best solution to the problem. Second, the existing ethnological literature is used with ideal descriptions, and living communities are studied. Finally, those living communities that hold the most promise for analogy in the framework of archaeological interpretation are studied closely (Ascher 1961: 317–25). The interpretation of the archaeological record of the Neolithic past of the region under study requires careful selection of the most suitable analogy. The rich repertoire of ethnographic analogues present in the region may be considered as the best solution for our purpose. Depending on the nature of the archaeological record, the most relevant living communities have been taken into account and studied in detail. The Karbis have been judged to be the most relevant living

Page 14 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction community for interpreting the archaeology of the site of Bargaon, a newly discovered site in the Garbhanga Reserve Forest. 2. Ethnoarchaeology has emerged as an important aspect of archaeological investigations in India wherever cultural diversity exists. A wide range of subsistence and settlement patterns, traditional lifeways, and technologies furnish ideal material for such studies (Nagar 1975; Dhavalikar 1983; (p.18) Sinopoli 1991; Allchin 1985, 1998). The behavioural tradition of early societies is embedded in the archaeological record, and similarities are sought in contemporary societies. Contemporary sociocultural behaviour and material culture are used to determine how certain features of observable behaviour may be reflected in the archaeological record (Mohanty and Mishra 2002; Murty 2006–7). Northeast India is a storehouse of ethnic groups living in rural and marginal areas, maintaining certain individual cultural identities. The region, therefore, offers excellent scope for using the approach of ethnoarchaeological research, that is, direct historical analogy as well as general comparative analogy. In this work, ethnographic data has been utilized for the explanation of archaeological data in terms of settlement pattern, subsistence behaviour, agricultural practice, Megalithic tradition, and pottery making. 3. The evidence of stone artefacts has much to offer the student of human evolution and early human migration (Roe 2000: 88). The stone artefacts and pottery found in the region have been used as archaeological indicators for understanding and testing the hypothesis of the linguistic/ farming dispersals of the Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman groups in the region. 4. The Garbhanga Reserve Forest is located in the peripheral areas of some important locations where archaeological sites have been recorded. The Garo Hills in the west, the Shillong and Cherrapunji areas in the south, the Khasi, Jaintia, and Karbi Hills in the east, and Guwahati in the north have been chosen for archaeological exploration to understand prehistorical settlement and subsistence patterns. The area has been intensively surveyed for the location of potential archaeological sites and the collection of ethnographic data in order to draw direct historical analogies for the interpretation of the archaeology of this area in particular and of Northeast India in general. 5. The ‘single-site approach’ seems to be inadequate for understanding prehistorical cultures in their totality from an ecological perspective, whereas an ‘area-approach’ study can provide the significant data for interpreting demography, social organization, and land-use patterns (Paddayya 1985b: 60). An ‘area-approach’ study has been conducted in order to formulate a general model for archaeological site structure, locations, geomorphic situations, and site formation processes in the

Page 15 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Introduction Garbhanga Reserve Forest that can be used for archaeological study in the hilly landscape of Northeast India. (p.19) 6. Present-day agricultural implements such as the plough, hoe, and axe have been analysed and compared with Neolithic implements in order to reconstruct ancient farming culture by way of undertaking systematic study of modern peasant ways of life in the study area. From the analysis of modern-day agricultural implements, inferences have been made on their ancient counterparts of Neolithic origin. Photographs of the artefacts and of the archaeological sites as well as of the contemporary ethnographical situation have been used for better documentation and presentation of the data. 7. While investigating the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis in the context of Northeast India, I have primarily depended on the archaeological data alongside linguistic and genetic data gathered by specialists. The folktales and traditions embedded in the cultures of the ethnic groups present in the region have been used for exploring the memories of migration. Nowadays, most of these groups believe that their original homeland is in southern China or Tibet. We shall assess how much the narrated routes of migration in orally transmitted traditions could be historical and how much of it might be modern myth of more recent inspiration. Notes:

(1) In this book, old place names (for example, Burma and Orissa) are used while discussing the archaeological and historical contexts of these places. However, at times modern names (for example, Myanmar and Odisha) are also used while referring to the geographical location, particularly on the maps. (2) The Russian scientist Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov identified several regions of the world as original centres for domestication of a number of plants.

Access brought to you by:

Page 16 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective Manjil Hazarika

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199474660.003.0002

Abstract and Keywords The prime focus of this chapter is to set the stage for reconstructing prehistoric ecology in Northeast India by reviewing the relationship between humans and their environment in the present day. To approach this issue, one has to first understand the diverse biological resource in terms of both flora and fauna that have been exploited by people for sustenance and livelihood since ages. Second, one must address the issue of the congenial surroundings in which humans subsist with plant and animal species, cordially maintaining an ecological balance since time immemorial. Northeast India may be considered an archetypal region for understanding humans and their relationship with the environment. As development and change in this region are recorded at a slow pace, this region provides a solid case study for ethnographical analogy in order to understand the palaeoecological context. Keywords:   paleoecology, humans and environment, flora, fauna, ecology, ethnographical analogy, subsistence pattern, settlement pattern

Probably the ecological conditions of … [Northeast India] were not very much different some three thousand years ago. Consequently, the lifestyle of the people was essentially similar to … the present day tribal groups. —A. Sundara (1985: 45)

Page 1 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective The prime focus of this chapter is to set the stage for reconstructing prehistoric ecology in Northeast India by reviewing the relationship between humans and environment in the present day. To approach this issue, one has to first understand the diverse biological resources in terms of both flora and fauna that have been exploited by people for sustenance and livelihood for ages. Second, one must address the issue of the congenial surroundings in which humans subsist with plant and animal species, cordially maintaining an ecological balance since time immemorial. In this context, Northeast India may be considered to be an archetypal region for understanding humans and their relationship to the environment in a systemic context. As development and change in this region are recorded at a slow pace, this region provides a solid case study for ethnographical analogy in order to understand the palaeoecological context. The subject matter of cultural ecology addresses the adaptation of humans to their environment and ‘seeks to explain the origin of particular features and patterns that characterise different areas rather than to derive general principles applicable to any cultural-environmental situation’ (Steward 1955: 36). In general, the cultural and natural areas are coterminous due to the fact that culture represents an adjustment (p.21) to the particular environment (Steward 1955: 35). In this context, the New Archaeological definition of culture as an ‘extrasomatic means of adaptation’ (White 1959: 8) that is ‘employed in the integration of a society with its environment and with other sociocultural systems’ (Binford 1965: 205) is viable. Right from the time of Childe (1928), environment has been considered to be an important factor for the evolution of human culture, and the transition from hunting and gathering to farming has likewise been explained in terms of ecology. For a holistic understanding of the dynamics of humans and environment in the past, one has to take the help of environmental archaeology, which identifies ‘the characteristics and processes of the biophysical environment that provide a matrix for and interest with socio-economic systems as reflected, for example, in subsistence activities and settlement patterns’ (Butzer 1982: 6). The overwhelming focus of attention among archaeologists towards the study of subsistence and settlement patterns in a given area calls for a fresh systematic study of the environment within which the early inhabitants of Northeast India lived and developed their cultural identity. For this environmental perspective one has to start by looking at the geological formations, topography, and geographical parameters in which humans lived. These include natural resources, both flora and fauna, that human beings exploited for their survival; the climate and weather conditions affecting the way in which our ancestors planned their subsistence strategies; the nature of soil and land in which early farmers planted seeds and crops; and, on the whole, the systemic approach that humans have taken for maintaining a symbiotic relationship with the surrounding natural environment. Furthermore, analysis of the ecosystem which Page 2 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective is constituted by a community and its environment and treated together as a functional system of a complementary relationship (Whittekar 1975) proves useful to understanding the process of human adaptation in a given region. Hence, it is pertinent to explore the natural surroundings in order to understand the relationship of humans to their environment and reconstruct the palaeoecology of Northeast India, which would then enable us to build a model of the prehistoric way of life in this region. An understanding of the ways in which human society emerged and developed can be attained through a perspective that envisages the relationship of human beings to their prehistoric environment. (p.22) The approach of traditional rural cultures towards their biotope is fundamentally different from that of modern affluent urban societies. The close connection between traditional societies and the natural environment shaped the attitude of prehistoric humans towards nature. Traditional societies valued their natural surroundings as a lifesupporting resource. Moreover, in many cases, they developed and maintained certain indigenous rules and regulations for sustainable development in the form of customary laws, religious sentiment, or social taboo. Against this background, the present discussion will undertake to examine the parameters within which the cultural identity of Northeast India can be envisaged. This chapter, therefore, attempts to highlight the interaction between people, plants, and animals (cf. Harris 1996b: 552).

Ethnic Situation Northeast India is an ethnic mosaic consisting of different tribal groups of various ethnic stocks, speaking diverse languages, maintaining their traditional customs and practices, having self-sufficient economies, and, thus, creating a multicultural constellation of tribes and peoples. Two main linguistic phyla can be found among the present-day tribal populations of Northeast India, namely Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman. The languages and dialects of the Khasian branch represent the only subgroup belonging to the Austroasiatic language family in this region, whereas the Tibeto-Burman—also known as the TransHimalayan—family is widespread and represented by various tribes belonging to distinct branches or subgroups of this language family. The third and fourth linguistic phyla found in Northeast India are the Kradai and the Indo-European language families. This region harbours more than 130 major tribal communities out of the total of 427 tribal communities found in India (Census of India, 2001). Except for a few tribal communities such as the Mikir, also known as Karbi, and many of the Bodo-Koch language communities, most tribal communities inhabit the hills. Some tribes are small, while others are numerically strong. The distribution pattern of the tribal populations shows that some tribes are widely spread (p. 23) out, while others are concentrated in relatively small territories (Taher Page 3 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective 1977: 16–26). Tribal groups maintain contact and communication with their respective neighbouring populations. Myths and legends as well as the history of various communities indicate inter-group contacts and cultural exchange (Roy Burman 1974: 303–7). Although the tribal populations show great diversity, we see certain similarities in their cultural practices, economy, subsistence patterns, and ecological adaptations. The shared cultural background of Northeast Indian tribes must be considered in order to understand the relationship of humans to their environment. Many of the tribal groups have their counterparts across the international boundary in Tibet, the Yúnnán province of China, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Burma, and the Chittagong hill tracts of Bangladesh (Aier and Changkija 2003: 332–80). The region has been called a ‘living museum of man’ because of the ethnolinguistic diversity, with different groups adopting different socio-economic strategies and cultural lifestyles and professing divergent indigenous or imported religious belief systems (Roy 1991: 73). In the 19th century, Sir Edward Albert Gait, Basil Copleston Allen, and a number of other British scholars working in Northeast India advanced the opinion that the ‘cradle’ of the Tibeto-Burman populations found in Northeast India must have lain somewhere along the headwaters of the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers, that is, in present-day Sìchuān province and eastern Tibet, and that they reached Northeast India and Burma (present-day Myanmar) in successive waves. In 1932, the Austrian scholar Robert von Heine-Geldern (1932) proposed on archaeological and ethnolinguistic grounds that the Austroasiatic groups of the Indian subcontinent originated from an ancestral homeland in Southeast Asia. It is a matter of recorded history that the Kradai groups entered the Northeast from the 13th century onwards (van Driem 2001: 408, 416, 507). These old conjectures about and insights into ethnolinguistic prehistory are often reiterated in later sources without reference to the earlier literature, for example, Roy (1991) and Bhagabati (1992).

Geographical Divisions While dealing with an area’s cultural development, it is essential first to understand the regional, geographical, and physical features of the region (Subba Rao 1958: 8). The geographical location of an area (p.24) in part defines the cultural spheres and the linkages with contiguous regions. The Assamese geographer Mohammed Taher (2004) distinguished three topographical regions in Northeast India—the ‘plateau’, the hills and mountains, and the alluvial plains (see Map 2.1). 1. The plateau, which orogenically is tied to the tectonics of the Deccan plateau, covers the contiguous area comprising the Meghalaya and Mikir Hills, the latter now more commonly known as the Karbi Anglong of Assam, varying in elevation from 300 to 1,800 metres above mean sea level. Page 4 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective 2. The hills and mountains cover the hilly and mountainous tracts of Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, the Patkai range, Nagaland, Manipur, North Cachar, Mizoram, and the Tripura Hills, varying in elevation from 300 to 6,000 metres above mean sea level. 3. The alluvial plains include (a) the Brahmaputra plain, dotted with oxbow lakes, with as many as 105 tributaries contributing to the main river, (b) the Barak plain, the fluvial characteristics of which are similar to the Brahmaputra, (c) the Manipur plain, originating from a highaltitude lake, the present-day remnant of which is the Loktak Lake, and (d) the Tripura piedmont plain, dotted with tilas (hillocks). Topographically, the entire region has a variation of altitudes ranging from 300 to 6,000 metres above mean sea level. The climate ranges from that of subtropical plains to temperate hills with an average annual rainfall varying from 1,000 to 4,000 millimetres and temperatures ranging from below 0° C to above 38° C. In terms of modern political frontiers (see Map 2.2), Northeast India is linked to the Indian mainland through a narrow 21-kilometre-long corridor through north Bengal known as the Siliguri Corridor or the Chicken’s Neck. Of course, such political realities are recent and do not contribute to our understanding of prehistory. The country of Bangladesh, which once formed the eastern part of the Indian state of Bengal, in geographical terms, simply represents the portion of the Indian subcontinent adjacent to north India, and the Bengal littoral comprises the delta of both the Brahmaputra and the Ganges. Politically, there is now a 900-kilometre-long border between Bangladesh and Northeast India. Furthermore, Northeast India has a 1,350-kilometre-long border with Tibet in the north, which in recent history has come to be administered by China, and a 2,350-kilometre-long border with Burma in the east (Borthakur 1992). (p.25)

Map 2.1 Topographic details of Northeast India Page 5 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective (p.26) Quaternary Geological Formations The latter part of the Quaternary period witnessed the growth and development of human culture. Therefore, the study of Quaternary geology has helped in deciphering past landscapes and interpreting the use of space through time. Knowledge of the geology of a given area helps in identifying the formation processes of an archaeological site besides providing vital insights into the possibility of finding ancient human activities and artefacts

Source: Based on ‘Sikkim, West Bengal and the North-Eastern States–Physical’, Oxford Student Atlas for India, third edition (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2015), p. 18. Note: Map not to scale.

(Brown 1997). The study of ‘geoarchaeology’ is an approach which integrates data from diverse fields and emphasizes both the ‘man’ and ‘land’ elements as well as their interrelationship for understanding prehistoric activity (Gladfelter 1977) and, as such, represents an essential

Map 2.2 Administrative units of Northeast India Source: Based on ‘Sikkim, West Bengal and the North-Eastern States–Political’, Oxford Student Atlas for India, third

ingredient of the ecological edition (New Delhi: Oxford University approach to prehistory (Butzer Press, 2015), p. 19. 1972). Geologists working in an Note: Map not to scale. area should be fully aware of the archaeological problems to be investigated, and by the same token archaeologists (p. 27) should be well versed with the potential utility of geological studies in an archaeological context (Butzer 1975). However, there has been a communication gap between geologists and archaeologists working in Northeast India, which has prevented a holistic scientific understanding of the region’s prehistoric past. Geologically, Northeast India is characterized by hills, mountains, and valleys. The Brahmaputra valley, which is the most prominent feature, is surrounded on the north by the Himalayan mountains and the Mishmi Hills of the Lohit district in the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which impede access to regions which lie further to the north and northeast. The southeastern part of Northeast India is represented by the Naga Hills in the Indian state of Nagaland, composed of Page 6 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective Mesozoic and Tertiary rocks extending southwards into Manipur and southwest towards the Assam ‘plateau’, which comprises the Garo, Khasi, and Jaintia Hills in the Indian state of Meghalaya and the contiguous but somewhat detached Mikir Hills also known as Karbi Anglong. Finally, to the south are the hilly regions of North Cachar and the Mizo Hills in the Indian state of Mizoram and the adjoining hill tracts of Tripura. Geologically, this area is the northeastern prolongation of the Indian peninsular shield with the Garo Rajmahal Hill gap in between, through which the Ganga and the Brahmaputra are deflected southwards to flow into the Bay of Bengal (Dutta 1993: 1–24). Broadly speaking, the region consists of the Archaean and Shillong group and coetaneously formed rocks, which lie exposed over a large part of the Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo Hills, Karbi Anglong, and Arunachal Pradesh. The Archaean rocks are similar to the rocks which form the basement complex of the Indian peninsula, especially in Bengal and Bihar. Palaeozoic rocks, both marine and littoral, are seen exposed in Arunachal Pradesh. Small isolated portions of continental Gondwana rocks occur at Singimari or present-day Hallidayaganj in the Garo Hills (Dutta 1993: 1–24). In varied geological settings, several minerals and stone types occur in minor quantities such as apatite, asbestos, building stones, clay, chromite, cobalt, copper, fireclay, Fuller’s earth, glass sand, gold, graphite, iron ore, kaolin, lead-zinc, lignite, marble, nickel, phosphate, platinoids, rare earths, sillimanite, talc, tin, and tungsten. The Quaternary formations of Manipur include alluvial fill, colluvio-alluvial cone terraces, rock-cut strath-type gravel terraces, and colluvial tones. On the basis of archaeological data supported by (p.28) radiocarbon dates, the study of the lithological and morphological character of the sediments has provided clues for recognition of five Quaternary formations: the Wangu Formation, the Imphal Formation, the Bishnupur Formation, the Supermeina Formation, and the Loktak Formation. There is a good record of climatic change during the Terminal Pleistocene, which is characterized by a switch from a tropical climate to a subtropical monsoonal one with cool dry and wet phases. The cool dry phase lasted from 23,000 to 11,000 years BP1, with the highest lake levels between 25,000 and 23,000 years BP and again between 11,000 and 8,000 years BP (Singh 1987). One of the important locations for understanding the Quaternary geology of the area is the Imphal valley, covering an area of about 2,250 square kilometres. The Loktak Lake and the Imphal River, with its tributaries Iril, Thoubal, and Nambul, are located in the Imphal valley, which is characterized throughout by both lacustrine and fluvial deposits. The older units of the Motbung and Kangla-Tongbi surface are well represented in the northern and western periphery of the valley. The Sekmai surface is a flat to gently sloping alluvial terrain bearing escarpments, and it overlaps with the Page 7 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective Kangla-Tongbi and Lamsang surfaces. The Lamsang surface yields relict flood plain features like levees and back swamps. The Lilong surface is laccustrofluvial in nature and comprises the present-day natural levees of Imphal, Iril, Thoubal, and other tributaries. The wetland located in the southern part of the valley, comprising Loktak Lake, Khodium Pat, Pumlen Pat, and other small water bodies and marshy lands, belongs to the Loktak surface (GSI 2011: 13–14). The Quaternary alluvium and terrace deposits were deposited in fluvial regimes in Nagaland (GSI 2011: 56). The recent deposit of Mizoram is characterized by loose, friable, and unconsolidated pebbles of sandstone and fragments of shale in a sandy matrix (GSI 2011: 37). The Quaternary fluvial deposits of Tripura in parts of the Khowai and Haora basins revealed the presence of a sequence of four-tier Quaternary terraces: the Kalyanpur, Teliamura, Ghilatoli, and Khowai Formations. The Kalyanpur Formation belongs to the Holocene age. As some of these deposits have revealed prehistoric cultural material, it will be interesting to have a detailed discussion on each of these formations. (p.29) The Kalyanpur Formation: A sizeable number of Neolithic and pre-Neolithic sites have been reported from this unit dated to an age of 34,680 ± 2,980 years BP, corresponding to the Upper Pleistocene. The formation has a dominant lateritic profile, intruded by numerous sand plugs containing caliche nodules. 1. The Teliamura Formation: This unit is comprised of multiple sequences of sand–silt–clay with a gradual increase in the fineness of units. The members are feebly oxidized to an inceptisol profile. Radiocarbon dates ranging from 1,100 ± 90 to 3450 ± 110 years BP indicate a Holocene age for this formation. 2. The Ghilatoli and Khowai Formations: The Ghilatoli and Khowai Formations are composed of soils belonging to the Entisol order. Radiocarbon dating of the sediments drawn from these formations has indicated their age as 165 ± 80 years BP. A major part of the area flanking the Brahmaputra River in lower and upper Assam is covered by a thick Quaternary fluvial sequence that has been classified under four geomorphic units, namely the Kaklung (Chapar), Sarbhog, Hauli, and Barpeta surfaces, ranging in age from the Pleistocene to recent. Palynological and pedological studies have provided the depositional environment of these sediments. The Kaklung Formation has undergone a deep lateritic type of pedogenesis, under a warm humid tropical to subtropical type climate, whereas the Sarbhog soil is of a podozolic type, formed under relatively temperate conditions, indicating that, at the time when the Sarbhog sediments were deposited, both temperature and humidity had effectively decreased. The Quaternary deposits record the fluctuations in the climatic regime during the post-glacial times. The older alluvium of the Kaklung/Chapar formation is Page 8 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective recorded near the hills of the granite in the southern side and in the river terrace close to the Himalayan foothills in the northern side. The younger alluvium of Hauli is exposed along the present course of Brahmaputra River (GSI 2009a: 18–19). The post-Siwalik Quaternary sediments of Arunachal Pradesh are represented by fluvial deposits which occur as two or three cycles of valley fill deposits. These deposits are exposed at different levels on either side of almost all the river valleys. These sediments can be (p.30) broadly classified into older alluvium deposits similar to the older alluvium of the Brahmaputra plain, dating from the Middle to Upper Pleistocene, and a newer alluvium of Holocene to recent age. The older alluvium is represented by one to two levels of terrace deposits. Two levels of terraces are recorded along the rivers Dikrang, Tenga, Pappu, Passar, and Siang. The sediments are unconsolidated and are represented by boulders, cobble, pebble, sand, and sandy clay beds. The newer alluvium of the Hapoli Formation is also represented by two levels of terrace deposits comprising unoxidized sediments of the active channels found in all the rivers in the region. The sequence of the Hapoli Formation comprises sand, clay, and peat. A radiometric sample has provided a date of 40,000 years BP, whereas the sample from the Talle valley has been dated to 25,410 ± 750 BP. It is interesting to note that the Hapoli Formation can be considered to be equivalent in age to the Karewa Group of the Kashmir valley (GSI 2010: 17). The Quaternary outcrops of older alluvium overlie the Tertiary rocks along the southern and western borders of the Garo Hills, in isolated areas, and along the southern fringes of the Khasi Hills and the northern fringes of the Garo Hills portion of Meghalaya. These deposits are characterized by assorted pebble beds with coarse, loose sand and brownish clay. These deposits form spectacular flattopped low hillocks and mounds with red soil cover. Older alluvium occurs at various levels particularly along the abandoned river courses, representing river terraces along the western border of the Garo Hills. Along the southern margin of Khasi Hills, the older alluvium is represented by assorted boulder deposits. Recent alluvium is exposed in the river valleys of the northern foothill region of the Garo and Khasi Hills, along the western border of the Garo Hills, and in the southern foothill region of the Garo and Khasi Hills. The alluvium consists of fine silty sand and light to dark greyish clay with rare pockets and layers of coarse sand and shingles. The fine sand of the alluvium yields profuse minute flakes of mica and, when extremely fine, resembles weathered loose siltstones (GSI 2009b: 19). A detailed lithological and sedimentological study of the Quaternary formations of the Garo Hills provides data on the prevalence of drier climatic condition during the Pleistocene period (D.K. Medhi 1980). The Upper Pleistocene and Holocene deposits of Sikkim are identified as the Sesela Formation, characterized by lithological (p.31) components of variegated clay, fine and medium sand, and pebble bed (GSI 2012: 7). Rocks of Page 9 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective this formation are exposed in the northeastern corner of Sikkim bordering Tibet. The Sesela Formation is comprised of well-rounded disc- and ball-shaped pebbles of shale, sandstone, limestone, argillite, quartzite, granites, and tilloids embedded in a sandy matrix. Rocks are crudely banded, unconsolidated to semiconsolidated in nature. Based on lithological criteria, this geological formation is provisionally correlated with the Upper Karewa Formation of Kashmir, the Potwar silts of the Potwar plateau, and similar deposits of the Trans-Himalayan region, and has accordingly been assigned to the Pleistocene age (GSI 2012: 24– 5).

Drainage Systems Northeast India has both plain and hilly landscapes. The plain regions are mostly located in the Brahmaputra and Barak basins of Assam and Tripura. The length of the Barak River in Northeast India is about 564 kilometres. In the course of its 2,880 kilometre journey to the Bay of Bengal, the Brahmaputra receives as many as 22 major tributaries in Tibet, 33 in India and 3 in Bangladesh. Some important tributaries on the northern bank of the Brahmaputra are the Subansiri, Jia Bharali, also known as Kameng, Manas, Dibang, Lohit, Jiadhal, Ranganadi, Puthimari, and Pagladiya, whereas the Dikhow, Bhogdoi, Dhansiri, Kalang, and Kopili (also Kapili) are among the tributaries on the southern bank. Considering the close association of the people with the riverine systems of the Brahmaputra and the Barak, it is no exaggeration to state that these rivers serve as the lifeline for the livelihood of many communities living in the catchments. Geologically, the Brahmaputra valley is a Quaternary fill valley with a few isolated sedimentary residual hills recorded in upper Assam and with inselbergs and hills of gneissic rocks in Darrang, Kamrup, and Goalpara districts. The constantly changing meandering courses of the Brahmaputra and its tributaries are not only due to lateral erosion because of the low gradient of the rivers, but also due to periodic local and sudden changes in the basement levels caused by neotectonic activity (GSI 2009a: 3). One of the interesting features of the Brahmaputra and particularly of its tributaries is the desertion of earlier channels and the taking of (p.32) new paths, thereby cutting through the soil and leading to changes in the river course during the flood season. These frequent changes in the river course have great bearing on the archaeological context of Assam, particularly in the lowland areas of the catchments. It has been observed that most of sites located at lower altitudes of the river valley are affected by the frequent erosion of their sections of the river. The monsoon season lasts long, and the high rainfall causes frequent floods and raises the water level. Bodies of water such as rivers, tributaries, streams, rivulets, swamps, ponds, and beels (lakes) offer a varied matrix of habitats for a large number of fish species. Hence, fish is a most

Page 10 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective integral natural food resource for the inhabitants of these habitats, providing a rich source of protein intake.

Soil Soil has been a crucial parameter not only for understanding the development of agriculture but also in reconstructing past vegetation patterns. The nature of the soil determines the nature of tools needed for tillage, the relevant crops to be grown under given conditions, and the requirements for maintaining moisture. The relationship between man and the soil has been complex. The nature of the soil determined the drainage, fertility, and land use strategies of early humans (Cornwall 1958). Knowledge of the colour and texture of different kinds of soil helps in identifying the natural and human agencies acting on the landscape over time. Distinct land use strategies are noticed in the soil context of both the hills and the plains of Northeast India. On average, the soil in Northeast India is characterized by its acidity. There is a difference in the acidity of the soil in the hills and the new alluvial soils on the river banks. The new alluvial soils are often neutral and sometimes even alkaline. The phosphoric content of the upper Brahmaputra valley is higher than the lower valley. There is high proportion of nitrogen and organic matter in the soil of the hill areas. Lowland areas containing heavy clays and a high percentage of nitrogen provide good soil conditions for growing rice. The sandy loams above the inundation levels offer a good yield of jute crop. In the hilly areas, fruit trees respond quickly, as the soils contain heavy clays with a high percentage of organic matter (GSI 2009a; Ngachan, Mohanty, and Pattanayak n.d.). (p.33)

Floral and Faunal Resources Northeast India is a treasure trove of huge forests, natural products, and numerous species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. The recurrent news about the discovery of a new plant or animal species, previously unknown to science, strongly underscores the urgency of scientific investigations in this hidden and much neglected part of the world. Out of the total area falling within the territory of Northeast India, more than 60 per cent of the geographical area is under forest cover. Most of the people residing in and around these protected areas exploit the wildlife for satiating their needs for sustenance and shelter. Roots, Tubers, and Fruits as Food Resources

The forest areas are the repositories of a large amount of natural food resources. A great variety of edible vegetables such as pumpkin, bottle gourd, ridge gourd, bitter gourd, brinjal, chilli, capsicum, and cucumber grow in profusion in this region and are cultivated by the inhabitants. Moreover, there exists an array of yam species and a variety of spice crops such as black pepper, cumin, true cardamom, saffron, ginger, turmeric, and black cardamom.

Page 11 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective The indigenous populations living in the hilly terrain grow a variety of vegetables, often endemic to the region, which contribute considerably to their diets. A sizable amount of Solanum species are found. It is interesting to note that the king chilli, also known as Bhut (Ghost) Jolokia in Assam, is considered as one of the hottest chillies in the world. The cucurbitaceous vegetables include Cucurbita, Momordica, Luffa, and Cucumis hardwickii, the likely progenitor of cultivated cucumber, found growing in natural habitats in the foothills of the region. The cucurbits occurring in domestic, semi-domestic, and wild varieties form part of the regular vegetable requirements for many of the communities, as these are highly nutritious. Some of these species are resilient and adaptive so that they can be grown on the land and do not require much care and effort for farming. Moreover, some species can be stored for years together and, therefore, can be used during times of crisis (Yadav, Yadav, and Sarma 2005: 18– 28). There are plenty of indigenous leafy vegetables such as Jilmil sag (Chenopodium album) and Kolmou sag (p.34) (Ipomea reptans) and tubers, which are all consumed by the local inhabitants (Yadav, Deka, and Sanwal 2009). Roots and tubers contributed to the diet of ancient humans to a large extent. The fossil remains of these plant parts can be recognized with the help of scanning electron microgaphs (Hather 1993). An inventory of the roots and tubers consumed by the present-day inhabitants of a given area may also help in identifying the archaeological samples. It is interesting to note in this regard that Northeast India is a repository for a sizable number of root, tuber, and fruit crops. Of course, numerous cultigens that are widespread today are not indigenous in Asia at all, let alone Northeast India, such as the papaya, pineapple, and the chilli, and in any investigation of prehistory native species and old cultigens must be distinguished from new and historically introduced cultigens. Northeast India boasts of tropical, subtropical, and temperate fruits found in a wild state (Yadav et al. 2003: 13–28). Herpetological Resource

The area has diverse amphibians and reptiles, collectively known as its herpetofaunal complex. A biological survey of Northeast India indicates a total of about 130 species of amphibians and 169 species of reptiles. The reptiles in the region include 1 species of crocodile, 21 species of turtles, 45 species of lizards, and 102 species of snakes. Just in the Barail hill range alone, a total of 64 species of herpetofauna have been recorded, comprising 43 species of reptiles and 23 species of amphibians. Among the reptiles, 24 species are snakes, 17 species are lizards, and 3 species are turtles (Das 2008). Some of the herpetofaunal species such as pythons, rat snakes, monitor lizards, large-sized frogs, turtles, and tortoises are exploited by the local inhabitants for consumption. The legs of amphibians are considered to be a delicacy by the local Page 12 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective inhabitants (Das and Sengupta 2010: 2–8). King cobra (Ophiophagus hannah) meat is consumed by local people in many parts of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland (Das 2008: 4). The indigenous population consumes turtle (Pangshura sylhetensis) meat and eggs, which are believed to act as a remedy for gout and arthritis, while the carapace of the Assam roofed turtle and other turtle species are also used as medicine for other ailments including (p.35) asthma. Besides, there exists a belief that hanging a carapace in a cattle shed brings good luck and keeps snakes and burglars away from the premises (Baruah, Sarma, and Sharma 2010: 44–5). Aquatic Resource

The ichthyofauna or fish are found in abundance in the diverse water systems. This region has approximately 267 species of fish belonging to 114 genera under 38 families and 10 orders (Sen 2000), which constitute 33.13 per cent of the total of approximately 806 freshwater fish species found in India (Talwar and Jhingran 1991). The Sone Lake, one of the biggest freshwater lakes in Assam, was recorded to host 69 species of fish belonging to 49 genera under 24 families and 11 orders (Kar et al. 2006: 2310). The omnivorous character of the indigenous peoples of Northeast India provides another clue to their adaptation to their surrounding environment. Most of the indigenous people are non-vegetarian by nature, and fish constitutes a large part of their diet. Using nets made of bamboo, cane, and other similar materials as well as hooks made of iron and traps made of bamboo, the fishermen collect sizable catches of fish. These traps are made in different shapes and sizes based on the nature of the bodies of water and the movement of the fish. One interesting aspect of the fishing activities of the tribal peoples is the use of several wild plants containing natural toxins as fish poison in order to easily gather the fish that float to the surface. Tag, Das, and Kalita (2005) recorded several plants used by the Hill Miri tribe of Arunachal Pradesh for poisoning fish. They also use several traps and implements in fishing, made from locally available bamboo and other perishable material. Many of these tribal groups also harvest fish, crabs, and prawns by modern methods such as bombs and electric generators. In the context of adaptation to local biota, it is pertinent to mention the case of the Loktak Lake in Manipur, where huts are built on floating phumdi vegetation in order to exploit the wetlands for fishing. Ornithological Resources

The International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) considers Northeast India as the repository of the highest bird diversity in (p.36) the Orient, with about 836 of the approximately 1,200 bird species recorded for the Indian subcontinent. The eastern Himalayas and the Assam plains are recognized as Page 13 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective Endemic Bird Areas (Birand and Pawar 2004: 15). Nameri National Park, located in the foothills of the eastern Himalayas in Assam, harbours a total of 374 species recorded so far, including several endangered species such as the whitewinged duck (Cairina scutulata), the rufous-necked hornbill (Aceros nipalensis), Pallas’s fish eagle (Haliaeetus leucoryphus), the white-rumped vulture (Gyps bengalensis), the slender-billed vulture (Gyps tenuirostris), the greater spotted eagle (Aquila clanga), the lesser adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius), Jerdon’s babbler (Chrysomma altirostre), the white-cheeked partridge (Arborophila atrogularis), the black-bellied tern (Sterna acuticauda), the white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), the lesser fish eagle (Ichthyophaga humilis), and the red-headed vulture (Sarcogyps calvus) (Barua and Sharma 2005: 15). Wild Plant and Animals: Sources of Subsistence and Medicine

The importance of the ecology for an understanding of human culture has been recognized as an essential part of anthropological research. A close association with local ecologies and environments and a dependence on nature play a major role in shaping tribal culture. These population groups basically depend on the environment for their habitation and subsistence. The wild plants and animals form a major food resource for the majority of the tribal and ethnic groups. These food resources contain high nutritional and medicinal value. There are several edible shoots, roots, tubers, leaves, flowers, fruits, and seeds present in the forests and jungles that are used as vegetables and are eaten in raw or cooked form. Although plant food remains are very scarce in the archaeological record, a variety of plant species was consumed by early humans (Brothwell and Brothwell 1969), as seen today among the present population groups. There are many insects (Deva Nath, Gogoi, and Gogoi 2005) such as silkworms, red tree ants (Dyrolus arientalis), field crickets (Cryllus sp.), giant water bugs (Lethocerus grandis), termites (Odontotermes obesus), bees (Apis indica), wasps (Vespa sp.), water scavenger beetles (Agabetes acuductus), and grasshoppers that are eaten raw or boiled or fried. Insects such as water beetles, water bugs, termites, pine caterpillars, (p.37) silkworm, red ants, grubs of beetle, honeybees, and wasps are commonly consumed in addition to carp, snails, frogs, rats, and snakes, which are abundantly available in the forests. These species provide a balanced diet with additional vitamins, minerals, and protein. Several insects and animals and products made from them are used in treating various kinds of ailments by many of these communities. Jamir and Lal (2005) recorded the medicinal uses of animals and animal parts with their local and scientific names in traditional therapies among the Naga tribes. Meyer-Rochow (2005: 389–413) details the taxonomic identification and vernacular names of some insects and spiders consumed by ethnic communities of Northeast India such as the Ao Naga and the Meithei, and he compared these insects and spiders with those consumed by communities such as the Chimbu, Onabasulu, and Kiriwina of Papua New Guinea, the Walbiri and Pintupi of Australia, and the Maori of New Zealand. The cultural significance of the species used was also discussed in the Page 14 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective comparative context. The knowledge of traditional medicines is acquired and passed on due to their intimate relationship with their ecology. Traditional and wild food sources are important as indicators of the relationship between humans and their environment and useful for drawing parallels with their past culture and palaeo-ecological background. A variety of wild plants and animals formed part of the diet of our ancestors (Brothwell and Brothwell 1969). The long-term association of these people with the natural world of rich and diversified flora and fauna enabled them to develop an understanding of the medicinal properties of plants. In time, this knowledge was transformed into a belief system and folklore relating to the medicinal remedies of certain diseases that have traditionally been cured with herbal materials. For ages, the tribal peoples have been utilizing many plant resources for the treatment and cure of a large number of diseases. The region is also often recognized to be a paradise of orchids, with the Himalayan states of Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim having the highest number of orchid species. The inhabitants of the Northeast use several orchid species as food, for medicinal purposes, and as body ornaments (Medhi and Chakrabarti 2009: 11–16). Filamentous freshwater red algae (Rhodydophyta) are harvested for consumption by the people of Manipur who consider it palatable (p.38) due to its fishy smell, taste, and flavour. These algae provide considerable amounts of carbohydrate, amino acids, carotenoids, iron, and other minerals (Romeo Singh and Gupta 2011: 27-33). A great amount of ethno-medicinal plants are used in daily life by several tribes living in remote areas to fight some very important diseases, and many of these plants are endemic to this region (Dutta and Dutta 2005). There are several recent publications which record and document the ethnobotanical uses of plants by different communities, such as the Jaintia (Sajem and Gosai 2006), the Mishing (Singh, Bhuyan, and Ahmed 1996: 350–6, Hajra and Baishya 1997: 161–8) and the Karbi (Borthakur 1997: 169–78), the Yobin (Yobin 1999: 116–20), the Chakma (Sarmah et al. 2006: 474–84), the Nyishi and the Apatani (Rawat and Choudhury 1998), the Monpa of Arunachal Pradesh (Dam and Hajra 1997), the Garo (Vasudeva and Shampru 1997: 179– 86), the Khasis and Jaintia of the Meghalaya (Kharkonger and Joseph 1997: 195– 208), and the Meithei of Manipur (Huidrom Singh 1996: 364–6). A majority of the rural inhabitants of the areas in and around forest regions are dependent on medicinal plants for health care. As these medicinal plants are easily available and accessible, traditional societies exploit this economic forest resource at an optimum level, and some medicinal plants are consumed not only as medication but also as part of their general diet. Hunting as Livelihood

Northeast India is blessed with rich natural resources, and its tribal peoples exploit the wild animals and birds to a great extent for their livelihood. Hunting has been a traditional practice since time immemorial. The simple nature of Page 15 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective hunting with limited technological equipment leads us to infer parallels for the hunting strategies of early peoples. The hunted animals and birds provide a rich source of protein, and the wild meat forms a significant proportion of the annual protein intake, although hunting is not a full-time occupation. Hunting involves capturing, snaring, trapping, and occasionally poisoning of faunal resources. The tribal hunters use the simple traditional bow and arrow, spear, and various small and big traps made from bamboo and iron wire. Bows and arrows are made of bamboo and the bow string is prepared with the fibres of plants. Air and smoke guns are (p.39) also used in hunting. A study conducted by Hilaluddin and Ghose (2005: 169–79) on the patterns of wild meat consumption by indigenous communities in Northeast India showed that this dependency on the forest significantly contributed to their local economy. Since the tribal peoples consume the meat of almost all species of animals, hunting is not generally aimed at any particular animal species. Some of the commonly hunted mammals include deer, wild boar, wild goat, field rat, barking deer, sambar, takin, yak, mithun, squirrel, porcupine, gibbon, and jungle cat. Some of the commonly hunted birds include jungle fowl, grey peacock pheasant, and kalij pheasant. Eggs of wild birds are also frequently collected. For many of the tribes, hunting is done on a community basis at certain times. Young boys are frequently seen with a catapult or bow and arrow in their leisure time. In modern times, the over-exploitation of these animals and birds has come to present a threat to the forest resources, and today several sustainable conservation measures are being introduced by the government as well as by private agencies. Wild animals ranging from large galliformes and hornbills to deer and primates and even elephants are hunted primarily for the consumption of their meat. However, there is also a demand for the skin, teeth, feather, beaks, and other body parts which are used to adorn the traditional tribal dress of many communities. Some of the groups hunt hornbill for meat and consider the feathers to be valued ornaments or symbols of hunting prowess (Shankar Raman and Mudappa 1998: 63). Nagaland harbours a total of 487 species of birds. All these species of birds are considered edible by the tribal groups inhabiting Nagaland. These birds are frequently shot with guns, trapped with the help of crude snares, or killed with a slingshot for consumption (Choudhury 2001: 94). Many of the indigenous hill communities are avid hunters. Wild mammals and primates are hunted with guns even inside the Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary in Arunachal Pradesh. Additionally, traditional traps (locally called phasi) are used for capturing mammals and birds of various sizes. Many tribal hunters also use glued sticks (Choudhury 1998). A majority of the communities adorn their houses with skin, horns, hair, and skulls of different species. Some other exploited species include the leopard (Panthera pardus), leopard cat (Felis bengalensis), snow leopard (Panthera uncial), Indian porcupine (Hystrix (p.40) Page 16 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective indica), red panda (Ailurus fulgens), musk deer (Moschus moschiferus), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak), wild dog (Cuon vulpinus), sun bear (Helartos malayanus), goral (Nemorhaedus goral), mainland serow (Naemorhedus sumatraensis), wild boar (Sus scrofa), blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur), serow (Capricornis sumatraensis), common otter (Lutra lutra), takin (Budorcas taxicolor), and the large Indian civet (Viverra zibetha) (Chetry and Chetry 2007: 13–16). A study conducted by Chutia (2010: 56–67) among the Nyishi, Monpa, and Apatani tribes of Arunachal Pradesh shows that the men are exclusively involved in hunting. A total of 43 mammalian species have been hunted in their natural habitat, including carnivores, ungulates, rodents, primates, bear, Chiropterans, and Pholiodota with hunting tools such as guns, mechanical traps, spears, and bows and arrows. The hunting schedule depends on the game, varying from species to species. Some of the animals are captured or killed at night. Group hunting is conducted during the months of September and October. Hunting is mostly a seasonal activity, with the maximum number of animals being caught in winter and in the pre-monsoon season. Other studies among the tribal groups in Arunachal Pradesh by Aiyadurai (2007) and Aiyadurai, Singh, and Milner-Gulland (2010) reveal that hunting is done individually as well as in groups. Dogs are also used by hunters in the Seppa valley of East Kameng for chasing prey. There are several traps which are set in the forest and checked after a gap of three to four days. Poisons prepared from locally available plants are applied to the arrow tip, which immediately kill the animal. High-altitude bamboos are used to make arrows for a special automatic trigger that releases traps and inflicts a fatal wound on the target animal. Catapults are used to hunt small birds and squirrels. Several hunting strategies are followed such as hide and seek, in which the hunters wait for animals near fruit-bearing trees. Often a small platform is constructed on a tree, where the hunters lie in waiting. Imitating animal calls is another strategy by which a broken bamboo stick or leaves are used to mimic wild animal calls. The hunters use different kinds of indigenous traps such as stone traps, canopy traps, twig traps, pit fall, and trigger and release traps, whereas another set of traps is used for birds. There are certain taboos regarding wild animals and birds which are observed during, before, and (p.41) after the hunt. Furthermore, certain taboos are observed with respect to particular species. Although most animals are hunted for meat, certain beliefs are associated with consumption.

Animal Husbandry Tribal groups practise animal husbandry and raise livestock. Since sacrificing a pig, goat, mithun, or fowl is almost mandatory at many social events, livestock is reared not just for food, but also to fulfil the needs of religious ceremonies and festive occasions. Animal husbandry forms a fundamental part of the way of life of several rural communities who rear different species of animals such as Page 17 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective cattle, sheep, goat, yaks, pigs, poultry or rabbits for the consumption of meat or milk. Some bovines are used for ploughing and provide manure.

Agriculture Agricultural practice in Northeast India is divided into two broad categories: (a) settled cultivation done in the plains, valleys, foothills, and on terraced slopes, and (b) shifting cultivation practised in the hilly areas. The river valleys of the Northeast are very fertile due to frequent floods which provide natural manure due to silting. The area is conducive for agriculture, and the climate is favourable to farming. The economy relies on agriculture and its products. Only a smaller area is available for settled agriculture outside the catchments of the Brahmaputra and Barak River systems. As jhum cultivation is the most preferred agricultural activity, swidden cultivation has evolved to be the dominant ideological paradigm in the life, culture, and ethos of the hill inhabitants. However, since jhum has now come to pose a threat to biodiversity, several initiatives have been undertaken to protect areas from shifting cultivation and providing alternative agricultural systems in the uplands. Against this backdrop, it may be inferred that the Northeast has been able to maintain the richness of its biological resources until recently, in part due to the reverence and involvement of the local inhabitants in the maintenance of a reciprocal relationship between humans and their environment. In recent years, due to an increase of accessibility and the demand for forest products such as timber and bamboo, considerable ecological degradation has set in throughout (p.42) the Northeast in pace with growing economic development. Demographic realities and the opening up of the Northeast have destroyed the sacred relationship between humans and their environment. To sum up some of the major observations which have been examined in this chapter in detail, the tribal populations of Northeast India are primarily agriculturalists and occasional hunter-gatherers. Wild animals and birds are hunted for food, medicine, and used in rituals. Their subsistence economy is based on jhum cultivation, horticulture, raising livestock, foraging for wild plants, and hunting. These ethnic groups still live in remote areas and practise simple subsistence and settlement strategies with limited technological advancement. The exploitation of the natural environment through sustainable utilization of the resources which the ecosystem affords is in keeping with the body of traditional knowledge accumulated over generations. The taboos and customary laws regarding the exploitation of natural resources show their respect towards nature.

Page 18 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Man and Environment in Ecological Perspective Despite the ethnolinguistic diversity of the region, a unique spirit of harmony is shared among the native peoples. The Northeast has until recently remained beyond or largely on the fringe of globalization and, therefore, it still represents one of the least explored regions of India. Notes:

(1) BP (‘Before Present’ or ‘years Before the Present’ or ‘number of years Before the Present’) is a time scale or unit of time used for referring a particular event of the past. 1 January 1950 is considered as a standard commencement date of the time scale as ‘present’ changes every year.

Access brought to you by:

Page 19 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

Linguistic Groups Their Origin and Dispersals Manjil Hazarika

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199474660.003.0003

Abstract and Keywords An old-fashioned somatological analysis of the racial composition of the presentday populations of Northeast India suggested that this area was home to two major races of mankind, the Caucasoid and the Mongoloid, and modern population genetic studies now provide us with an even more fine-meshed and complex view of population prehistory. Close proximity of these populations in terms of settlements has led to exchange of genes between the two groups. This chapter provides a detailed account of the linguistic situation in Northeast India, which is relevant to our understanding of the prehistoric dispersals of linguistic groups. Various linguistic hypotheses and feasible archaeological links are discussed in this chapter. Probable routes of migration are also discussed on the basis of linguistic, ethnographical, historical, and folkloristic data. Keywords:   Tibeto-Burman, Austroasiatic, population genetics, population prehistory, population movement, linguistic groups, folkloristic data

When we are looking at the archaeology, we are looking at the past, but we are looking at just one version of the past, which is the material culture. Linguistics also gives a version of the past, and population genetics gives us another version of the past, and these three versions of prehistory can be correlated but they need not necessarily have anything to do with each other. —George van Driem (2008c: 101)

Page 1 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups The use of independent evidence from different disciplines to reconstruct past population histories has proved to be of particular significance in recent years. Such independent evidence comprises archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data. Archaeological record offers meaningful data on ancient material culture and the development of technology with a time frame for the emergence of innovations. Historical linguistic data are useful for independent phylogenetic analysis of linguistic relationships, which often complement archaeological data and provide clues about ancient migrations and possible events of admixture. Genetic data are extremely helpful to understand and interpret the biological relationships which exist between modern people and the likely points of origin and expansion of their ancestors (Scheinfeldt, Soi, and Tishkoff 2010: 8931). Notwithstanding the methodological differences between historical linguistics and (p.44) archaeology, both disciplines aim to reconstruct the ‘sequences of events, the one linguistic and the other material-cultural’ (Spriggs and Blench 1998: 29). More importantly, connecting historical linguistic data with archaeology generates testable hypotheses (Blench 2004). Our current knowledge of the population history in Northeast India is based on simplistic phylogenetic data. However, the hypotheses of historical linguistics should be tested through archaeological record. In view of the usefulness of independent evidence to reconstruct population history of a particular area, this chapter is an attempt to highlight the linguistic situation in Northeast India in terms of our understanding of the dispersals of ancient linguistic groups. Plausible migration histories of these groups have been addressed on the basis of linguistic, genetic, ethnographical, historical, and folkloristic data. However, one has to also keep in mind caveats such as those voiced by George van Driem: Very often language seems to be less ambiguously correlated with the geographical distribution of genetic markers in the populations speaking the languages in question. So, can genes and languages generally be correlated and contrasted with each other in a more meaningful way than either can be with the fragments of material culture that happen to have resurfaced unscathed from the sands of time? On the one hand, the linguistic ancestors of a language community were not necessarily the same people as the biological ancestors of that community. At the same time, the genetic picture often shows sexual dimorphism in linguistic prehistory. (van Driem 2011a: 24)

The Linguistic Situation in Northeast India A great variety of languages are spoken by different linguistic communities in the region. However, many of these languages are not known or are poorly understood and on the verge of extinction and often regarded as endangered languages (van Driem 2007a and 2007b). For a number of languages, only a small group of speakers continue to speak the language. Since these communities interact with neighbouring Assamese or Bengali speakers, they in Page 2 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups most cases become fluent in these languages too. As most of these linguistic groups live close together, the possibility for the diffusion of linguistic features though contact situations over extended periods (p.45) of time could have resulted in common linguistic features, even when these languages are not genetically related. Karbi, also known as Mikir, is a Tibeto-Burman language, but Moral (1996: 44) has claimed that the language shows evidence of having been exposed to the Austroasiatic language Khasi. Indeed, such an ancient contact situation between the two language communities finds possible archaeological corroboration in the form of ancient Khasi megaliths, the distribution of which extends far beyond the current Khasi area, well into the Mikir Hills also known as the Karbi Anglong (van Driem 2001: 281). In describing the linguistic importance of Northeast India, Post (2008: 5) asserts that it is ‘without a doubt, and by any measure, the richest, most diverse, most linguistically significant area in the entire Asian continent, and is one of the top 3 or 4 most significant linguistic areas of the entire world’. Recently, Blench and Post (2014) on the basis of their work in Arunachal Pradesh show that urgent attention from linguists is required to document the lesser known languages spoken in the region considering their uniqueness and endangered status. The study also suggests that many of these languages or clusters could well be isolates, and that the Tibeto-Burman roots they demonstrate may well be borrowings.

Linguistic Groups and Theories of Their Dispersals In terms of geography, Northeast India was always destined to play a crucial role in shaping the population prehistory of not just the Indian subcontinent but also East Asia and Southeast Asia (van Driem 2014a, 2014b). This region of India can rightly be equated with northwest India, through which the country was linked with Western and Central Asia. Through these two corners of the subcontinent, men, material culture, and ideas have entered since prehistoric times and have given rise to the inestimable variety of races and cultures with which India is distinguished today (Chatterji 1970: 7–8). Mills (1928: 24) called Northeast India ‘one of the great migration routes of mankind’. D.K. Medhi (2003: 322) refers to this region as the ‘Great Indian Corridor’ for the prehistoric and proto-historic movements of people from and to its neighbouring regions. The movement of people took place not only in the historical period but continues to the present as well. (p.46) The Ahom are a Kradai group which came to Northeast India from the kingdom of Pong in the upper Irrawaddy basin, a polity which straddled a part of upper Burma and the adjacent portion of the Chinese province Yúnnán. Around 1228, the Ahom were led across the Patkai range into the Brahmaputra valley under the leadership of Siukapha. The Ahom are ethnolinguistically related to the Shan, a prominent Tai group in Burma, and indeed the ethnonyms Ahom, Shan, and Siam are all cognate. Historical phonology tells us that at the time when the Ahom polity was established in the Northeast, the name Ahom was still pronounced *asam, and the present name of the Indian state and Page 3 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups ironically also that of the Indo-Aryan language Assamese derive from this native Kradai ethnonym (van Driem 2001: 329). The migration of this Kradai group into the Northeast led to the establishment of the Ahom kingdom that existed for almost 600 years. Thanks to the chronicles written during the Ahom period, the cultural, economic, social, and linguistic history of the upper Brahmaputra valley from the 13th century AD is comparatively well known. Other Kradai groups of Northeast India such as the Aiton, Khampti, Khamyangs, Phake, and Turung are recorded as having come to Northeast India in the 17th and 18th centuries. Before the advent of the Ahom, the inscriptional and numismatic evidence attests to the emergence of different principalities or smaller kingdoms in the valley since about the 5th century AD, particularly in the Dhansiri–Doyang and Kopili–Jamuna valleys. The advent of Indo-Aryan colonists at this time is associated with the rise of the Kāmarūpa kingdom, which flourished from the 4th to the 13th centuries in what is today western Assam. The polity was characterized by an Indo-Aryan élite and a Tibeto-Burman populace speaking an early form of Bodo-Koch. Yet in reality the polity was alternatingly ruled by IndoAryan and indigenous but Hinduized Bodo-Koch dynasties, and the process of Hinduization in the lower Brahmaputra valley may have begun as early as the 1st century AD (van Driem 2001: 505–6). K.L. Barua (1933) suggested that some form of the proto-Bodo-Koch language probably acted as a lingua franca throughout the Brahmaputra valley prior to the advent of the Ahom. More recently the same suggestion was put forward by DeLancey (2010: 29). The Indo-Aryan élite, however, had already at this time introduced Prakrit, which was to evolve into modern Assamese. (p.47) Sometimes speculations about the linguistic history appear to be sheer guesswork, as when Moral writes the following without explanation: [The] Tibeto-Burman tribes came through Burma and entered the hills and valleys of Assam in about 1000 BC. They gradually encroached upon the Austric settlers who have been settling here since 2000 to 2500 BC and forced most of them to take refuge in mountainous homes. That was how the Khasis thrived in their mountainous homes high on the hills of Meghalaya. (Moral 1996: 24, 52) In contrast to such guesswork, reasoned inferences have been put forward and careful correlations have been undertaken between different types of evidence in order to arrive at a reconstruction of the prehistory of the region with a transparent and adjustable argument structure, carefully weighing emerging archaeological, linguistic, palaeontological, palaeoethnobotanical, and ethnographical data.

Page 4 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups The Austroasiatic Language Family

The Austroasiatic language family includes well-known languages and language groups such as Khasi, Munda, Nicobarese, Vietnamese, and Khmer. This widespread language phylum in South and Southeast Asia comprises well over 200 languages, yet over 90 per cent of all Austroasiatics speak just one language —Vietnamese. While most languages are spoken by tiny language communities, only Khasi, Khmer, and Vietnamese are widely spoken languages that have expanded successfully in historical times. Austroasiatic used to be conventionally divided into two major branches, Mon-Khmer and Munda. The world’s leading authority on Austroasiatic linguistics, Gérard Diffloth (2005), challenged this traditional bifurcation of the family, stressing the time depth of the split between the Khasi-Khmuic and Mon-Khmer branches of the language family. Diffloth proposed a trifurcation at the deepest linguistically reconstructible level between Munda, Khasi-Khmuic, and Mon-Khmer. Later, Diffloth (2009) reverted to a revised bipartite model of the language family, but with the two main branches of Austroasiatic now being Munda and Khasi-Aslian. Diffloth’s current language family tree appears in print in an article by van Driem (2012c: 130, Fig. 19). The reproduced (p.48) tree diagram deviates, however, in one minor respect from the model which Diffloth himself presented in 2009. The Munda languages are native to India, concentrated in and around the Chota Nagpur plateau. Munda is traditionally subdivided into north and south Munda, and this old view is reproduced in the diagram in van Driem (2012c: 130, Fig. 19). However, according to Diffloth’s more meticulous 2005 phylogeny, Koraput is the first sub-branch to split off, the Kharia-Juang subgroup of languages and Lects is the second sub-branch to split off, and the remainder of Munda split into the two sub-branches Kherwarian and Korku at a younger time depth. Munda groups such as Juang, Gata, Bondo, Bodo Gadaba, Paranga, and Saora occupy the Koraput and the adjoining districts of Orissa, while the Kherwarian groups comprising Asur, Birhor, Ho, Korwa, Santhal, Turi, and Munda are spread across Jharkhand (Ranchi, Gumla, Lohardaga, and Singhbhum districts), Orissa (Mayurbhanj, Keonjhar, and Sundergarh districts), Madhya Pradesh (Raigarh and Jashpur districts), and West Bengal (Birbhum, Nadia, and Bakura districts). A section of Korku inhabits the northeastern border areas of Maharashtra. Other than this detail, the tree diagram in van Driem (2012c: 130, Fig. 19) represents the state of the art in Austroasiatic linguistics. The large Khasi-Aslian trunk of the family, coordinate with Munda, splits into a Khasi-Pakanic and a Mon-Khmer branch. Khasian is the first sub-branch to split off of Khasi-Pakanic, and Khasian languages are spoken in the eastern Meghalaya and the Jaintia Hills. In addition to the dialects of Khasi, the Khasian subgroup comprises the languages Synteng, Lyngngam, and Amwi also known as War, which are clearly distinct but related languages. The second sub-branch to split off of KhasiPakanic is Khmuic, leaving behind a Pakano-Palaungic branch, which splits into Page 5 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups the subgroups Pakanic and Palaungic at a younger time depth. Khmuic languages are found in northern Laos and northern Thailand, including the many dialects of Khmu, the Mal-Phrai languages, and Mlabri. The Palaungic branch, formerly called Palaung-Wa, extends over northern Thailand and Laos, eastern Burma, and southwestern Yúnnán. The Eastern Palaungic language family contains several Palaung languages, the Riang dialects, and Danau, whereas the Western Palaungic one contains the three language subgroups Waic, Angkuic, and Lametic. The most differentiated of these is the Waic group, which includes Bulang, the many (p.49) Lawa dialects, and the Wa languages, which have over half a million speakers. The Angkuic group includes several very small and nearly unknown languages such as Angku, U, Hu, Mok, Man Met, and Kiorr (Diffloth and Zide 1992). The Pakanic languages are a fragmentary little-known group in southern China. The Mon-Khmer branch splits into the Khmero-Vietic and Nico-Monic branches. Khmero-Vietic in turn splits into the Vieto-Katuic sub-branch, comprising the subgroups Vietic and Katuic, and the Khmero-Bahnaric sub-branch, comprising the subgroups Khmeric and Bahnaric. The Nico-Monic branch splits into Nicobarese languages, spoken on the Nicobars in the Andaman Sea, and the Asli-Monic sub-branch, comprising the subgroups Monic and Aslian. The Pearic subgroup occupies an indeterminate position within the Mon-Khmer branch. Pearic languages have undergone much contact influence from Khmer, and Khmer appears to have expanded largely at the expense of Pearic. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Robert von Heine-Geldern proposed in 1932 on archaeological and ethnolinguistic grounds that the Austroasiatic groups of the Indian subcontinent originated from an ancestral homeland in Southeast Asia. He also expressed the view, which at that time already reflected a widespread consensus among ethnographers, anthropologists, and linguists, that the Austroasiatic presence in the north of the Indian subcontinent antedated the Dravidians and also the Indo-Europeans who came much later (van Driem 2001: 408, 416). His archaeological arguments involving the Schulterbeilkultur (shouldered axe culture, proposed by Robert von HeineGeldern, 1932) have since Colani’s work basically been applied mutatis mutandis to the Hoabinhian. Blench (2008: 163) adheres to this old theory, envisaging Austroasiatic linguistic groups as having spread from the Mekong valley westwards across a number of other river valleys. The geographical distribution and isolation of different Austroasiatic groups over a large area suggests to Blench that the Tibeto-Burman language groups subsequently spread southwards. Peiros and Shnirelman (1997) argued that the reconstructed Austroasiatic lexicon does not contain any words associated with the sea coast. Moreover, linguistic palaeontology, according to Peiros and Schnirelman offer no clear indication of a tropical environment. Consequently, they propose an Austroasiatic homeland in (p.50) mainland eastern Eurasia, where a non-

Page 6 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups tropical climate prevailed. They envisage a sub-tropical mountainous homeland along the Middle Yangtze. Linguistic palaeontological study on the possible homeland of the Austroasiatic linguistic group by Gérard Diffloth (2005) demonstrates that speakers of the Austroasiatic proto-language were thoroughly familiar with rice agriculture, as evinced by the rich lexicon of rice agriculture terms reconstructible to the common ancient language. Even the names of the animal species in the reconstructed proto-Austroasiatic lexicon are restricted to the humid tropics. The geographical distribution of the different branches of Austroasiatic linguistic groups also point towards a centre of the greatest historical diversity in the region encompassing the fertile flood plains of the Irrawaddy in Burma and the lower Brahmaputra in Assam and Bangladesh. Diffloth proposed a primary split between Munda and Khasi-Aslian in a location somewhere within the littoral arc of the Bay of Bengal. According to Diffloth, the reconstruction of words for tree monitor, anteater, buffalo, mountain goat, bear cat, elephant, peacock, rhinoceros, and bamboo rat at the proto-Austroasiatic level as well as the rich reconstructible rice cultivation vocabulary imply that the Austroasiatic homeland was located in the tropics. To Diffloth this evidence suggested an area in northeastern India, the Indo-Burmese borderlands, Burma, and Yúnnán, which would indicate that the Austroasiatic homeland may have lain in the northeast, or at least more towards Southeast Asia than India proper. At one time it appeared that the best archaeological correlate for the ancient rice cultivating culture might be the Hemudu archaeological assemblage (5000– 4500 BC) at the mouth of the Yangtze, which provided the best unambiguous evidence for a population for whom rice is the staple (van Driem 2007c). Yet the story revealed by rice genetics, the archaeology of rice, and the linguistic palaeontology of the Austroasiatic language family turns out to be more complex. This tale is told by van Driem (2012a, 2012b) on the basis of the most recent findings of rice population genetics, reconstructible Austroasiatic fauna etyma provided by Diffloth, and a critical assessment of the finds of palaeobotanists, their reasoning, and the significance of vast gaps in the archaeology of regions (p.51) relevant to resolving the issue. A review of the population genetic literature undertaken by Kumar and Reddy (2003: 501) was unable to arrive at any consensus regarding the provenance and migratory history of the Austroasiatic peoples during the peopling of India. Yet more recently, with the aid of new human population genetic research with better results, the story on rice has led to a new model of the provenance of Austroasiatic linguistic groups, distinguishing several distinct chronological layers (van Driem 2013), but we shall return to this model later. First, we shall turn to another Austroasiatic homeland hypothesis.

Page 7 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups Paul Sidwell contends that in spite of years of research there is no general consensus on the relations between Austroasiatic branches, the age or diversity of the language family, and an appropriate programme for addressing these issues (Sidwell 2010: 117). On the basis of the geographical distribution of Austroasiatic speakers, Sidwell proposed that the Austroasiatic languages dispersed along an axis which ran roughly southeast to northwest along the middle course of the Mekong River as the greatest number of Austroasiatic branches are spoken along this axis. He calls this proposal the ‘Austroasiatic Central Riverine Hypothesis’ (Sidwell 2010: 118). This hypothesis is not at all inherently implausible, but, despite its novel label, Sidwell’s hypothesis is basically Robert von Heine-Geldern’s 1932 hypothesis, as reinterpreted by Blench (2008). Nonetheless, this proposition has been severely criticized by Peiros (2011), who argues that locating the original homeland of a proto-language and tracing possible migrations of speakers can be conducted based on the current geographical locations of genetically diverse languages. The current distribution pattern of Austroasiatic languages suggests a movement along river valleys of the Brahmaputra, Irrawaddy, Salween, Mekong, and their tributaries, whereby the starting point of the original Austroasiatic migrations must have lain in present-day southern Sìchuān near the upper Yangtze. From this area, Peiros envisages the Proto-Austroasiatics moving into different parts of Southeast Asia. Stressing the present-day montane location of many Austroasiatic language communities, Peiros (2011) suggests that the homeland of the language group was located not at the bottom of a tropical valley, but on much higher ground. (p.52) The Tibeto-Burman or Trans-Himalayan Language Family

The Tibeto-Burman or Trans-Himalayan language family includes over 300 languages stretching from the Himalayas to East Asia and into Northeast India and Southeast Asia. The language family was first recognized by Julius von Klaproth in 1823, and in terms of numbers of speakers this language family is the second most populous on the planet. Like the Austroasiatic and many other large language families, the distribution of speakers is lopsided and the result of recent developments in the historical period. Linguistically speaking, most Tibeto-Burmans belong to just a few language communities such as Cantonese, Burmese, Tibetan, and Mandarin, whereas hundreds of Tibeto-Burman languages are spoken by anywhere between several hundred thousand and just a handful of speakers. The precise phylogeny of the language family is the object of research (van Driem 2001). It merits mention that there is an embattled group of scholars called the SinoTibetanists, who adhere to an empirically unsupported family tree model. This Indo-Chinese or Sino-Tibetan model was inherited by a generation of American scholars after the Great Depression without any historical linguistic evidence Page 8 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups ever having been presented for the family tree. Instead, the Chinese or Sinitic languages were treated as a distinct primary branch of this ‘Sino-Tibetan’ family because of racist typological arguments dating from the time of scientific racism which showed that Sinitic represented the lowest rung on the typological ladder of language evolution (van Driem 2003, 2005, 2007d, 2014a). A later generation of Sino-Tibetanists have tried to turn this argument around and attempted to propagate a Sinocentric view whereby the entire family ostensibly originated from the cradle of Chinese civilization on the North China plain, for example, one may refer to LaPolla (2006). The writings of the so-called Sino-Tibetanists cannot be understood unless one is aware that they use the term ‘TibetoBurman’ not in its original sense, to designate the family as a whole, but collectively to designate all non-Sinitic languages, which they believe to represent one single branch of the family coordinate with Sinitic. Since the 1990s, the Sino-Tibetanists have become increasingly embarrassed by the lack of evidence for their model and its origins in scientific racism, but old paradigms are often tenacious and some hold on to the obsolete label to save face. (p.53) The most state-of-the-art classification of the Tibeto-Burman languages is provided by George van Driem (2001, 2014a). While most speakers of TibetoBurman languages live to the northeast of the Himalayas, most primary subgroups of the Trans-Himalayan linguistic phylum are located to the southwest of the Himalayan divide. Furthermore, the epicentre of diversity for the language family as a whole lies in Northeast India and the surrounding hill tracts. Unaware of the phylogenetic complexity of the ethnolinguistic groups in the Northeast, Matisoff (1991) attempted to put all of the subgroups of Northeast India with which he, as a Lolo-Burmanist, was least familiar into a single branch called ‘Kamarupan’ without presenting any historical linguistic evidence in the form of sound laws or shared innovations. This ungrounded catchall was criticized by Burling (1999: 169–71) and van Driem (1999: 50), and in his rejoinder Matisoff (1999) failed to adduce any argument in defence of the subgroup. Similar objections have been raised against the term ‘Baric’ which covers most of the languages of Northeast India (DeLancey 1991), but these criticisms basically echo the reservations of Robert Shafer himself, who explicitly used this label for a category which Shafer insisted did not represent a branch, subgroup, or taxon, but a reservoir of subgroups whose precise phylogenetic relationships were yet to be worked out.

Synthesis of Historical Linguistics and Prehistoric Archaeological Data So far we have looked at the two major language families of greatest relevance to Northeast India, the Austroasiatic and the Tibeto-Burman, and we have mentioned language communities belonging to other linguistic phyla such as Kradai and Indo-European. Worldwide, in archaeology, the Neolithic period witnessed several important events of population prehistory including demographic change and expansion to new areas and further admixture among different groups. With the advent of agriculture and pastoralism, more complex Page 9 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups societal issues emerged including exchange of goods within and outside a territory. Population movements involved not only cultural exchange but also the expansion of language and genetic lineages to different areas. Although movements of people prior to the Neolithic period is also a matter of intense research, this post-Pleistocene (p.54) period has especially attracted the attention of archaeologists, linguists, and genetic scientists due to the availability of a larger dataset to examine the population dispersals independently in different parts of the world. Application of an independent dataset to understand population history in Africa has provided meaningful insights, suggesting that the populations in close geographic proximity to each other as well as populations that speak linguistically similar languages are more likely to exchange genes. The geographical barrier also limits the gene flow as evident in the analysis of the north African and sub-Saharan African populations (Scheinfeldt, Soi, and Tishkoff 2010: 8931–8). Another notable recent study of the application of historical linguistic and archaeological data involved the reconstruction of the Southern Jê languages of Brazil (de Souza 2011). A more complex multidisciplinary study based on archaeological, ecological, cultural, historical, social, linguistic, and genetic data conducted in the Polynesia has provided vital insights into the human settlement and colonization of the Pacific (Hurles et al. 2003). The usefulness of historical linguistic data for solving and interpreting archaeological and historical problems has gained more attention in recent years, which is evident from numerous publications (Bellwood 2005; Bellwood and Renfrew 2002; Blench and Spriggs 1997–9; Blench 2006; Enfield 2011; Forster and Renfrew 2006; Jin, Seielstad, and Xiao 2001; Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002; McConvell and Evans 1997; Renfrew 1987; Renfrew, McMahon, and Trask 2000; Sagart, Blench, Sanchez-Mazas 2005; Sanchez-Mazas et al. 2008; Southworth 2005a; van Driem 2001). There has been an attempt to find support or possible archaeological correlates for Pedersen’s 1903 ‘Nostratic hypothesis’, which argues that several of the world’s language families are related in their origin, grammar, and lexicon, and belong together in a larger unit of earlier origin. The Nostratic language family includes Altaic, Afro-Asiatic, IndoEuropean, South Caucasian (Kartvelian), Uralic, and Dravidian languages (Dolgopolsky 2008; Renfrew 2008). The promising new trend of research integrating data from historical linguistics, prehistoric archaeology, and molecular genetics for reconstructing the population prehistory of the world has made great strides forward. Barua, an Assamese scholar, was one of the first to attempt to correlate the prehistoric culture of the region with (p.55) a particular ethnic and linguistic group. Barua was perhaps the first Indian scholar to follow Robert von Heine-Geldern in identifying the Neolithic culture of Assam with early Austroasiatics and Page 10 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups suggesting that the Khasis introduced the shouldered Neolithic hoe, terraced rice cultivation, Megalithic burials, and matriarchy, and later acquired the knowledge of iron smelting (Barua 1939: 6–18, 34–41). In this context, it may be mentioned that in a recent publication, Prokop and Suliga (2013) report the stratigraphic evidence of iron smelting in the Khasi Hills since 2040 ± 80 years BP (353 BC–AD 128), which may be considered as the earliest undisputed evidence of this metal in Northeast India. Khasis are traditionally known for iron smelting. When exploring this interdisciplinary area of research, the potential veracity and, therefore, intrinsic interest of our reconstruction is limited by the reliability of the input from the various disciplines. For example, contact influence between languages is a well-documented phenomenon, whereby the grammar and lexicon of two language communities living in close proximity influence each other because of interaction. However, at the current stage in the development of Tibeto-Burman historical linguistics, we must be wary as archaeologists of accepting any statement made by a linguist on the basis of phenomena such as contact influence in the absence of historical comparative research to support the statement. A typical example is LaPolla (2000), who envisages a mishmash of lines of migration into the Himalayan region from China, explaining away similarities in some areas as the result of contact influence and providing no plausible account for the phylogenetic diversity observed in Northeast India (LaPolla, 2001, 2006). In fact, LaPolla’s ‘reconstruction’ manifestly derives from van Driem’s 1998 study of possible Neolithic correlates of ancient TibetoBurman migrations, superficially recasting the data in a Sinocentric mould. George van Driem has not recanted the scenario outlined in his 1998 study even though he no longer believes that these movements in the archaeological record necessarily date to the founding dispersal of the language family as a whole. In fact, details of van Driem’s Neolithic scenario have been corroborated by archaeological research conducted since then. Rather, he now sees the episodes described in the study as corresponding to one slice or several slices of time in a long prehistory of peopling with a more complex chronological layering. (p.56) As the story unfolds, the narrative increases both in its complexity and in the empirical support for various aspects of the reconstruction (van Driem 2001, 2007c, 2007d, 2011a, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2013). Yet, let us focus now on the archaeological aspects as they pertain to the Neolithic period. The archaeological record shows a closer connection between Northeast Indian Neolithic and Neolithic assemblages in Sìchuān and Yúnnán than to those in Southeast Asia (van Driem 1998: 67–102). The Eastern Indian Neolithic wedges and tanged axes have clear parallels in upper Burma, Yúnnán, and Sìchuan. Van Driem emphasizes the correlations of Tibeto-Burman language dispersal with Neolithic cultural expansion from South China. In his 1998 reconstruction, he still assumed that the proto-homeland of Tibeto-Burman language family lay in Page 11 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups Yúnnán and Sìchuān, which he then argued was the present geographical centre of gravity of the language family as a whole. The first migration of the language family out of this area was the western Tibeto-Burman migration to the fluvial plains of the lower Brahmaputra and the surrounding hill tracts (van Driem 1998: 69). The western Tibeto-Burman pioneers introduced the technologies of the eastern Indian Neolithic culture and were probably the first farming communities of Northeast India. On the basis of these linguistic and archaeological correlations, the hypothesis emerged that the Neolithic culture or the early farming culture of Northeast India emanated from what is today southwestern China, and it was the Tibeto-Burman groups of people who migrated from their original homeland and brought farming to Northeast India. Since then, van Driem’s model of Tibeto-Burman prehistory has changed, based first on linguistic evidence and then on supporting human population genetic evidence. Finally, he assails the gaps in the archaeological record and the neglect of the Neolithic culture by archaeologists across vast swathes of the eastern Eurasian heartland. First of all, on the basis of his revised ‘Fallen Leaves model’ of the Trans-Himalayan linguistic phylum, van Driem (2011c: 141) pointed out that the centre of the Tibeto-Burman language family lay not in Sìchuān but in Northeast India. The geographical centre point of the TibetoBurman language family may well lie in Sìchuān in terms of the distribution of modern language communities, but, in terms of the distribution of major subgroups or recognized taxa within the (p.57) Tibeto-Burman language family, the centre of gravity decidedly lies in Northeast India. In this respect, van Driem’s reconstruction is growing closer to Peiros (1998), who argued that the Tibeto-Burman homeland must have been located in the sub-Himalayas. In his new reconstruction, the provenance of the Northeast Indian Neolithic culture is called into question, and the question is left unanswered because basically archaeology has failed to address this question since the pioneering work in the 1960s of Ahmed Hasan Dani (1960) and Tarun Chandra Sharma (1966). The later episodes in van Driem’s 1998 reconstruction, however, may correspond to the linguistic correlates initially envisaged. The establishment of the Dadiwan, Cishan, and Peiligang cultures in the North China plain (Zhimin, 1992) may represent ancient Sinitic culture, as van Driem (1998) initially proposed, or, perhaps more plausibly, the lure which motivated Proto-Sinitic population groups to move northeast to this area (van Driem, 2007b). At a much shallower time depth, the spread of the Majiayao Neolithic culture from Gansu across eastern Tibet (reflected by sites such as mKhar-ro or Karuo) (Xizang Zizhiqu Wenwu Guanli Weiyuan Hui 1979) as far as the western Himalayas (reflected by sites such as Burzahom [Ramachandran 1989] in Kashmir) may correspond to the spread of Sino-Bodic, a hypothetical subgroup encompassing sub-subgroups such as Sinitic, Bodish, West Himalayish, Tamangic, and perhaps other closely related Tibeto-Burman taxa. The site of Karuo is the earliest known Neolithic site on the Tibetan plateau and is important for understanding the Page 12 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups beginning of farming based on foxtail and broomcorn millets in the region (d’Alpoim Guedes 2015). Another important feature of van Driem’s (2011, 2013) most recent reconstructions of ethnolinguistic population prehistory is that the various chronological layers at distinct time depths are carefully distinguished. Moreover, the notion of the linguistic event horizon (van Driem, 2013) underscores a maximally reconstructible time depth accessible to historical linguistics via the application of the comparative method. Large population movements for which the clearest linguistic evidence can be adduced are often very recent, such as the historically attested Han spread into southern China from the 3rd century BC or the spread of Tibetic languages across the Tibetan plateau, beginning in the 1st millennium AD. (p.58) In agreement with van Driem’s (2007a, 2007b, 2011a, 2011b) newest reconstructions, Blench (2009, 2011) suggests that the earliest speakers of Tibeto-Burman languages were highly diverse foragers living in an arc between the slopes of the Himalayas and Assam and Arunachal Pradesh around 10,000 years ago. Some may have spoken unknown languages whose speakers now manifest themselves only as relict groups such as Kusunda. Blench (2009, 2011) proposes that these foragers probably began to practise vegeculture of such plants as taro and plantains and arboriculture of sago particularly in Northeast India and management of animals like mithun (or gayal, Bos frontalis) by 6,000 years BP. Around 5,000 years BP early Trans-Himalayan groups spread eastwards to China, and the Sinitic group is one of the many migratory groups (Blench 2009, 2011). These populations encountered other diverse populations with varied cultural backgrounds and agricultural practices. D’Alpoim Guedes and colleagues (2013) suggest that earliest introduction of agricultural products to the Tibetan plateau included foxtail (Setaria italica) and broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum), which were introduced to the eastern part of the plateau by c. 3500 BC, possibly from western Sìchuān or the Gansu-Qinghai highlands. The role of millets in agricultural origins in the Tibetan plateau has been thoroughly discussed (see Barton et al. 2009; Bettinger, Barton, and Morgan 2010; Bettinger et al. 2010; Crawford 2009; d’Alpoim Guedes 2011; d’Alpoim Guedes and Butler 2014; d’Alpoim Guedes et al. 2013; Liu et al. 2012; Lu et al. 2009; Yang et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2010). Blench (2009, 2011) argues that cereals like buckwheat, foxtail (Setaria), and broomcorn (Panicum) millets were brought under domestication in the montane areas on the fringes of the Himalayas. Yet, Blench’s (2009, 2011) reconstruction corresponds only to one episode in the more complex chronologically layered reconstruction developed by van Driem (2014a). The origins of the TibetoBurman or Trans-Himalayan linguistic phylum as a whole lay in or very near Northeast India at its deepest level. It is more than probable that many migrations involving Tibeto-Burmans in this area, however, occurred during Page 13 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups more recent epochs of Holocene prehistory. The ethnobotanical and rice genetics data also show a long history of rice cultivation in this part of India (for details, see Hazarika, 2006a, 2011, 2014). (p.59) Now, let us turn to the most well-informed reconstruction of ethnolinguistic prehistory as regards the Austroasiatic language family. In view of the linguistic palaeontological data and epicentre of phylogenetic diversity of Austroasiatic language communities, the geographical centre of gravity of the family may be proposed to have lain in the area around the northern coast of the Bay of Bengal covering the eastern extremity of South Asia and much of the southern littoral of Southeast Asia. On linguistic grounds alone, the original homeland of the Austroasiatic could have lain ‘on either side of the Ganges and Brahmaputra delta’ (van Driem 2011a: 16–17, 2011b: 361–2, 2012a: 191). However, recent linguistic palaeontological research pinpoints two groups, the ancient Austroasiatics and the ancestral Hmong-Mien, as the most likely candidates for the first cultivators of rice (van Driem 2012a: 193–4). The relationship of both the Austroasiatic and Hmong-Mien groups to rice agriculture and their complex human population genetic relationship to each other, combined with recent advances and new insights into rice genetics, allow us to infer that rice agriculture was an early Austroasiatic technology (van Driem 2012b: 338). Furthermore, van Driem (2012a: 197) suggests that the ancient Austroasiatics may have favoured Oryza nivara, whereas the ancient Hmong-Mien may have favoured Oryza rufipogon. Both language families robustly reflect rice agriculture terminology (van Driem 2011a: 23, 2012c: 118). Finally, and crucially, with respect to the archaeological examination undertaken in the present work, the origins of the Austroasiatic linguistic group according to the most well-informed interdisciplinary view to date must have lain in or very near Northeast India. The Austroasiatic and the Tibeto-Burman language families are the most crucial languages for our understanding of the ethnolinguistic prehistory of Northeast India. At the same time, the yet largely unexplored archaeology of this ecologically and topographically complex region, which we have identified as a major corridor in the peopling of Asia (Hazarika 2006b, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016b), is also crucial to our understanding of the prehistory of both TibetoBurman and Austroasiatic linguistic groups. It is also critical to the understanding of the nature and dynamics of changing human relations through time across this region. The available archaeological record from the late Pleistocene period till the beginning of the historic period provides (p.60) cultural connections of the region with the surrounding areas of South, East, and Southeast Asia (Hazarika 2013, 2014, 2016b). Compared to the archaeological investigations carried out in the Ganges and Yangtze River valleys, northeastern India and particularly the Brahmaputra valley and the Indo-Burmese borderlands have not been sufficiently explored in Page 14 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups a scientific manner even until the present day. In the future, special attention must be devoted to the recovery of archaeobotanical, archaeozoological, and palaeo-environmental information. One likely cause for the lack of evidence is the constant fluvial activity in the Brahmaputra flood plain which may very well have buried the archaeological evidence for early rice cultivation or washed them out into the Bay of Bengal (van Driem 2011a: 23). As most of the excavations at the Neolithic sites of Northeast India were conducted on a smaller scale and no emphasis was given for recording botanical remains, there is dearth of evidence for reconstructing the origins of agriculture in the region (Hazarika 2006a, 2006b). However, recent palaeoethnobotanical investigations at the sites of New Phor, Chungliyimti, Khusomi, Khezakenoma, Movolomi, Phor and Ranyak Khen (cave) in the uplands of Nagaland have provided evidence of plant remains including Oryza sp. (cf. officinalis, rufipogon, sativa), Triticum cf. aestivum, Vigna sp. (cf. aconitifolia, radiata, unguiculata), Lathyrus sp., Macrotyloma uniflorum, Paspalum sp., Setaria sp., Echinochloa sp., Gossypium sp., Ziziphus sp., Coix sp., Bombax sp., Emblica cf. officinalis, Zanthoxyllum sp. and Solanum sp. and some unidentified seeds. The findings of millets (Setaria sp., Paspalum sp., and Echinochloa sp.) with wild and cultivated rice suggest that these millet-grasses were gathered/cultivated for consumption (Pokharia et al. 2013: 1346). At this stage of research, it is unclear whether these millets were indigenous or had been introduced to the region. Similar investigations at the sites located in the foothills of the Himalayas would be valuable for understanding the domestication of crops. However, as most of the prehistoric sites of Northeast India are located in elevated areas rather than the lowlands, more attention should be paid to exploring the foothills of the Himalayas and all of the hill tracts of the region in search of potential archaeological sites. Special attention should be given for exploring the different passes or duars (gateways) located in the Himalayan foothills, which were the routes of movement for the early inhabitants in the region. (p.61)

Emerging Genetic Data and Its Implications There have been attempts to address the issue of the origin and migration of the eastern Himalayan tribes by population geneticists. One challenge to the advocates of the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis (for example, Diamond and Bellwood 2003), as formulated long ago, was that ‘the population wave of advance accompanying the spread of early farming should be reflected … in the genetic compositions of the resulting population’ (Ammerman and CavalliSforza, 1971: 687). All of the human population genetic data, inasmuch as they have a bearing on Asian ethnolinguistic prehistory, underscore the crucial importance of the eastern Himalayan region, particularly Northeast India, and therefore the urgency of a systematic programme of archaeological research throughout the region.

Page 15 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups The story of population genetics is a complex one. It is useful to point out another difference between the disciplines other than the claim that prehistory is only accessible to historical linguistics at a shallower time depth than it is to archaeology and population genetics. The state of the art arguably advances or at least changes more rapidly in human population genetics than it does in either historical linguistics or archaeology. Early genetic studies on Indian populations (for example, Mukherjee et al. 2001; Cordaux et al. 2003; and Dutta et al. 2003), although conducted based on state-of-the-art knowledge at the time, now already appear outdated. On the basis of similar results, one group of geneticists at the time inferred that the ancestors of the Chinese migrated to the North China plain from the Himalayas (Chu et al. 1998), while another group argued that the ancestors of the Tibeto-Burman populations in the Himalayas migrated southwest from the North China plain (Su et al. 2000). Often genetic studies merely corroborate what we already know and expect on the basis of linguistics. For example, an autosomal microsatellite study showed that Bodish populations display a greater tendency to cluster together when compared to Mizo-Kuki-Chin language communities (Krithika, Maji, and Vasulu 2007, 2008). The Shompen and other Nicobarese groups are shown to be genetically close to Mon-Khmer groups on the Southeast Asian mainland (Trivedi et al. 2006), as opposed to the ethnolinguistically and phenotypically entirely distinct Andamanese groups, who live on the nearby Andaman Islands. By the same token, population genetic studies often corroborate what archaeologists have (p.62) long inferred simply on the basis of facts of geography, namely that Northeast India served as a major corridor for the peopling of eastern Eurasia (Basu et al. 2003; Sahoo et al. 2006; Kumar et al. 2006; Reddy et al. 2007). Similarly, as against the hypothesis that the Himalayas acted as a barrier for human movements in the past (Cordaux et al. 2004), recent studies show that the Himalayas and especially the Terai acted as a pivotal passageway allowing multiple population interactions in different times (Fornarino et al. 2009). Archaeological record also suggests cultural interaction across Himalaya and its borderland since late Quaternary period (Hazarika 2011d, 2012a, 2016b). In the past decade, the molecular clock based on calculated coalescence times used by population geneticists, despite not being as accurate as the dates of archaeologists using dendrochronologically calibrated radiocarbon dating, have been improving. Speculations are no longer based just on haplotype frequency gradients. Rooted topologies are accorded due significance, and a higher resolution of molecular polymorphisms has now been attained. The upshot of the newest findings of population geneticists with respect to language families is that there is seldom any or only minor correlation of language families with mitochondrial lineages. Instead, mitochondrial lineages, which reflect maternal ancestry, appear largely to reflect the oldest wave of people migrating out of Africa in many areas, although subsequent movements are also of course in evidence. This phenomenon accounts for the fact that inferences on the basis of Page 16 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups mitochondrial DNA have tended to emphasize early layers of population prehistory. For expansion, Hill and colleagues (2006) attribute the expansion of Hoabinhian from southern China and Vietnam into the Malay Peninsula with the arrival of the R9b and N9a mitochondrial DNA (mt DNA) haplogroups. Soares and colleagues (2008) maintain that a close relationship exists between the geographical extent of post-Last Glacial Maximum flake-blade industries and the mitochondrial haplogroup E lineages in Southeast Asia. Studies along similar lines conducted in Japan by Tanaka et al. (2004) and Peng et al. (2011) inferred on the basis of mitochondrial data that southern China and Southeast Asia served as the source of certain post-Last Glacial Maximum dispersals. Moreover, ancient population movements during the Last Glacial Maximum between 26.5 to 19 ka BP generally (p.63) involved admixture rather than replacement, just as in the case of modern population movements (Chandrasekar et al. 2009). In contrast, Y-chromosomal polymorphisms, which reflect paternal ancestry, correlate astonishingly well with the distribution of major language families in Asia, although they are by no means congruent. This correlation between a community’s language and that community’s prevalent paternal ancestries has been termed the Father Tongue Hypothesis (van Driem 2002). The Father Tongue Hypothesis suggests that linguistic dispersals were, at least in most parts of the world, posterior to initial human colonization and that many linguistic dispersals were predominantly later male-biased intrusions (van Driem 2014b). Van Driem is the first to stress that linguistic affinity and biological ancestry are two fundamentally distinct albeit probabilistically correlated entities, and that a molecular polymorphism cannot be construed as being identical with a marker for a particular ethnolinguistic affinity. The list of caveats which he adduces is longer, and the transparency of the argument structure enables inferences to be evaluated and reassessed in the light of emergent population genetic data and also revised in the light of new insights from archaeology and historical linguistics. In a highly simplified version, therefore, a series of publications has identified the Y chromosomal haplogroup O2a (M95) with the Austroasiatics, the paternal lineage O3a3c (M134) with the Tibeto-Burmans, the paternal haplogroup O3a3b (M7) with Hmong-Mien, and the Y chromosomal lineage O1a (M119) with the spread of Austronesian (van Driem 2007c, 2007d, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b, 2014b). The identification of the Y chromosomal haplogroup O2a (M95) with the Austroasiatics was borne out in the genetic study by Chaubey et al. (2010), correcting inaccuracies or imprecision in earlier publications, for example, Kumar and Reddy (2003), Reddy et al. (2007), Kumar et al. (2007). Ancient Austroasiatics must have brought their language into the Indian subcontinent from Southeast Asia, perhaps during the Neolithic period. The paternal lineage of the Munda tribe correlates well with the Austroasiatic language, but the maternal lineages are older and indigenous to the subcontinent. For the purposes of population genetic study, mainland Southeast Asia begins at the Page 17 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups Indo-Burmese borderlands and also includes adjacent portions of southwestern and southern China, and the exact locus of the origin of (p.64) Austroasiatics within this vast region has not been precisely identified. Previous studies had already shown complex interaction and genetic exchange between ancient Tibeto-Burmans and ancient Austroasiatics in this region (Cordaux et al. 2004; Sahoo et al. 2006; Kashyap et al. 2006). Moreover, as much as 47 per cent of the Tibeto-Burman populations in Northeast India also received the paternal lineage which has been hypothetically identified with the Austroasiatics. This would indicate that the Tibeto-Burman paternal lineages may have been partially replaced by incursive Austroasiatic lineages arriving in Northeast India (van Driem 2007d: 237). The colonization of the high valleys of Bhutan has been interpreted in response to glacial and monsoonal change in the last Ice Age. The Himalayan valleys could have served as a Last Glacial Maximum refugium for people (Meyer et al. 2009). The Y chromosomal haplogroup O3e (M134), associated with TibetoBurman linguistic groups, may be tied to one or several refuge areas in the eastern Himalayan region during the last Ice Age (van Driem 2011a: 27–9, 2014b). The identification of this paternal lineage with the Tibeto-Burman language family is corroborated by other studies, for example, that conducted by Wang and colleagues (2012). According to his reconstruction of the dispersal of Tibeto-Burman linguistic groups from some locus in or near Northeast India and the eastern Himalayan region, there were ancient groups that moved away, which led to linguistic descendants such as the Bai, Tujia, Qiangic, Ersuic, and Sinitic groups. There were also groups whose ancestors might have left the Himalayan region, or at least remained north of the great Himalayan divide, only to return in a later epoch and colonize portions of the southern flanks such as Bodish, West Himalayish, and Tamangic. Yet the majority of Tibeto-Burman subgroups and, indeed, the greater part of linguistic diversity within the TransHimalayan phylum appear to have long been a feature of the eastern Himalayan region. Ethnolinguistic diversity has been preserved better in the mountains and hill tracts than in the plains. In contrast, the Brahmaputra plains and portions of the Arunachal Hills may have been more prone to the effects of migrations and regional creoles. As mentioned, the archaeology of Northeast India remains poorly studied. Yet we know that Northeast India acted as a corridor for several multidirectional dispersal events in the late Pleistocene and (p.65) early Holocene periods (Hazarika 2011a, 2012a, 2013a, 2014, 2016b). This fact is particularly visible in the dispersal of Hoabinhian traits from Southeast Asia to as far as the northwestern sub-Himalayas through the Northeast Indian corridor. These events are reflected in the archaeological record as much as in the molecular genetic evidence. The painstaking research carried out by the late Gudrun Corvinus (2007) in Nepal has provided a cultural sequence right from the lower Palaeolithic until the Neolithic period. However, it is not clear if the later Page 18 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups cultures such as the Patu culture in the eastern Siwaliks and the Brakhuti culture in the western Terai can be linked with a particular linguistic group. In Northeast India, the archaeological record of only a few areas like the Garo Hills provides stratigraphic evidence for the sequence of late Pleistocene and early Holocene cultures. The discovery of Hoabinhian or Hoabinhian-like industry in the Siwaliks, Nepal, the Garo Hills, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and Bhutan suggests a population movement across the Himalayan region (Hazarika 2012a, 2013a, 2014, 2016b). A systematic investigation of the archaeological record of this region is urgently needed to shed more light on human movements from Africa across Asia to Australia, Oceania, and the Americas. Northeast India served as a strategic thoroughfare, not just once but repeatedly during many distinct episodes throughout prehistory, and it is high time that good modern archaeology explores this vast key region through meticulous research on local stratigraphies and sound dating techniques. Besides, there is advancement in our understanding of the peopling of the globe, by studying ancient DNA. By accessing the genetic make-up of populations living at archaeologically known times and places, ancient DNA makes it possible to understand migrations and responses to natural selection (Pickrell and Reich 2014). There is tremendous scope for conducting such studies of DNA from ancient human remains in the eastern Himalayan region and neighbouring areas. Although, small in number, there is evidence of human skeletal remains from a recent excavation carried out at a cave locally named Ranyak khen (RYK) near Mimi in Nagaland, dated to around 5560 ± 40 years BP (Jamir 2013). Ancient DNA offers the ability to analyse genetic patterns which existed at a particular time at a geographical location. This will further provide direct inference (p.66) about the relationships of historical populations to each other and to populations living today (Pickrell and Reich 2014).

Memories of Origin and Migration: Data from Folklore After a detailed discussion of the historical linguistic and genetic data, let us now turn to some of the folkloristic data prevalent among the Tibeto-Burman and Austroasiatic groups of the region. There is no general consensus about the origin of the Bodo people, one of the branches of the Tibeto-Burman subgroup Brahmaputran (van Driem 2001). The Bodos form an important and large section of the population of the Brahmaputra valley. The members of this group are considered to be among the earliest settlers of the valley. Traditional sources hazarded conjectures that even northwestern China or Tibet might have been their original homeland (Endle 1911: 3). Bodo folklore suggests the course of at least one ancestral migration; as generally considered by linguists and ethnographers, a section of the Bodo, who later became known as Mech (Sanyal 1973: 2), moved towards the west along the foothills of the Himalayas up to the river Mech between India and Nepal. An example of Bodo folk tradition describes their own group as follows: ‘Of all the mountains, highest and whitest is the Father (probably referring to the snow-clad Himalayas), of all the rivers, Page 19 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups longest and biggest is the Mother (probably referring to the Brahmaputra), we are Korosa Aris, First born sea race and our line is continuous’ (Mosahary 1983: 46–8). The Bodo language used here appeared to Mosahary (1983: 47–8) as one that represented a mixture of three different languages, Bodo, Kokborok, and Dimasa. The apparent reference to the Himalaya as the father and the Brahmaputra as the mother of all rivers evinces familiarity with the geography of Northeast India. The use of the term Korosa Aris ‘first born people’ or ‘first settlers’ may suggest that the Bodos see themselves as the first inhabitants of the Brahmaputra valley. Barua (1933: 1–2) has suggested that the term translated as ‘sea race’ suggests familiarity with the Bay of Bengal and the fact that Bodo-Koch peoples inhabited the low-lying areas of Sylhet, Myemensingh, and all of eastern Bengal before the advent of the Indo-Aryans. Alternatively, the term translated as ‘sea race’ could refer to the Brahmaputra River, (p.67) for this vast and expansive river is spoken about as a sea, the Lauhitya Sagara (Vasu 1922: 19–20). Lauhitya or Luhit or Luit is another name of Brahmaputra and sagara means sea in Assamese. Similarly, a possible ancient migration route is suggested in a popular Garo song (Rongmuthu 1997: 222, cited in Sangma 1983: 71), which mentions that the Garos once occupied eastern and central Tibet (Playfair 1909: 9). Another Garo legend narrates the ancient Garo way of life in their original homeland (J. Marak 1982: 22, cited in Sangma 1983: 70) and tells the story of a time when women and men still used tree bark or handmade curved woods and finished cut bamboo culms for covering their private parts, and similarly it was the time when people extracted fire for their use, making sparks out of the dried bamboos and crystal stones. The legends describe a prehistoric way of life. J. Marak (1982, cited in Sangma 1983: 71–3) maintains that the ancient Garo, or perhaps the ancient Bodo-Koch peoples, branched off into several groups led by different chieftains, whose names were Jappa Jalimpa, Sukpa Bonggipa, Auk Raja, Asilik Gitel and Raja Sirampa, and migrated up the courses of the rivers Tursa and Tista to Tibet, up to the source of the river Brahmaputra and the source of the Chindwin, Salwin, and Irrawaddy rivers. These ancestral BodoKoch people ostensibly entered a place recorded as A’sng jimjim Chiga Dare Gongdingding, which Marak identifies with present-day Bhutan, and Nokcholbari, purportedly Kalimpong. They carried agricultural implements such as janggil ma’rori, ki’me matjanggi, kawa, silcha, gaanti, susuak, and gitchi bangje and yak tails as ornaments. The ancient Bodo-Koch then moved towards the A’song Patari Chiga Su’unchi, which Marak identifies with Koch Bihar, and subsequently to the Rangamati, where a Garo song describes the life led by their ancestors (Rongmuthu 1997: 224, cited in Sangma, 1983: 71). The song described their homeland as a place with a granary of agricultural crops and a storehouse of wealth and property, a fruit garden of most precious stones, a sanctuary of wild elephants, vast cattle farms and places full of rich vegetation

Page 20 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups (Sangma 1983: 71). Other Garo legends indicate that Garo ancestors once inhabited the whole Brahmaputra plain (C.R. Marak 2004a, 2004b). If there is any truth to these oral traditions, then, at the time depth to which they refer, the various Bodo-Koch language communities would not yet have been differentiated into groups such as the Garo, (p.68) who subsequently settled in the Garo Hills. So we must construe these Garo and Bodo groups as pertaining to the ancestral Bodo-Koch people if there is any veracity to the oral traditions at all. The Mizos claim Chinlung as their original homeland, but this place has not been identified. Lalrimawia (1981: 26–8), however, has proposed to relate the name to toponyms in China which on romanized maps seem to have similar sounding names. Similarly, Bhattacharjee (1983: 79) fancifully traces the Hmars to an ancient Chinese city state called Singlang. The names of many agricultural implements bear the prefix kawi- among the Mizos, which Lalthangliana (1977: 9–11) suggests must have been borrowed from the Burmese language. Lalrimawia (1981: 28–31) tells us that Khampat in Burma is believed to be the oldest Mizo town, where an earthen rampart is still visible. Mizo lore recalls that famine compelled their ancestors to migrate to the Indo-Burmese hill tracts also known as the Chin Hills in the 14th century AD. Some early settlements from this period still exist, for example, Seipui, Suaipui Saihmun, Bochung, all toponyms which are actually also clan names. In the 16th century, the Mizos arrived at present-day Mizoram after crossing the Tiau River. These migrants who were a part of the last wave of migration from the Chin Hills are also called Lushai. In fact, such dispersal may have been the inevitable result of a lifestyle in which jhum cultivation played a central role.

Trade Links between Northeast India and Neighbouring Regions There is virtually no evidence of any Chalcolithic or Bronze or Iron Age in the Northeast Indian context. The reason behind the absence of subsequent cultural developmental stages from the Neolithic period to the emergence of early states or kingdoms has yet to be addressed. The ancient period of Assam from 4th to 5th century AD witnesses the emergence of several political and cultural centres (Boruah 2007). Excavations at the sites of Ambari (7th century AD) (Dhavalikar 1973) and the Dhansiri–Doyang valley (5th century AD) (Dutta 2000–2001; Sharma 2007) reveal rich archaeological record with art and architectural pieces, ancient settlements, religious sites, and pottery. Sharma (2007) addressed the questions of site formation process, context, and cultural links in the Dhansiri–Doyang valley and (p.69) asserted that the earliest state formation in the region was not necessarily due to the inflow of Indo-Europeans into Assam, but a result of intermittent trade between India and what today is China, in which Tibeto-Burman speaking communities played a crucial role. The architectural remains of the site of Deo-Parbat near Numaligarh of Golaghat show resemblances with Southeast Asian architecture. Yet the early contacts Page 21 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups between India and East and Southeast Asia remain to be elucidated in coherent way. During his visit to Bactria (c. 127 BC), the Chinese emissary Zhang Qian observed bamboo and textiles from southwestern China being sold in the local market. These objects were brought to eastern India via Yúnnán and Burma and they finally reached northern India and Afghanistan (Majumdar 1990: 645). The Chinese pilgrim Yi Jing (AD 635–713) who travelled in India from AD 671 to 695 reported that a group of Buddhist priests travelled from China to India through Burma about 500 years before his time. Travellers could reach lower Burma through Arakan and upper Burma through passes in the Patkai range or Manipur Hills. Over this route Chinese objects from Yúnnán and Sìchuān reached northern India already in the 2nd century BC (Majumdar 1990: 646, 649, 652). Another interesting proof of cultural interactions between both sides of the Himalaya is the nearly identical gold masks discovered at the burial site of Malari in Uttarakhand in India and at the Quta cemetery of Ngari in Tibet. Both burial sites show similarities with the burial sites of Nepal, particularly Mustang and western Tibet (Bhatt 2011; Linhui, 2011). A gold mask was also discovered at the burial site of Sekta in Manipur by A.K. Sharma (1994). All of these sites are tentatively dated to early centuries of the Common Era. Chakrabarti and Lahiri (1986) discuss the Assam–Burma route to China in the early days by considering historical and archaeological sources. There may have been trade routes linking the Mauryan capital Pataliputra with southern China through the Brahmaputra valley and the Bhamo area of North Burma (Chakrabarti 2006). Gupta (2006: 90–107) speculates about the Indian Ocean trade network extending overland to Yúnnán through the Assam valley at the beginning of the Common Era, and supports his conjectures with archaeological data from eastern India, Northeast India, and southern China. Salles (2004) also argues for overland trade via Northeast India and Burma. (p.70) In this context Gupta underscores the importance of sites like Ambari in Guwahati and Sekta in Manipur. Sarma (2006) discusses archaeological data from the Dhansiri–Doyang and Kopili–Jamuna valleys supporting such an overland trade network, emphasizing that these two river valleys linked the sites at Sekta and Ambari. Glass beads in the burial sites at Sekta indicate trade links with mainland India as well as Southeast Asia (Singh 1997: 29). Hsüan-tsang (c. 602–64), the wellknown Chinese pilgrim to India who reached Kāmarūpa in AD 638, records the profuse use of glass beads in Assam (Kanungo 2006). The Nagas traditionally wore ornaments of marine origin like conch shells and cowries, Indo-Pacific glass beads traded by sea from the southeast Indian coast, and carnelian beads from western India (Kanungo 2006: 155), suggesting a long-distance exchange network although they resided in isolation from the seas.

Page 22 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Linguistic Groups In later historical times, the trade connecting Tibet with Assam and Bengal through Bhutan involved dyes, endi or eri cloth, cocoons, areca nuts, tea, tobacco from India, and wool, salt, and musk from Tibet. Pilgrims from Tibet visited the shrine at Hajo near Guwahati (Rahul 1970: 10). The Mönpas or Membas of the Mechuka valley were middlemen in the trade between Tibet and the tribes of Arunachal Pradesh. The Membas themselves procured commodities such as dyes, hides, cane, and chilli from the Tagins and the Romos and exchanged these for salt and wool from Tibet. The Membas exported rice, corn, ginger, chilli, bamboos, hide, dyes, silk, and butter and imported wool, woollen clothes, salt, tea, weapons, tools, copper and brass vessels, sweets, walnuts, peaches, dried cheese, dry meat, Buddhist religious manuscripts, painted scrolls, images, gold and silver ornaments, and precious stones (Billorey 1981: 18–22). The possible role played by Buddhism for human movements from India to Southeast Asia and vice versa has yet to be investigated. A growing body of archaeological data on Buddhism in Northeast India leads us to suggest that this region may have played a role in the spread of Buddhism in the early days. Sri Surya Pahar in the district of Goalpara, Assam, is an interesting site which authenticates the coexistence of Shaivaist, Buddhist, and Jain traditions. Situated close to the banks of the Brahmaputra, the site on excavation reveals a sanctum sanctorum besides numerous icons. The site is also marked with rockengraved figures of Buddha, Shivalingas, and numerous icons of (p.71) gods, goddesses, and anthropomorphs in the hilly terrain. Chakrabarti (2006) cites the Sunga bowl with incurved rim as a diagnostic pottery type of c. 200 BC as a surface find at Tezpur. Daparbatiya in Tezpur and Madan Kamdev near Guwahati are two other noteworthy sites with ruins of ancient temples and different figures of gods and goddesses, human figurines, animals, and decorative designs and motifs. The architectural style in the Brahmaputra valley was influenced by the Gupta architectural style (Sarma 1988). The ruins of Bhishmaknagar and Rukmininagar now in Arunachal Pradesh represent the earliest evidence of contact of the people of this region with the mainland India. The archaeological record of the pre-Ahom period in the Brahmaputra valley has been discussed in great detail by Choudhury (1985). From the discussion so far it is clear that several independent bodies of evidence all pointing towards several distinct waves of migration into or through Northeast India are yet to be evaluated from an archaeological point of view. The next chapter elaborates the archaeological signatures of these movements in the region.

Access brought to you by:

Page 23 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

The Archaeological Record A Synthesis of Earlier Research Manjil Hazarika

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199474660.003.0004

Abstract and Keywords This chapter attempts to address the prehistoric ‘people’ responsible for the array of sites found, albeit sporadically, across the entire length and breadth of Northeast India. Conspicuously, the historiography of archaeological research in this area painfully surprises us in that, barring a handful of sites of both prehistoric and historical contexts, most of the sites are yet to be properly studied or excavated and treated with recent developments in the field of archaeological science. Nevertheless, sites like Ambari, Daojali Hading, Nongpok Keithelmanbi, Pynthorlangtein, Sarutaru, Sekta, Selbalgiri 2, Vadagokugiri have proved to be of immense potential in studying the ‘people’ and their cultures and, in a broader sense, in the reconstruction of history. This chapter deals with the major findings related to the pre-Neolithic and Neolithic cultures discovered to date. Keywords:   archaeological excavation, exploration, surface finds, early human dispersals, Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Megalithic tradition, cord-impressed pottery, shouldered celts

The geographical area covering Assam, the Meghalaya and other states of Northeast India … might have played a crucial role in human history in transferring man-the-hunter to man-the-food-producer … a very interesting problem for future archaeological research. —Tarun Chandra Sharma (1980: 75)

Page 1 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record A historical linguistic reconstruction of the dispersal of ancient linguistic groups as well as associated genetic and ethnographic data suggest movements of people through Northeast India since the Late Pleistocene or Early Holocene period, which continued even into later periods. This chapter aims at seeking the signatures of these human movements in archaeological records to find possible correlates in the record of material culture for the reconstructed linguistic dispersals and gene flow of people. The archaeological record from the Late Pleistocene onwards is addressed here with only a brief discussion of the probable early dispersal events through this region based on circumstantial evidence. Subsequently, the Palaeolithic remains and their implications for human dispersals are discussed. The Neolithic remains including the Megalithic tradition are discussed in detail in view of possible linguistic dispersals and the spread of farming. (p.73)

Early Hominid Dispersals A major bone of contention among palaeoanthropologists and prehistoric archaeologists is the establishment of the earliest human occupation in different areas. Emphasis is placed on an understanding of early human dispersals in the Old World from Africa, the apparent cradle of humankind. This ‘out of Africa’ model, implying that the early species of the genus Homo emerged in Africa and then dispersed to different parts of the Old World, is based on evidence of early human presence in the form of hominid remains or traces of their cultural activities from different sites (Hazarika 2007: 35–41). Recent data with numerical dates authenticate a human presence in the early Pleistocene outside of Africa at Atapuerca in Spain (Carbonell et al. 2005), Pirro Nord in Italy (Arzarello et al. 2007), Dmanisi in Georgia (Lordkipanidze et al. 2007), Ubeidiya in Israel (Tchernov 1995), Riwat in the Pabbi Hills of Pakistan (Dennell, Rendell, and Hailwood 1988), at the Indian sites of Isampur (Paddayya et al. 2002), Attirampakkam (Pappu et al. 2011), and Masol (Dambricourt-Malassé et al. 2016) in Java (Sémah et al. 2000; Simanjuntak, Sémah, and Gaillard 2010), and in Longuppo Cave and other sites in China (Wanpo et al. 1995; Weiwen and Pu 2007). Lower Palaeolithic Acheulean artefacts are not yet recorded from Northeast India (Petraglia 1998, 2006; Mishra 2006/2007; Chauhan 2009, 2010a). Routes, dispersal patterns, and the colonization of different regions of the Old World by early hominids in relation to the climatic and ecological factors have been discussed in recent publications (Fleagle et al. 2010; Norton and Braun 2010). Northeast India is often referred to as a region that had been inaccessible during the Pleistocene due to dense forests, hilly terrain, heavy rainfall, and harsh climatic conditions, and therefore is thought of as one that was unfavourable for humans (Ghosh 1978; Misra 2001). However, this region is one of the principal geographic corridors for faunal migrations between the Indian subcontinent and the rest of Asia (Hooijer 1949; Tougard 2001; Chauhan 2008; Nanda 2008). Due to the lack of evidence for early humans in Northeast India Page 2 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record prior to the late Pleistocene (Ramesh 1989), this area has not figured in theoretical discussions pertaining to early hominid dispersals. This region has been regarded as a geographical barrier for early dispersals of hominids from Africa, to Island Southeast Asia and East Asia via the Indian subcontinent (Dennell 2009) in (p.74) the Early and Middle Pleistocene, and was even considered a partial barrier to eastwards migration during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 4 between 71 and 59 ka (kiloannum=thousand years) ago (Field and Lahr 2006; Field, Petraglia, and Lahr 2007). Yet most scholars (Rightmire 2001; Mithen and Reed 2002) depict a tentative route of the eastwards movements of hominids from Africa to Island Southeast Asia through the Northeast Indian corridor. To date, few attempts have been made to establish the earliest human occupation in Northeast India. On the basis of circumstantial evidence, Hazarika (2008a, 2008b, 2011a, 2011c, 2012a, 2013a, 2013c) argues that this region, as it connects the Indian Subcontinent with the East and Southeast Asian landmass, may have acted as a possible mid-point from Africa to Southeast Asia through South Asia for the eastwards dispersal of early hominids. Many early Palaeolithic sites, occasionally associated with skeletal remains, are found in the neighbouring areas of Nepal (Corvinus 2006), southern China (Gao et al. 1997; Hou et al. 2000; Weiwen and Pu 2007), northern Thailand (Reynolds 1990), and Burma (Movius 1944; Ba Maw 1995; Ba Maw et al. 1998) dated to the Early and Middle Pleistocene. Mishra and colleagues (2010) suggest close connections between India and Java in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene on the basis of Palaeolithic technology of Large Flake Acheulean artefacts supported by palaeontological material. If Northeast India acted as a corridor for these dispersals and early hominid movements, there are ample possibilities for many unexplored sites dating from the Early and Middle Pleistocene. However, as Dennell (2009) suggested, if the lower reaches of the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers were difficult to cross, then the uplands along the Himalayan foothills might have served as a route for human movement. After reviewing the biogeography of Middle Pleistocene hominids in mainland Southeast Asia, Marwick (2009) proposed the possibility of a coastal and waterways route— which is however not supported by archaeological data to date—for the initial migration of hominids into Southeast Asia from West Asia along the coast of South Asia and Burma. This also supports the importance of Northeast India in early human movements. Chauhan (2010b) considers two routes of entry into the Indian Subcontinent and subsequent population movements from India— Afghanistan and Pakistan to the northwest and Burma in the northeast. He also predicts that (p.75) Northeast India will turn out to be a greater potential area for early Pleistocene sites, reflecting a major human and faunal corridor between India and Southeast Asia, as recently put forward by Mishra and colleagues (2010).

Palaeolithic Period Page 3 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record The presence of Palaeolithic cultural material in Northeast India is a debated issue in Indian prehistory. On the basis of tool typology, several assemblages have been placed within the context of ‘Palaeolithic’ in this region. One of the main problems with these Palaeolithic materials is that they occur in relatively younger deposits and in most cases in association with axes or adzes of Neolithic origin and pottery. The Garo Hills of the Meghalaya have yielded the largest number of stone tools with Palaeolithic characteristics (D.K. Medhi 1988), but without a well-understood chrono-stratigraphic context. Several early workers (Sharma 1972; Sankalia 1974) have analysed and divided these materials on the basis of typology into chronological sequences of Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic periods. However, Ghosh (1978) has contradicted these views and suggested that these materials are not Palaeolithic, but just ‘Neolithic debitage’. It would be pertinent to discuss the archaeological record and the views expressed and conclusions drawn by earlier workers. However, the details are based entirely upon the descriptions of the original investigators, and are hence dependent upon their interpretations and on the terminologies adopted by them. The discussion focuses on the evaluation of the nature and context of the artefacts which are identified as being or are claimed to be of Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic tradition, following European nomenclature. Most of these artefacts were collected from secondary depositional contexts and placed in different cultural stages only on typological grounds. Some of the industries were compared and correlated with the Indian as well as Southeast Asian traditions. Such comparisons made during the 1970s and 1980s need further scrutiny, considering the currently available archaeological data from other regions of India as well as Southeast Asia with good chrono-stratigraphic details. As these artefacts are mostly surface collections and the chronology is not yet well understood, the issue of the presence of Palaeolithic artefacts remains as a ‘dilemma’ in the prehistory of Northeast India. (p.76) The contradictory view, regarding these artefacts as simply ‘Neolithic debitage’ (Ghosh 1978), has also created an enigmatic situation which has continued to influence the conceptual and theoretical discussions. Lithic Industries from the Garo Hills

Nearly four decades of intermittent prehistoric investigations in the Garo Hills, initiated in the mid-1970s, have revealed the existence of several assemblages with Palaeolithic elements. In his field explorations in the Rongram and Simsang River valleys of the Garo Hills, Sharma (1974) located several Stone Age sites at Rongram Alagiri, Chitra Abri, Selbalgiri, Michimagiri, Watri Abri, Waramgiri, Chibragiri, and Rombhagiri in an undulating area 500 to 800 metres above mean sea level. A trial trench was undertaken at the site of Selbalgiri located on a terrace of the Rongram River. Typologically, the artefacts found in the trench were categorized into four distinct industries: (a) a flake and blade industry, (b) a microlithic industry, (c) a chipped stone axe industry, and (d) a ground and Page 4 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record polished stone industry associated with crude handmade pottery. Furthermore, he observed some roughly flaked discoid tools and stone axes ‘showing Lower Palaeolithic tool tradition’. The site of Waramgiri has well-exposed dolerite dykes which were utilized as raw material for making artefacts from the Lower Palaeolithic to the end of the Neolithic period. The artefacts occur on the eroded surface and are in mint condition in a yellowish silt layer. A few handaxes, scrapers, and points showing ‘Mousterian’ characteristics were excavated from the silt layer. Ground and polished stone and pottery were not found at Waramgiri. Flake and blade industries are found at both Michimagiri and Watri Abri. The frequency of blades is greater at Watri Abri (Sharma 1974). Sharma (1975) divides the entire prehistoric period of the Meghalaya into four series. According to him, the Stone Age artefacts bear similarities with the Early, Middle, and Late Stone Age complexes of India. Moreover, the handaxe tradition of the Garo Hills has a close parallel with that of the Padjitanian culture of Java. He argues for developmental stages within the artefacts from Early Palaeolithic to Neolithic stages. (p.77) Surface collections as well as artefacts recovered during an excavation at the site of Michimagiri, located at 25°33′ N and 90°17′ E and conducted in March 1976, show homogeneity in nature, indicating the same industrial tradition (Sharma and Roy 1985). The raw material is fine-grained blackish dolerite which is heavily weathered with a reddish brown patina. Besides the prepared core technique as a dominant technique, the hinged fracture technique was evidently also used for preparation of the artefacts. Typologically, the artefacts reveal at least three industrial traditions: the Levallois flake tradition as the dominant one, blade production, and the Acheulean tradition. The artefacts include sidescrapers, end-scrapers, borers, utilized Levallois flakes, points, blades, microlunates, and leaf-shaped points. In the absence of a similar assemblage in Southeast Asia and the Garo Hills, the excavators concluded that the material did not differ significantly from that found at mainland Indian sites and, therefore, posited an Indian origin of the Michimagiri artefacts. Sharma and Roy (1985) discovered Stone Age artefacts in situ at the two Nangwalbibra sites NBG-A and NBG-B at the confluence of the Simsang and Rongu rivers in 1977 and 1978. The Nangwalbibra NBG-A site yielded choppers, chopping tools, and flakes of dolerite in a cemented gravel deposit. The Nangwalbibra NBG-B site produced scrapers, points, flakes and cores of chert without pebble tools, and, except for the chert artefacts, other materials were found in stratified context. Sharma (1986) proposed that the Nangwalbibra NBGA pebble choppers are identical to the Soanian ones of northwestern India. Some

Page 5 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record flake tools made on chert at Nangwalbibra NBG-B show characteristics of the Late Soan and Middle Palaeolithic flake tool industry. A typo-technological study of stone tool industries by Sonowal (1987) established the presence of a blade flake tool tradition in the Garo Hills. The site Michimagiri III, located between 25°30′ N and 25°45′ N latitude and between 90°15′ E and 90°30′ E longitude at an elevation of 800 metres yielded a ‘huge quantity of finished tool, waste flakes and cores indicating characters of an extensive factory site’ (Sharma 1985; Sonowal and Sharma 1986). A small trench at the site reveals one cultural layer of a thickness of 1 metre. The artefacts are mainly made from flakes and blades representing Mousterian, Levalloisian, and blade techniques. Acheulean types of tools are (p.78) smaller in size. Cleavers are made from flakes. They divided the industry into flake industry and blade industry, comparable to the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic industries of India. Sonowal and Sharma (1988) presented the discovery of blunted back flake knives of the central Garo Hills collected from 11 sites of the Rongram and Ganol River valleys at different elevations ranging from 500 metres to 800 metres. The sites are Michimagiri III, Thebranggiri, Selbalgiri, Mokbol Giri, Chitra Abri, Cibra Giri, Mechingrenchap, Watri Abri, Ganol Abri, Muksak Abri, and Didamigiri. The typical artefact from these sites showed that ‘one of its longer sides is blunted and the other side is made sharp for cutting by removing flakes’. These artefacts are made on side or end flakes. Two types on the basis of forms have been identified: (a) Type I, with the edge along the longer axis being perpendicular to the bulbar end, and (b) Type II, with the transverse cutting edge being along the shorter axis. The blunted back of these artefacts was made by either retouching along one of the long axes of the flakes or was blunted naturally with an original thick core surface. These artefacts are comparable to the flake knives found in the Acheulean contexts of Europe and India. The Department of Anthropology of Gauhati University (IAR 1986–7) located some sites in the Ganol River valley, namely Mechingrenchap II, Didamigiri II, Didamigiri III, Michimagiri IV, and Sambalakong, located at elevations between 2,200 metres and 2,400 metres. The sites yielded mixed assemblages of Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic tools in addition to microliths and Neolithic artefacts. The artefacts comprise choppers, handaxes, cleavers, awls, knives, blunted blade knives, scrapers, and points. Some more artefacts were collected from different sites such as Misimagiri III, Didami III, and Mechingrenchap containing Middle and Upper Palaeolithic artefacts. Some small axes with lanceolate tips and butts, similar to Southeast Asian artefacts, were also collected (IAR 1995–6). Mahanta (1995) analysed the stone artefacts from Selbalgiri in the western Garo Hills and identified evolutionary stages belonging to Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic cultures.

Page 6 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record In 1969, Sankalia (1974) visited the Garo Hills and observed that the Palaeolithic elements might be present in the area. D.K. Medhi (1980) interpreted the Garo Hills situation on the basis of his fieldwork in the context of the palaeoecology of the area. The artefacts which are (p.79) not typical neoliths have been grouped by him ‘under pre-Neolithic with a clarification that the term is provisional and may be accepted for the time being as equivalent to Palaeolithic elsewhere in India’. Further, he prefers to assign the pebble choppers and microliths found at Nangalbibra of Garo Hills to Neolithic origin. D.K. Medhi (1990) in surveying the state of research in prehistory mentions his study undertaken during 1982 and 1984 in the Garo Hills and states that the tools were not found in a stratified context and the ground and chipped tools were found together. Furthermore, he comments on the ‘Neolithic debitage’ problem initiated by Ghosh (1978) and asserts that the chipped stone tools are not simply debitage but purposefully knapped artefacts. Recent observations on the stratigraphy of the sites in the Ganol and Rongram valleys of the Garo Hills make it clear that the flake-blade assemblage, the bifaces, and the pebble tools are of the Pleistocene period, whereas the celts occurring in the yellowish brown alluvium are Holocene (Sharma 2002a). Evidence from Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh

Singh (1972, 1983) in his excavation at the limestone cave site of Khangkhui near Ukhrul in Manipur recorded interesting stone and bone tool assemblages. The cave contained handaxes and cleavers at its lower level and scrapers, points, borers, blades, burins, and bone points at the upper level. The bone industry comprises points, scrapers, chisels, and perforated and blunted back knives. Badam of Deccan College, Pune, identified the faunal assemblage as belonging to Cervus, Sus, Bovidae, and wild fowl, not older than the late Pleistocene, and in age comparable to the faunal remains of Kurnool cave of south India (M.J. Singh 1991). Other palaeontological materials found in Northeast India are mainly Elephas maximus and Elephas hysudricus (Badam 1979) without much chronological data. Choppers were also recorded at other localities such as in layer VI at Napachik and Machi in the Tengnoupal District of Manipur. Singh and Singh (1990) reported their findings of a few artefacts comprising handaxes, worked flake pebbles with round edges, flaked pebbles, blades, flakes, pebble strikers, split pebbles, and waste flakes at the site of Singtom, at 24°17′ N latitudes and 93°54′ E longitudes in the Chandel district of Manipur. Similarly, Bopardikar (1972) of the Archaeological Survey of (p.80) India along with a multidisciplinary team explored the Daphabhum area of the Lohit district of Arunachal Pradesh and reported evidence of purportedly Palaeolithic material. However, the artefacts are unconvincing and doubtful (Chakrabarti 1998). Ashraf (1990) also found some Palaeolithic stone tools consisting of choppers, cleavers, and handaxes from Kamla and Dikrong valley of the Papumpare district of Arunachal Pradesh. These claims have so far failed to establish an undisputed chronology for the prehistoric cultures prior to the Page 7 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Neolithic. Therefore, the evidence of Palaeolithic material usually tends to be neglected and is generally not considered in the discussions on the Indian Palaeolithic (Misra 2001). Recently, Medhi and colleagues (2006) claimed to have discovered some Palaeolithic artefacts from Mizoram. Stratigraphic Contexts

Chronologies have been proposed on the basis of typological comparison with the sites of India and Southeast Asia (H.C. Sharma 1972; T.C. Sharma 1979; Sonowal 1987; Mahanta 1995). However, these studies have so far failed to establish a well-stratified chronological sequence, corroborated with numerical dates and associated archaeological data. The context of the sites has also been mostly neglected. Most of the artefacts occur on erosional surfaces. D.K. Medhi (1980) studied the Quaternary history of the Garo Hills and showed that the surfaces are definitely not older than the Pliocene. He proposed a relative chronology of the various geomorphic events in the Garo Hills. His observation on the geomorphology of the area does not support a high antiquity for stone artefacts. These artefacts are found in the youngest terrace, that is Terrace III, and on the weathered rock surface, both geochronologically dated to the Late Quaternary (D.K. Medhi 1980, 1988). Considered to belong to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic on the basis of typo-technology, these artefacts do not show any stratigraphical differences with the microlithic-, Upper Palaeolithic–, Hoabinhian-, and Neolithic-bearing horizons. The handaxes, scrapers, flakes, and so forth can be of any period, and are found even in later periods. The artefacts identified as cleavers may be hand adzes (D.K. Medhi 1988). The large cutting tools lack any significance in chronological sequences. Selbalgiri II yielded a (p.81) clear microlithic horizon below the Neolithic level, although without a stratigraphical break. Microliths are also found at the Neolithic level (Sharma 1986). Sections at Rongram (Sharma 2002b) show that pebble choppers and short axes lay in the strong brown-coloured alluvium below the dark yellowish brown alluvium, containing Neolithic ground tools. Artefacts of flake and blade tradition are well known in late Pleistocene contexts of Southeast Asia. However, if we consider the erosional situation of the geological strata, where the artefacts of different phases—at least typologically—occur to be mixed assemblages, or view them as time-transgressive palimpsests, then the context should be scrutinized more carefully and, if necessary, should be reexcavated to assess the actual age of the industries indicating ‘archaic’ elements. Late Quaternary sediments are recorded in different localities of Northeast India (Ramesh and Rajagopalan 1999) and are dated to 38,020–2,230 years BP at Tipang (Southeast Assam), 32,540–130 years BP at Singra (Lakhimpur, Assam), 40,000 years BP in the North Cachar Hills (Assam), 40,000 years BP in the Ziro valley (Arunachal Pradesh), and 35,690–3,050 years BP in the Khowai and Hoara valleys (Tripura). Interestingly, the stone artefacts purported to be of late Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic of Tripura occur in late Pleistocene deposits (Ramesh 1989). Similarly, the flake-blade Page 8 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record assemblage, bifaces, and pebble tools are stratigraphically placed in the Pleistocene period (Sharma 2002a). The faunal assemblage at Khangkhui cave occurring with stone artefacts indicates a late Pleistocene age (M.J. Singh 1991). The archaeological record prior to the Terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene is very scanty in mainland Southeast Asia (Schepartz, Miller-Antonio, and Bakken 2000), and this is also the case in Northeast India. Fossil Wood Assemblages of Burma, Tripura, and Bangladesh

On the basis of his work in the Irrawaddy valley of southern Burma, Movius (1944, 1948) suggested that a technological line, commonly known as the Movius Line, separates the unifacial ‘chopper–chopping tool’ tradition of eastern Asia from the bifacial ‘handaxe’ tradition of western Asia, Africa, and Europe. The Acheulean-like industries do not occur east or north of the Movius Line, which forms an arc extending from the India–Bangladesh border to northern England. (p.82) In the Indian context, the Movius Line separates the subHimalayan regions, where ‘chopper-chopping’ assemblages occur, from the Acheulean assemblage region of peninsular India. However, on the basis of the distribution of Acheulean artefacts in the sub-Himalayan region and the relatively young age of the Soanian industries, Gaillard and Mishra (2001) and Mishra and colleagues (2010) questioned the validity of the arguments made by Movius in considering the Soanian industry to be contemporary to the Acheulean. In a recent paper, Mishra (2010) suggests the revision of the original formulation of the Movius Line, at least in relation to the Indian subcontinent. Convincingly, the late Pleistocene of the Indian subcontinent shows two separate technological traditions, on one hand the Soanian in the sub-Himalayan region with close resemblance to other contemporary Palaeolithic industries in Southeast Asia and, and on the other, microlithic blade industries in the rest of India, dated to more than 40 kiloannum, hence contemporary to the Soanian. Mishra (2010) proposed that the ‘Movius Line does track an important ecological and cultural boundary as originally envisioned, but in Late Pleistocene times rather than Middle and Lower Pleistocene and probably with modern humans on both sides of the line’. The archaeology of Late Pleistocene Northeast India can be evaluated in connection to the newly interpreted time framework of the Movius line by Mishra (2010). Movius (1944, 1948) suggested a Palaeolithic tool culture based on large core tools made of fossil wood and named the assemblage Anyathian, meaning ‘man of upper Burma’. However, the exact chronology of the Anyathian culture is not well determined. Fossil wood is siliceous in nature and has a good flaking quality and occurs in abundance in the region covering Bangladesh, the southern portion of Northeast India, Burma, and Arunachal Pradesh (Mehrotra, Awasthi, and Dutta 1999). These fine-quality rocks were exploited as a raw material for making artefacts in this region. The Quaternary deposits of Tripura are known to have yielded stone tools comprising scrapers, points, chopping tools, hammer stones, blades, and fluted cores (Poddar and Ramesh 1983). These artefacts Page 9 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record made of silicized fossil wood are found at Teliamura and in the Sonai Bazar area, Mohanpur, and Sonaram areas in west Tripura. Artefacts made of fossil wood were also reported from the site of Igara Mile in Birbhum and in cemented gravel deposits of the Tarafeni (p.83) River section in Midnapur in West Bengal (Chakrabarti 1992), Rangamati of Chittagong, and Chhagalnaiya (Chakrabarti 1988, 1992). Explorations carried out by Chakrabarti (1992) in the Mainamati-Lalmai Hills in 1989 revealed several localities yielding Palaeolithic artefacts. This upland area has an average elevation of 12 metres and a maximum elevation of 30 to 50 metres. The artefacts were found in close proximity to the distribution of raw material, that is, fossil wood. The artefacts comprised retouched cores, scrapers, fragments of handaxes, points, burins, blades, cleavers, and split pebbles, indicating a mixed industry comprising both possibly Acheulean and Upper Palaeolithic elements. Chakrabarti (2006) revised his earlier classification of ‘cleavers’ and ‘retouched cores’ as hand adzes. Singh Roy and Ahsan (2002) discovered several artefacts in the bordering areas of the Hobigunj sector of Sylhet and Tripura. Singh Roy and Ahsan (2007) further report several fossil wood artefacts in the Lalmai Hills and Chaklapunji area. The Anyathian and Neolithic tools from the Irrawaddy valley of Burma show a close resemblance to the material from the Lalmai Hills and Chaklapunji of Bangladesh. Fossil wood was extensively used in Burma (de Terra and Movius 1943) as a raw material for making artefacts from the Early Anyathian to the Neolithic culture (Aung-Thwin 2001). The site of Sung Noen in Nakhorn Ratchasima province of northeastern Thailand also yielded similar fossil wood assemblages resembling the Anyathian of Burma (cited in Reynolds 1990). Chakrabarti (2006) expresses the view that the artefacts in all sites in the Lalmai Hills, Bangladesh, and Tripura Hills are identical with the late Anyathian 2 industry of the Mandalay region in upper Burma. The abundance of blades, backed knives, and burins in the assemblage appears to be indicative of an Upper Palaeolithic phenomenon over a geographically extended area encompassing Bangladesh, Northeast India, and Burma. The Hoabinhian Connection

The Hoabinhian is a cultural technocomplex of Southeast Asia, both mainland and insular. The term is used to refer to the lithic assemblages from the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene of Southeast Asia, characterized by unifacial, centripetal, and circumferential cobble reduction and resulting flakes and debitage (Marwick 2008). (p.84) However, the term ‘Hoabinhian’ has been under debate (Shoocongdej 2000). The Hoabinhian technocomplex (Bellwood 1978) is defined purely on the basis of tool categories comprising pebble tools, utilized flakes, and a small proportion of edge-ground tools and bone tools, and in the later period pottery and fully ground axes and adzes also occur. The Hoabinhian sites are spread over a broad region from southern China, northern Vietnam, Malaya, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Sumatra, and Taiwan. The Page 10 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record importance of Hoabinhian in the Indian context is not yet well understood (Gaillard and Dambricourt-Malassé 2008, Gaillard, Singh, and DambricourtMalassé 2011). In the Garo Hills, a group of artefacts was found to be made ‘either wholly by flaking or by flaking all over and grinding at the cutting edge’ (IAR 1965–6; Sharma 1972, 1988). Excavations during 1977–8 at the Rongram terrace site at an altitude of about 490 metres yielded Hoabinhian artefacts to a depth of 75 centimetres, 10 centimetres below a Neolithic layer at the top and without any stratigraphic gap (Sharma 1986). The Hoabinhian artefacts are made on flattish oval river pebbles by flaking the pebble either partly or wholly, showing patches of unworked pebbly surface. On the basis of the stratigraphic position and the typology of the stone artefacts, Sharma (1988) assigned these cultural materials to the late Pleistocene and early Holocene period. Typo-technologically, these chipped pebble tools can be compared to the Hoabinhian culture of Southeast Asia. Short axes, the most frequently occurring pebble tool in the Garo Hills, are classical Hoabinhian artefacts (Sharma 2002a, 2007). Sharma (2002b) observed that the short axes of Rongram match typically with the materials from the Xam Trai cave of Vietnam and fall within the third division of classification of Hoabinhian artefacts by Bellwood. The Hoabinhian artefacts are recorded from three distinct topographical sectors, (a) open sites on the elevated flats of the hill ridges overlooking streams, lakes, and peniplains; (b) broad gullies at the bottom of the hill slopes; and (c) on the banks at the confluences of rivers having a wash basin and broad flood plains (Ashraf 2010: 37). The three sites of Saw Mer in the Khasi Hills and Makbil Bisik and Bibragiri in the Garo Hills are reported by Ashraf (2010) to show clear-cut Hoabinhian cultural traits. The sites yielding Hoabinhian artefacts associated with ground stone axes and grindstones are chronologically younger than the sites (p.85) yielding only Hoabinhian artefacts in Southeast Asia (Bowdler 2008). Hoabinhian artefacts were initially associated with hunter-gatherers, but some of these early humans continued making these artefacts after they adopted agricultural practices (Bowdler 2008). The Hoabinhian behaviour found to be associated with ground stone tools of Neolithic origin in the Garo Hills, and actually without proper chronological differences, could very well be an indication of its contemporaneity with the Neolithic period or might be only a contextual problem of mixed assemblages occurring as a palimpsest. The effects of human agency, for instance, the continuous practice of shifting cultivation by the local inhabitants, in disturbing the topography and stratigraphy cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the weathering of raw materials as well as the location of sites in river sections and eroded hill slopes (Table 4.1) also limits our understanding in this regard. At this stage, considering the problems of chronology of the Neolithic culture of this region (Hazarika 2006a, 2006b), it would be quite risky to make any firm inferences about the relationship of the Hoabinhian artefacts to the Neolithic period. Recently, Ashraf (2010), taking a fresh approach, Page 11 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record attempted to explain the adaptive patterns and subsistence variables among the smaller groups of humans, particularly those with Hoabinhian technology, as an outcome of interaction of behavioural traits relating to technology and economy in the Meghalaya rather than in terms of a population expansion or sudden exposure to a new technology.

Page 12 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Table 4.1 List of important sites bearing artefacts with elements of Palaeolithic culture Site

Geological position

Artefacts

Reference

Comments/Observations

Rongdu, Garo Hills

Artefacts collected from river terraces (610 metres above mean sea level [AMSL])

Chopping tool made of sand-stone, heavily patinated and rolled, and a scraper made of quartzite

IAR 1966–7

Earliest discovered artefact resembling Palaeolithic chopper

Selbalgiri 2 (Surface collection), Garo Hills

Artefacts recovered from eroded gravelly surface

Handaxes, picks, discs, scrapers, borers, blades, and microliths, besides Neolithic stone artefacts

IAR 1967–8

Existence of handaxes, flake/blades, microliths

Selbalgiri 2 (excavation), Garo Hills

Layer 1: Reddish earth mixed with small quantity of quartz gravel Layer 2: Reddish-brown earth with large quantity of quartz gravel Layer 3: Yellowish earth with less gravel

Layer 1: Ground and chipped axes, scrapers, and potsherds Layer 2: Core, hammers, flakes, pottery Layer 3: Microliths with pottery

IAR 1967–8

Microliths occur in lower levels with pottery

Thebronggiri, Garo Hills

–

Crudely flaked axes, knife-blades, microliths, arrowheads, points, cores, and hammers

IAR 1968–9

Not well-understood stratigraphy

Page 13 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Site

Geological position

Artefacts

Reference

Selbalgiri Locality 3 (Mokbol Chiring), Garo Hills

–

Early and Late Stone Age IAR 1969–70 (?)

Michimagiri, Garo Hills

Eroded surface of slope of Early, Middle, and Late hillock Stone Age (?)

IAR 1969–70

Heavily eroded and rolled artefacts

(p.87) Michimagiri Locality 1 (Watri Abri), Garo Hills

Hillock

Early, Middle, and Late Stone Age (?), large, roughly flaked heavy tools, small tools of flakes, microliths, and Neolithic tools and pottery

IAR 1969–70

Typological analysis without stratigraphic differences

Michimagiri (excavation), Eroded surface, 76Garo Hills centimetre-thick deposits of single layer of reddish silt with artefacts

Flakes, cores, blades, scrapers, points, and burins made of dolerite, heavily patinated

IAR 1975–6

Single layer of artefacts with Upper Palaeolithic elements

Michimagiri III factory site, Garo Hills

Heavily eroded hill slope

Blades and burins of IAR 1978–9; for details, Upper Palaeolithic period see Sonowal and Sharma (1986)

Typical flake and blade industry and indication of complete assemblage

Rambhagiri, Garo Hills

Riverbanks

Early and Middle Stone Age

Surface collection

Waribokgiri

Hill ridges

Palaeolithic and Neolithic IAR 1974–5 tools

IAR 1970–1

Comments/Observations Interpretation on the basis of typological analysis

Surface collections

Page 14 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Site

Geological position

Artefacts

Reference

Comments/Observations

Chibragiri, Garo Hills

Badly eroded coarse gravel

Handaxes, cleavers, choppers, and chopping tool

IAR 1971–2

Badly weathered section containing artefacts

Siju area, Garo Hills

Hill slopes

Handaxes, flakes, cleavers, and choppers

IAR 1976–7

Sporadic finds

Ganol Abri

Top Terrace

Choppers, cleavers, handaxes, flake cores, prepared Levalloisian core, and blade cores

IAR 1981–2

Large quantities of cores, flakes, and unfinished tools, indication of factory site, surface collection

(p.88) Muksak Abri

Terrace

Choppers, handaxes, IAR 1981–82 cleavers, scrapers, points, blade flakes, and cores

Surface collection

Nangalbibra A, Garo Hills Well-cemented gravel deposits of pebbles and boulders of dolerite

Choppers, chopping tools, Sharma and Roy (1985) and flakes

Artefact shows chopperchopping core tool elements

Nangalbibra B, Garo Hills Surface of riverbanks

Scrapers of various types, Sharma and Roy (1985) points, arrowheads, flakes, and cores

Upper Palaeolithic/ microlithic elements

Waramgiri, Garo Hills

Handaxes, points, scrapers of Mousterian character, small flake tools, blades, and microliths

Site seems to be a factory site and without elements of Neolithic stone artefacts and pottery

Erosional surface of a terrace of hilly stream

Sharma (1974)

Page 15 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Site

Geological position

Artefacts

Reference

Comments/Observations

Rongram terrace site (excavation), Garo hills

Silt layer overlying on a highly cemented gravel

Edge ground types of T.C. Sharma (1988) artefacts in the upper levels within a depth of 7 centimetres and chipped pebble axes of Hoabinhian tradition up to 60 centimetres of single implementiferous silt layer. In addition, a large pounding stone in a subsequent excavation

No stratigraphical distinction of the artefacts

(p.89) Didami, Garo Hills

Bank of streams

Bifacially flaked artefacts, Sharma (2007) blade flakes, and probably utilized flakes

Elements of Palaeolithic culture

Makbil Bisik, Garo Hills (surface collection and excavation)

Gullies at the bottom of hill slopes (970 metres AMSL)

Adze, blade flake, borer, Ashraf (2010) broad axe, chipping tool, chunk, core, knife, scraper, pick, waisted axe

Hoabinhian elements are clear; excvation yielded a single cultural layer

Bibragiri, Garo Hills

Flat parabolic land near Scraper, Hoabinhian tools Ashraf (2010) the confluence of two like chopping axe, rivers (900 metres AMSL) sumatraliths, chipped axe, short axe, pestle, pounder, points, cutting tools, and core

Surface finds; Hoabinhian elements are clear

Page 16 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Site

Geological position

Artefacts

Reference

Comments/Observations

Saw Mer, Khasi Hills

Elevated flats of high ridge (1650 metres AMSL)

Scrapers, Hoabinhian tools, points, cutting tools, core, punch and fabricators

Ashraf (2010)

Surface finds; Hoabinhian elements are clear

Daphabum area, Arunachal Pradesh

High terraces

Choppers, protohandaxes, cleavers, scrapers, flakes, and cores

IAR 1969–70

Sporadic finds of heavily weathered and rolled artefacts

Kamla and Dikrong valley, – Arunachal Pradesh

Palaeolithic stone tools consisting of chopper, cleavers, and handaxes

Ashraf (1990)

Sporadic finds

Khangkhui, Manipur

Handaxes and cleavers at IAR 1968–9 the lower deposit, points, borers, scrapers, blade, burins, cores, and few bone points from the upper deposit

Excavation shows stratigraphical differences of artefacts within the upper and lower levels

Scrapers, borer-cumhollow scraper, knifes, flake blades, flakes and cores

Artefacts occur in the disturbed cave floor

Rock shelter

(p.90) Somgbu, Manipur Cave site

IAR 1982–3, 1983–4

Page 17 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Site

Geological position

Artefacts

Reference

Singtom, Manipur

–

Handaxes, worked flake Singh and Ranjit Singh pebble with round edge, (1990) flaked pebble, blade, flake, pebble striker, split pebble, and waste flake

Typical elements of Palaeolithic culture

Ranyak khen (RYK) at Mimi in Nagaland

Cave site

Edge-grinding tools of Jamir (2013) serpentinite and limestone made from river pebbles, a few hammer stones, discshaped scraper tools and bone tools, and cordmarked pottery, besides a human burial

Pre-Neolithic context, however, no clear typical elements of Palaeolithic culture

Teliamura, Sonai Bazar area, Mohanpur, Sonaram, West Tripura

Late Quaternary deposits

Stone tools comprising scrapers, points, chopping tools, hammer stones, blades, and cores

Silicified fossil wood industry, similar to the Lalmai-Mainamati industry of Bangladesh and Late Anyathian industry of Burma

Poddar and Ramesh (1983), Ramesh (1989)

Comments/Observations

Source: This is a modified and revised version of a table that was originally published in Hazarika (2012a).

Page 18 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record The association of pottery with large cleaver-like flakes and Hoabinhian artefacts in the northwestern sub-Himalayas (Soni and Soni 2010), similar to the Garo Hills situation, points towards a slightly later date for the Hoabinhian industry there than in Southeast Asia. Does such an association signify a dispersal route of Hoabinhian traits from Southeast Asia to the northwestern sub-Himalayan region through the Northeast Indian uplands? At the site of Nongpok Keithelmanbi in Manipur, near the border with Burma, Singh (1993) observed a Hoabinhian stratum below the cord-impressed ware layer. The Tharon cave of Manipur yielded one flake tool and five pebble tools of Hoabinhian character (M.J. Singh 1991). Some of the early assemblages found at the Padah-lin cave of Burma can also be related to the Hoabinhian (Myint Aung 2000). Despite the variation observed within the Hoabinhian, the lithic tradition appears to have been (p.86) (p.91) a technology shared across a wide range of environments, tropical to subtropical, uplands to coastal, with a variety of mobility pattern (White 2011). The lithic industries of the late Pleistocene to the early Holocene occurring in the western sector of the Siwalik Range in the southern fringes of the Himalayas compare well with the industries occurring further east in Nepal and in northern Southeast Asia related to the Hoabinhian industries (Gaillard, Singh, and Dambricourt-Malassé 2011). Several sites of the northwestern sub-Himalayan region, dated to the epoch stretching from the Terminal Pleistocene to the midHolocene, yielded large ‘cleaver-like flakes’ and Hoabinhian artefacts (Soni and Soni 2010). Moreover, Corvinus (1994, 2007) recorded cobble tool assemblages occurring in late Pleistocene deposits from Nepal in the central sub-Himalayan region. Her work at the site of Patu in eastern Nepal shows that the Patu ‘Mesolithic’ assemblage is comparable to the Hoabinhian. The thermoluminescence chronology for the Hoabinhian bearing layers in Nepal is older than the 14C minimum age of c. 7,000 years. The Hoabinhian of the Arjun site of Nepal is proposed to be Late Glacial (Zoller 2000). The Hoabinhian in Vietnam and other parts of Southeast Asia was placed within the time bracket between 18,000 and 7,000 years BP (Chinh et al. 1988). Recent investigations at the cave site of Hang Cho in Vietnam revealed a new time frame ranging between c. 19,500 and 8,400 years BP, indicating that the Hoabinhian in northern Vietnam was already in existence about 20,000 years ago (Yi et al. 2008). Cranial and dental metric analysis of a human skeleton from a preceramic Hoabinhian context was dated to 10,450 ± 300 years BP during the excavation at Hang Cho, thereby suggesting the biological affinity of early populations in the region. The skeleton as well as other early or pre-Holocene remains from different sites in Southeast Asia represent descendants of populations of late Pleistocene Sundaland, who may share a common ancestry with modern Australian aboriginal and Melanesian people (Matsumura et al. 2008). These new dates have considerably changed the earlier view of ‘postPleistocene’ chronology of the Hoabinhian culture (Mathews 1968). The Page 19 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Hoabinhian situation suggests a technological link and migrations or connections between Southeast Asia and the eastern Himalayan foothills during the Terminal Pleistocene and the early Holocene (Corvinus 1987, 2007), and this model is also (p.92) supported by the recent emerging population genetic data discussed in the previous chapter. Situating the Palaeoliths in Context

Several early Palaeolithic sites with artefacts and hominid remains at Bose (Hou et al. 2000) and Panxian Dadong in southern China (Huang et al. 1995), the Irrawaddy basin of Burma (Movius 1944, 1948), and in Nepal (Corvinus 2006) authenticate early human presence during the Middle Pleistocene in close proximity to Northeast India. The archaeological and palaeoanthropological records show that East Asia and insular Southeast Asia were inhabited between 1.6 and 1.8 million years ago. Schepartz and colleagues (2000) argue that the southwestern Chinese provinces and neighbouring upland areas in Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam were a gateway for the dispersal of populations into East Asia and insular Southeast Asia. They, moreover, suggest that the ability of hominids to exploit upland environments was important for their expansion into Southeast and East Asia, where they encountered subtropical forested slopes, montane plateaux, and cooler northern zones. Corvinus (2006) also recorded Acheulean artefacts in similar upland ecological settings in Nepal. Most of the lithic industries of the late Pleistocene and the Early Holocene ages in Northeast India occur in upland areas, especially in hilly contexts. For example, Rongram IB at 484 metres, Gawak Abri at 550 metres, Didami at 916 metres, and Khangkhui cave at 1,767 metres, and most of the sites in the Rongram valley of the Garo Hills are located in an undulating area, with altitudes varying between 457 metres and 761 metres (Sharma 1974). Occupation in rock shelters and caves by Hoabinhian people is well known in Thailand, Burma, and Vietnam. The characteristic Hoabinhian site is a small rock shelter with access to both uplands and the resources of tributary stream valleys (Higham 1989). Hence, there is ample scope to search for more Hoabinhian sites in similar contexts in the geographical setting of Northeast India. In this context, mention should also be made of a recent excavation carried out at a cave RYK situated at about 780 metres above mean sea level, at 25°42′58″ N latitudes and 94°54′13″ E longitudes near Mimi in Nagaland. The cave is located in the Naga Ophiolite belt which is an (p.93) extension of the Ophiolite belt running through the Indo-Burma borderlands, from which a number of cave sites are known such as Songbu in Chandel district and the Khangkhui caves in the Ukhrul district of Manipur. The excavation yielded edge-grinding tools of serpentinite and limestone made from river pebbles, a few hammer stones, discshaped scraper tools, bone tools, and cord-marked pottery besides a human burial. Similar to the cave sites of Manipur (Singh 1993), there appears to be no evidence of animal domestication or agriculture. On the basis of an Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) date obtained from the ash deposit of the lower Page 20 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record levels, the excavator has dated the site to around 5,560 ± 40 years BP. Considering the archaeological data, the excavator has assigned the site to an early pre-Neolithic context, occupied by a small mobile hunting-gathering group associated with edge-grinding tools and cord-marked pottery (Jamir 2013). The region of Northeast India, the central and western Himalaya, and Bangladesh might have been suitable for early populations who relied heavily on bamboo and wood as raw materials for making artefacts. Considering the archaeological record (Solheim 1970; Ronquillo 1981; Pope 1989), the early populations who were the authors of the Hoabinhian technocomplex can be assumed to have exploited perishable materials such as wood and bamboo, found extensively in all these areas, for making artefacts. Possibly the Hoabinhian stone artefacts were used for manufacturing tools made of wood and bamboo (Anderson 1988; Bannanurag 1988). Some typical flakes with a concave edge occurring frequently in the Garo Hills assemblage might have been used in smoothening wood and bamboo, and this assumption is well supported by ethnographic parallels (Sharma 2007). Advances in archaeological science may help in distinguishing the use of bamboo in the near future. Experimental microscopic study of cut marks by bamboo knives showing the possible utilization of bamboo could reveal morphological differences in the characteristic features of the cut marks made by stone and bamboo knives (West and Louys 2007). There is evidence for the use of bamboo in the Holocene archaeological sites in Papua New Guinea (Spennemann 1990). Paddayya (2002–3) suggests that Northeast India offers an excellent scope for investing diversity in human adaptations, as the geographical location of this area probably enabled early societies to develop individual identities of their own. These identities must have (p.94) been developed on the basis of local environmental and ecological conditions. The ethnographic situation here signifies a subsistence economy based on hunting small and big game, fishing in the rivers, streams, and swamps, and collecting the wild plant food widely available in the area. The Hoabinhian sites of Southeast Asia, as recorded in the Spirit Cave I (Gorman 1971), reflect subsistence based on hunting-gathering and fishing. Another important factor related to the settlement pattern of Hoabinhian sites is that they occur mostly near water sources. The availability of perennial water resources across Northeast India, both in the uplands and lowlands, would have served as a suitable habitat for early humans of the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. An analysis of the late Pleistocene morphosedimentary records indicate terminations of last glaciations, lesser vegetation, episodic rainfall, increased meltwater, and increase of the southwestern Indian monsoon (Srivastava et al. 2009), thereby showing a suitable ecology for late Pleistocene humans.

Neolithic Remains

Page 21 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Although the transition from Palaeolothic to Neolithic is not apparent in this region, there is enough material record to assign a clear Neolithic cultural stage. Since the first discovery in Assam in 1867 of a Neolithic artefact of blue jadeite stone in the Eastern Indian context by Sir John Lubbock (Lubbock 1867), a number of publications have reported the finding of Neolithic celts by amateur as well as by professionals (Steel 1870; Barron 1872; Hutton 1924; Cockburn 1879; Godwin-Austin 1875; Anderson 1871; Banerjee 1924; Dasgupta 1913; Coggin Brown 1914; Walker 1931). However, these findings could not be placed in the proper perspective of a Neolithic cultural context in the pre-Independence era. With the initiation of problem-oriented research, many excavations were conducted in India which provided more valuable information for solving the Neolithic problem. Subsequent broad-spectrum studies by E.C. Worman (1949), A.H. Dani (1960), V.D. Krishnaswami (1962), and B.K. Thapar (1965, 1974, 1978, 1985) have placed these Neolithic materials in the framework of the Indian Neolithic period. To understand the Neolithic culture as a whole, one must understand the basic traits observable in the archaeological context. (p.95) Upon recognizing the basics traits as signatures of those early farming communities, one can safely identify the horizon as ‘Neolithic’. Sir John Lubbock termed all the remains of prehistoric man which included polished stone tools and appeared in an archaeological context before the emergence of metal as Neolithic. According to the definition in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1969: 214), archaeological assemblages are of the Neolithic period if they have (a) polished stone tools, (b) pottery, and (c) horticulture and/or domestication of animals. In recent years, each of these traits has been individually examined and empirically tested for understanding region-specific origins and the growth of the culture. In this line of enquiry, the beginning of farming and domestication of animals have gained much attention for reconstructing change in the basic subsistence economy of prehistoric societies. In the context of Northeast India, one may painfully admit that the region has not yet provided the basic subsistence economic pattern which includes not only stone tools but also other cultural traits like pottery, animal husbandry, and the process of the beginning of agriculture. In early studies, the main emphasis was first placed on the discovery of stone tools and pottery, but modern studies will have to undertake the analysis of phytoliths and residual or carbonized grains. These studies will help in understanding the transition from wild species to domesticated ones, not only confined to animals but also to cultigens such as rice. J.H. Hutton (1928) was the first scholar who attempted to give a systematic synthesis of the prehistoric artefacts found in Northeast India. K.L. Baruah (1939), an Assamese scholar, prepared a comprehensive regional synthesis of the celts found in old Darrang and Cachar districts and compared those with the Page 22 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record adzes found in Burma and in the Chota Nagpur region of India. Other scholars like P.C. Choudhury (1944) and E.C. Worman (1949) made systematic attempts at understanding the Neolithic scenario of this region by considering the stone tools. Worman (1949) plotted the Neolithic sites in the Indian context which were exclusively found in Assam and Bengal and also in central and southern India, south of the Gangetic plain and north of Puddukkottai. He concluded that there is no positive evidence of the existence of Neolithic people before the use of metal and most of the Neolithic celts of Indian origin have a cultural affiliation originating from Southeast Asia at different dates. (p.96) Dani (1960) made a detailed study of eastern Neolithic culture and divided Assam and the northeastern states into six zones: the Cachar Hills, the Sadiya Frontier zone, the Naga Hills, the Khasi Hills, the Garo Hills, and the Brahmaputra valley zone. He classified the tool types under seven categories such as faceted tools, shouldered tools, splayed axe, rounded butt axe with broad cutting edge, wedges, and grooved hammer stones. The broad division of the Neolithic pattern of Assam was dictated by geographical factors. Moreover, each group of tools of a particular region showed a distinct kinship in material and form based on availabity of raw material (Dani 1960: 42). On the basis of his analytical study of tool types, he expressed the opinion that Southeast Asian elements came in different waves at different times through Burma, and that a definite chronology could be ascribed ‘on the basis of a Black Polished ware associated with the specialised tools of the later complexes of Burma’. After a careful analysis, he compared the Neolithic cultures with those of its neighbouring regions, and found typo-technological similarities. Krishnaswami (1962: 25–64) divided the Indian Neolithic complex into four provinces, namely central and western India, southern India, eastern India, and Kashmir. He further subdivided the East Indian Neolithic complex, his ‘Province C’, into the two cultural regions (a) Assam and (b) Bengal–Bihar–Orissa on the basis of the study made by Dani. He called the classification of Worman (1949) ‘purely academic and theoretical’ and presented his own classification, which he argued was dictated by geographical factors such that ‘each group of tools of a particular region shows a distant kinship in material and form’, although the manufacturing techniques which they shared were common. He also maintained that ‘as the material was obtained generally in the form of flat slabs from stream-beds, very little chipping or flaking was necessary, battering or hammering and grinding or smoothing being sufficient to produce tools’ (Krishnaswami 1962: 51). Thapar (1978: 11–22, 1985: 37–43), who also studied the problem of Neolithic, divided the culture into six geographical zones: (a) northern, covering the Kashmir valley; (b) Belan valley, covering the Vindhyan Plateau in the districts of Allahabad, Mirzapur, Rewa, and Sidhi; (c) northern Bihar or mid-eastern, covering the district Saran; (d) northeastern, covering Assam and the adjacent Page 23 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record sub-Himalayan region; (e) central-eastern, covering the Chota Nagpur plateau with its (p.97) peniplains extending into West Bengal and Orissa; and (f) southern, covering peninsular India. In discussing Belan valley finds, Thapar (1985) emphasized that in these regions at Neolithic levels, blades, pottery, querns, mullers, sling balls, celts, bone arrow heads, terracotta beads, and bones of animals were noticed. Furthermore, palaeobotanical analysis revealed rice husks of domesticated variety as a degraissant in pottery. On the basis of 14C dates, G.R. Sharma stated that the Neolithic levels at Koldihwa belonged to a time between the 7th and the 5th millennium BC, thus providing the earliest evidence of rice cultivation in the subcontinent to date (Thapar 1965: 87–112, 1974: 61–5). The contribution of the late Professor T.C. Sharma in archaeological research in general and Neolithic research in particular in this region is not only outstanding, but also important as his research has more or less dominated the entire paradigm of our perception of the emergence of early cultures (Jamir and Hazarika 2014; Sarma and Hazarika 2014). He, with his colleagues and students, has shaped our understanding of the prehistoric cultures in all the states of Northeast India. His doctoral dissertation (Sharma 1966) was the first attempt of systematic study of the surface material kept in various museums and also the excavated material from Daojali Hading. He strongly believed that the Neolithic personality of the region had emerged under a strong influence of East and Southeast Asian Neolithic traditions, which were characterized by the earlier tradition known as Hoabinhian. While working at Spirit Cave, Gorman (1970, 1971) found Hoabinhian tools overlapping with Neolithic pottery and ground stone adzes. A similar situation also existed in Vietnam and other northern areas, where the Hoabinhian evolved into a fairly coherent agricultural array of Neolithic culture (Bellwood 1985). With the establishment of the Department of Anthropology at Gauhati University in 1948, research on the prehistoric cultures of Northeast India gained considerable importance. Scholars from this department have been conducting explorations and excavations in different areas which have immensely contributed to the understanding of prehistoric culture at the regional level. Important Surface Finds

The post-Independence era witnessed excavations at a handful of sites carried out by the universities located in Guwahati, Dibrugarh, (p.98) Shillong, and Manipur, and by several state departments of archaeology in eastern India, including the Archaeological Survey of India. Since only a limited number of sites have been excavated in Northeast India thus far, most of our understanding of the culture is based on surface finds. Hence, it will be worthwhile to review the most important surface finds from each of the Northeast Indian states before discussing the major excavated sites.

Page 24 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Arunachal Pradesh

Sarkar collected 3 chisels, 10 complete axes, and 4 broken pieces of axes from different parts of Arunachal Pradesh and recorded 2 triangular and 2 shouldered celts possessed by villagers in Singpho and Aka areas during 1962–4 (Sarkar 1982; Thakur 2005: 42). Raikar recorded 3 triangular ground axes and 1 bar type polished broken celt during excavations at Bhishmaknagar, however, these were without any stratigraphic context (Raikar and Chatterjee 1980). Goswami and colleagues (1972) reported 18 neoliths from the Kameng district of Arunachal Pradesh. The joint scientific expedition in the Daphabum area led by the Geological Survey in collaboration with the Anthropological, Archaeological, Botanical, and Zoological surveys (IAR 1969–70; Bopardikar 1972) yielded Neolithic tools which are classified as shouldered axes, chisels, triangular axes, and splayed axes. Duarah (1979) reported three Neolithic celts from the Kamla valley of Subansiri collected by a teacher, B. Sukla, of the Damin area. Extensive surveys by Ashraf (1990) in different parts of the Kamla and Kurung valleys since 1982 have led to the discovery of a number of prehistoric artefacts. The first stone tool discovered was a chipped, polished Neolithic axe. His survey also revealed a stratified Neolithic site at Parsi-Parlo. Two stone axes were also collected from Taram, which is located to the east of the Parsi-Parlo site at a distance of 12 kilometres from Vigo, which can be considered to be an extension of the Parsi-Parlo site. A shouldered celt was also collected from a shifting cultivation field at the locality of Lia, 2 kilometres south of Parsi-Parlo. Taba, located 40 kilometres southwest of Parsi-Parlo at an altitude of 1,250 metres, which is higher than other localities in the vicinity, was also explored from April to June 1984. Mittra and his team from the Archaeological Survey of India explored the lower Subansiri (p.99) district and collected several Neolithic tools from Miyan, Toon, and Tona (IAR 2000–1: 3). The scarcity of pottery in Arunachal may be due to inavailability of clay. Assam

Pottery found during explorations in the Kamakhya Hills of Guwahati by the Department of Anthropology of the University of Gauhati is distinguished by cord- and basket-impressed designs on the exterior. Similar pottery was also found from the adjoining localities of Nabagraha and Sarania Hills (IAR 1965–6). Medhi and Rajaguru (IAR 1977–8) discovered a piece of celt in a colluvial reddish soil, derived from weathering of the gneissic rock, during their reconnaissance survey around Guwahati. Saikia (1988) also reported some stone artefacts from the Dibru valley of Assam. The area around Langting and Maibong in the North Cachar Hills was explored by Sharma and Ashraf (IAR 1992–3). The surface collection in and around the area included a doubleshouldered axe and a broken celt. A good number of potsherds, predominantly cord-impressed, were also collected from the surface. Besides this collection,

Page 25 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record stone implements and potsherds were also unearthed from a stratified context on the eastern bank of the site exposed by the Langting Haflong road. In 1995, D.K. Medhi (2002) carried out field investigations in the western Karbi Anglong with his students. Altogether 18 celts were collected from different localities, such as 3 pieces from Amlong, 4 pieces from Badong, 1 piece from Hamren, 5 pieces from Umchera, 3 pieces from Umnar, and 2 pieces from Uzandonka. Medhi further collected 18 more Neolithic celts from other localities that include Tongklok, Tengralangso, Hatipahar, Amtoli, Kamarpha, Tamolbari, Borkok, and Bhoksong. These celts were collected from different families, Karbis and non-Karbis. At Bheloguri inside the Borapani Tea Estate, an area of 5 × 3 metres was dug out, which yielded a shouldered celt. Artefacts collected in the western Karbi Anglong are made from indurate shale except for one piece made of chert. Manipur

In Manipur, only a few Neolithic sites have been discovered so far. However, a good number of ground and polished stone tools and (p.100) pottery have been collected as stray finds from many localities. The excavated sites include Nongpok Keithelmanbi and Napachik, while the sites of Laimenai and Phunan have been explored for surface finds. O.K. Singh (1991) of the People’s Museum at Kakching collected some ground neoliths and potsherds of tripod and corded wares from Laimenai in the Thoubal district of the Manipur valley. Surface collections from Laimenai were also made by Singh (1993) in December 1990, and exploratory digging unearthed many potsherds, a few fragments of grinding stones, waste flake, and a flat pebble hammer stone from the 26-centimetrethick light yellowish brown soil, below which the layer becomes sterile. While ploughing a plot of land, a neolith of the triangular hoe type was unearthed by the owner of a paddy field. O.K. Singh (1991) provided a detailed catalogue of the neoliths kept at the People’s Museum of Kakching. During an exploration in October 1967 at the Phunan site, located to the southwest of Phunan Maring village, 22 kilometres southwest of Imphal, Singh (1993) discovered many potsherds and two very large grinding stones. Ground stone tools consisting of a triangular hoe, chisels, and a quadrangular axe were also found from other parts of the Phunan Hills. The tool type is dominated by square-cut sides with a rectilinear median cross-section, made using a grinding and polishing technique. Explorations in the district of Bishenpur reported a Neolithic site at Naran Siena and several stone celts (IAR 1995–6: 58). Meghalaya

The Garo Hills of the Meghalaya are of foremost importance in terms of the discovery of the largest number of prehistoric sites and artefacts. Even though the area was already known for the presence of Stone Age artefacts in the preIndependence era (Walker 1931), systematic explorations were initiated by Page 26 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record researchers (IAR 1963–4) from Gauhati University only during a campaign in 1963–4. Continuous explorations in the Garo Hills have brought to light several sites bearing Neolithic stone implements and pottery. During 1964–5, Goswami (IAR 1964–5) explored the Rongru Hill area, bounded by the Chitra streamlet, the Chitra Abri Hill, Dipu Abri, and Rongram Chimbima, and collected as many as 294 Neolithic implements from an area of (p.101) nearly 7.77 square kilometres. The implements include celts, axes, and hoes. A large number of these artefacts were shouldered adzes, hammer stones, and chisels. Further explorations by Goswami (IAR 1965–6) under the auspices of the University Grant Commission of India revealed the Neolithic sites of Rangigir, Selbalgiri, and Thusekgiri, situated in the Arbela range in the northwestern part of the Garo Hills. Nearly 800 stone implements of various categories were collected. Typologically some of these artefacts show similarities with the Hoabinhian tools of Southeast Asia. Other tools recovered from the sites were flattish axes of lenticular section, ground at the working edge on the undersurface; crudely shouldered axes; and cylindrical-shaped chisels. All of these were made of locally available dolerite and were heavily weathered. Goswami (IAR 1966–7) further explored the central and northern parts of the Garo Hills with the assistance of Tarun Chandra Sharma. Stone tools and pottery were collected from many hilltops. The collection consisted of Neolithic stone axes, adzes, and grinding stones made from doleritic basalt. However, heavy weathering had given rise to a reddish brown patina that simulated ferruginous sandstone. The typology of the stone tools found at these sites included Hoabinhian tools, cores, flakes, axes, adzes, hoes, long narrow celts, and grinding stones. During a campaign in 1967–8, Goswami, Tarun Chandra Sharma, and a few research students made further collections at the Chitra Abri site (IAR 1967–8). The implements found include 1 pebble tool, 47 chipped celts, 21 ground celts, 12 scrapers, 7 points, 3 borers, 1 awl, 3 spearheads, 12 shouldered celts, and 15 cores and hammer stones. In the same area on the bank of the Rongram River, about 4.5 kilometres to the east of the Rongram Development Block, 2 toolbearing sites were discovered within the limits of Selbalgiri. From Selbalgiri 1, a dome-shaped hillock, a large number of potsherds and 6 stone axes could be collected from the surface that had been exposed by erosion and agricultural operations. At Selbalgiri 2, situated at a distance of about 2 kilometres to the southwest, numerous stone tools of various types and pottery were found on the eroded gravely surface on the slope of a ridge (IAR 1967–8). The collection consisted of 5 handaxes, 2 picks, 5 discs, 158 chipped celts, 152 ground celts, 32 shouldered celts, 5 awls, 158 scrapers, 20 borers, 66 blades, 26 large knives, 7 knives (p.102) blades, 141 points, 12 spear heads, 30 arrow heads, 1 fabricator, 2 edges, 1 hinge flake, 2 chisels, 53 cores, 27 hammer stones, 22 microliths, and 1,722 waste flakes.

Page 27 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Rajaguru, Joshi, and Pappu of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute in Pune in collaboration with Tarun Chandra Sharma, Sharma and Roy of Gauhati University, and Medhi of Arya Vidyapeeth College in Guwahati carried out a geo-archaeological study of the Garo Hills in 1978–9 (IAR 1978–9). Earlier surveys had yielded Neolithic sites and artefacts exclusively made of basalt and dolerite. This rich area revealed several factory sites and numerous clusters of implements from the Neolithic period. Medhi discovered two Neolithic sites at Gawak Abri, 1 kilometre west of Selbalgiri at an elevation of 25 to 28 metres above the current bed of a tributary to the river Selbal (IAR 1979–80). The tools collected from a shifting cultivation field included finished and unfinished artefacts. Another site near Selbalgiri, southwest of the confluence of the Selbal and Rongram, also yielded unfinished Neolithic tools. During an exploration in 1981–2, Tarun Chandra Sharma and two research students discovered a Neolithic site at Rongru Abri in a sub-recent terrace of the Rongram River further downstream (IAR 1981–2). The site yielded a large quantity of ground and polished celts along with crude handmade pottery and a few chipped celts and scrapers on the bed of the dry gullies cut through the thick silt of the terrace. An exploration in the villages of Selbalgiri, Michimagiri, and Bibragiri in the Rangram and Ganol River valley of the west Garo Hills, at 25°33′ N latitude and 91°15′ E longitude, reported several chipped stone axes, scrapers, points, blades, and cores along with ground and polished stone axes (IAR 1998–9: 120). The Department of Art and Culture of the Meghalaya Government reported a Neolithic site 15 kilometres north of Shillong (25°37′ N latitude, 91°52′ E longitude), and from a site located 7 kilometres south of Shillong (25°57′ N latitude, 91°52′ E longitude) it collected around 40 prehistoric stone tools of different types and sizes as well as an additional 45 stone artefacts consisting of flake stone axes, scrapers, points, borers, blades, and choppers from Selbalgiri, Misimagiri, Rongiri, Brongiri, and Ganolgiri in the western Garo Hills (25°33′ N latitude, 91°15′ E longitude). The Guwahati Circle of the Archaeological Survey of India (p.103) explored the Didami valley in the Rongram area of the western Garo Hills and reported several river sections having stone artefacts comprising handaxes, scrapers, points, and flake tools (IAR 1999–2000: 230–1). Recently, Ashraf (2011) reported a Neolithic site named Bambooti (25°55' N latitude, 90°46' E longitude) in the foothills of the eastern Garo Hills at Thengasot near Dudhnoi in the Assamese district of Goalpara. The site Bambooti yielded ground stone tools, potsherds, and charcoal (Gogoi Duarah 2015). Research into the Neolithic culture of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills is scanty compared to investigations conducted in the Garo Hills. Tarun Chandra Sharma discovered a Neolithic site on the left bank of the Wah Umium River near Barapani in Meghalaya, which yielded tools such as axes, adzes, points, scrapers, and a good number of waste flakes and chips (IAR 1979–80). The artefacts found on the surface were exposed due to the ploughing of the surface Page 28 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record alluvial soil deposited on the laterite. The raw materials of the artefacts include locally available phyllite and shale belonging to the Shillong series. Medhi, Rao, and Hussain later explored the site and collected 2 finished celts, 5 unfinished celts, 2 broken unfinished celts, 11 blades, 11 scrapers, 13 waste flakes, 1 core, and 2 microliths (IAR 1979–80). Mitri (2005) reported some Neolithic artefacts including stone tools and pottery from Sohpet Bneng Hill of the Ri-Bhoi district in Meghalaya. As part of his doctoral dissertation at the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) of Shillong, Mitri recently conducted fresh explorations in both the Khasi and Jaintia Hills and recorded a total of 19 sites. However, none of the sites are in an undisturbed and well-stratified condition, a common state of most prehistoric sites discovered in Northeast India thus far. On the basis of surface collection of artefacts and the raw material used, he argues that ‘the people who arrived in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills had already equipped themselves with Neolithic technology which they brought from outside’ (Mitri 2009: 75). Pottery found at the sites is mostly handmade, fired at low temperatures, and has cord impressions, a common characteristic of Neolithic pottery of Northeast India. He suggests that the northern part of the Ri-Bhoi region along the border of the Karbi Anglong was the entry point to the Khasi and Jaintia Hills for the Neolithic dwellers, and the ‘Neolithic elements of this region are the direct offshoot of the outlier Neolithic from Cachar Hills and Karbi Anglong region’ (Mitri 2009: 84). (p.104) Mizoram

Mizoram is the least known region as far as archaeological research is concerned. There is a report of a Neolithic stone artefact recovered from this region. It is a large (154 × 102 × 9 millimetres) and thin stone axe made of slate stone that has been fully ground with a broad and thin blade, symmetrical like a metal axe and rectangular in section. At the butt end, it has three bored holes, probably to facilitate hafting (Sharma 1966). Sharma (1996: 112) reported two other neoliths made of jadeite from Mizoram. Nagaland

Nienu (1974) reported a few sites yielding handmade pottery and ground stone tools. The most important of these sites is Chungliyimti (26°24′ N latitude, 94°45′ E longitude), located at a distance of 8 kilometres from the Chare Administrative Outpost. This habitational site lies on a hill at an elevation between 6,000 and 7,000 feet (1 foot = 0.3 metre) above mean sea level. The artefacts collected from this mound consist of stone bowls, pestles, grinding stones, balls, hammers, querns, mullers, whorls, knives, handaxes, scrapers, cores, flakes, and terracotta and stone smoking pipes similar to those recovered from the excavation at Sekta in Manipur. The Department of Culture of the Nagaland Government also collected a few Neolithic stone celts and terracotta objects from Chungliyimti and Changsang (IAR 1980–1: 84). Later explorations at this site under the direction of Tarun Chandra Sharma led to the discovery of polished Neolithic celts of the shouldered variety, pottery, grinding stones, stone Page 29 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record rubbers, pestles, stone earrings, and stone whorls. The coarse ill-fired handmade pottery from the site was made by the beater-and-paddle method resulting in grooved beater marks that are clearly visible on the surface (IAR 1991–2: 83). Stone tools collected in Nagaland by Sharma (1996) from the areas inhabited by the Sema and Lotha Nagas have some regional peculiarities. Implements from the sites at Rokimi, Karami, Siromi, Lazimi, Itumi, Lokhimi, Sachema, and Kigwema are made of raw materials such as greenstone, a variety of diorite, shale, slate, sandstone, and jadeite. As greenstone is a fine-grained tough rock, the tools are shaped by pecking and the edges are prepared by grinding. As jadeite (p.105) is not available locally, it is probable that these were obtained from Upper Burma and southwestern China. The common tool type is the rounded shouldered to quasi-tanged axe, similar to the pointed butt axe of south India. Sharma has also located Neolithic handmade pottery at Sachema, 25 kilometres northwest of Kohima at an elevation of 1,500 metres, at Kiruphema, 6 kilometres northwest of Sachema at an elevation of 1,400 metres, and at Kigwema, 16 kilometres south of Kohima. Local villagers collected polished stone celts, pounders, and pestles from the fields. The raw material used for tool making is generally an indigenous variety of fine-grained rock, olive brown in colour, and generally known as ground stone; shale and similar sedimentary rocks; greenstone; and jadeite (IAR 1991–2: 82). Explorations in the Phek-Wazheho area (25°40′ N latitude, 94°30′ E longitude), bordering Burma and Manipur, resulted in the discovery of several Neolithic sites in the villages of Phek Basa and Shatuza and within the Wazheho cement factory area. These sites yielded stone artefacts including ground polished stone tools of olive green chert, grinding stones, and crude handmade cord-impressed pottery (IAR 1994–5: 59). Sikkim

A.K. Sharma (1981) discovered a number of Neolithic sites in northern and eastern Sikkim. Early collections were made from Darjeeling and Kalimpong (Dasgupta 1967). Banerjee (1971) also reported a thin chisel made of slate from Odhare, located in Romtek Basti, close to Gangtok. Collections made by Sharma (1981) from areas like Lingthen, Lingdon, Barpak, Sankalan, Lingden, Gytong, Sangdong, Gnon, Tarang, Gor-Tarand, and Likyong yielded 2 harvesters, 1 knife, 7 axes, 19 adzes, 2 single- and double-perforated celts, and 2 polishers, made of shale, basalt, and dolerite. A majority of the artefacts are ground or polished all over. Pottery is conspicuously absent. Sharma believes that the absence of pottery is due to the absence of the desired type of clay for pottery making. In east Sikkim, 6 polished celts, comprising 2 axes and 4 adzes along with a polisher, were also reported from Pakhyong and Shamsing villages. The doubleperforated celt is typical of the Sikkim Neolithic. Banerjee (1987) also reported Neolithic artefacts such as adzes, celts, (p.106) chisels, perforated celts, splayed axes, knives, and harvesters from the sites of Barpak, Gnon, GorPage 30 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Terange, Gytong, Lingden, Lingdon, Lingthen, Linkyong, Manshitong, Sangdong, Sankalong, Terang, Pakhyong, and Shamsing. Lama (2008: 39–49) assessed the Neolithic material collected by earlier scholars. He later reported the discovery of stone artefacts from his explorations in Sikkim during the years 2002–4 (Lama 2013). The explorations yielded 10 axes, 7 adzes, 14 celts, 2 perforated celts, 1 unfinished harvester, and 1 unfinished sling ball, all of which resemble analogous specimens from southern China. The localities are Nanchebung, Retipul, upper Sandur, Sangkhola, Martam (Dakendora), Tamabutar, Jollypool, Radang Basti, Ranka Raigaon, Aho, Aho Basti, lower Sichey Basti, Lingtham Sajam, Adampool, Sandur, Adampool Basti, Nadunk, Bhojaghari, Bhurtuk, Pengla, Ranka Rai Basti, Phaungma, Ranka Santag, Tingla, Ranka Burdang, Asam Lingje, Penglong La, Swarani, Tingda, and Ranka Raigaon. Bhengra (2008) reports Neolithic artefacts found during explorations by a team of archaeologists of the Prehistory Branch of Archaeological Survey of India in the state of Sikkim. Mishra and his team explored northern, central, and eastern Sikkim and recorded over a hundred stone tools which show close affinity with those of southern China and Southeast Asia (Mishra 2008). Tripura

In 1975, some Neolithic implements were found while the foundation of a house was being dug at Nandanagar near Agartala (as mentioned in Ramesh 1986). Ramesh (1989) reported the discovery of a large number of Neolithic tools from a number of sites in western Tripura. Almost all of these tools are made from fossilized wood. The sites are Teliamura, the Sonai Bazar area, Mohanpur, and Sonaram, and the tool kit comprises pecked and ground axes, adzes, grinding stones, and points. The size of the axes ranges from 5 to 3.5 centimetres × 12 to 6 centimetres. Ramesh traces the affinity of the Neolithic tools of western Tripura to Burma and Southeast Asia on the basis of the raw material used, that is, silicised fossilised wood, as well as the documented tool types. (p.107) Important Excavations

Surface finds are ubiquitous, and in Bhutan and the hills of Arunachal, where Neolithic implements are imbued with religious significance, people keep them in their household shrines or even grind them into powder to be used in Tibetan medicine. Every minor landslide in a terraced field in the hills seems to expose Neolithic artefacts. This underscores the importance of the Northeast and the surrounding hill tracts to the prehistory of the peopling of Asia. Having now discussed the ubiquitous nature of surface finds, we shall turn to some important excavations in the Northeast. Parsi-Parlo

The Neolithic site of Parsi-Parlo, excavated by Ashraf (1990), is situated on the northern slope of Terrace I at an elevation of 12 metres from the Kamla river Page 31 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record bed on the right bank. Excavation at Parsi-Parlo during the years 1982–3, revealed a cultural deposit about 50 to 100 centimetres thick, belonging to a single culture. Scrapers and large cutting tools with rudiments of pecked and ground technique characterize Phase I at the site. The raw materials used for the manufacturing of tools of this phase consisted of sandstone and quartzite. Phase II is characterized by pecked and ground stone implements, wasted blade, axes, faceted tools, and handmade pottery. This continuation of the preceding phase is marked by the conspicuous absence of scrapers and other large cutting tools as well as the emergence of pottery. The tool kit, in general, provides hafting facilities and is mostly agriculture based. At the Parsi-Parlo site, a small number of potsherds represent square-grid and honeycomb beater-impressed pottery. Lavigation is poor and the pottery contains a high percentage of gritty particles. The pottery consists of bowls with a featherless rim and a constricted neck and lipped pots with a globular body made for culinary purposes. Potsherds discovered at the site of Taba are coarse in texture and handmade, representing plain (thick and coarse) ware, stamped (grid pattern) ware, and irregular corded ware. Daporijo

The Directorate of Research of Arunachal Pradesh explored 20 square kilometres around Daporijo in the years 1994–5 and conducted (p.108) excavations to ascertain the existence of Neolithic culture in the area after having found a few artefacts on the surface (IAR 1995–6). Fifteen trial trenches of 2 metres by 2 metres were dug to ascertain the chronological set-up. The depth of the trial trenches was between 35 and 40 centimetres, and the artefacts were found in Layer 2. All the 11 Neolithic tools found were highly weathered and made of soft clay stone, typologically belonging to the Neolithic axe group (IAR 1994–5: 3; IAR 1996–7: 2–3). Daojali Hading

The most well-known site of Northeast India is Daojali Hading, located on a low hillock at an altitude of 1,000 feet above sea level in the North Cachar Hills. This famous site was discovered by Goswami (Goswami and Sharma 1963). Excavations carried out at the site revealed for the first time the stratigraphical position of the Neolithic culture of Northeast India. In 1961, a 3.6 × 0.75 metre trench was laid out, whereas, in 1963, 4 regular trenches (B, C, D, and E) were dug in the undisturbed parts of the mound at Daojali Hading. The archaeological finds consisted of potsherds and stone implements. The site which has a deposit of 1.5 metres revealed the following three layers: 1. Layer I: Dark loose earth, approximately 20 to 30 centimetres thick, archaeologically sterile. 2. Layer II: Dark grey and loose upper half, light grey lower half, about 75 centimetres thick, archaeologically rich, bearing stone tools of various types and potsherds. Page 32 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record 3. Layer III: Yellowish brown compact earth of about 45 centimetres. Sharma (1966) studied the collection of stone artefacts recovered from excavations, road cutting, and the surface at Daojali Hading. The artefacts from the excavation comprised 32 edged tools, 22 grinding stones, 4 querns, 6 mullers, 11 quartzite pebbles, and fossil wood. The raw materials used are locally available shale, sandstone, quartzite, and fossilized wood. Shale was used for making edged tools, so too was fossilized wood. Sandstone was used for grinding stones, whetstones, and querns, and artefacts recovered from the road cutting and the (p.109) surface show a similar composition. The edged tools were made by flaking and grinding. The pottery from Daojali Hading was classified by Sharma (1967) into three varieties, that is, 595 pieces of cord-impressed variety, 19 pieces of stamped dull red variety, and 11 pieces of brick red variety. The majority of potsherds are heavily weathered and broken into small fragments which prevent identification of the shapes and forms of the vessels. The cord-impressed coarse grey ware is made of coarse and unevenly mixed clay, heavily tempered with large quartz particles. These vessels were prepared by the coil-building method. The presence of querns and mullers at the site clearly suggests that the available grains were ground, which provides indirect evidence for the use of food plants in Neolithic society. In the present state of research, we cannot state whether these plants were wild or domesticated. Sarutaru

Rao (1977) carried out an excavation at the Neolithic site of Sarutaru in the Assamese district of Kamrup during the years 1967–73 under the auspices of the Department of Anthropology of Dibrugarh University. Sarutaru is a hamlet situated 25 kilometres southeast of Guwahati, and the Neolithic site lies on top of a small hillock about 125 metres high. On the basis of an accidental find of a few ground stone celts during the construction of a farmhouse on the hillock at Sarutaru, the site was selected for excavation for an understanding the stratigraphical position of the artefacts. Three trenches, each measuring 3 square metres, were dug to a depth of 65 centimetres. Excavations revealed the cultural horizon at a depth of 20 centimetres from the surface, continuing up to a depth of 56 centimetres until the sterile layer. Artefacts include ground stone celts and potsherds. The stone industry of Sarutaru included 9 ground stone celts made of slate of grey to black colour and sandstone of cream to buff colour. The tools were manufactured in two stages, that is, chipping and grinding. Celts made on slate are generally flat and require less chipping. In such cases, the stone celts are ground at the working edge only. In case of sandstone artefacts, chipping clearly preceded grinding. The tools obtained by chipping and grinding retain the flake (p.110) scars on the surface in spite of subsequent grinding all over the body. Page 33 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record The stone tools are classified by Rao (1977) into two types: 7 shouldered celts and 2 round-butted axes. The shouldered celts are made of flat and thin nodules of slate. As a result, both faces are smooth and the sections thin. The straight and broad cutting edge is sharp due to bifacial grinding, about 1 centimetre from the edge. Two curved shoulders on either side form the tenon at the butt. The shoulders were obtained by making two grooves on either side, first by chipping and then by grinding, possibly with a harder rounded pebble that was no more than a centimetre long. In one specimen, one of the shoulders is finished, almost at a right angle. The edge on one shouldered celt is blunt due to utilization that has left indentation marks. The round-butted axe is ground all over and yet retains a few flake scars due to chipping. The axe has a medium cutting edge that is sharp and broad. The sides gently taper to make the butt-end rounded and the cross-section biconvex. Numerous potsherds were recovered from the excavations at Sarutaru along with stone axes. Pottery is handmade of clay mixed with quartz particles that show up on the surface. Three ceramic types, on the basis of colour, have been recognized: brown, buff, and grey. The ceramic is sometimes decorated with cord-impressions or basket-impressions on the exterior in the form of either parallel or criss-cross lines. Marakdola

Rao (1977) carried out another excavation at the site of Marakdola, which is a low mound situated at distance of 1 kilometre from the Neolithic site of Sarutaru, in order to derive a relative date for the site of Sarutaru. The excavations revealed a single cultural stratum of a thickness of 1 metre with wheel-turned pottery of fine kaolin clay. Exterior decoration included cordimpressions on some of the vessels from shoulder to base. Due to the occurrence of a shouldered celt among the pottery, Rao assigned the site to the Neolithic period. In reassessing the details of the excavated material, it is difficult to accept the site as being of the Neolithic period because it has been observed at many sites that Neolithic celts survived until as late as the 7th century AD and even afterwards. (p.111) Nongpok Keithelmanbi

The site of Nongpok Keithelmanbi (Singh 1993) is located on top of a flattened spur of hills which projects from the main mountain range towards the end up to the Thoubal River valley. A trial trench dug in 1983 could unearth three cultural sequences in a 74-centimetre-thick slope deposit of fissured argillaceous loam. A charcoal sample (BS-523) from the corded ware stratum has been dated to 4,460 ± 120 years BP. No stone artefacts were recovered from the excavation. However two celts were collected from other localities of the Nongpok Keithelmanbi area, one pointed butt ground celt and one that was unfinished

Page 34 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record and made of fine sandstone pebble by flaking at one end on both surfaces with traces of grinding to produce the edge. The pottery at the site of Nongpok Keithelmanbi is mostly corded ware, overlying the Hoabinhian stratum in the cultural sequence. This ill-fired handmade pottery is heavily weathered, and in many cases the corded surface is also eroded. The cord marks are found in the form of linear and criss-cross patterns. The pottery is made of fine clay and tempered with sand and a few quartz particles. Fine sand was used as a tempering material for plain pottery. The colours of the potsherds are red and brown, with light red and reddish brown being the dominant colours. In thickness, the potsherds range from 2 to 8 millimetres, with 4 to 5 millimetres being the most common dimension. From the rim fragments, the vessels appear to be shallow bowls with a flat carved base and globular pots with a constricted neck. Napachik

Napachik was discovered in 1981 on a small hillock located on the right bank of the Manipur River at Wangu village in Bishnupur district (Singh 1993). A trench measuring 4 × 2 square metres was dug on the southwestern slope, and another trench measuring 5 × 2 square metres was dug in 1985 at the eastern foot of the hill. The dominant cultural material collected from the excavations consisted of potsherds decorated with cord marks and tripod legs in association with pebble and flake tools as well as ground celts. The cord marks are similar to the ones found at the site of Phunan. Some of the flake tools are very small and resemble non-geometric microliths. Besides, a large number of crystallized quartz pieces with tiny scars at the tip (p.112) and side and waste flakes are also found in the excavation. The lithic artefacts of the Napachik site include 3 pebble tools, 51 flake tools, 21 flakes, 27 cores, 7 ground celts, and 7 grinding stones. Neolithic celts of the triangular variety with a uni-bevelled edge have an almost circular or oval median cross section. In manufacturing these neoliths, the techniques of pecking and grinding were employed. The lithic artefacts from the Laimenai site in Manipur are made of sandstone, with the application of chipping and grinding techniques. These artefacts include triangular hoe blades, small chisels with gouged edge, and small trapezoidal celts. In cross section, the tools have oval and rectangular forms. Tripod legs are also found at the site of Laimenai. The tripod wares characterize the ceramic industry of the Napachik site of Manipur. The pottery varieties comprise 748 pieces of plain ware, 893 pieces of cord-marked ware, 4 pieces of ring-footed ware, and 64 pieces of tripod legged ware. The pottery is handmade, fragmentary, and fired at a low temperature. Decoration is applied by beating with a cord-wrapped paddle. Most of the potsherds are of fine texture and tempered with sand, vegetables, or powdered charcoal. Reddish brown is the dominant colour of the pottery, but there is also Page 35 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record grey, dark grey, and a whitish colour. The tripod legs are mostly reddish brown in colour. A few are grey and dark grey. The legs are solid and made separately. The tripod legs are either long or short. The long legs have a conical shape, while the short legs have a flat, circular, or tapering body with either a knob or a flat sloping top to facilitate in lutting. Such three-legged pottery has also been found in a burial at Ban Kao, a small inland settlement in Thailand, datable to 2000 BC. These pots were extensively used, as reported from many sites in western Thailand and also as far as Malaysia (Bahn 2002: 112). This type of pottery has also been reported from the late levels of the Lungshanoid culture in southern China, which is different from the classical Longshan cultures dominated by several basic forms, namely the ting tripod with solid legs, the tou with cut-out ring feet, and the kui type jars. In the early period, such tripods were handmade, but evidence of the potter’s wheel has been noticed towards the later phase (Chang 1977: 174–80). Among the tripod legs of Napachik, there is a solid flat leg that resembles the ring tripod type of the late Neolithic of southern (p.113) China (Singh 1993). Perhaps Manipur was once a meeting place of the new Neolithic impulses from the adjoining regions of Southeast Asia. Selbalgiri 2

As mentioned earlier, Goswami and Sharma (IAR 1967–8) collected a good number of artefacts from Selbalgiri 2, and a small trench, measuring 7.7 × 3.7 metres, was laid to ascertain the stratigraphical sequence of the implementiferous strata. Following is the tentative stratigraphy of the excavation: 1. Layer I: 22 centimetres thick, composed of reddish earth mixed with a small quantity of quartz gravel; yielded six stone axes, both ground and chipped, a scraper, and a large number of potsherds. 2. Layer II: 20 centimetres thick, reddish brown in colour, containing large number of quartz gravel; yielded a core, four hammers, and several small flakes, besides pottery. 3. Layer III: 35 centimetres thick, yellowish in colour, bearing less gravel; yielded numerous microliths, both geometric and non-geometric, with pottery. The pottery collected from the excavation at Selbalgiri 2 (IAR 1967–8) were handmade, coarse and gritty in fabric, and grey, grey-brown, and dull brown in colour, with very rough texture due to the presence of quartz grit in the clay. No decoration could be detected on the potsherds. The pottery found on the surface was relatively thicker and less gritty.

Page 36 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Pynthorlangtein

Rao and his colleagues of the Prehistory Branch of the Archaeological Survey of India took a trial trench measuring 2 metres by 1 metre at Pynthorlangtein (25°22′ N latitude, 92°06′ E longitude) in the Jowai area, with a view of ascertaining the nature of the habitational deposit during the years 1992–3 (IAR 1992–3). The trial trench at the highest point of the mound yielded a cultural deposit of 1 metre, comprising Neolithic cultural material. The tools comprised adzes, axes, chisels, points, blades, scrapers, polishers, penknives, flake-blanks, cores, and flakes. The majority of the celts were chipped, and a few were partly ground. (p.114) Aside from the lithic artefacts, a few potsherds of handmade, coarse red ware pottery with cord impression were collected at a depth of 60 to 80 centimetres. Some Neolithic stray tools were also collected from Riat Turein in the Jaintia Hills and at Rongchugiri in the western Garo Hills. The Neolithic factory site of Pynthorlangtein did not yield any shouldered celt, a common type of artefacts invariably associated with the Neolithic sites of Northeast India (Taher and Rao 2005). Lawnongthroh

The site of Lawnongthroh, located in the northern slopes of Sohpet Bneng Hill in the Ri-Bhoi district of Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, was brought under excavation by Marco Mitri and his team. A total area of 104 square metres, 13 metres north to south and 8 metres east to west, was laid out and excavated. The excavation was carried out using horizontal method with trenches measuring 1 metre by 1 metre. Two cultural layers have been recorded at the site, and the four samples of charcoal sent for 14C dates have produced dates ranging from 2,960 ± 30 years BP of the lowest layer to 1,640 ± 30 years BP of the upper layer. From the excavation, a good number of finished stone tools, broken stone tool fragments and small flakes, and a large number of handmade potsherds were recovered. Paddle groove pottery is the most dominant type, besides typical cord-marked potsherds. The iron objects inlcude a borer, a harpoon head, part of a bracelet, and a small buckle, whereas the stone objects include water pebbles, grinding stone or polishers, spindle whorl, handknife, ringstones, and fire lighter. The botanical samples have also been recovered which are Oryza sp. (cf. officinalis), Ziziphus sp. (Jujube), Embica officinalis (Indian gooseberry), Coix sp. (Job’s tears), Echinochloa sp. (millet), and Gossypium sp. (cotton). The lower layer of Lawnongthroh 1 has been dated to cal (calibrated years) 1220 BC (Mitri, Kharmawphlang, and Syiemlieh 2015). Myrkhan

The site of Myrkhan is located 45 kilometres south of Lawnongthroh in the East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. The village of Myrkhan has produced waste flakes and artefacts at different spots within the 3-square-kilometre area of the site. The largest concentration of these archaeological remains can (p.115) be found at the extreme south-west end of the modern village where heaps of waste flakes and stone artefacts have been piled up by cultivators in recent past. The piled-up Page 37 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record artefacts are found on a flat ledge of the slope which measures about 60 metres east to west and 20 metres north to south. This spot also recorded the largest artefact piles and concentrated waste flakes, cores, and unfinished stone tools along the surface. This area has been excavated by Marco Mitri and his team in 2016 which has produced a large amount of finished and unfinished stone artefacts including polished tools, chipped axes and adzes, flakes, chunks, and debitages, besides pottery of carved paddle and cord-impressed types and other important items like beads. The lower layer of Myrkhan has been dated to cal 1885 to 1765 BC, predating Lawnongthroh by almost 600 years (Mitri and Neog 2016). Chungliyimti

Archaeological excavations at Chungliyimti carried out by a team of the Anthropological Society of Nagaland under the aegis of the Department of Art and Culture of the Nagaland government was headed by Tiatoshi Jamir of Nagaland University. These investigations revealed finished and unfinished celts of sandstone and spillite and numerous earth-cut storage pits. Additionally, buffcoloured wheel-made pottery, Ambari ware, beads of glass, tile, jade, agate, amethyst, carnelian, and iron were also recovered, indicating an inter-regional trade network. Archaeobotanical remains found include Oryza nivara, Oryza rufipogon, Oryza sativa, Siteria sp., Triticum aestivum, and Hordeum vulgare. The structure at the site indicates that the houses faced east with three distinct plans, such as roughly rectangular with a frontal semi-circular apse, pentagonal and oblong with a tapering front. Radiometric samples analysed by Institute of Physics at Bhubaneshwar and the Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany in Lucknow assigned a time bracket ranging from AD 980 to AD 1647 for the site. Considering the time bracket, the excavators have assigned the site to the postNeolithic period. Investigations of other Naga ancestral sites have reported remains of cultivated rice and millet, Bos indicus, Bos frontalis, Bubalus bubalis, Sus scrofa, Cervus, jungle fowl, barking deer, and wild boar. The radiometric samples analysed by Beta Analytic Inc. in Miami, Florida, provided a time bracket of 50 BC to AD 1600 for these (p.116) sites (Jamir 2011: 41–4). This new path-breaking study led by Tiatoshi Jamir can be considered as the first of its kind in all of Northeast India as far as multidisciplinary approach is concerned.

Page 38 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Purakha

Excavations at the site of Purakha, located in the Meluri subdivision of the district of Phek in Nagaland at an altitude of about 1,652 metres, yielded interesting results, providing a cultural sequence of pre-Neolithic, Neolithic, down to the recent age. Trenches were dug at three localities. A cluster of ‘manuports’ consisting of natural pebbles and cobbles, except for one perforated pebble, was recorded at Locality 3. Locality 2 on the lower terrace provided a good vertical sequence with the following four strata: 1. Stratum 1 (30 centimetres): Light to dark grey soil but no clear uniformity, yielded 3 grinding stones, 3 hammerstones, 1 ground/polished axe, 7 discs, 1 fabricator, 1 spindle whorl, 1 anvil (large cobble), 3 stone balls, and 3 manuports. 2. Stratum 2 (40 centimetres): Dark grey soil showing mottled appearance, yielded a good amount of potsherds, a piece of iron and one slag, besides 11 stone discs, 4 grinding stones, 4 hammerstones and pestles, 3 ground and polished stones, 2 fabricators, 3 stone balls, 1 quartz object, 4 manuports, and 6 fragments of burnt clay. 3. Stratum 3 (20 centimetres): Dark brown soil composed of coarse, medium, and some fine angular to sub-angular gravels loosely packed in a matrix of dark brown clayish soil with good amount of charcoal. Potsherds were recorded in lesser numbers. Ground and polished tools were recovered down to the lowest levels. The stone artefacts included 2 choppers, 3 scrapers, 1 point, 1 edge-ground tool, 1 hammerstone, 2 stone balls, 9 stone discs, and 7 manuports and 6 angular flakes which constitute debitage. A charcoal sample from this layer has produced a radiometric date of 2,580 ± 200 years BP. 4. Stratum 4 (30 centimetres): Argillaceous soil of light brown colour, more compact and damp, with occasional occurrence of charcoal and few artefacts and sherds. The artefacts incuded 2 choppers, 2 discs, 1 manuport, 1 spindle whorl, 1 edge-ground tool, and 1 quartz object (Nienu 1983, cited in Jamir 2013). (p.117) Zolapkhan at Mimi

An excavation was carried out at the limestone cave of Zolapkhan, situated on the bank of a small stream called the Lapkhen in the Mimi area. Of the four large chambers, the Upper Chamber 1 revealed traces of charcoal, ash, and a few potsherds with one of the sherds bearing cord marks. There is an absolute lack of stone artefacts at this site (Nienu 1983, cited in Jamir 2013). Data from Adjoining Parts of Eastern India

Among the divisions of the Neolithic cultures of India recognized by Thapar (1985), both northern Bihar or the mid-eastern district of Saran and the centraleastern region, covering the Chota Nagpur plateau with its peniplains extending into West Bengal and Orissa, need detailed discussion when one is addressing Page 39 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record the Neolithic situation of Northeast India due to their geographical proximity. Sites on the mid-Gangetic plain, for instance, Lahuradewa, Sahgaura, Imlidih Khurd, and Dhuriapar have been excavated. Sites in the Vindhyan Hills, for instance, Tokwa, Jhusi, Hetappati, Mahagara, Koldihwa, and Pachoh have also been excavated. Yet it is difficult to connect the Neolithic culture of Northeast India to these cultural assemblages, except for the cord-impressed pottery and a limited number of shouldered celts. Further fieldwork is required to address this issue by identifying the food plants, domestications of animals, and the economy of Neolithic people. However, the issue of connecting the microlith-using people with Neolithic people in Bihar, the Vindhyan Hills West Bengal, and Orissa appears to be a common finding at the lowest level, whereas in all of the Northeast no microliths have been found except in the Garo Hills (Tables 4.3 and 4.4).

Page 40 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Table 4.2 Comparative data of Neolithic sites from eastern India with details of the material remains Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

Arunachal Pradesh

Parsi-Parlo

Pecked and ground stone tool

Square-grid, honey-comb (web), and beaterimpressed pottery

Arunachal Pradesh

Daporijo

Neolithic axe

Assam

Daojali Hading

Edged tool, grinding stones, querns, and mullers

Cord-impressed variety, stamped dull red variety, and brick red variety

Assam

Sarutaru

Ground stone celts

Cord-impressions or basketimpressions on the exterior of the pottery of brown, buff, and grey colour

Assam

Marakdola

Shouldered celt

Wheel-turned pottery of fine kaolin clay

Structures

Plants

Animals

Page 41 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

Manipur

Nongpok Keithelmanbi

No stone tools found from the excavation, but ground celt from adjoining areas

Ill-fired and handmade pottery with corded surface in linear and crisscross patterns

(p.119) Manipur Napachik

Pebble and flake tools, ground celts, some of the flake tools are very small and resemble nongeometric microliths, grinding stones

Plain ware, cordmarked ware, ring-footed ware, tripod-legged ware

Meghalaya

Ground and chipped stone axe, scraper, microliths, both geometric and non-geometric

Handmade greycolour pottery

Selbalgiri 2

Structures

Plants

Animals

Page 42 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

Meghalaya

Pynthorlangtein

Adzes, axes, Coarse red ware chisels, points, pottery with cordblades, scrapers, impression polishers, penknife, flakeblanks, cores, and flakes

(p.120) Meghalaya

Lawnongthroh

Finished stone tools, broken stone tool fragments and small flakes, iron objects inlcuding borer, harpoon head, part of a bracelet, and a small buckle, stone objects including water pebbles, grinding stone, or polishers, spindle whorl, handknife, ring-stones, and fire lighter.

Handmade potsherds, paddle groove pottery, typical cordmarked pottery

Structures

Plants

Animals

Oryza sp. (cf. officinalis), Ziziphus sp. (Jujube), Embica officinalis (Indian gooseberry), Coix sp. (Job’s tears), Echinochloa sp. (millet) and Gossypium sp. (cotton)

Page 43 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

Meghalaya

Myrkhan

Finished and Pottery of carved unfinished stone paddle and cordartefacts impressed types including polished tools, chipped axes and adzes, flakes, chunks, and debitages, besides other important items like beads.

(p.121) Nagaland

Chungliyimti

Finished and Buff-coloured unfinished celts of wheel-made sandstone and pottery, Ambari spillite ware

Structures

Plants

Animals

Under study

Earth-cut storage pits, houses with three distinct plans such as roughly rectangular with a frontal semicircular apse, pentagonal plan, and an oblongshaped plan having a tapering front

Oryza nivara, Oryza rufipogon, Oryza sativa, Siteria sp., Triticum aestivum, Hordeum vulgare

Page 44 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

Nagaland

Purakha

Grinding stones, hammerstones, ground/polished axe, discs, fabricator, spindle whorl, anvil (large cobble), stone balls, and manuports

Nagaland

Zolapkhan

Few potsherds with one of the sherds bearing cord marks

(p.122) West Bengal

Pandu Rajar Dhibi Ground stone tools, bone tools, and microliths

Handmade grey ware with rice husk impressions, wheel-made painted red pottery, and limited quantity of black-and-red ware

Structures

Plants

Animals

Page 45 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

Orissa

Kuchai

Ground stone implements like axes including a shouldered adze found from the exploration and ground stone axes of butt- or pointed-end variety, chisels, mace-heads, pounders, and grinding stones, and microliths of non-geometric variety represented by blades, points, lunates, and various types of scrapers discovered from lower level of excavation

Coarse grittempered red ware, some times slipped and, in addition to that, showing incised or finger-tip decoration

Structures

Plants

Animals

Page 46 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

(p.123) Orissa

Golbai Sasan

Neolithic celts and bone pieces in exploration

Handmade pottery of dull red and grey wares, showing cord and reed impressions

Bihar (Middle Ganga Plain)

Chirand

Neoliths include celts, hammers, pestles, querns, bone tools, microliths characterized by parallel-sided blades, scrapers, arrowheads, serrated points, notched blades, points, lunates, borers

Red ware and lesser frequency of grey, black, and black-and-red wares

Structures

Plants

Circular floor, Rice, wheat, about 4 metres in barley, mung and diameter, a series masur of open hearths, a few postholes near the floor, and a few burnt chunks of clay with reed or bamboo impression

Animals

Bones of terrestrial animals, birds, fish

Page 47 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

(p.124) Bihar (Middle Ganga Plain)

Senuwar

Polished stone axes, hammers, rubber stones, pestles, sling balls, sharpeners, discs, beads of agate, chalcedony, faience, and steatite, retouched bladelets, partly backed bladelets, flakes, and blades and cores of chalcedony and chert; bone tools included borer, point, chisel and arrow-head, both socketed and tanged

Pottery

Structures

Plants

Animals

Rice, barley, dwarf wheat, bread wheat, sorghum millet or jowar, chickpea, green gram or mung, field pea, lentil, horse gram, grass pea, oil seeds belonging to sesame or til and linseed

Page 48 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

Structures

Plants

Bihar (Middle Ganga Plain)

Taradih

Neolithic tools, microliths, and bone tools

Handmade pottery of red ware, burnished red ware, cordimpressed ware, and rusticated ware

Burnt clay pieces with reed impression indicate construction of houses of wattleand-daub nature

Carbonized grains Bones of domestic of rice, wheat, as well as wild barley, and lentil animals such as cattle, goat, pig, buffalo, sheep, deer, and stag

Rounded celts with flat sides and rectangular crosssection and microliths, parallel-sided blades, blunted blades, and scrapers, and the microlithic artefacts

Corded and incised ware of thick fabric, plain red ware, and illfired crude blackand-red ware; rice husk was embedded in the clay in some of the potsherds

Burnt clay pieces with wattle and daub impressions indicate construction of huts

(p.125) Uttar Koldihawa Pradesh (Northern Vindhyan Region)

Animals

Page 49 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Uttar Pradesh Mahagara (Northern Vindhyan Region)

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

Structures

Plants

Animals

Microliths, including retouched blades, backed blades, lunates, scrapers, borers, triangles, trapeze; rounded celts and bone arrow-heads, querns, mullers, hammers, slingballs, sharpeners, ring-stones, perforated shell objects (ornaments), clay, dabber, terracotta beads, and perforated pottery discs

Cord-impressed, rusticated, burnished red, and burnished black wares

Hutments, the floors are circular or oval on plan, burnt clay lumps with wattle-anddaub impression indicate the use of mud plaster on the screen walls of these huts

Rice husk and rice grain in pottery as degraissant, domestic rice in charred condition

Cattle (sheep/ goat, deer, horse, tortoise, wild boar, and fish

Page 50 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

(p.126) Uttar Pachoh Pradesh (Northern Vindhyan Region)

Ring-stones, rounded celts, and microliths consisting of fluted cores, retouched blades, backed blades, scrapers, and points

Uttar Pradesh Tokwa (Northern Vindhyan Region)

Bone arrowheads, beads fashioned on semi-precious stones and terracotta, fragments of querns, mullers, hammer stones, microliths include flakes, flake fragments, blades, blade fragments, scrapers, and triangles

Pottery

Structures

Plants

Animals

Rice, barley, til, moong, some fruits and beans

Domestic animals such as cattle and goat, wild mammals such as gaur, nilgai and black-buck, birds, fish, and molluscan species

Light burnt clay lumps

Handmade cordimpressed pottery, rusticated ware and burnished red and burnished black sherds

Page 51 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

(p.127) Uttar Jhusi Pradesh (Northern Vindhyan Region)

Uttar Pradesh Hetapatti (Northern Vindhyan Region)

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

Structures

Plants

Microlithics include various types of blades, scrapers, triangles, trapeze, points, drills, and lunates made of chart, chalcedony, carnelian, and quartz; micro-disc beads and cylindrical beads made of paste material like steatite; and bone tools comprised of simple arrowheads

Cord-impressed ware, rusticated ware, burnished red ware, burnished black ware, and crude black-and-red ware

Circular huts Barley, jowar, having walls of bread wheat, rice, bamboo and reeds lentil, pea, grass pea, horse gram and black gram together with fruit remains of awala, grapes, and ber, and oilseeds comprising til or sesame

Handmade cordimpressed ware, rusticated ware, ordinary red ware including jars, shallow and deep bowls, and basins

Hut floors with burnt clay lumps with reed marks suggest wattleand-daub structures

Animals

Cattle, sheep, goat, boar, barasinga, fish, turtle, and birds

Page 52 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

(p.128) Uttar Pradesh (Middle Ganga Plain)

Sohgaura

Cord-impressed ware made of gritty clay mixed with rice husk, straw; rusticated ware; and plain red ware

Uttar Pradesh (Middle Ganga Plain)

Lahuradewa

Period IA: coarse variety of handmade red ware and black-and-red ware industry often displaying cord-impressions on exterior surface

Structures

Plants

Animals

Wattle-and-daub Wild and domestic Bones and a dwelling indicated variety of rice and tortoise shell by post-hole and foxtail grass burnt mud clots with reed-marks

Page 53 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

Structures

Plants

Period IB: Appearance of some new shapes in pottery such as beaker, perforated vessel, spouted vessel, and dish or bowlon-stand; continuation of black-and-red ware terracotta and stone beads, and a few microsteatite beads (p.129) Uttar Pradesh (Middle Ganga Plain)

Imlidih Khurd

Microbeads of steatite, other beads of terracotta, agate, and faience, bone points, and pottery discs

Handmade cordimpressed pottery, plain red ware

Animals

Charred and uncharred bones showed cut marks

Wattle-and-daub huts represented by reed marks, floors made of mud, ovens and hearths

Rice, barley, wheat, jowar, millet, and bajra (pearl millet), lentil, field pea, grass pea, and green gram or mung, sesame or til, jujube, awala and grapes

Domestic cattle, sheep/goat, and presumably pig, and wild animals such as horned deer, canid, freshwater turtle, fish, and freshwater mollusc

Page 54 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Tool Types and Other Antiquities

Pottery

Structures

Uttar Pradesh (Middle Ganga Plain)

Bhunadih

A few microbeads of steatite, terracotta and pottery discs

Cord-impressed red ware, plain red ware with spouted vessels, beakers, and vases

Wattle-and-daub houses represented by burnt clay lumps bearing reed marks

Plants

Animals

Page 55 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Table 4.3 Comparative data of Neolithic sites from eastern India including the earliest evidence of agriculture Region

Site

Polished Axe

Arunachal Pradesh

Parsi-Parlo

√

Arunachal Pradesh

Daporijo

√

Assam

Daojali Hading

√

Assam

Sarutaru

√

√

Assam

Marakdola

√

√

Manipur

Nongpok Keithelman bi

√

√

Manipur

Napachik

√

√

Meghalaya

Selbalgiri 2

√

√

Meghalaya

Pynthorlang √ tein

Meghalaya

Lawnongthr √ oh

√

√

Meghalaya

Myrkhan

√

√

√

Microliths

Bone Tool

Pestles, Querns, Ponders

Pottery

Structures

Plants

√

√

Animals

√

√

√

√

√ √ √

√

Page 56 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Polished Axe

Nagaland

Chungliyimt √ i

Nagaland

Purakha

Nagaland

Zolapkhan

Microliths

Bone Tool

√

Pestles, Querns, Ponders

Pottery

Structures

Plants

√

√

√

√

√

Animals

√ √

West Bengal Pandu Rajar √ Dhibi

√

Orissa

Kuchai

√

√

(p.131) Orissa

Golbai Sasan

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

MiddleGang Chirand a Plain (MGP)

√

√

√

√

√

MGP

Senuwar

√

√

√

√

√

MGP

Taradih

√

√

√

MGP

Sohgaura

√

MGP

Lahuradewa

√

√

√

√

MGP

Imlidih Khurd

√

√

√

√

MGP

Bhunadih

√

√

√

√

√

√ √

√

√

√

Page 57 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Region

Site

Polished Axe

Microliths

Vindhyan Hills

Koldihawa

√

√

Vindhyan Hills

Mahagara

√

√

Vindhyan Hills

Pachoh

√

√

Vindhyan Hills

Tokwa

Vindhyan Hills

Jhusi

Vindhyan Hills

Hetapatti

√

√

√

Bone Tool

√

Pestles, Querns, Ponders

√

Pottery

Structures

Plants

Animals

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Source : Tables 4.2 and 4.3 have been published in Dikshit and Hazarika (2012b). The Neolithic Cultures of Northeast India and Adjoining Regions: A Comparative Study. Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology 7: 98–148.

Page 58 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Table 4.4 Luminescence and radiometric dates of Neolithic culture from eastern and Northeast India State

Site

Assam

Dibru valley

Assam

Kanai Gaon Reserve

Assam

Bambooti

Manipur

Lab

14

C Dates

Cal. Dates in BC

Reference

2,210 ± 140 BC

Saikia (1988)

PRL 1234

1,440 ± 80 years BP

IAR 1992–3:118

Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun

2,700 ± 0.05 years BP 3,290 ± 0.07 years BP 3,690 ± 0.10 years BP

IAR 2012–13

Nongpok Keithelmanbi

4,460 ± 120 years BP

O.K. Singh (1993)

Manipur

Napachik

1,450 BC

O.K. Singh (1993)

Meghalaya

Lawnongthroh

Beta Analytic Inc., Miami, Florida

2,960 ± 30 years BP (lowest layer) 1,640 ± 30 years BP (upper layer)

Cal 1220 BC

Mitri et al. (2014)

Meghalaya

Myrkhan

Beta Analytic Inc., Miami, Florida

3,500 ± 30 years BP

Cal 1885–1765 BC

Mitri and Neog (2016)

Nagaland

Purakha

Nagaland

Chungliyimti

2,580 ± 200 years BP

BSIP

Nienu (1983), cited in Jamir (2013) AD 980 to 1647

Jamir (2011: 41–4)

Page 59 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record 14

State

Site

Lab

Nagaland

Naga ancestral site

Beta Analytic Inc., Miami, Florida

(p.133) Tripura

Haora and Khowai River valley

Mid-Ganga Plain

Chirand

TF TF TF TF TF TF TF TF

Mid-Ganga Plain

Lahuradeva

BS - 1967 BS - 1951 BS - 1966 ERL - 6442

6.290 ± 140 years BP 5464, 5298, 5059 BC Tewari, Srivastava, 5,320 ± 90 years BP 4220, 4196, 4161 BC and Singh 2001–2: 6.290 ± 160 years BP 5258 BC 55–6 6442-6376 BC (AMS)

Vindhyan region

Koldihwa

PRL - 224 PRL - 100 PRL - 101

6570 ± 210 BC 5440 ± 240 BC 4530 ± 185 BC

Vindhyan region

Tokwa

BS - 2417 BS - 2464 BS - 2369

C Dates

Cal. Dates in BC

Reference

50 BC to AD 1600

Jamir (2011: 41–4)

1500 BC

– – – – – – – –

1035 1127 1125 1033 1034 1030 1031 1032

1270 1375 1515 1540 1570 1580 1675 1755

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

105 100 155 110 115 100 140 155

Ramesh and Rajagopalan (1999: 13–30) BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC

Agrawal (1982: 271– 2)

G.R. Sharma et al. (1980: 199–200)

6591 BC 4797 BC 5976 BC

Pal (2007–8: 277)

Page 60 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

State

Site

Lab

Vindhyan region

Jhusi

BS - 2526 BS - 2524 BS - 2525

14

C Dates

Cal. Dates in BC

Reference

7477 BC 5837 BC 6196 BC

Pal (2007–8: 277)

Page 61 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Western and Northern Bengal

Archaeological data from adjoining parts of eastern India are comparatively better studied, since the region has witnessed several excavations conducted by different agencies. Neolithic celts and ring stones were reported from the western uplands in association with a microlithic assemblage at the surface, especially in the valleys of Tarafeni and Bhairabbanki. Mention may be made of the discovery of Neolithic (p.118) (p.130) (p.132) (p.134) artefacts from the foothill regions of Susunia along the banks of Gandheswari and its tributaries. From the banks of Midnapur on the border of Mayurbhanj in Orissa, several Neolithic tools such as adzes, splayed axes, shouldered celts, bar celts, chisels, and mace heads have been found. In Darjeeling and Kalimpong, Neolithic celts were reported as early as 1904 from hill slopes on the west bank of the Tista River (Chattopadhyaya, Sengupta, and Chakrabarty 2005: 72–3). In the excavations at Pandu Rajar Dhibi at the lowest level (Period I), a few Neolithic ground stone tools, bone tools, and microliths along with a handmade grey ware vessel with rice husk impressions, wheel-made painted red pottery, and a limited quantity of black-and-red ware were encountered. Their date has been assigned to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC (IAR 1960–1: 67; IAR 1962–3: 43; IAR 1963–4: 61; IAR 1964–5: 48). Neolithic artefacts along with ill-fired pottery were also reported at the lowermost level at Tamluk in the coastal region of West Bengal. In West Bengal, Neolithic celts have been reported from different areas. However, defining the Neolithic period in this area is still a problem (Chattopadhyaya, Sengupta, and Chakrabarty 2005: 72–3; Ghosh 1989: 41). Celts and ring stones have been widely recorded without much detail of the chronological position. A trial trench laid at the site of Baidyapur in the years 1961–2 revealed a gritty, handmade red ware in association with Neolithic implements. In northern Bengal, ground and polished stone artefacts have been reported from the Susunia Hills and the Midnapore and Purulia areas. Excavations at several sites have yielded Neolithic celts in Chacolithic context, that is, Bharatpur, Haraipur (IAR 1964–5: 46), Pandu Rajar Dhibi (IAR 1960–1: 67; IAR 1962–3: 43; IAR 1963–4: 61; IAR 1964–5: 48; Das Gupta 1964) and Tamluk in association with the ceramic industry (IAR 1954– 5: 19). Hence, the mere association of Neolithic polished artefacts cannot be considered a trait to designate these sites as purely ‘Neolithic’, since these artefacts are not uncommon even in the early historical and mediaeval period. Datta (1992) discussed in detail the Neolithic artefacts of West Bengal found in different contexts. Orissa

Explorations conducted in different parts of Orissa have yielded several Neolithic sites, and a few of them have been excavated, thereby (p.135) placing the Neolithic culture of these areas in a chrono-stratigraphical position. The excavations carried out at Kuchai, Baidipur, and Shankarjang in Dhenkanal Page 62 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record district confirmed the presence of Neolithic celts in association with a coarse grit-tempered red ware. Behera (2000) has extensively explored the Bonaigarh area and located several celt-manufacturing localities and a few sites associated with celts and ceramics. The site of Sulabhdihi must have served as a large-scale celt manufacturing centre in the area. A trial trench at the site of Bargaon on the left bank of Brahmani River has revealed a habitational deposit of about 140 centimetres divisible into three layers, based on cultural material of which the lowest level provides indications of Neolithic occupation. Explorations conducted by Basa and colleagues (2000) in the Pallahara area of central Orissa have brought to light Neolithic stone artefacts in association with coarse red ware and black-and-red ware. Surface exploration at Kuchai during the 1950s yielded typical ground stone implements like axes and a shouldered adze. Thapar excavated the site in 1961– 2, revealing a 40 to 45 centimetre argillaceous deposit of Neolithic culture in association with a coarse, grit-tempered red ware, sometimes also slipped and additionally showing incised or finger-tip decoration. The stone industry includes ground stone axes of butt- or pointed-end variety, chisels, mace heads, pounders, and grinding stones. From this deposit, microliths of a non-geometric variety were also recorded, represented by blades, points, lunates, and various types of scrapers without any evidence of pottery. The time gap between these two levels, that is, the microliths and the Neolithic, remains to be ascertained. This level appears to be connected with similar levels observed at Neolithic sites in Bihar (IAR 1961–2: 35). Explorations conducted at Golbai Sasan revealed Neolithic celts and bone pieces along with Chalcolithic pottery. However, in the excavation, a sequence of three periods was worked out. Period I revealed an argillaceous deposit of more than 1 metre, separated from the Chalcolithic deposit of the succeeding period IIA. In the trench, no stone or bone tools were found except for two pieces of bone with working marks and a handmade pottery vessel showing cord and reed impressions, which appear to have been made on a slow wheel or by the turntable technique. The pots were mostly vases in dull red and grey wares. (p. 136) The Neolithic artefacts were found during exploration and one of them, a shouldered celt, was reported from the middle level of the Chalcolithic deposit identified as period IIA. The last period, IIB, has been bracketed within the Iron Age (Sinha 2000). The occurrence of pointed-butt celts and cord-impressed pottery from Kuchai and the bone tool industry, circular and rectangular wattle-and-daub structures, handmade and wheel-made pottery, and stone celts from Golabai Sasan indicate a way of life known to characterize Neolithic people. The Neolithic culture of Orissa is characterized by ground and polished stone tools including axes, adzes, stone hammers, wedge grinders, shoulder celts, chisels, ring stones, and fabricators, among which axes are the dominant type (Dash 2000). For making Page 63 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record these stone artefacts several rocks such as basalt, dolerite, diorite, sandstone, slate, quartzite, and chert were used. Considering the distribution, typology, technology, and raw material, Dash (2000) extensively analysed the neoliths of Orissa and divided them into seven groups: oblong, oval, trigonal, cylindrical, quadrangular, triangular, and indeterminate. The occurrence of rice at Baidyapur suggests the subsistence base of a Neolithic population. Considering the data from several excavated and explored sites, Dash (2000) categorized the pottery into four developmental stages: (a) a thick to medium variety of pottery and a coarse variety of micaceous red ware, which were demonstrated at Baidyapur and Kuchai respectively, (b) corded ware, grey and brown ware, (c) black ware having some resemblance with pottery from outside of India, such as ceramic vessels found in Thailand, and (d) bigger round vessels with small round faces and a dull brown colour. While discussing the early agriculture in Orissa, Harvey and colleagues (2006: 31–2) suggested two Neolithic traditions in Orissa, keeping in view the archaeobotanical remains. The first was the Eastern Wetland Tradition represented by Golabai Sasan, Gopalpur, and other sites from where the material remains and environmental context suggest the possibility of fishing as a major part of subsistence economy, in addition to animal husbandry and cultivation. The crops recovered from these sites include rice, horse gram, pigeon pea, and pulses like mung and urad. The second tradition is represented at the sites of central and northern Orissa such as Bijapur near Pallahera and Banabasa, showing occupation of a transient nature and evidence (p.137) of some special activities, such as the manufacturing of celts or the loci of settlements of shifting cultivators or both. The Mid-Gangetic Plain and Vindhyan Hills

Stray Neolithic finds have been recorded on the mid-Gangetic plain and in the Vindhyan Hills, and a few of these sites have been excavated. Sites like Taradih and Maner are located in the alluvial tract, and Senuwar lies in the vicinity of the Kaimur foothills. The discovery of stone beads, Neolithic celts, bone arrowheads, and points and microliths suggest similar cultural development at the sites of Chirand, Taradih, and Senuwar (Narayan 1996). The site of Chirand in Bihar was excavated by the Directorate of Archaeology and Museums of Bihar and revealed five broad cultural periods beginning with the Neolithic till the late historical period (IAR 1962–3; IAR 1963–4; IAR 1964–5; IAR 1968–9; IAR 1969– 70; IAR 1970–1; IAR 1971–2; Verma 1970–1). Period I represents a full-fledged Neolithic culture, characterized mainly by bone tools and decorated pots in addition to other Neolithic artefacts. Bone and antler implements are characteristic of Chirand. Bone ornaments are represented by pendants, earrings, bangles of ivory and tortoise bone, discs, and combs. The neoliths include celts, hammers, pestles, querns, and balls, usually made of quartzite, basalt, and granite. According to the excavators, the microliths characterized by parallel-sided blades, scrapers, arrowheads, serrated points, notched blades, points, lunates, borers, and a few geometric microliths are generally made of Page 64 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record chalcedony, chert, agate, and jasper. These implements were also part of the Neolithic complex. There is predominance of red ware and a lesser frequency of grey, black, and black-and-red wares in this period. The structural remains of the late Neolithic level include a circular floor, about 4 metres in diameter, a series of open hearths, a few post-holes near the floor, and a few burnt chunks of clay with reed or bamboo impressions. There are remains of rice, wheat, barley, mung and masur in a charred condition, and a few burnt clay pieces with paddy husk impressions, besides bones of terrestrial animals, birds, and fish. A relative date of c. 2000 BC or an even earlier one may be assigned to the Neolithic level at this site, since the next preceding level, the Chalcolithic, has been dated to 1950 BC by radiocarbon dating. (p.138) Excavations at Senuwar by Banaras Hindu University have recorded four cultural periods from the Neolithic onwards until the Kushana period. Period I has yielded polished stone axes, hammers, rubber stones, pestles, sling balls, sharpeners, discs, beads of agate, chalcedony, faience, and steatite in addition to pottery. The other lithic assemblage consisted of marginally retouched bladelets, partly backed bladelets, flakes, blades, and cores of chalcedony and chert. The bone tools comprised borers, points, chisels, and arrowheads, both socketed and tanged. Archaeobotanical investigations have provided evidence of rice (Oryza sativa), barley (Hordeum vulgare), dwarf wheat (Triticum sphaero coccum), bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), sorghum millet or jowar (Sorghum bicolor), chickpea (Cicer arietinum), green gram or mung (Vigna radiata), field pea (Pisum arvense), lentil (Lens culinaris), horse gram (Dollhos biflorus), grass pea (Lathyrus sativus), and seeds such as sesame (Sesamum indicum) and linseed (Linum usitatissimum) (Singh 1988–9). Excavations by Ajit Kumar Prasad at the site of Taradih near Bodhgaya on the flood plains of the Phalgu River have revealed Neolithic cultural material at the lowest level which has been subdivided into Phases A and B on the basis of the ceramics. Phase A is characterized by handmade pottery of red ware, burnished red ware, cord-impressed ware, and rusticated ware. Burnt clay pieces with reed impressions indicate the construction of houses of wattle and daub. Other features include Neolithic tools, microliths, and bone tools. Besides the continuation of the pottery of this phase, burnished grey ware appears in Phase B along with Neolithic tools, microliths, bone tools, terracotta objects, stone beads, carbonized grains, and bones of domestic as well as wild animals such as cattle, goat, pigs, buffalo, sheep, deer, and stag. Carbonized grains suggest the cultivation of crops such as rice, wheat, barley, and lentils (A.K. Prasad 1997). The Neolithic stage of the mid-Gangetic plain is marked by cord-impressed and rusticated wares with evidence of the domestication of several plants and animals. On the basis of chronology, the Neolithic stage is subdivided into two phases. The early phase is best attested at sites like Lahuradeva IA and IB Page 65 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record (Tewari, Srivastava, and Singh 2001–2), Jhusi I (Misra, Pal, and Gupta 2002–3; Misra et al. 2009), and Hetapatti (Pal 2007–8), and the later phase is best attested at sites such as Sohgaura I (Chaturvedi 1985), Imlidih Khurd (p.139) I (Singh 1992–3), Waina IA (Singh and Singh 1995–6), Chirand I (IAR 1962–3: 6–8, IAR 1968–9: 5–6, IAR 1969–70: 3–4, IAR 1970–1: 6–7, IAR 1971–2: 6–7), Chechar Kutubpur IA (IAR 1977–8: 17–18), Taradih IA (IAR 1984–5: 9–10), and Senuwar IA (Singh 1988–9). The early phase is marked by handmade pottery, but subsequently wheel-made pottery appears. The ceramic assemblage includes ordinary red ware, burnished ware (red, black, and grey), rusticated ware, black and red ware, and corded ware. The clay used for manufacturing the pots is not well lavigated. The pottery contains grit, husks, and chaff as a degraissant. Pots are generally ill-fired and have a blackish grey core. Pottery shapes include bowls with varying profiles, vases, vessels, basins, miniature jars, and handis (a deep, wide-mouthed cooking vessel) (K.B. Mishra 2010; Mishra and Hazarika 2013). The Neolithic level at Lahuradeva yielded a good amount of steatite disc beads. In this phase, structural evidence such as burnt clay lumps, pits, silo, and hearths are recorded, suggesting wattle and daub houses. A good quantity of faunal remains was found from all excavated sites in this region. Some were of domesticated animals including sheep, goat, cattle, buffalo, and pigs. In addition, bones of other animals such as elephants, rhinoceros and deer were found. Bone tools were recorded at Jhusi, Senuwar, and Chirand. Chirand yielded a huge amount of bone tools and weapons consisting of scrapers, chisels, hammers, needless, points, borers, awls, and arrowheads. Other bone objects comprise ornaments like pendants, earrings, bangles, discs, and combs. A considerable amount of fish and turtle remains were found at Lahuradeva and other contemporary sites. An appreciable number of stone objects were recovered from excavated sites in this region, including microlithic industry, scrapers, arrowheads, bladelets, flakes, serrated points, lunates and borers, made of semi precious stones like chert, chalcedony, agate, jasper, and quartz. The other stone objects include mullers, balls, hammerstones, and fragments of querns for heavy-duty purposes, fashioned from sandstone or quartzite. In discussing the Neolithic cultures of the mid-Gangetic plain, the evidence from the northern Vindhyan region must be considered, since this area is geographically contiguous with the mid-Gangetic plain, and, more importantly, cultural similarities have also been observed between the regions. Both the regions witnessed an identical cultural pattern in terms of chronology, settlement, and subsistence. (p.140) Apart from the well-known sites of Koldihwa (G.R. Sharma et al. 1980) and Mahagara (Sharma and Mandal 1980), this area has provided a handful of sites, and a few of them have been excavated. These sites are located in different river valleys, especially on the Belan, Adwa, and Son. The Neolithic culture of the region is characterized by the occurrence of ground stone tools, microliths, a limited number of bone tools and handmade pottery, particularly cord-impressed ware. Most of our understanding Page 66 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record comes from the data generated from the excavations at Koldihwa, Mahagara, and Pachoh in the Belan valley in Allahabad district, Indari and Tokwa in the Adwa valley of Mirzapur district, all in Uttar Pradesh, and from Kunjhun on Son in Sidhi district in Madhya Pradesh (Pal 1986; V.D. Misra et al. 2000–1). Considering the Mesolithic sequence recorded in the area, an evolution from the underlying Mesolithic culture to the Neolithic has been suggested. There is cultural continuity between the late Mesolithic and the Neolithic in terms of the construction of hutments, food processing equipment, handmade pottery, and microliths (V.D. Misra 2007: 11). Several sites like Koldihwa, Mahagara, Kunjhun, and Tokwa have provided 14C and thermoluminescence dates suggesting an early beginning of Neolithic culture from the 7th millennium BC, comparable with the data from the mid-Gangetic plain. The radiometric dates from Northeast India which have just been mentioned provide a time range from c. 2500 to 1500 BC, whereas the dates from Vindhyas and the mid-Gangetic plain have pushed the antiquity to the 7th and 6th millennium BC, which are quite at variance with the dates for the Northeast. In fact, more data are required to understand the source of the Neolithic inspiration because to date there appears to be no direct connection either with the Yangtze valley or an indigenous transformation from the local huntergatherer stage. From the survey just mentioned, it appears that in north Bengal, north Bihar, and the mid-Gangetic plain, all areas peripheral to Northeast India, we find a flourishing of early farming cultures of both Neolithic and Chalcolithic stature, and the recent archaeobotanical investigations from Lahuradeva push back the antiquity of rice on the basis of two conventional radiocarbon dates of wood charcoal to the 6th or 5th millennium BC (Tewari et al. 2008; Singh 2010) (see Table 4.4). Yet it remains problematic to connect the archaeological material of such an early age either with a continuation of (p.141) an evolved Mesolithic with new styles of food production or with an adapted Neolithic tradition from neighbouring regions, both of which have themselves still not satisfactorily been explored or interpreted. Data from Adjoining Areas of East and Southeast Asia

To understand the Neolithic material complex of Northeast India, which is believed to be a larger part of the complex observed in Southeast Asia and what today is southwestern China, one must understand the Neolithic chronology of both of the areas just mentioned. It has been observed that the Chinese river civilizations like the Yellow and Yangtze continued for a long time, and the role of copper and bronze made a very late intrusion into the life of the common man. Further in this part of Asia, cities developed very late, whereas from the Euphrates to the Indus there were many fortified urban centres already between the 4th and 3rd millennium BC.

Page 67 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record The southern part of China, particularly the Yangtze valley is considered to be one of the primary centres for the origin of a number of plants including rice, whereas the northern part of the Yellow River is favoured for millets such as Setaria indica and Panicum miliaceum. Rice domestication must have taken place during the period 4500–4000 BC, with pre-domestication beginning by 5500–5000 BC (Fuller, Qin, and Harvey 2008: 41). Several cave sites of East Asia have yielded very early evidence of a pottery making tradition since the late Pleistocene period, and the Jomon culture of Japan has provided a radiometric time bracket of 13000–12000 BC for the beginning of pottery (Yasuda 2002: 119–42), and the earliest pottery of southern China is of comparable date. Radiometric dates suggest the emergence of pottery-making technology in southern China, the Japanese archipelago, and what today is the Russian Far East around 14,000 to 13,000 years BP (Kuzmin and Keally 2001; Dikshit and Hazarika 2012b; Hazarika 2013b). The Neolithic culture of Japan, starting as early as 13600 BC, is termed as Jomon culture on the basis of the pottery it has revealed, which bears cord-decorations. The term Jomon was coined by Edward S. Morse who discovered corded ware at the Omori site in 1867. Jomon means ‘cord mark’ in Japanese (see Zhushchikhovskaya 2007 for details). The cord-impressed ware, a typical ceramic industry (p.142) widely distributed in the prehistoric contexts of East and Southeast Asia, was first reported in the Indian context from Assam (T.C. Sharma 1966). Later on this ware has been reported from several sites of the northern Vindhyas and the Gangetic valley. Considering the wide occurrences, this ware has been considered as a unique characteristic of the ceramic traditions of the Neolithic–Chalcolithic culture of Eastern India (cf. Hazarika 2013b). As the term suggests, ‘cord-impressed’ pottery bears cord-impressions, mostly on the outer surface, either partially or fully. Impressions are made either as a decorative pattern with a paddle wrapped with a cord or they remain over the surface as a by-product while the pot is beaten and shaped into a leather-hard condition with a cord-wrapped paddle. These impressions can be considered either as decorations (stylistic) or just as a process of potting (technological) or both, besides its functional aspect, if there is any. The cords wrapped around the paddle allow easy beating of the sticky clay by preventing the paddle from sticking to the clay. In many cases, the paddles are also curved with various designs for the same purpose. The curved designs also depict impression over the body of the pot. Moreover, cordage or basketry is also used to wrap the paddle. In certain cases, it is observed that these impressions are shallow and not very clear, and so the decorations cannot be figured out. Sometimes, it becomes difficult to identify whether these are cord-impressions or impressions

Page 68 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record of a carved paddle. All the terms, like cord-impressed, cord-marked, and corded wares, are used to designate this kind of pottery (Hazarika 2013b). In certain pockets of Northeast India, there are potters’ communities whose pottery resembles the cord-impressed ware found in archaeological contexts (Hazarika 2013b). Cord-marked pottery-making tradition, a living tradition among the Oinam, a Mao Naga tribe in the Senapati district of Manipur, is still in a very primitive technological stage. They make pottery using a very crude technique of moulding and hand-beater methods. The cord-marked pottery from the archaeological sites of Manipur has similarities with certain processes of the technology. After obtaining the desired shape by beating with plain beater, the final beating is done by using a cord-wrapped wooden beater, locally known as kha, which leaves impressions on the outer surface of the pottery. These impressions resemble both the (p.143) prehistoric and modern pottery (O.K. Singh 1998–9: 60–4). As the impressions are done after the final shaping of the pottery, these can be considered as decorations rather than as a process of potting technology. Current distribution pattern of the cord-marked pottery as a dominant ceramic ware in association with polished stone tools, including the shouldered axes, over a wide region of Eastern Asia, comprising China and the countries of the Southeast Asia and also eastern India, indicate the cultural connections of the prehistoric people inhabiting this wide area of Asia. A recent review of the ceramic traditions of the middle Ganga plain by Mishra (2010: 147–61) demonstrates the importance of cord-impressed ware in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. The earliest evidence of pottery in China and Japan goes back to 21,000–18,000 cal. years BP (Yasuda 2002). The earliest Neolithic period in China with the evidences of pottery is summed up by Zhang and Hung (2008) which is dated within the time bracket of 16,000 to 10,000 years BP. The pottery of East Asia and Southeast Asia are remarkably alike and include simple forms of cord-marked, combed, fingertip-impressed, or incised vessels, often on tripods and pedestals. The overall homogeneity makes it easy to visualize a common ancestral culture, located quite close in time, from which all the descendent cultures of the Yellow river basin originated (Bellwood 2005). Most of the vessels found at the Early Neolithic sites of China are with linear incisions or cordimpressed surfaces (Zhang and Hung 2008). Kharakwal and colleagues (2004) discuss the possibilities of cultural interaction among the early rice-growing cultures on the basis of the cord-impressed pottery found in most of the Early Neolithic sites in Asia. The cord-impressed pottery has great antiquity in East Asia (Yasuda 2002) and possibly entered eastern India through the Northeast Indian contact.

Page 69 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Comparison of Neolithic West Asia and Monsoon Asia

Recent studies on Neolithic culture suggest a distant past of early farming cultures in two different zones of Asia, that is, west Asia and monsoon Asia, characterized by different domesticates such as wheat and barley in the west and rice and millet in the east, and distinct patterns of settlement and economy. In order to situate the Neolithic context of Northeast India, a larger view of the emergence of early farming communities in two of the best-studied regions is essential (p.144) for a holistic understanding of the multi-directional cultural diffusion from these two regions and furthermore important because of the processes of domestication and agriculture, and because these two regions gave birth to some of the world’s oldest urban civilizations. As already mentioned, the study of the Neolithic cultures of India started with the reporting of Neolithic celts, whereas other considerations such as the domestication of animals, the development of agriculture, and the introduction of pottery were later phenomena. In fact, towards the end of the Ice Age and the beginning of the Holocene, especially in the Near East including northern parts of Africa, particularly Egypt, the Natufian, which was a more widespread Mesolithic industry, gave rise to incipient Neolithic ways of life in the form of settlements by the people who had begun farming but had not yet started to make pottery. The Natufians of the southern Levant occupied caves and the terraces in front of the caves, whereas excavations have yielded clusters of round buildings made on stone foundations (Bar-Yosef 1998). The ‘Fertile Crescent’, a term coined by James H. Breasted (1919: 55) for an area covering the Levant, upper Mesopotamia and the western edge of the Zagros Mountains, is one of the most thoroughly researched areas for understanding the development of the Neolithic way of life. In the early Natufian levels at the Abu Hureyra site, archaeobotanical investigations have provided evidence of the exploitation of wild plants such as wild barley, wild einkorn wheat, and wild rye (Hillman 2000). In the subsequent phase, during the pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB), the sites became larger, and the architecture became elaborate. The transition from the round structures of the pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) to the rectilinear structure of the pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) is best attested at Jericho and Jerf el Ahmar (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). There is sizable amount of data clearly suggesting the domestication of wheat and barley in the Near East during these cultural periods (Colledge 2001). This story is seen in other parts of the Near East also, especially in Turkey and Iraq. This process in the whole region around the Caspian and adjoining areas may have started somewhere in the 10th millennium BC. The important excavations in the Neolithic context conducted at Jericho, Catal Huyuk, Cayonu Tepesi, Can Hasan, Hacilar, Jarmo, (p.145) Hassuna, Karim Shahir, and the Kermanshah group provide a continuous sequence, starting from Page 70 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record pre-pottery Neolithic to the emergence of Chalcolithic culture as well as further cultural developments. To assess these earlier excavations, the work carried out at Abu Hureyra in north Syria and Ain Ghazal on the outskirts of Oman, Gilgal in the Jordan valley, Grittile in southeastern Turkey, Umm Dabaghiyah in Iraq, and Ganj Dareh in the Kangavar region of the central Zagros Highlands further provide the relevant exemplary developmental stages. The excavation at Ain Ghazal confirms a close cultural link with contemporary Jericho. Abu Hureyra starts with a Mesolithic settlement which was deserted and reoccupied by an aceramic Neolithic. Abu Hureyra was perhaps the largest among all the archaic settlements of the Levant. The residents practised agriculture, and their economy relied on cereals and pulses. They used a new variety of wheat called emmer (Moore 1983; P. Singh 1974). In this context, we must also take into consideration the magnificent discoveries made at the site of Göbekli Tepe (meaning ‘navel hill’ in Turkish) in southeastern Turkey (Schmidt 2010). The site has produced several sanctuaries in the form of round Megalithic enclosures dated to the pre-Pottery Neolithic period; however, no residential buildings have been discovered so far. Of the two identified phases of monumental religious architecture, the older layer has yielded T-shaped monolithic pillars forming large circular enclosures including two pillars erected at the centre. The excavator has suggested the probability of these T-shapes pillars being the first known monumental depiction of gods dating back to 10000 BC. The discovery of this religious or sacred centre dating back to the beginning of settled life and domestication of plants and animals in Near East has changed the common perception that origin of agriculture has led to sedentary life, organized religion, and social complexity. The discoveries at Göbekli Tepe and other similar sites have provided a rather different story according to which complex socio-religious systems developed concomitantly with the beginning of Neolithic lifeways. Besides, erection of these T-shaped limestone megaliths before the emergence of metalworking, pottery, organized agriculture, and animal husbandry (Curry 2008) has pushed the antiquity of the tradition of erection of large monoliths to the Early Holocene period. (p.146) While talking about west Asia, we should not forget monsoon Asia, which is characterized by a wet climate and temperatures ideal for the growth of forests. Monsoon Asia covers a large area of the Asian continent, including India, the southern foothills of the Himalayas, Southeast Asia, the Chinese provinces of Sìchuān and Yúnnán, the eastern margin of the Tibetan plateau, northern China east of the Shaanxi and Liaoning provinces, located east of the Dahinganling mountains, and the Pacific coastal regions south of Sakhalin where rice is grown as a dominant crop alongside foxtail millet, broomcorn millet, and sorghum. The Ganges, Yangtze, and Mekong flow through monsoon Asia and have yielded evidence of ancient civilizations characterized by rice cultivation, hunting, and fishing (Yasuda 2004: 12–19). If we accept the argument that the oldest rice agriculture originated in or near Hemudu, then from about 5000 BC onwards, Page 71 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record settled agricultural communities based on the cultivation of rice spread slowly through the Yangtze River system to different parts of Southeast Asia, including Northeast India. The arrival of agriculturists and pastoralists to monsoon Asia resulted in population concentrating in the great river valleys as far west as the Indus, at the same time that the Yellow River civilization was thriving in northern China and the Yangtze River civilization in southern China. On the other hand, west Asia gave rise to great civilizations like Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Indus. The cultural traits of these civilizations have been freely recorded in the Persian Gulf, on the eastern shore of southern Arabia, and along the Gulf. In monsoon Asia, especially in the eastern part of India and the mid-Gangetic plain, cities came up only after the beginning of the first millennium BC. What were the factors responsible for this delay? Whether this was entirely environmental or climatic is difficult to explain in the present state of our knowledge. The time gap from the decline of first urbanization, that is, the Harappan civilization in the north-western part of the Indian subcontinent during the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BC to the beginning of the second urbanization in the Gangetic valley during the 1st millennium BC is still considered as the Dark Age of Indian history. There is a settlement shift from the fertile valleys of Indus and Saraswati and their tributaries to the Ganga–Yamuna doab during this period. Excavations at several of these early farming sites with (p.147) neolithic–chalcolithic characteristics have provided a steady cultural development in terms of material remains and metal technology which culminated to the formation of State by the middle of the 1st millennium BC in the Gangetic plain. The cultural development, also designated as the Iron Age, was supported by extensive cultivation of rice in the fertile plains of the Ganges and development of iron technology. Moreover, development of irrigation facilities and surplus agricultural products has also been considered as a factor for the formation of urban societies. Excavated material and textual data suggest a fairly consistent layout of urban centres at the Gangetic plain (Thapar 2002). Curiously, the Brahmaputra valley witnessed the formation of State only from the middle of the 1st millennium AD which is clearly a gap of a millennium between the Ganges and the Brahmaputra valleys. Obviously, more work is required in this direction to understand the origin and development of the neolithic–chalcolithic economy and further cultural growth in eastern and Northeast India. The skeletal remains of wild and domesticated animals and the carbonized grains, which are indicative of the process of transition from being a food-gathering economy to a food-producing one, are silent on these vital issues until excavations from an earlier age can be conducted. To assess the influence of the East Asian Neolithic complex on the Northeast Indian Neolithic period through the eastern corridor of the Himalayas, it will be pertinent to address the Neolithic data from Kashmir in the foothills of the western Himalayas, which forms a distinct entity in the early agro-pastoral Page 72 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record scenario of the Indian subcontinent. The recent excavations at the site of Kanishkapura (Kanispur) have provided invaluable cultural material as well as pushed back the antiquity of the Kashmir Neolithic period to the last quarter of the 4th millennium BC. The discovery of emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) of western Asian origin at the site has shed light on the long-distance connections of Neolithic farmers. The excavator of the site (Mani 2008: 235) believes that the Central Asian Neolithic tradition entered the Kashmir valley in the second half of the 4th millennium BC, when the Neolithic people resided in the western part of the valley around Kanishkapura and then moved towards central Kashmir somewhere between 2881 BC and 2347 BC and then towards Gufkral in the southeastern part of the valley. (p.148) Earlier excavations at the sites of Burzahom have indicated strong connections with the East Asian Neolithic complex (IAR 1960–1 to 1970–1; Khazanchi 1977; Khazanchi and Dikshit 1980). Dikshit (1982) expressed the view that the movement of the integrated Neolithic culture took place from what today is northern China to Kashmir. There are several typological affinities of the Yangshao phase with the Kashmir Neolithic in terms of structures and bone and stone tools. The stone knives and double-perforated semilunar harvesters recorded in north and central China bear similarities with Yangshao and Longshan complexes as well as with the Jomon phase of Japan and the contemporaneous Neolithic cultures in Korea. Other traits also lend support to a strong cultural connection between Kashmir and the North China plain, and such long-distance connections may have implications for the prehistory of monsoon Asia. Interestingly, explorations in the Zongu area of northern Sikkim have likewise recorded typical perforated semilunar harvesters in association with other Neolithic artefacts like celts. These harvesters and adzes attested with either single or double perforation, suggesting affinities with Neolithic complexes on the North China plain (A.K. Sharma 1981, 1985). The Kashmir Neolithic has its own characteristics along with several borrowed Neolithic traits from adjoining regions (Thapar 1985: 41). Parallels can be drawn in the domains of tool typology and domesticated animals, but, as far as carbonized grains are concerned, Northeast Indian sites could not provide much substantial evidence. Northeast Indian sites are also located mostly in the hilly areas, whereas in the plains archaeological chronology is considerably late, dating from the 5th to the 6th century AD. However, in the context of the mid-Gangetic region, where most of the sites are located in the plains, especially near oxbow lakes, carbonized grains have been found and also dated to an earlier period. In the monsoonal Asian context, the eastern part of India, including the mid-Gangetic plain, has yielded a good number of sites with indications of the early beginnings of agriculture, especially based on rice. However, there is no concrete evidence of early agriculture in Northeast India. It has been suggested earlier by many scholars that the Neolithic of Northeast India had its genesis in southern China, which has Page 73 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record evidence of early agriculture. In addition, the typo-technology of the stone artefacts found in Northeast India shows certain morphological (p.149) similarities with Southeast Asia. The presence of microliths, non-geometric and geometric, especially in the Vindhyan Hills and on the mid-Gangetic plain, including West Bengal and Orissa, appears to represent forerunners of the emergence of Neolithic culture in parts of eastern India. At the same time, the Northeast Indian Neolithic culture definitely exhibits a close connection with the northern Southeast Asian Neolithic, which was also a derivative of the Neolithic culture in the Yangtze valley.

Megalithic Tradition Since 1872, when Godwin-Austin reported Megalithic remains throughout Khasi Hills for the first time, investigations into the tradition of erecting Megalithic structures (Fig. 4.1) have been one of the core areas of archaeological research in Northeast India. Perhaps it is the most popular and preferred research topic for doctoral and master’s dissertations in Northeast Indian archaeology, and, as a result, we have several well-documented accounts of Megalithic sites and (p. 150) traditions prevalent among some Tibeto-Burman and Austroasiatic groups from an ethnographic as well as an ethnoarchaeological point of view. This part of India is one of the few areas of the world where the erection of megaliths persists as a living practice in the form of memorial stones commemorating important events or the disposal of the dead in accordance with old customs and beliefs. Deo (1985: 449) recognized three regional complexes of Indian megaliths which had certain common elements between them: (a) South Indian or Peninsular, (b) Northern and Northwestern, and (c) Northeastern. Although the present-day Megalithic builders reside in an area extending from Northeast India to the Chota Nagpur region and Andhra Pradesh, they are a Figure 4.1 Megalithic structures of highly heterogeneous set of Assam: (A) Xilsang, (B) and (C) Topatali, populations (Kennedy and (D) Rani Levisky 1985: 458). Moreover, they do not share identical cultural backgrounds. The prehistoric Megalithic tradition of India is associated with Neolithic (Morrison 2005), Chalcolithic (P. Singh 1985: 475), and Iron Age sites (Nagaraja Rao 1985: 470).

Page 74 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record The tradition of erecting stone and occasionally even wood megaliths has persisted in the manner of disposal of the dead along with certain old customs and beliefs to the present day (Rao 1979). After cremating the dead, the ashes and decalcified bones are deposited in a stone chamber and a memorial stone is erected in many parts of Northeast India. This living practice is closely associated with the sociocultural traditions and religious beliefs of the people. Bezbaruah (2003) extensively studied the existing practice of erecting megaliths among the Karbis as a post-cremation rite and drew parallels for the prehistoric Megalithic remains found in the Karbi Anglong. The work of Binodini Devi (1993, 2002) (cf. T.C. Sharma 1997–8) in documenting the Megalithic traditions among different tribal groups of Manipur is significant in this regard. Manipur is dotted with Megalithic sites, and the erection of megaliths is still practised by several communities like the Anal, Chakhesang, Kabui (Rongmei), Kharam, Koirng, Liangmai, Mao (Ememai) Maram, Poumai, Tangkhul, Thangal, and Vaiphei residing in the Bishnupur, Chandel, Churachandpur, Imphal, Senapati, and Ukhrul districts (Binodini Devi 2011). The Megalithic remains of Manipur can be divided into seven groups: (a) flat stone or capstones, (b) menhirs, alignments, and avenues, (c) cairns (with or without stone circles) (p. 151) which are further subdivided into six subtypes, (d) stone circles, (e) dolmens, (f) stone seats, and (g) a miscellaneous group. The miscellaneous group is again functionally divided into eight subtypes: (a) memorial or commemorative stones, (b) stone seats or resting stones, (c) watch houses, (d) religious stones, (e) grave stones, (f) witness or judiciary stones, (g) village foundation stones, and (h) village gates. On the basis of their social and religious significance, Binodini Devi categorizes the present-day megaliths of Manipur into memorial and commemoratives, or menhirs of social status, and funerary and ritualistic megaliths. The first groups of megaliths are erected by the performers either in their own names, while they are still alive, or in loving memory of their parents or any deceased member of the family or even distant relatives. Different kinds of feasts of merit are performed by megalith builders to attain a higher social status. The megaliths of the second category are funerary and are ritualistically tied to the practice of disposing the mortal remains of dead ancestors. Megalithic remains of different shapes and sizes are found in a belt extending from the Khasi and Jaintia Hills through Karbi Anglong up to the Naga Hills. Several British administrators contributed with valuable writings on the rituals related to the Megalithic structures. There are several publications on the customs and traditions of erecting megaliths among different communities of this region (Mawlong 1990, 2004; T. Jamir 2004, 2005; W. Jamir 1997, 1997–8). Roy (1963) described the funeral rites of erecting megaliths among the Khasis of the Meghalaya, and many other early scholars recorded the Megalithic structures and classified them into different groups based on their ideological significance. The Megalithic tradition in Northeast India is not directly similar to Page 75 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record that of the Iron Age Megalithic cultures of peninsular India. The tradition of erecting stone in the memory of personalities or major events is poorly understood in terms of the origin and chronology in this region. Rao (1991) concludes that the social and ideological aspects of different Megalithic cultures must be taken into consideration before suggesting affinities or common origin. Several early scholars mentioned by Rao (1991) wrote on the relationship between the megaliths of Northeast India and Southeast Asia, but any relationship will have to be confirmed more precisely with absolute dates. (p. 152) The recent discoveries and research in the domains of palaeoanthropology and Pleistocene archaeology in Asia in areas on the periphery of Northeast India makes it clear that the region of Northeast India, Bangladesh, and Burma holds the key to a better understanding of Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene prehistory. The Homo erectus of Java might have migrated from South Asia (S. Mishra et al. 2010). Dennell and Roebroeks (2005) have suggested that the ‘lack of evidence’ in Asia leaves room for alternative models of early human dispersals, including australopithecine migrations to Asia, the evolution of Homo ergaster within Asia, and dispersals back into Africa. Mishra (2006/2007) also suggests possibilities of early hominid dispersals from Africa prior to the emergence of stone tool making and the development of the Acheulean culture within the Indian subcontinent. In this regard, it will be more important to locate the geological deposits of that time period and search for an early human presence, and such attempts have not been undertaken to date in Northeast India. Although handaxes have been reported at numerous sites of the Garo Hills and at Singtom in Manipur, they are not found in Lower or Middle Pleistocene deposits. The cleavers identified by the early workers in the Garo Hills are not identical to the Lower Palaeolithic cleavers of peninsular India, but resemble bifacially flaked large cutting tools such as hand adzes (D.K. Medhi 1988; D.K. Chakrabarti 2006). These are found extensively in many late Pleistocene and Holocene sites of Southeast Asia. One of the possible routes of dispersal from South Asia to Southeast Asia could be the coastal route along the Chittagong and the Arakan coasts. If the lower reaches of the Ganges and the Brahmaputra were difficult to cross, as Dennell (2009) suggests without formulating any strong argument for this opinion, then the uplands along the Himalayan foothills of Northeast India might have served as a conduit for ancient migrations. The Himalayan foothills may have been a crucial ecological zone for human movements. The Brahmaputra River traverses a total distance of 2,880 kilometres, originating in the Chema Yundung glacier of Tibet, flowing through Assam and Bangladesh through a valley consisting of its own recent alluvium and depositions of sediments (J.N. Sarma 2005). The subrecent alluvial deposits of the Brahmaputra valley may not yield fruitful results

Page 76 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record for (p.153) prehistoric archaeological research. Vigorous sedimentation might have covered earlier deposits bearing artefacts away, if there were any. There are no strong grounds to deny the presence of the Palaeolithic tradition in the Late Pleistocene in this region. The Palaeolithic industries are contemporaneous to the microlithic and Upper Palaeolithic traditions of the rest of India and of the Hoabinhian industries of Southeast Asia of the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene periods. Recent genetic data and discoveries of identical Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene artefacts across Northeast India, Nepal, and Burma make it plausible to envisage common cultural traditions, based on exploitation of similar environmental settings. Several ancient dispersal events can likewise be conceived. The archaeology of this period shows more connections with Southeast Asia than with the rest of the Indian subcontinent. In dealing with the early farming cultures of Northeast India, it appears that the region can stand alone as a separate and distinct developmental case in the context of the East Indian Neolithic tradition. The development of agriculture in this region could be considered to have involved geographical, temporal, and cultural isolates. According to one group, it has been argued that in the area where food production is not based on the domestication of local or indigenous plants and animals, the farming tradition might have been imported from neighbouring areas where indigenous agriculture has been substantially recorded (Smith 2001: 204). The expansion of Neolithic traits in the northeastern part of India from the Yangtze corridor may not have been direct, but may have passed through Southeast Asia, for the Northeast Indian Neolithic complex appears to be quite late, based on the available radiometric dates. One of the most crucial questions that will perhaps dominate the future of Neolithic research in Northeast India is the origin of rice agriculture. This region is situated at the crossroads between two important regions which have yielded evidences of the earliest rice agriculture—the Gangetic plain and the Yangtze River basin. Achaeobotanical investigations through the sieving of sediments of Neolithic cultural deposits will be the most viable prospect in this regard. There are still many questions on the chronology of the pre-Neolithic and Neolithic periods in Northeast India, and their origins and transitions. A similar problem is faced by archaeologists in Burma (p.154) (Aung-Thwin 2001) due to the nature of archaeological record and the substrate and the poorly understood chronology. Another crucial issue, namely the Megalithic tradition of Northeast India still being a living practice and possibly having connections with the Southeast Asian Megalithic tradition is something that we shall discuss in detail in the next chapter in view of the findings of our own archaeological explorations in the Garbhanga Reserve Forest.

Page 77 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Access brought to you by:

Page 78 of 78

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

The Archaeological Record Field Explorations at Garbhanga Reserve Forest Manjil Hazarika

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199474660.003.0005

Abstract and Keywords This chapter elaborates the data and results of the explorations conducted in the Garbhanga Reserve Forest. The area has been intensively surveyed for the location of potential archaeological sites and the collection of ethnographic data in order to draw direct historical analogies. An ‘area-approach’ study has been conducted in order to formulate a general model for archaeological site structure, locations, geomorphic situations, and site formation processes that can be used for archaeological study in the hilly landscape of Northeast India. Present-day agricultural implements have been analysed and compared with Neolithic implements in order to reconstruct ancient farming culture by way of undertaking systematic study of modern peasant ways of life in the study area. The ideological significance of stone artefacts as ‘thunderstone’ in Northeast India and among the Karbis has also been discussed. Keywords:   Garbhanga Reserve Forest, direct historical analogies, ethnoarchaeology, site formation processes, shifting cultivation, thunderstone, Karbis

Archaeologically Assam is still terra incognita … it is a very promising region where some of the ancient customs are still in vogue among many tribes.… A phased programme of systematic exploration … and selective excavation will undoubtedly throw a flood of light on this neglected region of the sub-continent and will also enable us to know the contribution of the

Page 1 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Far Eastern and South East Asian cultures in the making of Indian civilisation. —Madhukar Keshav Dhavalikar (1973: 137) Archaeological hypothesis may be tested through the analysis of archaeological record and data gathered through regional survey. Regional survey has been considered as one of the best methodologies for solving certain archaeological problems. The Garbhanga Reserve Forest, situated in the peripheral areas of some important locations where archaeological sites have already been recorded, was chosen for systematic exploration to understand prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns. The reserve forest is surrounded by the Garo Hills in the west, the Shillong and Cherrapunji areas in the south, the Khasi, Jaintia, and Karbi Hills in the east, and the urban centre of Guwahati in the north. The area has been intensively surveyed with an objective of locating archaeological sites and conducting a regional study. Collection of ethnographic data has also been done in order to draw direct historical analogies for the interpretation of the archaeology of this area in particular and of Northeast India in (p.156) general. The main objective was to understand the relationship between humans and the environment and to formulate a model of prehistoric early farming culture. Besides, it also aimed to analyse the exchange network system of these relatively isolated areas. This region potentially serves as an ideal zone for understanding the upland–lowland cultural interaction sphere as it lies in the vicinity of Guwahati, presently a thickly populated urban centre. Guwahati witnessed early historic cultural development since the middle of the 1st millennium AD as is evident from the site of Ambari (Dhavalikar 1973) located in the heart of the present-day city. This early historic development was not an isolated phenomenon; it was rather a result of the development of agricultural activities and hinterland trade network supported by settlements in the near neighbourhood. Neolithic sites like Sarutaru (Rao 1977), Marakdola (Rao 1977), and Pynthorlangtein (IAR 1992–3) may have contributed to the early historic development in the region, although we have very limited knowledge about the ‘Dark Age’ between the Neolithic and the early historic period of the region. Discovery of Ambari ware, an index trait of the early historic period of Assam (Ansari and Dhavalikar 1970) is also recorded from the Neolithic site of Chungliyimti in Nagaland (Nienu 1974) and the early historic site of Sekta in Manipur (Sharma 1994). To understand the inter-regional network pattern, one must address the problem with an intention to record the inter-site relationship in a region falling in the upland geographical area in the immediate vicinity of a lowland urban centre. As previously mentioned, the ‘single-site approach’ is inadequate for understanding prehistoric cultures in their totality from an ecological perspective, whereas an ‘area-approach’ study can provide noteworthy data for interpreting demography, social organization, and land-use patterns (Paddayya Page 2 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record 1985b: 60). In this work an ‘area-approach’ study has been adopted in order to formulate a general model for archaeological site structure, locations, geomorphic situations, and site formation processes in the Garbhanga Reserve Forest that can be used for archaeological study in the hilly landscape of Northeast India. Both archaeological reconnaissance and site survey methods have been applied in the area. Archaeological reconnaissance aims at locating, identifying, and recording the distribution of archaeological sites against the geographical and environmental background whereas site survey is the (p.157) collection of surface material and evaluation of the importance of the site based on analysis of material remains (Fagan 1991: 177). The Garbhanga Reserve Forest can be considered as a perfect example of human–nature relationship. Although modern-day parallels specify the role of plants and plant foods in the ecology of earlier inhabitants, this is often problematic to prove with convincing archaeological data due to meagre record of plant remains, especially in regions with high humidity. Hence, a study of modern plant use among the indigenous inhabitants of the region may provide fruitful result which may serve as an analogy for the relationship between ancient humans and plants. The abundant use of plants by the local people in the region has been considered as a prime ethnographic data for reconstructing the relationship between humans and the environment in the past. This relationship acted as a major factor in determining and shaping the prehistoric culture as it is visualized today. Against this background, the data gathered during field exploration in the Garbhanga Reserve Forest near Guwahati is presented and an attempt is made to place it in the context of existing knowledge of the archaeological situation in the region.

Garbhanga Reserve Forest The Garbhanga Reserve Forest lies between 26°55′ N to 26°05′ N latitudes and 91°37′ E to 91°49′ E longitudes. The area has distinct topographical position with undulating terrain and small streams and rivulets. In terms of geomorphic situation, the Garbhanga Reserve Forest covering an area of 1,460 hectares is bordered by the Meghalaya hill ranges on the eastern and southern sides, the Rani Reserve Forest on the western side, and the city of Guwahati and the Deepor Beel Wildlife Sanctuary on the northern side. The Garbhanga Hill is a stretched out portion of the Shillong plateau. The reserve forest has several elephant corridors through which this giant animal moves from one place to another. The plain immediately on the northern boundary of the Garbhanga Reserve Forest has a wetland of riverine origin known as Deepor Beel covering a core area of 4.14 square kilometres, lying between 26°05′ N to 26°11′ N latitudes and 91°35′ E to 91°43′ E longitudes. The Deepor Beel, a naturally depressed area between hills and plains, has (p.158) rich floral and faunal diversity including residential and migratory birds. It has been traditionally used by the Page 3 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record neighbouring villagers as a recreational ground for the hunting of deer, elephant, birds, and most importantly fishing. There is a wide variety of fish fauna belonging to more than 60 species (P.K. Saikia 2005). The area under study is drained by a matrix of rocky perennial streams which flow through small gorges. The forest is predominantly mixed deciduous with a few scattered tropical evergreen pockets and has a varied habitat ranging from an upland forest with a thick rainforest canopy to open forested areas with grassy patches and dense undergrowth vegetation along the stream (K.K. Barua, Kakati, and Kalita 2004: 1439). The forest is contiguous with the areas of Jarasal-Kwasing Reserve, Nakhalliyang Wildlife Sanctuary, and the Jirang unclassed state forest of Meghalaya and the Rani forest of Assam. The plant species found in the area are sal or shala tree (Shorea robusta), White Meranti (Shorea assamica), Hollong tree (Dipterocarpus macrocarpus), Schima wallichii, Lannea coromandelica, Gmelina arborea, Tetrameles nudiflora, Lagerstoemia parviflora, Bridelia retusa, Albizzia lebbeck, Ficus hispida, Holarrhena antidysenterica, Tricalysia singularis, Oroxylum indicum, Salix tertrasperma, Malletus albus, Careya arborea, Semicarpius anacardium, and Dendrocalamus hamiltonii (K.K. Barua et al. 2010). The ground vegetation has numerous varieties of herbs, shrubs, and grasses. The area is an important repository of a large variety of avifauna, 128 species belonging to 41 families reported so far. The recorded bird families are Turdinae and Accipitridae. Some of the notable species are the Brahminy kite (Haliastur indus), pied harrier (Circus melanoleucos), oriental honey-buzzard (Pernis ptilorhynchus), red-headed trogon (Harpactes erythrocephalus), great slaty woodpecker (Mulleripicus pulverulentus), hooded pitta (Pitta sordida), Siberian rubythroat (Luscinia calliope), green cochoa (Cochoa viridis), white-bellied yuhina (Yuhina zantholeuca), common hill-myna (Gracula religiosa), and the greater racket-tailed drongo (Dicrurus paradiseus) (Lahkar et al. 2010: 83–6). Besides, a large number of animals are found in the region. The climate of the area is characterized by high humidity and moderate temperature. On the basis of temperature, humidity, and precipitation pattern, the climate of the Rani and Garbhanga Reserve Forests has been divided into four distinct season, namely pre-monsoon, monsoon, retreating monsoon, and winter. The rainfall, (p.159) fogs, and temperature change in relation to different seasons and in different physiographic areas within the area. The area is mostly inhabited by the Karbis, a Tibeto-Burman linguistic group. They are mostly cultivators. Most of the children attend the lower primary school of the Garbhanga village. At the market place, there are several grocery shops, a tailor, tea and rice beer (hor) stalls, chicken and meat shops, and vegetable shops, which are mostly owned by the Khasi residents of the

Page 4 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record neighbouring state of Meghalaya. A medical centre and a forest office are also located in this market area.

Archaeological Reconnaissance at Garbhanga Reserve Forest As part of the study, regular field visits to the Garbhanga Reserve Forest were made since September 2009. The archaeological site of Bargaon amid the forest was brought to my notice by Shri Bhola Bongjang, a resident of the Ulubari Gaon of the reserve forest, whom I met during a meeting related to a rural development scheme of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) initiated by the Government of India at Guwahati. In an informal discussion, Shri Bongjang intimated me about a huge deposit of pottery at a place inside the forest visible on the ground due to the road-cutting activity. After this initial interaction, I visited the Garbhanga village on 20 September 2009 and realized the potential of Bargaon as a large archaeological deposit in the hilly terrain of Northeast India (Hazarika 2016a). The name Bargaon literally means a big village, bar ‘big’ and gaon ‘village’, which is traditionally believed to be an area inhabited by the ancestors of the present-day villagers of the Garbhanga village. Older generations of the villagers consider the area as the ancient habitation of their forefathers. The area is currently not under habitation. Erosional activities due to heavy rainfall in the Garbhanga area and road cutting have affected the site and potsherds seem to have been dispersed from the hilltop and washed down to the slopes. The road cutting has exposed a section of more than a metre at locations at the site in which potsherds are recoded in-situ up to the bottom level of the section. This indicates a considerable amount of cultural deposit, suggesting a long history of human habitation. (p.160) The huge scattering of potsherds at Bargaon is noticeable on the road which runs from Garbhanga village to Paham zila village. The deposit of the potsherds extends from the hilltop to the slopes. Besides pottery, iron objects, sling balls, and faunal material are also visible on the surface at the site of Bargaon. On the hilltop, there lies a huge amount of menhirs and a few of them are still in erect condition. Systematic collection of pottery and artefacts has been made. This is discussed in detail in the following sections. Upon interaction with the villagers of Garbhanga, it has been observed that the area around the site of Bargaon has yielded a good number of stone celts which have been generally picked up by the villagers and kept in their houses (see Fig. 5.1). These stone tools are often found while digging earth and also during shifting cultivation activities. Some of these stone artefacts collected and possessed by the villagers are described in the next section. Stray Finds of Celts around Bargaon

Following are the artefacts shown in figure 5.1:

Page 5 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record 1. This is an artefact measuring 100 × 59 × 32 millimetres, made on a flat tabular slab which has flake removals on the distal and proximal ends. The flaking is more on the distal part. On Figure 5.1 Stray finds from Garbhanga the right lateral there are Reserve Forest: (A) dorsal and (B) ventral some marks running parallel faces of the artefacts to the side. The cross section is more or less quadrilateral. The plan is ‘U’ shaped. The proximal end has retouching or battering mark. On the distal end some flaking has been done and it has a sharp edge. All the four sides are ground. The longest scar is of 41 centimetres. (p.161) 2. This is an artefact measuring 76 × 48 × 16 millimetres that has a trapezoidal cross section, a quadrilateral plan, and is slightly patinated. The uni-bevelled edge is extensively damaged. The artefact is moderately weathered, ground all over, and the proximal end has battering marks and the mid-section has a damage mark. 3. This is a parallel-sided celt measuring 72 × 24 × 14 millimetres, made on a flat tabular slab of schistous rock. The artefact has a quadrilateral cross section, straight and uni-bevel edges—the two edges don’t meet at a sharp point possibly to protect from breakage. The edge is ground and polished. One face is flat and the other bevelled. On the distal end there are some retouching and battering marks. The right disto-lateral part is broken. The artefact is ground and well polished all over. There is a groove on the left disto-lateral running across the side. 4. This is an artefact measuring 72 × 52 × 13 millimetres, made on a flake of schistous rock. It has a sharp bi-bevel straight cutting edge; the distal edge is damaged; it is ground and polished all over and is moderately patinated. Some retouching was done on either side after grinding and polishing. The cross section is more or less trapezoidal; a transverse scar was removed prior to flake removal. It has been heavily retouched, with the retouching covering the surface of the entire artefact except the edge. The retouched shallow and thin scars have steep termination. 5. This is a double-shouldered celt measuring 105 × 78 × 15 millimetres, with an 18-millimetre-long shoulder. The artefact is triangular in plan, has a plano-convex cross section, and is slightly weathered. There is slight edge damage, and it is moderately patinated. There is no damage on the proximal end, but the distal edge has damaging marks. It is well grounded and polished all over.

Page 6 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record 6. This is an artefact measuring 63 × 62 × 11 millimetres, made on a schistous rock. It is heavily damaged; it is grounded but not polished. 7. This is an artefact measuring 60 × 56 × 11 millimetres, made on a schistous rock. It has a sub-triangular cross section, a trapezoidal plan, a bi-bevel, convex and sharp edge. Traces of retouching are present on the edge and it is ground and polished. There are grooves running diagonally on one face, which possibly served to maintain proper hafting; it is slightly patinated. 8. This is part of a well-polished parallel-sided celt measuring 34 × 29 × 9 millimetres, made on a schistous rock. Only the edge portion remains— damaged possibly due to weathering. (p.162) 9. A moderately rounded celt measuring 47 × 40 × 10 millimetres, made on a flat tabular slab of schistous rock. It has a triangular cross section, a trapezoidal cross section, a rounded and convex edge, with both sides bevelled. There is some damage on the right distal end and some on the left lateral. 10. A heavily rounded celt measuring 60 × 44 × 19 millimetres. It has triangular plan, a trapezoidal cross section, a damaged bi-bevel and convex edge. It is slightly weathered and abraded, with black patina and battering marks on the proximal end. Archaeological Record at Bargaon Pottery

Pottery forms the largest amount of archaeological record scattered at the site. The thick concentration of pottery suggests a long continuation of occupation at the site. As opposed to the meagre amount of pottery in Northeast Indian archaeological sites, both prehistoric and historic, Bargaon has provided a strong case for understanding the ceramics of the Garbhanga region. The region lacks fine-quality clay for pottery-making amid the hills, suggesting the production of (p.163) pottery outside the hilly range and possibility of them having been imported from the nearby plains.

Page 7 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Based on the colour of the potsherds, the pottery can be grouped as red ware. The pottery has impurities of sandy particles. No slip or wash has been applied on the artefacts and no decorative elements are found either. The collection was made in a systematic way so that different parts of a vessel are represented in the entire assemblage.

Figure 5.2 Rims recovered from Bargaon

Spouts

Besides rim (Fig. 5.2), base, and other parts of pottery, a good number of spouts have also been noticed at the site. We have recorded a total of 33 spouts at the site. Most of the spouts are straight and slightly curved. An analysis of the shape and size shows that only a few specimens have marks of luting with the body of the pot. Iron Objects

Iron objects have also been recoded from the surface at the site. A total of eight pieces of knives have been collected and all of these are corroded (Fig. 5.3). Five objects have a longish blade, a thin lenticular cross (p.164) section, and a tang for hafting besides a broader blade and two small pieces with Figure 5.3 (A) Iron artefacts from the portions of tang. All these site of Bargaon and (B) a knife used by artefacts are morphologically the Karbis similar to the iron knives (Fig. 5.3), which are basically allpurpose-tools, used by the present-day Karbis of the Garbhanga region. Apart from household utility, these iron knives are used even in the jhum field. Saddle Quern

A saddle quern that has a base was also found at the site. This was possibly used for grinding seeds and other food items. The grinding face has a depression in the centre which must have been due to the grinding activity.

Page 8 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Stone Dish

An interesting discovery at the site comprised the remains of two stone dishes. The large one measures 125 × 61 × 122 × 63 millimetres and the other 59 × 65 × 69 × 58 millimetres clockwise. The thickness of the large one varies from 7 to 10 millimetres and that of the other is 6 millimetres. The larger piece has a groove. Stone bowls are also recorded from sites like Chungliyimti in Nagaland (Nienu 1974). Stone dish and bowls were used in different parts of Assam plain until recently. Other Objects

A total of 15 clay sling balls have been collected as surface material. The smallest of these sling balls measured 14 millimetres in circumference and the biggest 26 millimetres. Clay sling balls and catapult are still used by the local Karbis in various hunting operations. Discovery of a few other objects including net sinkers, pieces of bangles, and stone sharpeners have also been reported from the site. Animal Teeth

An important feature at the site is the scattering of a large number of animal teeth (Fig. 5.4). These are teeth of different bovine species, particularly buffalo. Upon enquiry, the local Karbis informed that wild buffaloes were abundant in the region, however, overhunting by the Khasis and (p.165) Karbis has reduced the population. Ethnographic information suggests that these teeth were remains of hunted animals which were consumed at the site by the ancient population. It is not known whether these animals were sacrificed like the mithuns among communities of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland. Megaliths

A large number of megaliths (Fig. 5.4) has been observed at the site, most of which are not in standing condition. No definite sturucture can be visualized. Ethnographic observation suggests that these are menhirs which were erected in memory of the deceased. As per the information provided by the villagers, these menhirs are disturbed by wild elephants.

Page 9 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Purani Basti

This area has yielded a good number of megaliths. On the surface of the road cutting, potsherds have been also recorded. Shri Rajani Teron, (p. 166) a resident of the Purani Basti, collected a stone celt from the depth of 2.5 feet while levelling the road. A good number of broken sherds have been located at the site during the scrapping of the section made for road cutting. The megaliths are scattered in a large area, suggesting the presence of a wide village in ancient time. The recorded 12

Figure 5.4 Menhirs at the site of Bargaon: (A) the surface after clearing, (B) scattered pottery, and (C) a tooth of cattle species

megaliths are of various sizes which read: 81 × 33 × 13 centimetres, 23 × 31 × 8 centimetres, 51 × 32 × 9 centimetres, 35 × 33 × 6 centimetres, 74 × 40 × 14 centimetres, 36 × 21 × 8 centimetres, 27 × 15 × 13 centimetres, 24 × 15 × 12 centimetres, 109 × 41 × 23 centimetres, 36 × 20 × 20 centimetres, 130 × 69 × 15 centimetres, and 114 × 53 × 12 centimetres. Purani Garbhanga

At the entrance of the village, three small megaliths have been recorded. These are of different sizes: 22 × 18 × 12 centimetres, 37 × 22 × 8 centimetres, and 27 × 27 × 12 centimetres. Two celts along with a few potsherds were found by Shri Ganeshwar Ronghang (45) of the Purani Garbhanga village at a depth of 1.5 metres while the soil was being levelled for the construction of his house. Pilinku

At the entrance of the village, a cluster of more than 30 megaliths has been recorded. An ancient habitation having old jackfruit trees has been located at the periphery of the present-day Pilinku village. The name of the site is Pum Plam Rongman, which literally means ancient village with elephant apple. This area has more than 50 megaliths of different sizes, all of which despite being covered by undergrowth are still intact and in erect condition. This area is believed to be the ancient habitation of the present-day villagers.

The Karbis: An Introduction The Karbis have been conferred the title of ‘Columbus’, the ‘discoverer of Assam’ (Bishnu Rabha Rachanavali 1982: 59). However, there has been disagreement in recent years with regard to applying the ‘Columbus legacy’ to the Karbis, keeping in view that the term carries the connotation of being a mere Page 10 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record ‘coloniser’ (Teron 2011: 1–6) in the way that the term was held to be true for Christopher Columbus (p.167) who ‘discovered’ America on 12 October 1492, a place that was actually discovered by the native inhabitants several thousands of years back (Teron 2011: 2). As a native Karbi person, Teron (2011: 5) urges that usage of ‘the ‘Columbus legacy’ in any manner or any remote reference to this ‘butcher’ of humanity must not be tolerated: ‘[W]e Karbis must, as should all indigenous and right thinking people, declare our total rejection of the Columbus legacy.’ The present situation that arose regarding the use of the ‘legacy’ was probably not close to what had been meant by Bishnu Prasad Rabha (1909–1969), a beloved comrade and veteran artist of 20th-century Assam, who himself hails from a Bodo-Kachari family, and had applied the term to denote the Karbis as one of the firsts to inhabit the land of Assam in the bygone days of unknown past. At this conjecture, an interesting question arises. I am often asked by several natives during my field visits to the Garbhanga Reserve Forest, ‘From where have we [that is, the Karbis] come?’ This is analogous to the question ‘Where did the Garos come from?’ raised by the Garos to Robbins Burling, a linguist of the University of Michigan. It is very common among most of the ethnic groups of Northeast India to enquire about their ancient homeland, and they often presume that their ancestors had migrated from somewhere else (Burling 2012). Apart from the anthropological accounts of sociocultural life of the Karbis written in the beginning of 20th century by Sir Charles Lyall (1908) in his landmark publication The Karbis, most of the later publications in English (for example, Barkataki 1967; Dutt 1979; Bordoloi 1982; T. Bhattacharjee 1986; Bordoloi, Sarma Thakur, and Saikia 1987; B.K. Medhi 1988; Phangcho 2001; R. Teron 2008; Zaman 2008; R. Teron 2009; Devi 2011; D. Teron 2011; Teron and Borthakur 2012) as well as in Assamese (Hakacham 2003; Gogoi 2008) are merely repetition of the data presented by Charles Lyall (1908). Moreover, only a meagre amount of work has been done so far on the origin, migration, and the archaeological and historical development of the Karbis (Bezbaruah 2003; K. Choudhury 2004; Sharma 2012). In the district of Karbi Anglong, which is primarily dominated by the Karbis, several other tribal groups—like the Lalungs (Tiwas), Dimasa Kacharis, Rengma Nagas, Kuki, Garos, Khasis, and Shyams—also live in close proximity, maintaining their individual ethnic (p.168) identity. Besides Karbi Anglong, several Karbi-inhabited pockets are found in the North Cachar Hills, Kamrup, Morigaon, Nagaon, Golaghat, Karimganj, and Sonitpur districts of Assam, the Balijan circle of Papumpare district in Arunachal Pradesh, the Jaintia Hills, RiBhoi and East Khasi Hills in Meghalaya, and Dimapur in Nagaland (Das 2012: 64).

Page 11 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Linguistically, the Karbis belong to the Tibeto-Burman group and particularly the Karbi (Mikir) subgroup, which is spoken by two groups: (a) Karbi proper, spoken in the territory all around Hojai in Assam and (b) Amri Karbi, spoken in the lower Meghalaya Hills, northeast of Nongpoh (van Driem 2001). Karbi or Mikir is spoken in the Karbi Anglong as well as in the neighbouring districts of Kamrup, Nagaon, and Sibsagar of Assam. It is not a Brahmaputran language, but a taxon unto itself within the Tibeto-Burman language family. A majority of the Karbis are bilingual and know Assamese as they live in close proximity to people who speak Assamese (van Driem 2007a: 302, 2007b: 322). Memories of Origin and Migration among the Karbis

Due to an absolute dearth of written record and scanty archaeological record attributed to the Karbis, it is rather difficult to trace the origin and history of their early settlements. Hence, the folklore serves as a primary source of information on the early history of the community (Choudhury 1974: 2). This may hold true for a majority of the tribal groups of Northeast India. The Karbis are supposed to have come to Northeast India from the Kuki-Chin area, in and around the Chindwin River valley in western Burma (Lyall 1908: 1). Folklore on the origin of paddy infers that they had settled in the Kuki-Chin region in the past and had even befriended a Chin man referred to as Hukhi Chindaipo (Hukhi ‘friend’ and Chindaipo ‘a Chin man’). This legend is narrated during the consumption of An Kimi, the new rice of the season (R. Teron 2009: 37). Traditional sources suggest the eastern portion of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills bordering the Kopili River as the original homeland of the Karbis. In this regard, archaeological remains of bricks, buildings, and sculptures found along the northern skirts of the Mikir Hills are ascribed to the Karbis (Lyall 1908: 5). (p. 169) It is also hypothesized that the Karbis entered Assam in one of the waves of migrations from western China, especially close to Yangtze and Yellow Rivers from where several Tibeto-Burman speaking groups dispersed to the Brahmaputra, Chindwin, and Irrawady River valleys (Bordoloi, Sarma Thakur, and Saikia 1987: 52). Folk tradition indicates that the Nongpilar Hill (location unknown) was the area from where a group of Karbis including Sinthong, a legend, came to the Lumbajong Hill (location unknown), possibly a region between Dimapur and Diphu (Gogoi 2008: 94), falling on the present-day boundary of Nagaland and Assam respectively. The Lumbajong Hill was within the Kachari territory and, due to the sabotage caused by the Kacharis, the Karbis had to leave the area. They crossed the Barpani tributary of Kopili River and finally settled down in the Chocheng Hill of the Rongkhang area, establishing their kingdom of which the Page 12 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record northern boundary extended up to the Barpani or Karbi Langpi River (Gogoi 2008: 94–5). Another folk tradition infers that the ancient kingdom of the Karbis was adjacent to the Jaintia kingdom, with Chocheng and Niz Rongkhang as the capitals. However before coming to the Chocheng and Niz Rongkhang areas, Karbis were residing on the banks of the Kalang, Kopili, and the entire area covering the present-day Kaziranga National Park (Bordoloi 1982). The very name ‘Kaziranga’ is believed to have been derived from Kajir-a rong (which literally means ‘village of Kajir’), a Karbi lady (Medhi 1974: 17). Traditional stories among the Karbis, regarding their earlier settlements in the fringe areas with different ethnic groups, reveal interesting correlations. They first settled in the eastern region of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, then in Dimapur of the Kachari kingdom, and thereafter they again had to move and finally settle in the areas covered by the present-day Karbi Anglong district. As the Karbis were being surrounded by the Khasis, Kacharis, and Nagas, they picked up certain cultural elements including language due to close contact (Das 1987: 49). It has been believed that the practice of human sacrifice for the appeasement of the deities by the Karbis is an element borrowed from the neighbouring Khasis. Human sacrifice was prevalent until recently. Hence, it will be worthwhile to compare the archaeological record of the Karbi Anglong region with the other nearby regions of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, North Cachar Hills, and Naga Hills. (p.170) The Burmese invasion of erstwhile Assam in early 19th century crumbled and fragmented the territorial settlements of most of the tribal groups, leading to growth of refugee areas in both the hills and the plains. It is noteworthy that the traditional king of the Karbis still resides in Niz Rongkhang, which is located about 16 kilometres south of Hamren in the Karbi Anglong district. The traditional king, known as Lingdokpo, is democratically elected and looks after the socio-religiouss aspects of the community. It is interesting to note that the Karbis maintain this age-old system of their traditional self-governing institution having three tiers with jurisdiction in civil, socio-economic, and religious matters. This system is monarchical—the Lingdokpo ‘King’ is at the apex, followed by the Havai, ‘Head of the region’, and the Sarthe, ‘Headmen of a village’. Although, there have been changes in the administration, some of the traditional institutions are still working in their original form. Similar to many of the tribal groups, Karbis also have the tradition of bachelor dormitories, locally known as Jirekadam or Farla. However, it is now gradually passing into oblivion (Sarmah 2011). On the basis of the geographical locations of the settlements, the Karbis are divided into three sub-groups, namely Chintong, Ronghang, and Amri; however, Page 13 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record these divisions do not indicate any strict cultural difference, rather they seem to have a common origin (Lyall 1908: 17). The Karbis never call themselves Mikir, a name given by the Assamese and other non-Karbi people. They identify themselves as Karbi or sometimes as Arleng which means ‘a Karbi man’, not man in general. The word Arleng, which also means ‘slanting place near a hill’, again denotes the people residing in the hill slopes. This suggests that the Karbis are primarily hill dwellers. A similar tradition is also prevalent among the Mizos of Mizoram. Mizo literally means ‘people of the hills’. Similarly, the term Tangsa is derived from ‘Tang’, meaning high land, and Cha or Sa’, meaning son, implying ‘son of highland’. Like many other tribal groups, Karbis also have a clan system, known as kur, having a total of five—Ingti, Terang, Lekthe, Timung and Teron—which are exogamous, meaning that marriage between a boy and a girl of the same clan is not allowed as they are believed to be (p.171) siblings. Each clan has a number of exogamous sub-clans. As such, there is no inequality among these kurs. The Karbis are patriarchal and follow monogamy, although polygamy is not restricted.

The Karbis of Garbhanga Reserve Forest: Some Ethnoarchaeological Observations In recent years, ethnoarchaeology has developed as a major methodological tool for understanding the past cultures of a given region. From a detailed recording of contemporary ethnographic data, particularly the material culture, a model of the ancient lifeways can be constructed, which may be further tested with the archaeological record. Binford (1967) argued that ethnographical data should be used to formulate hypotheses from which deductions can be drawn and then tested against the archaeological material. While reviewing ethnoarchaeological research in India, Mohanty and Mishra (2002: 169) provided three major assumptions underlying ethnoarchaeology: (a) the present provides a reliable opportunity to test ideas about the relationship between human behaviour and thought and their material expression; (b) ethnographic analogies are useful where there are strong similarities between the material cultural forms of the past and the present, and (c) this value increases further when historical links can be established between present and past cultures. While conducting ethnographic survey in the area around the site of Bargaon, all these assumptions hold. The material culture of the contemporary Karbis living around the site in a similar geographical setting provides ample scope for testing the functions of the archaeological data recorded at the site and in its surrounding locality. The material expressions of the Karbis provide parallels to the one recorded at the site. Interestingly, there is a plausible direct connection of the people residing around the hill with the site, as they consider the site as their ancestral village. The present residents of the Ulubari, Purani Garbhanga, Notun Garbhanga, and Pilinku villages are believed to be the progenies of the people Page 14 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record who lived at the ancient site of Bargaon. Against this background, in view of the archaeological record of the site, we shall take a look at the material expressions of the residents of these villagers surrounding the site and seek ethnoarchaeological parallels. We are also concerned about methodological safeguards (p.172) such as the following: (a) one must keep in mind the time gap between the archaeological and the contemporary cultures—the method works best with the most recent archaeological period, (b) it is wiser to draw parallels between the past and the present communities which are at a similar stage of economic development, and (c) one should neutralize the ecological variables by choosing a contemporary community which shares environmental conditions with those of the archaeological record (Mohanty and Mishra 2002: 196). The surface material remains at the site as well as oral traditions suggest that the site was occupied till recently with a gap of five to six generations. However, in view of the nature of deposition and large-scale deposit of archaeological record, particularly pottery, the site seems to have a considerable antiquity, which will be possible to establish only through systematic excavation and dating attempts. Second, an identical economic condition may be postulated among the present-day Karbis of the area, with the ancient population living at the site of Bargaon based on farming supplemented by hunting–gathering– fishing activities. There is no major change in the environmental context and ecological setting in the present and the recent past in the region. J.H. Hutton was one of the first scholars to pinpoint the importance of ethnographic parallels for understanding the archaeological record of Northeast India (Hutton 1928: 1). He believes that material record of the prehistoric period of this region is very scanty owing to high humidity of the climate due to which all objects other than stone perish very fast. Hence, there is a need to supplement what we know by inferences from ethnological observations. In this section, we shall discuss some crucial questions arising from the archaeological data of the Garbhanga area. We shall attempt to seek answers from the ethnographic present. The broad questions are: 1. What are these stray Neolithic stone artefacts often found at the jhum cultivation fields? 2. Is any correlation possible based on the archaeological record at the site of Bargaon with the present-day settlements based on folklore and oral traditions? 3. What are the functional aspects of the pottery at the site and their provenance? 4. What are the functions of the iron objects? (p.173) 5. What is the significance of the Megalithic remains? 6. What is the settlement and subsistence pattern at the Bargaon site and neighbourhood?

Page 15 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record The Karbis of the area like to live in a group within a village. The villages are mostly self-sufficient as most of their daily needs are met with resources from the neighbouring forest. Some of the present-day Karbi settlements of the Garbhanga forest are Ulubari, Pilingku, Paham Jila, Notun Garbhanga, Amring Paham, Latum Paham, Numali Pothar, Dumu Paham, Nong Tarek, and Bhaluk Khowa. Most of the villages are spread from the hill slopes to the hilltops. The hill ranges have deep or shallow river valleys which are now used for lowland paddy cultivation. Interviews were conducted with randomly selected elderly people of the villages. Conversations with elderly people went on for hours in the evening, which is an ideal time as most of the villagers are busy during the day with daily routine and agricultural activities in the field. Informal interactions with the residents at their activity areas also helped. On-site observations have been thoroughly recorded and discussed in detail with the informants. For most of the womenfolk the daily routine starts with cooking food and feeding the family and then getting ready for marching towards the agricultural land or to the jungle for collecting wild plants, vegetables, and firewood. Womenfolk are often seen in the evening on their way back home with an ingtong thapa or ‘basket’ full of leafy vegetables, roots, tubers, and bamboo shoots. The ingtong thapa is a basket made of bamboo or cane borne upon the back and secured to the forehead with a strap. The women also go for community fishing in the hilly streams, rivulets, and small marshlands. The male members take care of the domestic cattle and get fodder from the jungle. They collect firewood, thatch for roofing, and timber and bamboo for constructing their huts. The traditional knowledge of medicinal properties of different plants and animals are optimally utilized for day-to-day ailments and illnesses. The forest provides resources not only for their daily life but also all ritualistic and ceremonial occasions. In all the rituals, both household as well as public, natural forest resources are used, for instance, wild plants and roots for consumption (Fig. 5.5); leaves for plates; bamboo tubes (p.174) for carrying, cooking, and drinking water, besides serving rice beer; bamboo for preparing the ritual altar, fencing, for use as firewood, and for making different utensils, baskets, and thatch for roofing the hutment and sheds. The makeshift type of settlement pattern, marginal material cultural remains, and use of perishable material in day-to-day life are crucial for understanding the formation process of ancient habitation sites in Northeast India. There are various material cultural items which are simply all-purpose tools, for example, a dao ‘machete’ made of iron hafted into a bamboo shaft. Starting with different tasks in the jhum field like slashing, hoeing, harvesting, and cutting, to other tasks like butchering in the kitchen, making household utensils, basketry, and building huts and fencing for pet animals—all can be done with a dao. Hence, Karbi men and women are always seen with a dao in their hand or in their bag.

Page 16 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Settlement Pattern

The Karbis reside mostly on the hill tops and also inhabit the edges of the hills. They live forming a village comprising 15 to 20 households of close relatives and kinsmen. A strong bonding among the residents of a village can be easily observed not only during different festivals, ritualistic ceremonies, and feasting, but also in the day-to-day subsistence activities like gathering of wild food resources and agricultural activities throughout the year. A cordial relationship is maintained between different villages. These villages are scattered across different hilltops spread at a considerable distance of 5 to 10 kilometres from each other. Most of the villages are located in the middle of the forest so that the resources can be easily exploited with efficient management of time and energy. The presence of a hilly stream is also an important factor in when one is considering a location for settlement. Quite interestingly water for day-to-day use and home gardens is traditionally channelled from the hilly upstream with the help of bamboo culms. This procedure requires a good amount of bamboo culms as sometimes the water source is a long distance away. Where the government water supply is still lacking and no well is provided, this channelling of hilly water through bamboo culms is a prominent water management system. (p.175) All the villages are connected with a hilly road. In a village, most of the houses are constructed on the gentle slopes of the hills. An individual family compound consists of houses and a courtyard for household activities, and for housing the granary, piggery, cowshed, and small cages for pet birds. In a compound with no separate granary, a corner of the house is used for storing rice grains in a large bamboo storage bin. The rest of the areas are utilized for home gardens in which a variety of economically viable plants are grown. The narrow hilly springs are used for drinking water as well as all household activities. Normally wet rice cultivation areas are closer to the settlement than the jhum plots. Different houses are connected with small lanes which then join with the main road that runs through the area, connecting all the villages. The inhabitants make fences or boundary walls with bamboo slits, which also mark the territory of an individual family. In most cases, the houses are built facing the village lane. Village Dwelling Structures

A typical Karbi hut is made from natural materials such as mud, grass, bamboo, reed, thatch, leaves, and jute. Therefore, the houses are not enduring and require constant maintenance and repair. A traditional Karbi house (mostly in the Karbi Anglong also known as the Mikir Hills) is built on a raised bamboo platform using timber posts or bamboo for the superstructure and thatch for roofing. In the Garbhanga area, however, the raised platform is not made. These hutments are usually built upon a raised mud plinth. As the houses are constructed on the slopes, the earth is cut and levelled for preparing a plain area Page 17 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record for constructing the plinth. Poles are dug on the plinth for the bamboo or wooden post with the help of an iron implement fixed on a bamboo shaft. The posts are fixed sturdily by compacting with condensed soil at the bottom. Oblong houses are provided with four or six such posts, more in case of a bigger house, which support the roof of the structure. For connecting and strengthening these posts, several transverse bamboo girders are interlinked. These are tied to vertical poles with the help of strings of bamboo, cane, and jute. The plinth is made with earth which is highly vulnerable to damage by rain water and rodent activities and is hence in need of frequent (p.176) repairs. Several insects such as worms, ants, and termites also cause harm to the earthen plinth. Due to these problems, the bamboo posts are also frequently changed. The pillars are made of thick (matured) bamboo poles of the variety Bambusa balcooa. It is interesting to note that the bottom portion, that is, the base that remains buried is made from thick roots of matured bamboo grass and then the over-ground portion is joined to it through a system of grooving. This is done to provide adequate load-bearing capacity as well as to avoid early rotting and decomposition. Walls are made of bamboo or reed nettings fitted into a bamboo framework over which a plaster prepared out of mud mixed with cow dung and cut shreds of jute are pasted. Jute is a locally available material and acts as a matrix that binds the mud as well as the plaster to the netting. All windows and doors are tastefully decorated and weaved out of bamboo. The construction of the roof is made in three stages. The bottom layer is essentially a bamboo framework weaved from slit bamboo or from the thin variety of bamboo. The outer layer of the bamboo is used to prepare the binding rope which is prepared by first slicing out the outermost fibre from the bamboo in the shape of slender and elongated threads and then softening it by soaking it in water. Above the bottom layer, the thatch, Imperata cylinderica, is tied up in several layers to act as the roofing material. Finally, slit bamboos are used on the top to tightly buttress and bind the thatch to the bottom layer. This makes the roof watertight and allows the water to slide down without soaking the inner layer of the roof. This technology allows the roof to effectively withstand heavy and incessant rainfall during the monsoons and also thunder and high velocity winds during the storm season. During winters the roof allows thermal heating by not allowing cold to percolate in. Ventilation in such huts is minimal but effective. The top portion of the wall has a horizontal bamboo capping The structural posts for supporting the roof are either made of bamboo or wood. Several horizontal crossbars are provided for supporting the wall made of bamboo or reed. The structures and walls are provided with cross bracing made Page 18 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record of split bamboo for additional support and resistance to wind. Sometimes, the damaged walls are repaired by cross bracing in that particular area, and this lasts for (p.177) quite a long time. Damage to floor caused by rainwater is prevented by extending the roof eaves. Not only thatch, cane and palm leaves are also used for roofing upon availability. The roofs made of rice straw or any other grass fixed with bamboo framing lasts normally for 2–3 years. These need to be renewed due to decay caused by heavy rainfall, wind activity, and deterioration of material. Sometimes, while changing the thatching material, the bamboo framework is also repaired or renewed. It is common to observe several creeper vegetables grown over the roof of thatch. Among many ethnic communities in the rural areas, relatives, friends, and neighbours provide assistance during house construction, indicating an awareness of social responsibilities and a friendly atmosphere. In the evening, the villagers who provide a helping hand are offered rice beer. These kinds of social relations maintained by the villagers help in constructing houses without any cost of manpower and raw material being incurred as the materials are also collected in a traditional community act. Such cooperation is found among many other ethnic groups residing in both hilly and plain landscapes of Northeast India. The thatch grass (Imperita cylindrica), locally known as ulu kher, is harvested from the jhum field where it grows as weed. The thatch grows in the forest and the farmers need to weed the area for faster growth of the crops. These are exploited by the entire community and brought home for further individual use. The grass is cut and dried in the sun and stored in the house for roofing the huts and repairing as and when required. The roofs made of this kind of thatch remain intact and need to be redone only after 6 or 7 years. A bamboo house lasts for 10/12 years with certain repairing and roofing as these huts are prone to attack by earthworm and other insects. The damp climatic condition also affects the plinth of the house, which needs to be repaired frequently with addition of earth. Of course, a good number of huts are nowadays seen with tin sheet roofing and are made of material used in the construction of concrete buildings as there are several government schemes for the people living in a BPL (Below Poverty Line) situation. With the advent of Christianity among the inhabitants of the region, several ancient traditions are going into oblivion. A countable number of modern machines are (p.178) seen in the villages which were introduced in the 1990s like rice mills, water supply, knitting machine, mobile phones, and radio. Local climate plays an important role in the rationale behind the construction of these kinds of houses in the region. Besides, natural hazards like earthquake, thunderstorm, storm, landslide, and erosion affect the housing technology. In Page 19 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Assam pleasant subalpine conditions prevail in the hills accompanied by high humidity. Winters are again dry and foggy with minimum temperatures dipping as low as 4 to 6 degree Celsius. The period between mid-March and mid-April is the season of tropical storms. Storms accompanied by winds of very high velocity hits every year causing widespread devastations. As Northeast India is one of the most seismically active zones in the world and jawed between two arcs, the Himalayan arc to the north and the Indo-Burmese arc to the east (Kayal et al. 2006), it is considered as an earthquake-prone zone (zone V) of the Indian subcontinent. In this region earthquakes along with landslides and floods are frequent. Here earthquakes of up to Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity IX can be expected. The simple houses constructed by the Karbis in these regions can withstand the climatic and seismic conditions. Granaries

The villagers build their granaries on a raised platform, which protects the seeds from moisture, rodent activities, and ground water. Thatch is used for the roofing of these granaries. Mud mixed with cow dung as a tempering material is used for plastering the walls made of bamboo splits. Only one opening is provided for entry to the granary. The opening is generally accessed by a ladder made of bamboo or wood. Courtyard

Yet another characteristic feature of the housing pattern is the presence of an inner courtyard. Several houses or rooms are constructed around the courtyard and, depending on the need, additional rooms are built around it. The courtyards provide space for many activities including thatching, cleaning and drying of rice during harvest season, basketry, drying of cloths, and all other household activities. Besides, the courtyard is used for household functions and religious get-togethers. In most of the (p.179) houses, a shed is attached for weaving cloths on their traditional wooden looms with a flying shuttle. It is very common to see Karbi females busy weaving during their leisure hours. In early days, they used to spin cotton or silk yarns by rearing silkworms at home. This tradition has been taken over by the mill-made yarns available in the market. Sheds for Animals

The cowsheds are built away from the houses. Sometimes a different entrance is provided for the cowshed. Generally, the material used for constructing ordinary structures like cowsheds, poultry pens, toilets, urinals, and storehouses are of inferior quality. However, such sheds are also constructed in the same fashion as hutments. For young piglets, special styes made of weaved bamboo nettings are constructed and are kept as a separate enclosure. Such enclosures are also used to shelter ducklings, chicks, and other poultry.

Page 20 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Settlement History of the Karbis in the Garbhanga Area

Apart from the Karbi villages located in the plains which depend on settled agriculture, a general tendency of shifting settlements from one place to another is seen even today. The Karbis like to dwell on the hilltop forming a village, headed by a Gaonbura ‘village headman’ appointed nowadays by the government in case of a revenue village. Several reasons for the shifting of settlements have been provided (Bordoloi, Sarma Thakur, and Saikia 1987: 58–9) and they are listed below: 1. There may be several aspirants to the coveted and prestigious post of the Gaonbura who is honoured first in every socio-religious rites or festivals in a village. If an aspirant feels that there is no possibility of fulfilling his desire to be a Gaonbura in the village, he searches for a new land and establishes a village with his followers where he automatically becomes the Gaonbura. 2. The Karbis are also not free from superstitions. If the inhabitants feel that their village is haunted by ghosts or evil spirits, they shift their village to a new location urgently to get rid of the unwanted happenings. 3. Shifting of jhum cultivation land compels the Karbis to very often shift their villages in the vicinity of the new jhum plot. (p.180) The semi-nomadic settlement system of the Karbis in Garbhanga has important implications for the archaeological record. The makeshift type of huts and houses constructed by the Karbis and the material possessed by them are indicators of their semi-nomadic settlement system. In earlier days, as informed by Shri Bhatiram Ronghang (75), people used to shift the settlements from one place to another up to three times within a lifetime. The present villagers of the Paham Jila shifted their settlements thrice within the lifetime of Shri Bhatiram Ronghang. During ancient times, villagers built their houses in a compact manner. Following are some of the important factors for the shifting of settlement: 1. The Karbis are traditionally shifting cultivators in which the farmers have to shift their farming land after two consecutive years of cultivation and then move to a new land. If the newly selected plot for farming is far from the present settlement, then the villagers decide to shift their settlement to a nearby area of the shifting cultivation. 2. Besides the shifting cultivation, the Karbis grow several crops in their home gardens or homestead which also constitute a considerable amount of their food economy. If the inhabitants feel that loss of nutrient for the crops is resulting in a lower yield in the same homestead for a long time, they decide to move to a new area. 3. Karbis rear several animals like buffaloes, goats, pigs and birds like fowl and duck, which are often prone to several diseases. Maintaining Page 21 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record hygiene in these remote hilly areas is very essential for avoiding loss of life. Moreover, the Karbis have no permanent sanitary system. So, sometimes the villagers change their habitation for maintaining hygiene. 4. Although the villages are located on the hill, with increase in population they have to expand their villagers up to the edge of the hill, which is considered bad for the villagers. Hence, the inhabitants of the households on the edges or fringes of the hills opt for selection of a new plot for settlement. The present residents of the Ulubari village abandoned the Purani Basti which lay on the fringe of the Sotabar Hill due to this reason. 5. As the Karbis believe in different malevolent powers, the settlements are shifted to a new one if they feel that they are attacked and haunted by evil spirit. Even the large hills are considered to be residence of the gods. Hence these large hills are also not preferred by the villagers. (p.181) 6. There are even instances of the Karbis relocating their settlements to hitherto abandoned areas after a certain period of time. 7. In some cases, from the main settlement, a group of several families may relocate to a new area, but later on due to several reasons just mentioned, they may again return to the original location. Although shifting of settlement was very common until recently, there are fewer instances nowadays of shifting and abandonment of an old settlement. The adoption of permanent lowland rice cultivation in the valleys between two hills, decrease of areas for settlement, more material possession, and ban from the government are some of the reasons for the discontinuity of the earlier tradition. According to the prevailing oral tradition and memory of the aged villagers, the area of Bargaon, where the ancient site is located, was a big village inhabited by their forefathers. Due to unknown reasons, the villagers opted to relocate their villages to newer locations. Purani Garbhanga is one of the oldest settlements where the Karbis resided after leaving Bargaon. Purani literally means ‘old’. Subsequently, migrations from Purani Garbhanga led to the establishments of several new settlements at Paham Jila, Ulubari village, Sotabor Pahar, and Pilinku. Most of the villagers shifted to Ulubari from Purani Basti, which literally means ‘ancient habitation’, and which is the fringe area of the Sotabor Pahar. Notun Garbhanga, which literally means ‘new Garbhanga’, is another settlement which is located towards west of the Paham Jila village. Keeping in view the shifting of settlements by the Karbis of the forest, one may draw certain ethnoarchaeological parallels for reconstructing prehistoric settlements: 1. As the resident settlements are shifted from one place to another after the place has been inhabited for a period of 19 to 20 years, it is likely that

Page 22 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record there would be accumulation of a lesser amount of material deposit and negligible traces of human habitation. 2. As most of the settlements are of makeshift type and the Karbis possess lesser material culture, the accumulation rate also tends to be minimum. 3. As settlements are shifted mostly due to the shifting of agricultural fields, particularly jhum, there appears to be a greater possibility of locating ancient habitation sites near the ancient agricultural sites. (p. 182) 4. It is more likely that habitation sites would be found on the smaller hills and hillocks rather than on bigger hills. Gentle slopes are more promising. 5. Presence of old fruit trees like mango (Mangifera indica), tamarind (Tamarindus indica), jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophylla), and areca nuts (Areca catechu) together at one place and Megalithic structures around are some clues for locating ancient habitation sites. Although it seems to be an oversimplified analogy drawn from the present ethnography of the study area, the absence of a site with a long sequence of cultural successions and rich archaeological record may be explained in terms of a frequent shifting of settlements from one place to another within a short period of time and the use of meagre material culture, most of which are of perishable nature. Subsistence Pattern

Jhum Cultivation

Karbis of the Garbhanga depend on shifting cultivation. They grow a variety of crops besides the principal crop, rice. The jungles are felled during the months of January to March and left to dry completely. Prior to the arrival of monsoon in mid-April, these are burnt and the resultant ash acts as fertilizer for the crops to be grown. Seeds of various crops are sown with the help of a hoe or a digging stick making a hole in the top soil. In each jhum plot, for keeping an eye on the wild animals and birds, watch houses are made on the branches of big trees or hung with ropes. In the jhum field, both men and women are engaged in different activities. Multiple cropping in jhum cultivation provides the farmers with a wide range of wholesome food resources. It provides not only rice, the staple diet, but also leafy vegetables, roots and tubers, and different kinds of vegetables and fruits besides spices. Moreover, the farming system insures food in case of failure of some crops. The vegetables grown in the jhum field and the wild plant foods are sold at the market located in Lakhara, Beltala, and Rani areas. Maintaining a home garden is very common among the Karbis of Garbhanga. In these gardens, they grow a variety of plants for household utilization such as betel-nut and leaf, Page 23 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record banana, sugarcane, mango, jackfruit, pineapple, orange, papaya, and sweet potato. These can even supplement their income as cash crop. (p.183) Bamboo cylinders are commonly used for various purposes from storing to cooking. A mature bamboo is used for making the cylinders for storing, while a tube of a young bamboo is used for Figure 5.5 (A) Cooking in bamboo tubes cooking (Fig. 5.5 A). While one in jhum plots and (B) wild plants and side of the tube is kept open for vegetables collected for cooking in cooking, on the other side the bamboo tubes in jhum fields node is kept intact. While firing the tube filled with food material, the mouth is blocked tightly with plantain leaves so that the resultant vapour cooks the food fast. The topography of undulating terrain in the Garbhanga area along with wet climatic condition that prevails for a period of more than six months from the spring season makes the area suitable for jhum activities. In jhum cultivation, the Karbis of the Garbhanga Reserve Forest follow certain stages. There are several religious beliefs and practices associated with the jhum cycle. Following are the stages of jhum cultivation: 1. Selection of a hilly forest area by November after discussion among the villagers. This could be a new area or an area which has been left fallow after jhum has been practised for a few years. Mostly the fields are selected on the basis of rotation following a certain period of recuperation. 2. Cleaning of the selected area by slashing the trees and undergrowth with implements like dao and kuthar ‘axe’ made of iron in the month of December/January. 3. The slashed jungles are then left to dry till mid-February. Most of the shrubs dry within one or two days of slashing; however, the bigger trees and bamboo need quite some time to completely dry under sunlight. (p. 184) 4. The dried biomass is burnt from February to mid-March, before the onset of monsoon. The large trunks and twigs are also chopped and set on fire for a clean jhum field. In this way, the resident pests and pathogens in the field also get burnt. Setting fire in the evening helps the farmers monitor its spread easily due to the flames being cleary visible against darkness, thus also minimizing the chances of accidental conflagrations near the jhum plot.

Page 24 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record 5. After the arrival of monsoon in the month of April, the seeds are sown by digging with dibble sticks or a hoe made of iron or by broadcasting. The seeds of different crops are seeded together. There are no strict rules and regulations for the sowing of different crops in a jhum plot. It depends on the choice of the individual farmer and mostly a random planting or sowing can be observed. Some of the important crops grown in the shifting cultivation field are sweet potato, tapioca, turmeric, potato, pumpkin, chilli, ginger, bean, bitter gourd, cucumber, lady’s finger, maize, and sponge gourd. A coherent understanding of the surrounding biodiversity has been reflected even in the crops planted in a traditional jhum plot by the Karbis. 6. As the weeds grow in the jhum plot, weeding becomes very necessary and the plots are constantly weeded in the months of May and June. The weeds cover the crops and this necessitates several rounds of weeding by both men and women through plucking, scuffling, or pulling out manually with hands and sometimes with hoes made of iron and/or bamboo. The uprooted weeds automatically become organic nutrients for the crops. 7. Moreover, as the area has several wild animals like elephants, pigs, and birds, the Karbis need to keep an eye on the jhum plot as the crops grow. The elephants pose the greatest threat in this regard and several measures are taken for protecting the field. It is common to build watchhouses in the middle of the jhum plot on the ground or on a raised platform or on the branches of a tree, on some occasions a hut could be hung and tied to the branches of a tree. These huts serve as a seasonal or farming settlement or farmstead. Elephants are warded off in several ways at the jhum plot. The most common method is the use of catapults and sling balls. Sometimes a small piece of dry jute is inserted into the sling ball in leather-hard condition before sun drying. Before throwing the sling ball, fire is set to the dried jute which works as fireball. Sometimes pieces of old cloth are wrapped around the sling balls and then they are set on fire before being thrown at the elephant. Long bamboo slits are also set (p.185) on fire. Besides, the elephants are also warded off by other methods, for instance, noise made by a group of six to eight people in the hanging rest house in the jhum field. 8. As different crops are sown, the yields can be harvested one by one depending on the stage of ripening. Leafy vegetables can be harvested early, while and crops like chilli can be harvested at all times. These fulfil their daily need for vegetables and some of these yields like gourds are also stored for the whole year. Vegetables are also shared and exchanged among relatives and other families living in a village. Rice is the last crop to be harvested, and it is done in July/August. Two baskets of different sizes are tied to the body of the harvester, the bigger one on the back is hung from the head and the smaller one in front is tied to the waist, both are used for harvesting the crop. Harvesting is done by different Page 25 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record methods, depending on what is suitable for the crop, for instance, paddy is harvested by a sickle, several crops are plucked with hands, root crops with hoes and spades, and several leafy vegetables are harvested with iron sickles and daos. The different daos used in cultivation are each made of a long iron knife attached to a wooden or bamboo handle. A dao is an all purpose tool. 9. After the rice has been harvested, threshing is done on a flat land prepared near the jhum plot. As the farmers have buffaloes or bulls, threshing is done with the help of these animals like in the plains of Assam. This is, of course, a recent adoption. 10. The rice grains are then brought home and kept in the storehouse or in large baskets made of bamboo after proper sun-drying. The side walls of the granaries are generally plastered with clay mixed with fresh cow dung. 11. After sorting, the healthy seeds are preserved for the next season in a bamboo tube or basket which is hung over the furnace in the kitchen. Sometimes a small pot is also used for storing grains for the next season. 12. In the months of January and February, the same jhum plot is again cleaned and crops are sown in similar fashion and harvested for the second time. The yield decreases in the second year due to loss of fertility. 13. After two cropping years, the site is abandoned and left fallow for four to five years to let the soil recover its fertility. Meanwhile, the farmers have to select another jungle for preparing a new jhum plot. The barren slopes without vegetation in the area are the recently abandoned jhum plots. (p.186) Jhum plots are selected on the basis of several factors. Jhum cultivation needs no machinery input or involvement of animals unlike lowland cultivation. Even the labour needed in the farming is shared by the community. Jhum is a complex cultivation system depicting a close association of humans with their environment and suggests Figure 5.6 Iron implements used in jhum strong interconnections among activities the climatic condition, soil structure, rainfall pattern, the social and religious sentiments of the people involved in the cultivation system, and, most importantly, the knowledge base developed over a period of time Page 26 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record passed from one generation to another. The farmer’s knowledge and comprehension of the ecosystem is the most crucial aspect of this age-old agricultural system as, so far, technological development has had little impact on the indigenous communities involved in the cultivation system. It is interesting to note that the Karbis residing in the hills follow a traditional calendar based on the natural indications which is primarily based on the jhum cultivation cycle (Teron and Borthakur 2009). There is no fixed number of days for each month. The first few (p.187) days of a month may overlap with the last days of the previous month as these hypothetical months are based on specific natural signals or indications and are termed according to a specific phrase ascribed to each month. For example, the Karbi month Thang, thang rit lang (rit: ‘jhum land’; lang: ‘to look for’), coinciding with the month of February, is considered as the month for selection of new jhum plots with the natural indication of flowering of plants like Erythrina stricta, Bombax malabaricum, Garcinia lanceaefolia, and Altingia exelsa. This shows the close attachment of the Karbis with the natural world, particularly with the forest and, more importantly, with traditional jhum cultivation. Fire is an important element of shifting cultivation. Starting a fire with dry bamboo sticks is an ancient practice and the Karbis also have a similar mechanism for lighting a fire in the jhum land. A dry bamboo split known as meh ri is rubbed against another dry bamboo stick known as meh thengdang for lighting a fire. The Karbi month Jangmi, meh ri refers to people looking for a suitable meh ri (bamboo) to make fire. Two pieces of stones were also used for lighting a fire in the early days (Teron and Borthakur 2009). Lowland Valley Cultivation

Jhum is embedded in the life and culture of the people residing in the hilly areas of this region. In early days, it was a self-sufficient farming practice in an area of low population density. The abundant forested areas in the hilly terrain provided the farmers with ample land for selecting new areas for the two years of jhum agricultural system. The cultivated jhum plot could be left fallow for a longer period to regenerate the forest. However, with an increase in population and less areas being available for cultivation in the hills due to soil erosion, landslides, and quarrying, the farmers are forced to return to the same plot of jhum within a shorter period which severely affects the yield of the crops, and hence it is becoming less beneficial for the jhum cultivators. This has led to lowland cultivation in valley areas between two hills, with the villagers adopting the agricultural practices of the lowland plain areas of Assam. The low-lying areas amidst the hills are very fertile as a good amount of dried biomass is washed down from the slope each year, forming a considerable sediment mantle that is arable in nature. The farmers are dependent on (p.188) small streams and rivulets for water as these water sources are very active during the rainy season. The villagers have to depend on these streams for their day-to-day work Page 27 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record including washing clothes, bathing, and even for drinking water. Currently these areas are being utilized for rice farming. For ploughing, cattle and buffaloes are used besides a grub hoe or digging hoe made of iron attached to a bamboo shaft known as koor. This tool is operated with hands. Most of the words used in this newly adopted system are borrowings from the Assamese language. If we observe lowland cultivation among them, it is easier to understand that they do not have mastery over this system. Moreover, we do not see any indigenous equipment among them which are not taken from the lowland valley cultivators of the plains. Shifting cultivation has been continued by the traditional societies for decades without much technological change. Introduction of cash crop in the jhum field is a recent phenomenon. Over a period of time, there has been a considerable change in the agricultural system among the Karbis of the Garbhanga region. The traditional varieties of crops and paddy, which usually require the land to be left fallow for a longer period, are not preferred. More emphasis is given to the cash crops instead. Due to the decreasing availability of jhum plots and the increase in population, the flat valleys between hills have also been utilized for wet rice cultivation. The adoption of wet rice cultivation in between the hills wherever terrain permits has given more stability to the economy of the hill dwellers. Besides, the shifting of habitation coinciding with shifting of jhum plot is no longer practised. Permanently settling down in an area has given them the freedom to adopt wet rice cultivation which provides good yields year after year. Animal Husbandry, Gathering of Wild Plant and Animal Resources, and Hunting–Fishing

The other food resources besides jhum crops are obtained from livestock raising, collection of wild plants, small game hunting, and fishing in the hilly streams and narrow rivers. Some of the hunted wild animals are pigs, deer, goats, buffaloes, tortoises, crabs, rodents, squirrels, fowls, lizards, and a variety of birds hunted with the use of catapult, bow and arrow, spears, traps, and even rifles. The most (p.189) prevalent tactic for hunting in the rainy season is that of the hunters following the footprints of the animal on moist earth and finding the shelter used by the animal. If someone catches wild piglets, then those are brought home and kept with the domestic ones and slowly the wild ones also get domesticated. Hunting is occasionally practised. However, fishing and collecting wild insects are commonly done depending on the seasonality. Collection of wild plants, roots, and tubers are year-round operations as these are easily available in the forest. Forest products thus provide basic food and shelter for the people living in the region. All the building materials are collected from the forest (Fig. 5.5). The villagers collect wood, bamboo, cane, firewood, plant food, wild insects, animals, fish, crabs, tortoises, bamboo shoots, honey, mushrooms, cotton, stones, and flowers from the forest. Informant Shri Bhola Bongjang (50)

Page 28 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record remembers their dependence on wild food at the time of droughts during his childhood. Wild rice was also harvested in early days. It is interesting to note that the residents have an in-depth knowledge of the edible parts of different plants and their availability in different seasons. They collect leaves, flowers, young shoots, tender shoots, seeds, bark, stems, fruits, twigs, frond, roots, and tubers depending on edibility. Some of the common wild plants collected from the forest are thempe phuruo (potato), kasuruai (sweet potato), a wide variety of ingnam phuruo (wild potato), different forms of yam like henja, arlong henbo, song ut, heenru, leaves of different plants like ponjari tenga, phagade, mirmichi, narasingha, dimaru, nongnong, duug gusu, mahar sinam, xaanmuphe, torsot, and ingphat miro. Whenever one goes for gathering, one does not return home without a basket full of wild plant food. Hence, there is deep regard for the forest. The consumption of wild plant resources in daily food intake may lead one to believe that easy availability of food resources made the people less dependent on agriculture. Besides rice, which is grown in the jhum field, many of the vegetables and roots or tubers were selected from the natural state and grown in the agricultural land locally. The overall dependence on wild natural resources must have restricted their involvement in the development of agricultural activities in the hilly areas. So we do not see a vast change in the technology used in shifting cultivation, except that stone celts are nowadays (p.190) replaced by iron hoes. This may be a limiting factor for the population living in the hilly areas, practising jhum cultivation for years without much technological development happening in the process. However, in the lowland areas, simple agricultural systems evolved into very complex ones. As there was no development in the agricultural technology in the hilly areas, there was no increase in the crop yield and hence, there is no tradition of excess and surplus production. It may also be taken into consideration that the due to nonavailability of surplus production, almost no one traded in agricultural products. Trade was probably limited to spices and vegetables. Finally, the non-occurrence of highly materialistic societies in terms of archaeological record may be explained as a sign of self-sufficient agricultural system and over-dependence on natural resources. It is also evident that the main livelihood of the people residing in the hilly areas is jhum cultivation. It is the dominant land use pattern which provides diverse food resources and security for the year. It has been observed in recent years that the jhum cycle, which is the length of the fallow period between two cropping phases of a particular patch of land, has been reduced considerably. It has also affected the total areas utilized by a particular community for agriculture. Nowadays, people have to often opt for and utilize areas located at the bottom of the ridge with water resources for lowland rice farming. It seems that until recently the hilly populations were dependent only on shifting Page 29 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record cultivation, and that too was limited in nature as they exploited the natural food resources from the surroundings. Population density and growth was low, so they could comfortably satisfy their needs within their territory. There was no need of additional agricultural production for these jhum-dependent communities. Culinary Practice

A variety of cooking procedures have been observed among the Karbis residing in the forest. Rice is cooked in bamboo tubes occasionally. For daily consumption, rice is boiled and steamed in aluminium utensils. Small fish and several other wild insects like larvae are occasionally roasted in fire. They are wrapped in banana or turmeric leaves—this imparts additional flavour to the dish. Cooking is generally oil-free and mostly done with alkali (a locally used cooking ingredient) and (p.191) bamboo shoots. A typical meal of the Karbis would comprise a plateful of rice with curries prepared with vegetables, beans, green leaves, fish, and meat. Karbis exercise several indigenous methods for harvesting fish from the hilly streams, springs, and swampy areas and ponds in the plains. They use four kinds of fish attractants, a number of plants as ethno-toxic or fish poison, and several implements besides catching by hand. Community fishing during social/religious festivals is a common scene seen among the Karbis (Kalita et al. 2010). Besides consuming a range of fish, the Karbis eat a variety of insects available in the locality. A study on the consumption of edible insects among the Karbis in the Karbi Anglong district has documented as many as 32 species eaten according to their seasonal availability. These are eaten simply after roasting, smoking, frying, or sometimes after being added to other dishes for getting an additional taste. In most cases, these are consumed along with local drink hor. There are several beliefs and traditions associated with the use of these insects, for example, the Karbis believe that hanging a bee hive at the entrance of house guards the inhabitants from evil spirit. Similarly, the eri silkworm cocoon is burnt and the ash is applied to the whole body during ailments to ward off evil spirits (Ronghang and Ahmed 2010: 515–21). Some of the insects consumed by the Karbis of Garbhanga region are ingket, bob bob (larva of muga), aarti (ants), bing seret (an earthworm), folong (an earthworm with wings), kumoti (both in earth and water), longhere, longkiyal, longsapur, kangkuni, large varieties of frogs, and tortoises. Another study among the Karbis of the Karbi Anglong district elaborates their traditional knowledge of treating various ailments by using faunal products and enlists 40 animal species, which are being used for treating about 34 ailments (Ronghang et al. 2011). The fauna used for medicinal purposes include mammals, insects, aves, reptilians, arachnids, clitellata, gastropods, and crustaceans. It has been observed that different parts of the body or by-products Page 30 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record like milk, blood, dung, urine, bones, organ, honey, and dry skin are used for treating various kinds of ailments like tuberculosis, malaria, asthma, paralysis, pneumonia, stomach cramps, dysentery, skin disease, vitiligo, pertussis, fish bone, food poisoning, and schizophrenia. (p.192) The Karbis consume a wide variety of plant food easily available in the forest including a number of leafy vegetables, floral vegetables, fruits, root vegetables, and stem vegetables. These are even sold in local markets (Kar and Borthakur 2007). In the Garbhanga area, several wild roots and tubers are consumed simply after boiling without mixing with other vegetables and meat. The vegetables and other non-vegetarian items like meat and fish are often cooked in bowl, besides being roasted, smoked, steamed or wrapped in plantain leaves and kept on hot charcoal. As aluminium utensils are long-lasting, bamboos are now used rarely. However, the elderly informants remember eating meals cooked in earthen pots and bamboo tubes. When plenty of fish is collected, then the excess fish is preserved. A pointed bamboo string is inserted into the body of the fish and it is smoked over fire for drying. Fish can also be boiled and then placed in the bamboo utensil and hung over the fireplace. Sometimes fish is preserved in bamboo tubes for year-round use. A bamboo with a knot on one side is used for cooking and preserving seeds and different foods such as bamboo shoots, dry fish, and pickles are generally kept on the kitchen ceiling or hung on the overhead slabs above the fireplace. The smoke prevents damage. The Karbis use mostly locally available ingredients for cooking. Use of oil and spices is not seen. Most of the dishes are usually boiled. Like most of the tribal and non-tribal indigenous communities of Northeast India, Karbis use an alkali as their chief cooking ingredient, which is known as pholo in Karbi and khar in Assamese. It is almost compulsory in each meal. The pholo is prepared from the ashes of young bamboo. The ash is collected from the jhum fire and soaked in water. The liquid is finally strained out with the help of a si—a strainer of conical shape made of bamboo strips. Even the resultant ash of dried and burnt banana peels is used for the preparation of alkali like in the plains of Assam. The alkali was used as a substitute for salts in the bygone days. The womenfolk collect mature bamboo shoots by removing the outer casing from the forest for preparing han-u (bamboo shoots), and they preserve the succulent pieces of the stem for year-round use. These are cut in small pieces and, along with the sun-dried ones, are stored in bamboo tubes. Use of han-u is another traditional ingredient of cooking. It is used to lend a sour taste, han-si, to food. (p.193) Rice is a prime constituent of their diet. It is de-husked in wooden mortars. Rice is used in the following forms: 1. boiled Page 31 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record 2. simply powdered 3. powdered and then roasted 4. roasted and then powdered 5. powdered and mixed with water to prepare cakes, which are (a) fried in oil, (b) steamed in utensils, (c) smoked in bamboo tubes, or (d) wrapped in plantain leaves and kept on hot charcoal 6. puffed 7. roasted and flattened In general, the culinary practice of the Karbis is simple and mostly relies on natural resources. Rice as a meal is prepared by boiling in an aluminium vessel or in a bamboo tube. Most of the curries are either prepared with alkali or bamboo shoots. Bamboo shoots are even consumed as chutneys. Bamboos form a major part of their diet and are preserved for year-round use. Meat is often cooked with other vegetables like potato and pumpkin. Several insects are cooked wrapped in leaves of banana or turmeric and then shoved in the hot charcoal. Some of the roots and tubers are directly shoved in the fireplace. Fish and meat are often pierced with a bamboo string and then roasted in fire. Smoking above the fireplace is another culinary practice. Preparing chutneys of different insects and leaves is a notable feature of Karbi culinary practices. Overall, these traditional culinary practices signify a subsistence culture which does not require elaborate utensils and cooking vessels. Most of the materials used in the practice are of perishable nature and are often easily available in nature wherever they shift their settlements. The temporary settlements built for agricultural purposes are also devoid of elaborate material culture. Another important aspect of the Karbis of the reserve forest is that they make a variety of implements, baskets, utensils, and other household items with the forest products, particularly bamboo, wood, and cane, which is suggestive of their creative artistic expressions. (p.194) Rice Beer Culture

The traditional method of making rice beer is one of the important characteristic features of the tribal groups of Northeast India and the Karbis are also not an exception to this (R. Teron 2006). This alcoholic beverage, locally known as hor, an important constituent of their dietary practice, has special importance in their day-to-day life, rituals, festivals, and serves as an offering to gods and is also served to guests as a welcome drink. The rice beer produced by fermentation of the cooked rice is known as hor alank and the distilled alcohol is known as hor arak.

Page 32 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record As the site of Bargaon has reported a sizable amount of spouts which were probably attached to the bowls and used for keeping and distributing liquids (Fig. 5.7), especially liquors as seen in festive occasions, it will not be out of place to discuss the traditional methods of preparing rice beer among the Karbis of the Garbhanga forest. Although presently a wooden bowl (Fig. 5.7) having a spout is used for serving hor, the pottery fragments can be interpreted as serving a similar purpose in the

Figure 5.7 Rice beer ready for consumption and the spouts (in insets) recovered from Bargaon resembling the wooden bowl for distributing rice beer

past. (p.195) For preparing hor, a cake, locally known as thap made of pounded rice mixed with locally available leaves of marthu (Croton joufra—a large shrub or small tree), ku-eng (Amomum corynostachyum—an amomum species), or themra (climbing wattle—Acacia pennata) are used. While preparing the thap, a small piece of previously prepared thap is mixed and given a round shape and kept for drying in the sun. This thap helps in the fermentation process due to the growth of yeast cells. For preparing hor alank, rice is first boiled and then spread on a bamboo mat for drying. Then one or two thaps are adequately mixed with the rice and kept for sometime. Then the mixture is kept in airtight condition in an earthen pot for two days in summer and around four days in winter for fermentation. Finally after incubation, a liquid is extracted with the help of si (conical shaped strainer made of bamboo strips) and consumed. The remaining substance is often fed to pigs, and it is believed to be very nutritious for the animal. After sieving, the remaining rice substance can be used for preparing hor arak by distillation and it can be collected in a vessel. Prior to distillation, required amount of water is added to the substance and it is allowed to rest for one night. An earthen pot having a perforated base is placed over an aluminium vessel containing the substance. Then finally another aluminium vessel filled with water acting as a condenser is placed over the earthen vessel and sealed with mud. When the vessel containing the rice substance is heated over fire, the alcohol in the form of vapour passes through the earthen vessel and condenses at the base of the top of the condenser vessel. Finally the liquid comes out

Page 33 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record through an outlet or spout attached to the earthen vessel and is collected in another vessel. In early days, the distillation of hor arak among the Karbis was made with an earthen vessel (Teron 2006: 379) known as bhot which bore two spouts for distillation. The vapour condenses and the liquid passes through the spouts and is then collected in another vessel (personal communication, Robindra Teron, 2013). In this conjecture, there is a possibility that the spouts recorded at the site of Bargaon were used for similar distillation activities. It has been observed that in any kind of festival, the prime offerings to god are made with hor. It is served to everyone irrespective of age and sex. It is a gesture of welcoming the guests and a sign of respect, (p.196) hospitality, and, in totality, unity among the people. Before taking the first sip of the drink, the forefinger of the right hand is dipped into the container made of bamboo tube and some prayer is muttered and then a drop of the liquid is sprinkled on the floor. This is considered a show of respect and an offering to god before one consumes this vital drink. Even, offering rice beer to visitors is a sign of respect. Rice is an important component in the traditional therapy practised in the Karbi society. The person involved in the therapy picks up some rice grains and scatters those on the ground and on the basis of the direction of the falling seeds, the cause of the ailments are predicted. Even the number of the seeds is counted for observing the omen (I. Das 2003). Festivals Related to Jhum Cycle

In the absence of written record, we have to depend on the traditional folklore, oral narratives, stories, and songs that have been passed on from one generation to another. Most of these traditional sources point to a deep ancestry of jhum cultivation in the hills, as compared to lowland valley cultivation—something that is also evident from the current agricultural practices. Agricultural tools like wooden mortar for thatching paddy and some jhum crops and vegetables are even depicted in the traditional motifs and designs on the textiles woven by the Karbis (Teron and Borthakur 2012). Attachment to the forest is also depicted in the traditional honoured artistic object of Jambili Athon. It is a wooden artefact having a central axis and a whorl of four beautifully carved branches on the apices of which are perched different species of birds. This object is exhibited during the Chomankan and other important festivals (R. Teron 2008). Even the folklore related to the origin of bong, the gourd shell of Lagenaria siceraria Standl. crop, an essential component of the Karbi culture and part and parcel of all social and religious activities, is also related to jhum cultivation (R. Teron 2005: 87).

Page 34 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Rongker and Hacha-Kekan are the two most important festivals related to agriculture among the Karbis. The other festivals of the Karbis are Sok-keroi, literally meaning ‘carrying of the paddy’ from the field, observed at the end of the harvesting season and Hacha-Kekan (p.197) observed as post-harvest rejoicings. Another notable festival of the Karbis is the Chomangkan which is a ritual for the dead. Rongker is performed at the onset of cultivation by worshipping various deities for the welfare and safety of the people. Animals like goat and birds like fowl are sacrificed to appease the deities to prevent diseases and natural disasters. Fowls have special significance in the Karbi society. The bird is sacrificed as well as used for magical beliefs. It is common practice to predict the future by observing the hearts and intestines of sacrificed animals like fowls, goats, and pigs. One very important aspect of the Rongker is that the puja is performed for good harvest and to prevent of destruction of the crops by wild animals and birds during the year, and also to protect the villagers from the attacks of wild animals (G.N. Das 2001: 82–3). Hacha Kekan is observed after the harvest. The festival is all about merrymaking and is marked by community feasts and traditional dance and songs. It is the thanksgiving ceremony in which god is thanked for bestowing prosperity in the form of rice (Bhattacharjee 1986: 155). Rongker or Dehal may be observed at different times of the year depending on the convenience of the villagers in which availability of resources is one of the most important factors. The Karbis of the Garbhanga area observe the festival in a grand manner. The main purpose of the ceremony is to get relief from destructions caused by wild animals like elephants in the jhum field. As the villagers are dependent on the forest and have to spend a considerable time in the forest as a means of livelihood, the festival is observed for seeking protection from the attack of wild elephants and other animals. Moreover, it also seeks to prevent rodent destruction in the jhum field. The festival is marked to appease and propitiate the deities around. By chanting hymns and dancing, the deities are invited and then offerings are made. As the festival is a community affair, several taboos are also maintained. I was invited to attend a Rongker festival performed at the Ulubari village of Garbhanga during 26–8 March 2012. The festival was celebrated after a long gap of seven years, as the villagers were not being able to organize the festival since 2005. On the first day, the villagers take a ceremonial bath at the nearest stream for purifying themselves from earlier misdeeds. During the ceremonial bath, a religious ritual is performed by the village priest with the help of the elderly persons. (p.198) The practice requires rice powder, some amount of rice, eggs, rice beer in a utensil made of gourd, leaves of different plants like sube and ingri, banana leaves, sugarcane, bamboo tree, a kharang, a small bamboo basket, and xa, a bigger basket made of bamboo and coated with clay. During the ceremony, the cheng (drum) is beaten. The drum is made of the wood Page 35 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record of jackfruit, songhon, and gomari and the skin of goat. The other musical instruments are a dakduru (drum) and a muri (flute) made of wood and quill. After the ceremonial bath, the villagers gather at the house of the Bangthe, a respected person in the village who hosts the activities for the Rongker festival. Rice beer, black tea, and areca nut and betel leaves are offered with deep respect and honour to each one gathered. The elderly persons assign duties to each villager for the smooth running of the festival and prepare their work plan for the entire time period. All the responsible members take an oath for performing their assigned duties and not engaging in their personal chores during these days. The discussion ends with the offering of areca nut and betel leaves. As part of the festival, on the first day (jokan), fowls are sacrificed at the houses of the Bangthe, the pujari, and his pali (helper), as they are responsible for the arrangement of the final sacrifice at the main venue. Rice powder is sprinkled on the neck of the animal before it is sacrificed. In any kind of sacrifice, after slitting the throat of the fowl with a sharp iron knife, the liver is observed for omens by the priests. On the second day known as boli (sacrifice), the villagers gather at the main sacrificial venue where the actual ceremonies are organized. The selected area is usually a hillock in the middle of a forest close to the village. The location is prepared by levelling the soil and ensuring that it is neatly set for the festival. It is interesting to note that a beautiful stone double-shouldered celt (Fig. 5.1, artefact no. 5) was recovered at a depth of half a metre while levelling the topsoil of a hillock. The area measuring approximately 200 feet is enclosed with bamboo slits keeping one portion open as entrance. The Dehal hem, where the main religious ceremonies are performed, is a slanting house made with six posts and roofed with thatch. Several altars for different deities are constructed in a row. Bamboo sticks, tulasi or sacred basil (Ocimum sanctum) tree, gourd utensils filled with hor are some of the important items for preparing the altar. The Dehal hem is strictly prohibited to non-Karbi people and women. All the essential materials (p.199) for the occasion are stored in the storehouse cum kitchen known as aan haan ki tun hen within the enclosure. Besides, a shed known as kisang hem is constructed for people to relax, work, and prepare for the festival. It is believed that a few drops of rain on the day of the sacrifice are a good sign for the festival. Interestingly enough, there was a slight rain by the evening on the second day of my visit. The elderly people of the village maintain a daylong fast and only rice beer and rice powder mixed with banana is eaten on that day. Before proceeding to the main venue of the sacrifice, a series of hymns are uttered at the house of the Bangthe and rice beer is offered in a glass made of bamboo tube to all the gathered persons. The nauk or the main iron sword for the sacrifice is polished with a stone polisher. The sword is a long sharp implement inherited from their forefathers.

Page 36 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record After completing the household ritual at the house of the Bangthe, the assembled villagers proceed to the main venue with joy. Drums are beaten and flutes are tuned. Upon arrival, a garland made of tulasi leafs tied to a bamboo string is worn by the male members. Vermilion is also applied on their forehead. At this time, only male members are gathered at the venue. Women do not directly take part in the festival except in the preparation of rice beer and pounding of the rice for preparing rice powder. They arrive at the time of sacrifice only. After initial hymns and offerings made inside the Dehal hem, fowls are sacrificed. Each household brings two to four fowls for sacrifice—one fowl in the name of the members of the family, one for agriculture, and one for the domestic animals. After being purified with rice powder, the fowls are sacrificed with the sword by the main priest who continuously chants the hymns. The gathered villagers clap with the beatings of the drums. The last fowl is sacrificed with the help of a stick. The smallest fowl is released in the jungle for the devil spirit. In the end, two goats are sacrificed and this creates a very wild atmosphere. Before the sacrifice, the person who holds the sword takes blessings from the other elderly members and chants a hymn. The hymn means: May God accept our offerings. Our forefathers also offered, we are doing the same. Please accept our offering. Then the priests accompanied by others perform a ritualistic dance holding the sword and, subsequently, all the male members of the village dance together in a circle. Finally, an earthen lamp is lit on the tilong (boat) made of banana stem and it is taken out and released in the langsor (stream) near the venue. The boat is meant (p.200) for sending back the deities who arrived via the water channel to the venue to accept the offerings. After completion of all the religious ceremonies, the male members must spend the night at the venue and not sleep at home. Failure to do so is a punishable offence and the offender has to offer additional rice beer as a price. Earthenware of different sizes is used during the ceremony. Rice beer is prepared in earthen pots and kept in the storehouse. Rice is cooked in a new earthen pot which is bought either from Rani or Beltala in Guwahati. Water is carried from the nearby water stream in langthe (large bamboo tubes) or langhan (medium-sized bamboo tubes). Rice beer is offered in langhantere (bamboo glass). The lohor (ladle) is also made of bamboo. On the next and final day known as ankicho, the villagers prepare for the grand feast. The fowls and goats are cleaned and chopped with the help of iron knives. The intestines of the goats are cleaned with the help of knives made of bamboo. As an experiment, a person was requested to cut the banana pseudostem by using a bamboo knife for preparing a dish known as taarnauk with meat of the goat. It was observed that the bamboo knive is as effective as an iron knife. The

Page 37 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Kako (Dendrocalamus hamiltoni) bamboo is more effective for this purpose. Moreover, a previously cut and half-dry bamboo piece is better than a fresh one. The cooking and preparation of the feast is a daylong process. The cooked items are (a) rice, (b) hamrihan made with rice powder, goat meat, alkali, and fern of dhekia (Diplazium esculentum); (c) haanpe made with rice powder and meat; (d) haankangthir made with banana pseudostem and meat; and (e) kasrut made with the intestine of the goat. Guests from neighbouring villages also take part in the feast. It is interesting to note that a particular system is followed in the distribution of cooked meat during the feast. The important persons among the villagers sit in a particular row. The person who keeps an eye on village matters is served the eye of the goat, the person who is responsible for spreading the news of the celebration of the Rongker festival to others is served the ear of the goat, the Bangthe and the pali are served the tongue, the person who holds the tail during the sacrifice is served the tail, and the liver is offered to the priest. For the female members, food is brought to the house of the Bangthe and served. Besides, food is also (p.201) packed in banana leafs for each member of each family of the village. After the feast is over, the villagers take part in the final dance at the venue and priest utters hymns and gives final blessings to all. In earlier days, dance was performed at each household from the second day of the feast for 10/12 days which has now been reduced to 2/3 days at present. All these days are spent by the villagers in merrymaking. Birth, Disposal of the Dead, and Associated Ceremonies among the Karbis

In most of the religious ceremonies sacrificing fowls is compulsory. Arlok se is a ceremony takes place near water sources like streams and rivulets 10/15 days after the birth of a baby to protect it from the evil spirit. Two fowls, a male and a female, are sacrificed near a spring by the priest as an offering. The priest offers areca nuts and leaves, rice beer, banana (seni or manohar varieties), cotton, flower, rice, xandon (rice that has been fried and then powdered), and rice powder. The meat of the fowl is roasted in fire and then eaten by the participants. Another minor ceremony (songkrace puja) is observed when the navel of the newborn baby dries up. A small fowl is sacrificed with the help of a priest at the house of the parents of the newborn baby. On the day of the first rice feeding ceremony, known as asmen kibi, when rice is fed to a newborn child, a pig is sacrificed. Belief systems that give importance to the immortality of the dead, life after death, and rebirth is prevalent among many of the tribal groups and the Karbis are not an exception. The death ceremony known as Chomankan is one of the main rituals observed by the Karbis.

Page 38 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Stones are erected in the memory of a deceased person. The stones for erections are collected from the hilly streams or rivers. Two stones are generally used for the structure, the one which is erected is known as long e and the one which is placed before the long e is known as long dang. Close to the stone, an iron dao is also erected. On the day of the erection, a ceremony is observed and all the favourite food items of the deceased person are offered on the long dang. Besides, there are several rectangular structures made of smaller stones. Only after careful observation can one visualize the artefactual nature of the structure as most of the stones used have been removed by the villagers for different activities. No clear information regarding these structures could be gathered from the villagers. (p.202) As these areas are freely grazed by pet animals, only the erected stones remain and the slabs placed have been disturbed. Hence, it is hard to observe an intact long dang in case of most of the ancient Megalithic field. It is equally important to note that several of the large slabs used as a platform for washing and cleaning clothes in the stream and home originally served as a long e or a long dang, and this only shows that little attention is paid to these structures after they have been erected by the community. Some of the stones are collected for making roads. Hence, except the large Megalithic stones, most of the smaller structures tend to be displaced and it is difficult to ascertain their provenance if not found in standing condition. Jhum: A Model for Early Agricultural System

Shifting or swidden or slash-and-burn cultivation has been considered as an ancient farming system developed and practised since the time agriculture began. It has been argued that this system of farming (many aspects of which overlap with the hitherto discussed jhum cultivation) was widely practised among the hill communities in Asia, Africa, and Latin America since the Neolithic period (Teegalapallik, Gopi, and Prasanna 2009). However there is no undisputed data on the antiquity of this kind of cultivation. Conklin (1963: 1) believes that extensive areas of forest land have been farmed each year under conditions of shifting cultivation since the Neolithic period. This cultivation method has been practised in the tropical regions of the world, covering a large area, and the method is known in different regions by different names such as swidden (England), rai (Sweden), coivara, milpa, conuco, roza, chacra, chaco (Latin America), shamba, chitemene (Africa), jhum (India), kaingin (Philippines), and ladang (Indonesia and Malaysia). Among these the most common designations are slash-and-burn, shifting cultivation, and, less frequently, swidden (Pedroso-Junior, Adams, and Murrieta 2009: 14). Cultivation in forest plots during the Neolithic period was a worldwide phenomenon and it is still in practice among several primitive groups. This type Page 39 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record of cultivation has much preceded the intensive cultivation in river valleys due to the fact that fire was the method of clearing forest land. The descendants of the tribes who due to desiccation, exhaustion, or crowding along the rivers lost forest land (p.203) over time have shifted to river-shore cultivation (Boserup 1965: 17). The TRB culture (Trechterbeker: Funnel Beaker culture) of the European Neolithic era in the Netherlands has been described as a tribal organization of farmers/hunters having clan-like groups, practising shifting cultivation, probably supplemented by hunting, and building Megalithic tombs as a central place for burial rituals (Fokkens 1986: 16). Swidden cultivation has been assumed as the method of Neolithic farming in Sweden. However, there are also arguments against the hypothesis (for details, see Johansson 2003). Different indirect datasets like pollen (Dennell 1978: 37) and charcoal particles found in sediments, the settlement pattern, and comparison with later periods have been used to infer prehistoric fire cultivation practices (Jääts et al. 2011). Study of the pollen and charcoal records from Western Europe has provided clues to the beginning of slash-and-burn agriculture in the late Neolithic period between 4300 and 2300 BC (Rösch et al. 2004). Experimental archaeological study of ancient slash-and-burn agriculture has been also conducted in 1999 in Forchtenberg, Germany (Rösch et al. 2002). A detailed geoarchaeological investigation in Central Europe suggests that anthropogenic burning is the reason why charred organic matter found in soils today. The firing activities since the Early Holocene period may have influenced the properties of soils (Eckmeier 2007). There is ample scope for similar investigations in the Northeast Indian context to understand the intensity of forest fires for agriculture in the past which may also hint about the antiquity of slash-and-burn cultivation. Radiometric dates obtained from the Moloka’i Island in Hawaii suggest the beginning of shifting cultivation in the colluvial slopes of the valley since the early 13th century (Weisler 1989). Another date from a charcoal sample (Gak-2744) suggests that the time of vegetation burning in Halawa valley was around 750 ± 90 years BP. Based on the evidence of large-scale disturbance of endemic floral associations, which is indicated by a present-day transitional flora, slope instability, and erosional deposits containing both charcoal and endemic land snails, shifting cultivation involving burning has been postulated in the Makaha and Halawa valley of Hawaii (Kirch 1977: 263). In West Africa too, shifting cultivation is considered as the oldest agricultural system (Adekola 2010–11: 6). Slash-and-burn cultivation has also been (p.204) considered as an important component of the early agricultural system of the Amazon basin (Arroyo-Kalin 2012). Kingwell-Banham and Fuller (2012) recently proposed a model for the development of early agriculture in India according to which shifting cultivation may have been a widespread economic system during the Neolithic period, in Page 40 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record both the Ganges valley and in the Deccan plateau of south India. With increase in population the economic system shifted to sedentary agriculture. The earliest forms of cultivation which had begun prior to the establishment of permanent settlements were practised in more mobile and less archaeologically visible economies. In different parts of India, during prehistory, ‘shifting cultivation developed in the semi-arid plains and then dispersed into hill zones of higher rainfall’ (Kingwell-Banham and Fuller 2012: 93). The upland Neolithic tradition of Orissa which is generally superficial with little deposit and low density of artefacts and charcoal has been interpreted as one that was occupied by shifting cultivators with shorter occupation or seasonal occupation (Harvey et al. 2006). The shifting cultivation practised by the present-day tribal population residing in the hilly areas has been regarded as a continuation of Neolithic tradition (T.C. Sharma 1981: 50). T.C. Sharma (1990) is of the opinion that an agricultural pattern similar to that of shifting cultivation was prevalent during the Neolithic period in Northeast India. A comparative study made by S.K. Roy (1981) on the Neolithic tools from Garo Hills and artefacts used in jhum reveals homogeneity in function of both these modern and ancient artefacts. The use-wear patterns of the present-day artefacts as well as the prehistoric ones suggest that similar kinds of use are continuing. Similarly, Pratap (2000) has correlated the shifting cultivation system of the Paharias of Santal Paraganas with the archaeological record. It has been hypothesized in the context of the Deccan Chalcolithic culture of western India that the earliest farmers did not use plough for agriculture, rather they used digging sticks after clearing the forest with the help of fire. The hollow antler specimen recovered from the Chalcolithic site of Walki may have been used as a hoe or hand plough or seed drill. Another specimen from the same site is a curious bone artefact made of the shoulder bone of cattle measuring 16 × 10 centimetres with two perforations. It has been possibly used as ards (Dhavalikar 1988: 26–9). It is interesting to note in this context (p.205) that among one of the tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, the scapula of the sacrificed buffalo or cattle are used as ards (Personal communications from A.K. Thakur, NEHU, Shillong, 2012). When the iron implements like sickles, hoes, and knives become unusable, these are discarded in the jhum plot. A discarded hoe has been recoded in the jhum field near Pilingku village. Probably the stone axes were also discarded in a similar fashion at the ancient farming site after a substantial amount of use. As these areas have been continuously brought under the shifting cultivation cycle, as an analogy to the present day, we may presume that these were the ancient farming lands where early farmers had practised kinds of agriculture similar to the present-day jhum. Hence, the stone axes or celts have been found in a

Page 41 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record discarded form while hoeing the jhum field. This is a hypothesis which needs further confirmation. Early farming communities of the Deccan subsisted mainly on faming, stockraising, and hunting/fishing. The early farmers reared cattle, sheep, goats, buffaloes, and pigs which were slaughtered for consumption (Dhavalikar 1988: 23). Piggery forms an integral part of the subsistence system among the residents as pigs are highly valuable in their religious ceremonies and festivals in terms of being a sacrificial animal and fetching a high price in the market. The Karbis of the forest rear livestock and poultry which form an integral part of their lifestyle. The homestead areas are used for the free movement of the poultry while the adjoining paddy fields, hill slopes, and banks of the streams are used for grazing. The pigstead is generally located near the house—this is essential for keeping an eye on the piglets and feeding them the waste material from the kitchen including waste food and agricultural by-products like thatch and rice husk. At times when food is scarce, pigs are fed boiled rice mixed with rice husk, leavess of yams, and other wild vegetables. Cattle and buffaloes are also reared for agricultural purpose and not for milk. It is also important to bear in mind that under normal and non-intensive conditions, shifting cultivation may not provide evidence of permanent or longrange structural modification of the environment for reconstructing past agricultural systems based on archaeological data. But in case of intensified cultivation which may result permanent ecological damage particularly in erosion or grassland (p.206) succession, such environmental changes may be considered as evidence for establishing the antiquity of shifting cultivation (Kirch 1977: 263). In case of Northeast India, in a recent study of the Holocene vegetation and climate, sub-surface samples collected from a trench of 1.20metre-deep sediment profiles from Srinagar, south Tripura provides interesting information for a time period between 7,000 and 3,000 years BP. Throughout this period, the area was occupied by open deciduous forest cover. At around 7,000 years BP, there was low forest cover which was subsequently replaced by gradual expansion of tree taxa with the increase in rainfall from the southwest monsoon winds, and eventually a fairly good forest cover developed during 6,500 years BP. There was a sudden decline of trees at around 5,400 years BP, probably due to less humidity and also due to human activity. From 3,800 years BP to 3,700 years BP there has been observed a decline in tree taxa due to change in climate. Interestingly, the presence of grass pollen is possibly an indication of rice (p.207) cultivation from 5,700 years BP, however, the size difference among the pollens of wild and domestic varieties need to be studied in more detail (Bhattacharya, Mehrotra, and Shah 2011: 521–6). The sudden decline of trees at around 5,400 years BP may provide an indirect clue to the intense nature of human activity particularly forest clearance for shifting cultivation.

Page 42 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record In certain places of the Karbi Anglong district, the Karbis use neither plough nor hoe for preparing the lowland for wet rice cultivation, rather they surround a few buffaloes on the wet plot and allow them to trample down the field until it is puddled and made suitable for transplantation (Sarkar and Chowdhury 2000). The inhabitants of the forest collect stone artefacts. These are mostly stray finds. Stray finds are not unique to Northeast India; they have been found in different parts of the world in varied contexts.

Figure 5.8 (A) and (B) Comparison of archaeological stone celts with modernday iron implements; (C) and (D) comparison of archaeological stone double-shouldered celts with modern-day iron implements

Interpreting these stray stone artefacts has been problematic as these are found without much association with other cultural material, thus the problem of assigning a particular context to them. Johanson (2006: 101) believes: Although more or less entirely contextless for archaeologists, these axes have been once produced, used, reworked, destroyed, buried or deposited in some other way, thus they have singular histories connected with the people who owned and/or used them. Thus, in order to find a way into the minds of the people of this prehistoric time, one way is to look for the profane or religious ideas behind the deposition of a single group of artefacts, e.g. stone axes, by considering their looks (damaged, intact, broken), their find context (settlement site, burial, offering place) and the geographic landscape in which they have been discovered. Five types of settlement activities have been recorded among the Karbis of Garbhanga area: 1. Semi-permanent dwelling structures: these are basically dwelling structures of different families in a hilltop or on the ridge forming a village unit. Earlier the villages were shifted from one place to another frequently every 19/20 years—this is not practised now. These structures act a base for the settlement activities of the Karbis, ranging from cooking food to the making of artefacts. The expected archaeological records are potsherds, postholes, pits, material remains such as iron

Page 43 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record implements, (p.208) particularly machete, stone sharpener, stone celts or hoes, old fruit trees, and menhirs. 2. Temporary farmstead: these are makeshift structures constructed either on the jhum field or hung on the branches of a large tree near or on the jhum field. These are used only seasonally during the jhum activity and then abandoned after two years of jhum cycle. Very negligible amount of material culture has been used in these farmsteads. The areas yielding stray finds of stone celts can be interpreted as temporary farmstead and ancient jhum plots. The expected archaeological records are stone celts, sling balls, iron machete, and fireplace. 3. Activity areas: no structures are constructed in these areas, however, while moving from place to another in search of wild game and plants, food is cooked in bamboo tubes and served in wild leaves. As and when necessary, a night is also spent while travelling to long-distance areas. A small fireplace is an important visible feature of this type of settlement activity as these are primarily meant for overnight stay or day-long activity like collection of firewood and thatch or other subsistence activities like hunting, fishing, and gathering. The expected archaeological record is a fireplace. 4. Sacrificial areas: religious ceremonies are an important aspect of the Karbis of the region in which sacrifice of animals forms an integral part. These ceremonies are observed either near a spring, on a flat area at the edge of a hill, or on a hill slope. Animals like pigs, goats, and chicken are sacrificed and the meat is cooked and a feast is organized in which all the villagers, their relatives, and invited guests from the neighbouring villages participate. Besides two to three fire places in a row for cooking different dishes of the feast, discarded pots used in the offering and the pot used for preparing and distributing rice beer can be seen in these areas. Generally, no traces of food remains are seen as wild animals consume the leftovers discarded at the site. The expected archaeological records are two/three fireplaces, meagre potsherds, animal bones and teeth, and occasionally menhirs. 5. Areas for erecting megaliths: these areas are located mostly near an ancient settlement or at the entrance of an ancient village. The megaliths can be even found scattered haphazardly. Similar features like sacrificial areas can be found in this kind of settlement activity area. A cluster of megaliths as well as a few menhirs would suggest habitation in an area nearby. The expected archaeological records are menhirs, machete (as (p.209) part of the Megalithic erection), fireplaces, meagre potsherds, animal bones and teeth. In all these kinds of settlements or activity areas, one common feature is the use of non-permanent material which degenerates very fast in the humid condition and this denotes the cause of untraceable footprints in the archaeological Page 44 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record context. The negligible amount of pottery used in daily activities and rituals, stone or metallic objects, and hearths are the most possible remnants in the archaeological record. Similar conclusions were also drawn by Kingwell-Banham and Fuller (2012) on the lack of archaeological material in other parts of India and Sri Lanka due to frequent abandonment and shifting of settlements and agricultural lands preventing building of deep stratigraphical sequence. An observation of the abandoned farmstead in a jhum field suggests that the Karbis only discard material which is broken or damaged and has, therefore, been rendered unusable. Even parts of a pot which can be used for storing material of less importance are carried back to their homes located in the village. After abandonment, only the hut remains, which also degenerates fast and in the course of the fallow period of the jhum cycle, vegetation covers the entire activity area. From this discussion it is clear that the forest is the lifeline of the Karbis as it provides agricultural land, game animals and wild plants as a source of food, fodder, and medicine, fuel and firewood, besides building material for shelter and silkworm and cotton for weaving cloths. The forest is not owned by any particular individual rather the resource is exploited by the entire community. By glancing at the distribution of population in entire Northeast India, it is easily observable that the forests areas form a prime livelihood environment for a sizable number of inhabitants. They are dependent on the forest resources available in the vicinity and develop a cultural bond with the surroundings. It suffices to say that the cultural identity of these populations is strongly influenced by the close association with the natural setting in which they have lived for ages. Moreover, population density is very low in these areas due to harsh climatic conditions, overdependence on nature for day-to-day life ways, lack of medicinal facilities and drinking water, prevalence of infectious diseases like malaria due to the mosquito-prone environment. (p.210) A sparse population maintaining relative isolation must have been a scenario that continued for a long time.

Concept of Thunderstones in Northeast India One of the intriguing issues pertaining to polished stone axes or adzes in archaeological studies is understanding the vital role that these objects played in prehistoric economy. Trading activities of finished or partly finished tools, made of stone of superior quality, and their limited distribution have been intensively surveyed in the context of north-western Europe (Clark 1952: 244–51). In this context, besides casual references made about the provenance of stone artefacts (Lahiri 1992: 240), there has simply been no study dealing with the issue of possible prehistoric stone axe trade in Northeast India. Moreover, not much emphasis has been laid on understanding the ideological meaning of the stone artefacts. It is a worldwide phenomenon that stone axes or adzes have been Page 45 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record traditionally considered as ‘thunderbolt’ (Carelli 1997; Jensen 1999; Johanson 2009). In Denmark, it is believed that ‘the thunderstone falls down from the sky in thunderstorms or, more accurately, whenever the lightning strikes. The stroke of the lightning, according to this view, consists in the descent of the stone; the flash and the thunder-clap are mere after-effects or secondary phenomena’ (Blinkenberg 1911: 1). Moreover, the thunderstone is believed to protect a house from strokes of lightning and evil spirits. It brings luck to the house and can also be used for healing purpose. One also puts a thunderstone in a milk-shelf to keep the milk fresh and get better cream and butter; that is why the epithet ‘butter-luck’ evolved in Denmark for the thunderstone. However, in Norway and Iceland, such traditions are not so common unlike in Sweden. According to the Swedish belief, the thunderstone upon striking the ground dives below the surface of the earth up to seven fathoms and then rises upwards one fathom a year until it reaches the surface on the seventh year. In Germany too it is believed that the thunderstone comes down with lightning and penetrates a certain depth into the earth before surfacing again after the lapse of a definite period of time. The thunderstone serves similar purposes in Sweden as in Denmark, with some differences. This divine item is believed to protect the granary from rats, keep the horses safe from nightmares (p.211) in the stable, prevent forest fires, and bring good fortune. Children are even made to wear it as an amulet around the neck to protect themselves from ague. As a medicinal remedy, the powder obtained from the stone by scraping is given to the suffering one and sometimes the painful area is stroked with the stone (Blinkenberg 1911: 1–6). The thunderstone was used even in black magic in China (Feng and Shryock 1935: 14). In Latvia, stone axes are generally regarded as ‘thunderballs’ and less frequently as ‘thunderbolts’. The fact that stone axes have been found in Bronze and Early Iron Age sites in the Daugava Basin of Latvia (Vasks 2003: 30) raises certain questions as to whether these axes were regarded as magical objects of celestial origin, particularly as ‘thunderballs’, during the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. The axes found at the Iron Age sites may not have served as a household need, but rather they may have been used for magical purposes. In the Estonian belief system if one finds a thunderbolt in a place where lightning had struck then the person is considered lucky. As in other places, the powder made of this sorcery object is used as medicine for rheumatism and toothache. Thunderbolts are also believed to protect houses, barns, people, and animals from future thunder strikes (Johanson 2006). In Britain, too, flint arrowheads, presumed to be thunderstones mounted in silver and gold, are used as charms. These objects protect the wearer against being struck by lightning (Gardner 1942: 98). Even the fossil echinoids are believed to be thunderstones in England (Mcnamara 2007).

Page 46 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record Works on the concept of thunderstones had been published in different parts of the world prior to the beginning of scientific enquiry of prehistoric stone tools. Several scholars attempted to theorize thunderstones as nothing but man-made artefacts (Trigger 1989: 53). The ceraunia or ‘thunderstone’ status of flint arrowheads, spearheads, and axe heads in Europe was challenged only after the 16th century and it was suggested in the 17th century by natural historians and antiquaries that these were made by humans. Natural history museums, European contact with the stone-tool using peoples in the New World, and the close relationship between natural history and antiquarianism were instrumental for this reinterpretation (Goodrum 2008: 482–508). Andrew Dickson White (1898) in his book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom devoted an entire (p.212) chapter to the early beliefs regarding thunderstones in Europe and particularly the theories of Mercati, Tollius, Jussieu, Lafitau, Mabudel, and Buffon prior to the middle of the 19th century when Boucher de Perthes interpreted the stone artefacts, the earlier discoveries, and his own investigations at the high drift beds near Abbeville, in northern France, in his book Celtic and Antediluvian Antiquities (1847). Another important piece of work is by Maria Leach (1972) in which different belief systems of the thunderstones in France, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa, Burma, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Sumatra, and America are detailed. These objects are synonymously identified as thunderstones, thunder axes, lightning stones, lightning flashes, sky arrows, and thunder teeth. In south India, the inhabitants of the Shevaroy Hills worship the thunderstones as a kind of deity in small stone altars in the forests. It is yet to be understood how and when the transformation of ideas and meaning took place which led a stone artefact once made and used by the prehistoric people to be considered a thunderstone. How the ritualistic image of thunderstone was imposed on stone artefacts which once served a specific purpose and need and how a useful tool created by man became a weapon of the god Indra in the Indian context are questions that are yet to be addressed. The first ever reporting of stone tool in Northeast India by Sir John Lubbock in 1867 was a polished blue jadeite celt collected originally from a Namsang Naga by a tea planter and subsequently handed over to Lt E.H. Steel. Many tribal people in the region collect stone artefacts, mostly from their agricultural fields, and keep it for various magico-religious purposes. In the history of archaeological research in Northeast India, there are many instances of prehistoric stone tools being collected from the local inhabitants. Neolithic stone tools are believed to be vajraxila (thunderstone) or the ‘axe of the god’ by different ethnic groups in this region (Mitri 2008). The Dimasas, a section of the Bodo group of people, identify the polished stone celts as charapthai (thunderstone). They mostly use the celts for magico-medicinal purposes, particularly for treating certain ailments (Goswami and Sharma 1963). The Garos call these celts as goera gitchi (goera: god of lightning; gitchi: hoe). They Page 47 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record believe these objects were prepared by god in heaven who hurled them at the time of lighting and thunder to kill the demon. The Garos keep these objects in their homes for bringing good (p.213) luck to the family (T.C. Sharma 1979: 161). The Garos take oaths with meteoric stones and swear in the following way: ‘May Goera (the god of lightning) kill me with one of these if I have told a lie’ (Playfair 1909: 75–6). The god Goera, with whom axes or celts are often associated as goera gitchi, has considerable significance in the Garo religious beliefs. The Khasis refer these artefacts as sdie pyrthat (lighting axes) whereas the Kacharis call these sarak-ni-ongthai (Sarak: heaven; ni: of; ongthai: stone). The plains people of Kamrup call these artefacts as Parashu kuthar (axe of lord Parashu) or bajra pathor (thunderstone). The Garos and the Kacharis use small bits of stones from preserved celts as ingredients in medicine for treating stomach and chest pains, and the plains people of Kamrup use it during childbirth for quick and safe delivery of babies (Goswami and Bhagabati 1959). Tribal people keep Stone Age antiquities in their household as valuable possessions and consider them to be symbols of prosperity. The people of Nepal and Bhutan call these artefacts vajra dunga (thunderbolt) and believe them to have fallen from the sky during thunderstorms (A.K. Sharma 1996). The Lepchas of Sikkim consider the tools as a source of betterment of material life that leads to improvements in their economic conditions. They preserve the artefacts in their kitchen and worship them (Sharma 1996: 7). These are used as medicines and are supposed to ward off evils. At the time of childbirth, to cure acute pains, the pregnant lady is given a solution of vajra dunga—a practice that is also prevalent among the Bodos of Assam. The stone axe is rubbed on a stone with water and the solution is given to the lady to drink for early delivery. Interestingly, the Lepchas strike the walls of their house with stone axes to ward off lightning falling on their house at the time of thunder activity (Sharma 1996: 49–50). They believe that the advent of these dungas brought prosperity to their ancestors (A.K. Sharma 1996: 94). The Tai-Khamyang, a Kradai linguistic group of people who migrated to the Brahmaputra valley in the 18th century from Burma, have similar beliefs related to stone celts. These objects are considered very precious and are passed on as family heirloom from one generation to another through certain rules of inheritance. There are even instances of these objects being considered as decorative items by different groups of people. Occasionally, these stone celts find their place in the sitting room as well. (p.214) Since 2009, our field explorations among the Karbis of the Assam–Meghalaya border have revealed very interesting aspects of their beliefs and traditions related to prehistoric stone artefacts. This ideological approach of the people towards prehistoric artefacts needs more attention than has been paid so far and Page 48 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record calls for a systematic recording of the belief systems. The Karbis call these celts as ster ku which literally means ‘thunder axe’. The celts are used for curing certain aches among the Karbis. A celt is put in fire and once it becomes red, it is then soaked in water. The solution is then used for massaging the affected area. These celts are mostly discovered while hoeing the jhum fields in the months of May and June. It has been observed that the Karbis of the Garbhanga area perform a daylong religious ceremony due to their beliefs associated with these artefacts as heavenly objects. The Karbis believe that when a thunderstone falls from the sky, it goes down the earth like an earthworm and after a long period, it surfaces. When the thunderstone is alive it remains under the earth and when it dies, it comes out. It generally falls on a tree and the burnt tree, they believe, should not be used as firewood. If the thunder-damaged tree belongs to an individual, then the person has to observe a special religious ceremony to propitiate the sky god Ithabo or Thengso who is responsible for the thunder activities to prevent further destruction of his house and his jhum field. Shri Rupdhon Bongjang (50) of the Garbhanga forest observed an Ithabo or Thengso puja on 21 September 2009 near the Paham Jila village as there was a massive thunderstorm at his jhum field in 2006. Not all priests can perform this puja. However, there is no restriction on the participation of villagers irrespective of age and sex. For offering the puja, an area near the jhum field is cleared. Usually an area which has a stream that can provide water to be used in the preparation of food is chosen. This ceremony is mandatorily observed during the Assamese months of Jeth (mid-May) to Aghon (mid-November). Unless the ceremony is observed, it is believed that the gods may take revenge and there may be fewer yields in the jhum plot. The thunderstorms may even cause death. Hence, whenever there is a thunderstorm, the owner of the land makes a small offering with the help of a priest, sacrifices a fowl, and plans a grand sacrifice that takes place after two/three years. The small offering (p.215) and even the final grand sacrifice can be made only on a Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday. At the sacrificial area, ab inamphumu (wild banana tree) and other canes like aarsing and wobasithu are planted to the east to mark the exact location of the sacrifice. A bamboo post is erected for hanging the jaw of the sacrificed animal. The ding khlok (altar) is made of bamboo tubes for offering the blood of the sacrificed fowls and pig. The area is made sacred by sprinkling water and spreading rice powder. Two bottle-gourd containers are used for offering rice beer to the gods. Sacred plantain leafs are used for keeping the different offerings. Chanting hymns, the priest first sacrifices two fowls, a male and a female, with a sharp iron knife. The quills of the fowls are planted on the bamboo tubes in the sacrificial altar. After the sacrifice of the fowls, a mature male pig is brought to Page 49 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record the area. Hymns are uttered by the priest and prayers by the individual whose field was affected by the thunderstorm. The sacrifice of the pig is conducted with a sharp iron knife with the help of three to four persons. The blood is offered to the god in the ding khlok. The sacrificed animal is then taken away for the cleaning and removal of its skin and intestine. The animal is hanged upside down and tied to a bamboo pole. A fire is started below it to enable cleaning of the skin with the help of a knife made of iron or bamboo. The intestine is then removed from the body and it is filled with leaves of wild mehek or mirmisi plants and stitched with bamboo strips which get steamed inside the body of the pig as it hangs above the fire. This steamed dish of mehek leaves is a must in this sacrifice. When the skin is cleaned and the leaves are steamed, the animal is brought to the area for chopping. The entire sacrificed animal is chopped with iron daos or large knives and then divided on the basis of pure meat, meat attached to bone, fat and intestine. These are then cooked in different ways, but the common ingredients are rice powder, wild yam plants, alkali, wild plants, and chilies. Neither oil nor spices are used in the preparation. As an appetizer, a special curry made of the fatty part of the sacrificed pig is served among the participants. For keeping the cooked food, a paarhola—a utensil made of bamboo strips—is used. The cakes made of rice powder are wrapped with plantain leaves. As a sign of respect, the priest is presented with a cloth besides areca nut and betel leaves. Rice beer is offered to everyone in a (p.216) bamboo glass. Soru, a special wooden container made from the wood of the gomari tree (Gmelina arborea) is used for distributing hor to the gathered guests. The soru has a spout for pouring the rice beer. A si is used for straining the beer. Rice is carried in the bamboo container called sang gatha, whereas an ing tong xo is used for measuring rice. A new dooloong phole (large earthenware vessel) is used for cooking rice and generally bought from Rani, Lakhara, or Beltala market in the plains. The rice mixed with meat is cooked by the priest at a small fireplace made with three wooden poles. The rest of the fireplaces, which are comparatively bigger, are used for cooking for the entire gathering. The sexual organ of the pig is roasted in fire and a special dish is made out of it which is eaten only by the elderly men. A special dish is prepared with the lower jaw of the sacrificed pig by boiling it in water, with rice powder and alkali. After some time the jaw is hung on the bamboo pole and offered to the gods. Most of the tasks are carried out by the gathered men, while women are responsible for preparing the rice beer. The offered food is often packed in plantain leaves and carried home by some of the participants for their neighbours who could not attend the ceremony. This shows the overall involvement of the villagers in both indivual and community affairs and also suggests a long antiquity of the rituals pertaining to thunderstones.

Page 50 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

The Archaeological Record

Access brought to you by:

Page 51 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals Manjil Hazarika

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199474660.003.0006

Abstract and Keywords Northeast India is situated at the nexus of the South Asian, Southeast Asian, and East Asian biogeographical realms and harbours diverse biota, providing a unique opportunity to archaeologists and anthropologists for the study of the relationship between humans and their environment over the ages. Moreover, this region, the abode of diverse ethnic groups with diverse cultures and customs, hints at a long history of continuous and close association between humans and nature, which is important in the understanding of plant and animal domestication. Genetic analysis of present-day domesticates with their wild counterparts provides valuable insights into their differentiation, time of domestication, and changes in their morphological traits through control by humans. The chapter also elucidates the role played by rice in Northeast Indian culture and highlights the long-term history of rice agriculture in the region. Keywords:   domestication of plants and animals, rice genetics, rice agriculture, wild species, intermediate species, farming system

India is the centre of greatest diversity of domesticated rice with over 20,000 … identified species and Northeast India is the most favourable single area of the origin of domesticated rice. —Ian C. Glover (1985: 271)

Page 1 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals This chapter aims to explore the long-prevailing view that Northeast India is an indigenous centre for the domestication of certain plants and animals. Notwithstanding the fact that most excavations carried out in this region are silent on these vital issues, archaeologists still consider the potential of the region for understanding early domestication of plants and animals (Tewari 2011: 16). Northeast India is a part of the Vavilovian centre of biodiversity and was considered by the botanist as the place of origin of many important cultivated plant species and some domesticated animals (Agarwal 1996). It is also well known for high endemism of rare flora and unique fauna. The region has been called the cradle of flowering plants (Takhtajan 1969) because of its diversified angiosperm flora. Four out of 26 micro-endemic centres in India are found here. More than 5,000 plant species have been reported from this region, and the Northeast harbours about 132 out of 686 wild relatives of crops reported from the Indian subcontinent (P.S. Roy et al. 2002). Moreover, one study reveals that out of 800 species of food plants occurring in the whole of India, about 300 species occur in the eastern Himalayan region (Singh and Arora 1978: 1–88). Northeast (p.218) India forms a significant portion of two biodiversity hotspots among 34 hotspots of the world: the Himalayan (covering Sikkim, Bhutan, Assam, and Arunachal Pradesh) and the Indo-Burman (southern part of the Brahmaputra River) (R.A. Mittermeier et al. 2003; R.A. Mittermeier et al. 2005). The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has identified this region as a centre of rice germplasm, while the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) has highlighted the region as being rich in the wild relatives of domesticated crops. Almost 50 per cent of the total flowering plants in India have been recorded here (R.R. Rao 1994). The Regional Station of the NBPGR at Shillong has collected 10,000 accessions of the wild relatives of crops from the region. The estimated diversity of some of the major food plants are: rice (9650+), maize (15 varieties and 3 sub-varieties), banana (14 species), Citrus (17 species + 52 varieties), sugarcane and their wild relatives (15 species). Many of the food crops have a rich variety of germplasm such as upland rice (298), brinjal or eggplant (37), ginger (60), chilli (68), maize (674), turmeric (60), grain legumes (200), sweet potato (5), cucurbits (76), taros (250), and yams (242) (Hore 1998: 11–13 in Mao, Hynniewta, Sanjappa 2009: 96–103).

Domestication of Plants and Animals With the ‘Neolithic Revolution’ beginning about 10,000 years BP, people acquired knowledge of various wild plants and animals and brought them under their control through domestication and farming. This revolutionary event in human history led to an easy, stable, and diverse access to food resources. Recent research developments suggest that several plant species were brought under farming and cultivation at different times and in different places from their wild ancestors. Whatever the region and whatever the species may have

Page 2 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals been, there are certain questions being raised about the origin of agriculture and domestication (Smith 2001: 205): 1. What is the wild progenitor of the domesticate? 2. Where and when was the wild progenitor initially domesticated? 3. What are the morphological markers of domestication? 4. What is the domesticate’s subsequent role in the development food production economies? (p.219) Domestication means ‘to bring plants/animals under human control, to tame’. It is an evolutionary process during which many behavioural traits undergo change as the wild types evolve into domesticated populations (Mignon-Grasteau et al. 2005: 11). Comparative studies in wild and domestic stocks, longitudinal analysis, and molecular genetics have shown that the process of domestication has resulted in modifications in behaviour, physiology, and morphology. Behavioural changes have been observed in relationships between humans and predators, social behaviour, feeding patterns, reproduction, and maternal behaviour (Mignon-Grasteau et al. 2005: 3–14). Domestication is a unique form of symbiosis that develops between a human population and a target plant or animal population, with strong advantages for both. The role of sustained human agency in the propagation and care of plants and animals within the anthropogenic context of domestication makes it different from other mutual relationships (Zeder et al. 2006). Such human intervention generally commences in a region rich in biodiversity and close to human settlements. Through years of experiments by human populations, some wild plants lost their wild ancestors, which finally led to the emergence of a variety of domesticated plants that continue to serve as the basis of human diet until present times. The centres of crop domestication are located disproportionately in or around biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000), which suggests that the huntergatherers and early farmers lived in or close to these areas for their daily subsistence. The frequent interaction of the hunter-gatherer communities with the natural world resulted in an understanding of the nature of different species, their life cycles, adaptation strategies, and their possible usefulness. It has been suggested that the abundance of different plant species in a region may have allowed the early farmers to choose the species that were most amenable to cultivation (Gepts 2008). To understand the domestication process, it is important to recognize their wild progenitor species and to identify their natural habitat. Wild progenitors of some major crops have been identified through morphological, biochemical, and genetic studies (Buckler, Thornsberry, and Kresovich 2001). Botanists base their evidence of the origin of rice, one of the very important food crops, largely on Page 3 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals the habitats of the wild species (Grist 1975). The wild progenitor can (p.220) provide very useful information regarding the genetic relationship with the domesticated counterparts, the morphological changes due to human interference, and the adaptation to an altered environment as well as the overall process through which the wild species has been brought under cultivation. The distribution of wild progenitors provides useful information regarding the area where the process of domestication might have taken place and the ecological limits of adaptation (Harlan 1976). However, there are other important factors to consider: (a) possible climate changes since the initiation of domestication, (b) the effects of human activities which may either have decreased or increased the range of the wild progenitors, (c) the possibility that progenitors may have evolved along with the domesticates, and (d) the possibility of trans-domestication. Agricultural transition has been explained on the basis of the environment, population pressure, cultural influence, and external factors (Olsson 2001). Moreover, the cultural process that led to the transition from wild grain gathering to cultivation has been ethnographically explained using evidence of the techniques employed to harvest wild cereal (Hillman and Davies 1999: 70– 102). Kislev, Weiss, and Hartmann (2004: 2692–5) have successfully shown, in the context of the Fertile Crescent, that continual ground collection of grains by early hunter-gatherers would have provided surplus grains for deliberate sowing in more desirable fields, facilitating the transition to intentional cultivation. Early collectors might have observed the fallen seeds responsible for growing new plants. The ground collection of wild barley cereal may provide the missing link between seed collection by hunter-gatherers and cereal harvesting by early farmers. Harvesting with sickles, uprooting, plucking, and collecting the gains by beating the panicles into a basket are also important indicators of the transition. The collection of wild rice by beating into baskets was prevalent in Northeast India until recently and can be observed in certain pockets of India even today. Detailed discussions on the origins and domestications of plants and animals and the development of early farming communities worldwide can be found in several recent publications (cf. Bellwood 2005; Diamond and Bellwood 2003; and Fuller 2006 for South Asia). With regard to independent food production, Diamond (p.221) (2002: 705) considers five undisputable areas worldwide: the Fertile Crescent, China, Mesoamerica, South America, and the eastern seaboard of North America, while Fuller (2005–6) argues for an independent domestication of rice in India. Recent archaeo-botanical discoveries support early agriculture based on rice farming in the Gangetic basin (Tewari et al. 2008: 347–73). Diamond (2002: 702) further argues that if regions like California, Europe, and the Indian Subcontinent are well suited to farming or herding today, this may also have been the case in the past. He argues that ‘the homelands of Page 4 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals agriculture were instead merely those regions to which the most numerous and most valuable domesticable wild plant and animal species were native’ (Diamond 2002: 702). In reviewing the dispersal of farmers in different parts of the world, Diamond and Bellwood (2003: 597–603) show intimate connections which, according to them, exist between agricultural origins and language dispersal. They discussed the possible dispersal routes of Neolithic formative cultures worldwide. As we have seen, Northeast India is an important repository for a large number of naturally occurring plants. Northeast India is regarded by geographers and botanists as an ideal place for early plant domestication and food production (Harris 1973; Sauer 1952; Vavilov 1949). At the Indo-Pacific Prehistoric Congress held in Pune from 20 to 23 December 1978, this region was designated as a potential area for the domestication of a number of important plants, and an intense archaeological research programme was recommended to determine the role of this region. However, little substantial work has been carried out since (Hazarika 2006a). The nature and geographical patterning of the domestication are yet to be addressed. In attempting to determine the origin and evolution of certain plants, the much diversified and elaborate use of particular plants and their by-products should be taken into consideration. Many agricultural fairs and festivals indicate a close and long-established association between people and their environment. In the case of animals, their close association in the everyday life and culture of the land may also indicate a long history. In a recent review of plant resources, Dutta and Dutta (2005: 7–14) show that around 1,350 species of plants are used in ethno-medicinal preparations in the Northeast, of which 665 species are used as food plants and 899 for miscellaneous uses, again (p.222) accentuating a close association of the inhabitants with their natural environment.

Wild Relatives of Crops Northeast India, the transitional zone between the Indian, Indo-Burman and Indo-Chinese regions (Yumnam 2008), is a sub-tropical zone with a wide variety of plants, offering an excellent scope for scientific investigations and for understanding the origin and domestication of many different plants. The essential requirements for early agriculture, such as the availability of perennial water, uplands for growing tubers and roots, and lowlands for cereal crops like rice, proper seasonal rainfall, and suitable climate all occur in the fertile lands of Northeast India, making a strong case for the hypothesis that this region has played a crucial role in the early domestications of plants. Rana and Chatterjee (2000) and Sastry and Chatterjee (2000) provide lists of wild relatives of crop plants in Northeast India, whereby there may also have been possible intrusions of certain Southeast Asian crops into south India. It has been suggested that the probable origins of Citrus medica and most domesticated mangos (Mangifera indica) lie in Northeast India or northern Southeast Asia, around the Assam/

Page 5 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals Burma/Yúnnán area westwards to the eastern Himalayan foothills (Asouti and Fuller 2008: 91, 114–15). Although we see a mixture of cropping patterns among groups living in different ecological zones, it is likely that vegetative crops and a pseudo-grain such as Job’s tears were the basis of subsistence more than a thousand years ago. Tubers like yams and taro, bananas, plantains, sugarcane, and sago have been exploited extensively and form a major part of their subsistence. Also, the terminological diversity applied to these crops suggests a considerable antiquity in this region (Blench 2012). Rice

Rice, one of the most important food crops in the world, belongs to the genus Oryza. The crop has more than 25 perennial or annual wild species, which are either diploid or tetraploid. Indica and japonica are the major cultivated and consumed subspecies of Oryza sativa (Khush 1997). The origin and domestication of this food crop is a much (p.223) debated issue among present-day palaeobotanists and archaeologists. Various genetic, archaeological, and linguistic studies have been carried out to understand the history and origin of the cultivated rice, Oryza sativa. Unfortunately, the picture is still not very clear. T.T. Chang (1976a: 143–57) considered the area between north India and the Pacific coast of Vietnam and southern China to be the origin of rice agriculture. According to him, the Asian rice Oryza sativa has evolved from an annual progenitor, in a region covering a broad land belt extending from the plains of the Ganges, below the foothills of the Himalayas, spreading across upper Burma, northern Thailand, and Laos to northern Vietnam, all the way to southern China. The domestication process may have occurred independently and/or concurrently at many sites within and bordering this land belt. He also mentions a route, spreading from Nepal via Assam, Burma, and Yúnnán into the Yellow River valley, moving further into Vietnam, and from there, via a coastal route, into the lower Yangtze River basin. Sung-Mo (1993) reviewed the botanical, genetic, and archaeological evidence on the origin and differentiation of Oryza sativa and proposed the hilly zones of Southeast Asia, including Assam and Yúnnán, for the origin and differentiation of Oryza sativa. Consequently, the rich genetic diversity observed in the rice species and occurrences of wild, intermediate, and domesticated varieties of rice in Northeast India is very significant for a proper understanding of the evolution of rice. Even though Bellwood (2005: 119) claims some uncertainty about the variation within Oryza sativa and the domestication of japonica and indica species of rice, he identifies two different areas, Northeast India and Thailand, as possible places where the domestication of this variety had occurred. With regard to the domestication of native indica rice, he specifically mentions Northeast India.

Page 6 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals The origin of rice remains a complex and puzzling issue due to the complex evolutionary dynamics of rice cultivars and wild progenitors and particularly because of the rapid adaptive differentiation and continuous gene flow within and between cultivated and wild rice (Sang and Ge 2007a). Molecular phylogenetic studies show that the closest wild relatives of cultivated rice were Oryza nivara and Oryza rufipogon, which are found in Southeast Asia and India. These wild species are ecologically distinct: Oryza nivara is an annual crop that is photo-period-insensitive, self-fertilized, and adapts to seasonally dry (p.224) habitats, whereas Oryza rufipogon is a perennial crop that is photo-periodsensitive, largely cross-fertilized, and adapts to persistently wet habitats (Sharma, Tripathy, and Biswal 2000: 349–69). Genetic analysis shows that the indica rice originated from the wild annual species Oryza nivara (Li, Zhou, Sang 2006: 185–94). However, the identity of the species that served as the direct progenitor of cultivated rice remains controversial (Sang and Ge 2007b: 533). Another controversy is whether rice was domesticated once or multiple times from divergent wild populations (Sang and Ge 2007a: 761). Asian cultivated rice Oryza sativa is grown worldwide, whereas African cultivated rice Oryza glaberrima is grown only in West Africa. Oryza rufipogon, the Asian common wild rice varying from perennial to annual, is held to be the wild progenitor of Oryza sativa. An annual variety within the rufipogon species complex, Oryza nivara is also held to have been domesticated to become Oryza sativa. In Africa, Oryza glaberrima was domesticated from annual Oryza breviligulata, which in turn evolved from perennial Oryza longistaminata (Khush 1997; Subudhi, Sasaki, and Khush 2006). Molecular phylogenetic studies indicate the independent domestication of both indica and japonica rice, meaning that indica and japonica fall into separate clades, each containing some accessions of the wild species (Rakshit et al. 2007: 731–43). On the other hand, Ikehashi (2009) surmises that the perennial japonica cultivars close to the wild rice in the Yangtze River basin were disseminated to eastern India via Assam or along the Bay of Bengal. In eastern India, these cultivars were transformed by the introgression of local wild rice and consequently they formed a secondary centre. Subsequently, under the cultural influence of Hinduism, some genotypes were disseminated to colonies in Southeast Asia, which were then further introduced into China, constituting the so-called indica type. However, it would seem that Ikehashi did not consider the recent evidence of rice agriculture in the Gangetic valley in the Early Holocene period, neither rejecting nor considering the possibility of independent domestication of rice in India, as argued by Fuller (2005–6, 2006) and Tewari and colleagues (2008). Studies based on interspersion patterns of Short Interspersed Nuclear Elements (SINEs) by Cheng, Motohashi, and Ohtsuo (2003), different molecular markers by Yamanaka and colleagues (p.225) (2003), and the phylogenetic relationship Page 7 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals among A-genome species of the Oryza genus by Zhu and Ge (2005) suggest that the two cultivars of Oryza sativa, namely indica and japonica must have been domesticated independently from different isolates of the wild species Oryza rufipogon. It was believed that the Oryza sativa cultivars indica, japonica, and javanica had evolved from three different rice populations of Oryza nivara which existed in different regions (Sharma, Tripathy, and Biswal 2000). The sali ‘winter rice’ type from Assam possibly evolved from the introgression of Oryza rufipogon genes into a japonica-like type in the Brahmaputra valley. Londo and colleagues (2006) made an elaborate study of the variations in the DNA sequence in three distinct gene regions using a phylogeographic approach to investigate the domestication of cultivated rice. The results indicate that the Indian subcontinent and the Northeast and adjacent regions may actually be the ancestral centres of Oryza rufipogon. The analysis also suggest that Asian cultivated rice, Oryza sativa, was domesticated from its wild progenitor, Oryza rufipogon, at least twice in two different geographical regions in eastern Asia. The products of these two independent domestication events are the two major rice cultivars Oryza sativa, var. indica, and Oryza sativa, var. japonica. Based on this geographical analysis, Oryza sativa, var. indica, is likely to have been domesticated south of the Himalayas, most likely in eastern India, Burma, or Thailand, whereas Oryza sativa, var. japonica, was probably domesticated from a wild rice type in southern China. Domestication of rice has resulted in higher yield and the evolution of the non-shattering nature of the grain, due to which the grain is held in the panicle till the time of manual harvesting. These favourable characteristics have made rice the preferred crop of farmers. The large number of varieties is the result of experimentation and artificial selection of the more productive varieties. The diverse varieties of rice occur due to several possible reasons: (a) the introduction of varieties from one region to another, (b) natural crosses between the domesticated varieties and weeds, and (c) varietal mixtures that primitive agriculturists grew for protection from epidemic diseases. This anthropogenic effect of conscious and unconscious selection led to the development of over 120,000 varieties of rice found around the globe (Subudhi, Sasaki, and Khush 2006: 4). (p.226) Vitte and colleagues (2004) compared the transpositional history of 110 long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons in the genomes of two rice varieties, Nipponbare (japonica type) and 93-11 (indica type), using a genomic palaeontological approach. Based on silico-analysis and a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, they estimated that these two genomes diverged from each other about 200,000 years ago, much earlier than the initial domestication of the crop during the Neolithic period. The analysis of a wide range of traditional rice varieties of both indica and japonica types provide evidence for two independent domestication events in Asia. These findings contradict the earlier view that Asian cultivated rice originated about 10,000 years ago in China, and that the differentiation of indica and japonica types resulted due to adaptive selection Page 8 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals following domestication (Chang 1976b). On the basis of the modern geography of wild forms and cultivars, Fuller (2007: 393–443) argues that at least one of these indica domestications is likely to have occurred in northern or eastern South Asia, while the japonica domestication can be may have taken place in southern China, probably in the Yangtze River basin. However, in a recent synthesis by Fuller (2006: 1–86) on the origins and dispersals of important crops and livestock with respect to the evidence for indigenous plant and animal domestications in South Asia, very few references from Northeast India were used. This is due to the evident lack of rice and other plants and animals in the archaeological record. Even so, in a recent publication, Fuller mentions that ‘Northeast India will eventually prove to be a rice domestication area’ (Fuller 2011: 82). In this context, the multidisciplinary approach taken by van Driem also suggests the crucial role the region must have played as the homeland of the Austroasiatics who were one of the most likely candidates for the first cultivators of rice, particularly Oryza nivara (van Driem 2011a: 23, 2012a: 193–4, 2012b: 118) as discussed in the third chapter. Blench (2012) conjectures that the intrusion of the Indo-Aryans into the flood plains of the Brahmaputra valley resulted in the introduction of wet-field rice cultivation about the 10th century or even earlier. This conjecture assumes that wet rice cultivation was unknown to the settlers of the Brahmaputra valley who had preceded the Indo-Aryans. However, anyone intimately familiar with the region would have considerable reservations against accepting this view. Wet rice (p.227) cultivation must have been in vogue among the Tibeto-Burman speakers residing in the plains of Brahmaputra and its tributaries for quite some time. Although there is evidence of influence of the cultures of the Gangetic valley from early mediaeval times, particularly in terms of temple art and architecture, indigenous features are also clearly visible. There are a large number of temples and structural activities with inscriptions that emerged around the 5th and 6th centuries AD in the valley. Perhaps these state-supported constructions were funded through agricultural surplus, possibly rice cultivated on the wetlands, with high yields which would not have been attainable with rudimentary farming and foraging systems or shifting slash-and-burn cultivation akin to the modern-day jhum system. There is a strong possibility that the early settlers in the Brahmaputra valley, at least on the western side, were practising wetland rice cultivation prior to the arrival of the Indo-Aryans. These settlers living in the hills remained isolated for a long time, leading to a distinct and unique individual cultural identity. Traditional Rice Cultivation in Northeast India

The rice plant has round, hollow, and jointed stems known as culms that bear panicles. Besides the main culms, there are a number of side branches in a mature rice plant. The overall growth of the plant has three stages: the vegetative stage (from germination to panicle initiation), the reproductive stage (from panicle initiation to heading), and the grain filling or ripening stage (from Page 9 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals heading to maturity) (Wang and Li 2005). During all these stages, the control of pests and application of fertilizers require constant care to ensure high yield. Intergenerational transfer of knowledge plays a vital role in traditional rice cultivation. Asian rice, one of the world’s staple foods, is grown in various ecological settings in Northeast India. This region presents most diverse conditions for growing rice in terms of altitude, agro-climatic conditions, and rainfall (Hore 2005). Rice is a semi-aquatic plant which grows both in deep water and on dry land, and is cultivated mostly in the lowland riverine flood plains and hilly areas of this region. Various species of wild rice are found in Northeast India, such as Oryza rufipogon, Oryza officinnalis, Oryza perennis, Oryza meyeriana, (p.228) Oryza granulata, and Oryza nivara (Bakalial 2004), all growing in different ecological habitats like swamps, marshes, open ditches, rivers, swampy grasslands, and rice fields. These species show relatively different ecological preferences. For example, Oryza rufipogon (Fig. 6.1) is usually found in swamps, marshes, open ditches, rivers, swampy grasslands, and rice fields, from sea level to an elevation of 1,400 metres, whereas Oryza officinalis thrives in fully or partially shaded, seasonally wet habitats at the edge of forests or within evergreen or deciduous forests, from sea level to an elevation of 1,500 metres (Vaughan 1994). The annual species Oryza nivara occurs in seasonally dry habitats, whereas the perennial Oryza rufipogon grows in permanently wet habitats (Vaughan 2003: 113–38). It is significant that this region provides suitable ecological and climatic conditions for growing a variety of rice species of wild (Figs 6.2 and 6.3), intermediate (Fig. 6.3), and domestic (Figs 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7) nature.

Figure 6.1 (A) Grains and (B) panicles of Oryza rufipogon from Khatiakhali village, Golaghat; (C) panicle and (D) grains of Oryza nivara from Hajo, Kamrup

Page 10 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals

Figure 6.2 Wild rice grown in the Garbhanga Reserve Forest: (A) a panicle of Oryza granulate, (B) leaves and panicles of Oryza granulate, (C) panicles of Oryza officinnalis, and (D) grains of Oryza officinnalis

Figure 6.3 (A) Udi dal (Oryza rufipogon), (B) sungal bao (Intermediate rice), (C) wild bao, and (D) bao (Intermediate rice)

Page 11 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals

Figure 6.4 (A) Sikun sali, (B) aijong, (C) prasad bhog, and (D) bogi bor

Figure 6.5 (A) Masuri, (B) ranga maniari, (C) sungal prasadbhog, and (D) paijong

Page 12 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals It is estimated that at least 10,000 indigenous rice cultivars are found in this region (Hore 2005). Intermediate forms such as tulasi (p.229) (p.230) (p. 231) (p.232) bao, bogi bao, and kekua bao are also found in deep-water and waterlogged rice ecosystems. The natural growth of wild varieties in an area where rice is cultivated may lead to gene flow and contribute to the formation of intermediate species. These intermediate species are the result of cross-pollination between wild and domestic varieties which survive long term in the field. The presence

Figure 6.6 (A) Maniari (B) gethu, (C) sungal aijong, and (D) aki sali

Figure 6.7 (A) Bora (B) seni sakua, (C) kola bora, and (D) kola sakua

of such intermediate rice species in Northeast India also suggests a long history of rice cultivation. Most farmers of Assam plant different varieties of rice, including glutinous and nonglutinous varieties, in the very same area—this may also contribute to gene flow, leading to polymorphism and a mixed rice population over the years. In a report on the status of rice in Northeast India, the Directorate of Rice Research at Hyderabad provided a list of rice species according to their growing seasons and geographical spread (Ngachan, Mohanty, and Pattanayak n.d. 50–1). There appears to be no marked difference in technological input and agricultural practices among rice cropping systems, except for the time of sowing or transplanting. There are different ecotypes for rice grown by farmers, particularly the lowland and upland varieties in Northeast India. In general, rice cultivation is practised in the region in two principle ways: (a) settled rice cultivation in varying landscapes, including lowland plains and valleys, upland foothills and slopes by preparing terraces and (b) shifting cultivation, locally known as jhum in the hilly terrains. Ahu (autumn rice) has three varieties: early (February to May) which is transplanted with irrigation, normal (March/April to June/July) which is rainfed and sown directly, and late (May to August) which is transplanted in rainfed or irrigated fields. Sali (kharif) (winter rice) is grown in two ways: normal (July/ August to November/December) and late (August/September to December/ January). Boro (spring/summer rice) (November/December to April/May) is grown in water stagnated areas or with irrigation. Asra (shallow-water rice) (March/April to November/December) grows in 1-metre- to 2-metre-deep water Page 13 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals whereas bao (deep-water/floating rice) (March/April to November/December) grows in 2-metre- to 5-metre-deep water. The hill rice has two basic varieires: mid-hill (April/May to September/October) and high hill (June/July to November/ December) (Ngachan, Mohanty, Pattanayak, n.d. 50–1). (p.233) Lowland Settled Rice Agriculture

In general, rice is grown in the lowland areas in three overlapping cropping seasons, suggesting a strategic year-round cultivation process (Hazarika 2006a, 2006b). Sali, also known as winter rice, is sown in the nursery from June to July, is transplanted from July to August, and is harvested from November to December. Sali gives higher yield when grown as a post-monsoon crop. In contrast, ahu, popularly known as autumn rice, is directly seeded in the land at higher elevations from February to March and is harvested from July to August. The Mishing, a Tibeto-Burman linguistic community residing along both sides of the banks of the Brahmaputra, are well known for this particular kind of system. The boro variety, also known as summer rice is sown in November and harvested from March to April. Boro is cultivated in waterlogged areas of low-lying or medium-level fields with the help of irrigation, on which it is dependent. From mid-September to the end of October, kothia (rice seedlings) are grown in the kothiatoli (nursery) in low-lying areas using irrigation facilities. The seedlings are transplanted from mid-January to February. Another variety, bao, also known as deep-water rice or floating rice, is grown in areas with more than 1 metre of water. Bao is sown from April to May and harvested from December to January. There are several Assamese sayings describing traditional methods of planting the ahu and sali varieties. One such Dakor boson (sayings of Dak) goes as follows: Ahu rubaa khujot buri, Sali rubaa gegot juri (Sow the ahu rice in ankledeep water, and sow the sali rice 5 inches apart). Similar to sugarcane cultivation, ratooning is practised for certain varieties of rice. Following this system, after the first round of harvest, stalks are left to re-germinate to be harvested in the next season. It is interesting to note that in the same paddy field different varieties of rice are cultivated all at the same time. Generally, the paddy fields are not even and have different levels of water depending on the landscape. In the lowest part of the lowland fields, rice seeds are sown before the water level rises. The water level rises to more than a metre at times so that these fields are usually inundated at the time of a monsoon flood. Thus, only those rice varieties that can survive in high water are grown. There are specific varieties that can grow high, depending on the water level. Bao and asra are such varieties, suitable (p.234) for waterlogged alluvial land, which is generally very fertile. These varieties can survive even when fully submerged in water. In flood-prone areas, due to the deposition of natural fertile silt, additional fertilizer is not required. The lowlying areas are often very fertile and need little labour in terms of ploughing and Page 14 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals tilling. There are also several recently developed irrigation techniques and practices which have helped in improving the production of boro in the lowland flood-affected areas. In the neighbouring state of West Bengal, rice is grown in three seasons, that is, autumn, winter, and summer. Autumn rice, known as aus, is a low-yielding relatively drought-tolerant upland crop. Monsoon rice, known as aman, is grown from June to December under rainfed conditions on semi-deep, deep and flooded land, also using irrigation wherever necessary. Summer rice, known as boro, is a totally irrigated rice crop that is cultivated with high yielding modern varieties. In Bangladesh, rice is grown throughout the year with different cropping seasons, that is, (a) boro from December to May, (b) the drought tolerant aus, broadcast and sown, with a short life cycle from April to July, (c) the transplanted aman, a photo-period-sensitive variety, from July to December, (d) aman, a deep-water photo-period-sensitive crop, broadcast from March to December, (e) ryadas, a deep-water, photo-period-sensitive crop, for a long duration from March to December, (f) ashina, a deep-water aus variety, broadcast and sown from April to August, and (g) hill rice, seeded directly in the upland fields, usually on sloping hillsides, from June to September (Khush 1997). Through continual experimentation, selection, and care, many cultivars are grown in the extreme conditions of both dry land and deep water. In Assam, different varieties of rice are grown in a large pothar (rice field), divided by ali (bunds). Each year, the bunds are repaired, the walls are reinforced with mud to prevent seepage and undo tunnels made by rats, other animals, and insects. Depending on the nature of the land and the rainfall pattern, different cultivars are grown in different cropping seasons. The seedlings are soaked in water for one to two days in a tom (bamboo basket) and then left outdoors for germination. The sprouted seeds are then sown in nursery beds. Pre-germinated rice seeds are either sown in well-prepared nursery beds or directly in the field. Areas with medium level water are selected (p.235) as nurseries. Upper tracts of lowland paddy fields are transplanted at the peak of monsoon, when soil retains enough moisture at the time of planting. From when the seeds are sown in the nursery beds until their maturation into seedlings ready for transplantation, there is plenty of time to prepare the fields. This task involves ploughing and harrowing with bullock, buffalo, or elephant and driving a ploughshare and leveller. The tilling operations are more or less labourintensive depending on the nature of the soil, often requiring two or three rounds—this is crucial to ensure good harvest. Cow dung collected around the year in the cattle sheds is used as manure at the time of ploughing. The manure is carried to the paddy field in a special carrier made of bamboo known as bhar pasi (weight basket). This process is called gobar pelua (throwing/spreading of cow dung in paddy field). Besides cow dung, chemical manures and pesticides are also used nowadays.

Page 15 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals Harvesting is done with a kasi (sickle). The panicle together with a portion of the stem is cut with the implement to form a muthi (bunch). Six bunches form a thor. These bunches are then tied with a tomal (bamboo strip) and, using a biria (bamboo lifter), the harvested bunches are then brought to the threshing area. The remaining straw is left for grazing and is often used for roofing huts. Sometimes stubbles are burnt after harvesting which increases the fertility of the soil. The womenfolk cut the paddy using an iron sickle and bundle them in sheaves. The sheaves are kept in the paddy fields for one or two days for drying. It is the menfolk who transport the bundles to the threshing floor. Children collect the fallen panicle along the way which is known as leseri butola (collecting the fallen rice panicle). In preparation for the harvest, a plot of land, usually a courtyard of the house, is prepared as a threshing floor by levelling and plastering it with clay mixed with fresh cow dung. For the treading or threshing of the rice, bunches are piled in a heap prepared in a circular fashion, and a buffalo or a pair of bullocks are used. Trampling and cleaning is done using different bamboo implements such as ukhun (trampling implement), jaru (broom), and different sizes of saloni (sieve). For the next season, the seeds are separated meticulously, panicle by panicle, by experienced farmers, usually by an elderly lady or man who carefully separates the weedy forms and other admixed varieties of rice from the variety selected for sowing next season. After (p.236) selection, these are traditionally threshed with feet and stored in a special bin or basket made of bamboo strips with thick padding of rice straw, known as tom. Lowland rice cultivation, whatever the cropping season may be, is a long process, which involves the preparation of the nursery and the main land for sowing, transplanting, and the storage of the harvest. The entire sequence of the process includes: haal jura (first day of ploughing), the preparation of the kothiatoli, sohua (the first tillage), xomar bua (the second tillage), kothia tiuwa (the soaking of seeds for germination), kothia pora (the sowing of the sprouted seedlings), xaar diya (the adding of manure or fertilizer), kothia tola (picking the mature seedlings), boka diya (the final tillage and levelling of the main paddy field), bhui rua (the transplantation; not required in the cultivation of ahu rice cultivation), xaar diya, nirua (weeding), dhan dua (harvesting), kothia lua (the selection of seeds for next season), morona mora (the threshing), dhan rodot diya (the drying of the grains), and bhoralot thoa (the storing of the rice in the granary). Farmers prefer to plant the glutinous varieties of rice which are mostly consumed for breakfast. Compared to the non-glutinous variety (Figs 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6), the glutinous variety (Fig. 6.7) gives a lower yield. Many of the varieties are known by different names at different places. A survey conducted at the village of Khatiakhali in the Bokakhat region showed a large variety of Page 16 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals rice being grown. Shri Biren Hazarika, father of the author of the present volume, grows a number of different varieties of rice in his paddy fields (Table 6.1).

Page 17 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals

Table 6.1 Rice varieties grown by Shri Biren Hazarika of Khatiakhali village, Bokakhat, Assam No.

Local Name

Soil Moisture

Process of Maturity Cultivation Time: Early-mid or Late

1

Xoru Sali

Lowland Sali with medium level water

7 months

2

Bangki Sali Lowland Sali with medium level water

3

Hati Sali

4

Bogi Bor

Glutinous or Nonglutinous

Plant Height

Flavour

Colour

Grain Size

Awn Naught/ Exist

Glutinous 3 feet immediatel y after harvesting

Common

Golden

Large

Little

7 months

Nonglutinous

3 feet

Common

Golden

Large

Naught

Lowland Sali with medium level water

7 months

Nonglutinous

3 feet

Common

Golden

Large

5/6 inch awn

Lowland Sali with medium level water

7 months

Nonglutinous

3 feet

Common

Whitish

Large

Naught

Page 18 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals

No.

Local Name

Soil Moisture

Glutinous or Nonglutinous

Plant Height

Flavour

Colour

5

Xoru Sakua

Lowland Sali with medium level water

6 months

Nonglutinous

3 feet

Common

Pokhora Large (multicoloured, variegated )

Naught

6

Maigum Sakua

Lowland Sali with medium level water

5 months

Nonglutinous

3 feet

Common

Golden

Large

Little

7

Joha bhanguni

Lowland Sali with medium level water

6 months

Nonglutinous

3 feet

Aromatic

Golden

Small

4 inch awn

8

Bora kaljira

Lowland Sali with medium level water

6 months

Glutinous

3 feet

Aromatic

Black

Large

Naught

Lowland Sali with medium level water

7 months

Nonglutinous

3 feet

Common

Golden

Large

2 inch awn

(p.238) 9 Aki Sali

Process of Maturity Cultivation Time: Early-mid or Late

Grain Size

Awn Naught/ Exist

Page 19 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals

No.

Local Name

Soil Moisture

Process of Maturity Cultivation Time: Early-mid or Late

Glutinous or Nonglutinous

Plant Height

Flavour

Colour

Grain Size

Awn Naught/ Exist

10

Bor Soli

Lowland Sali with medium level water

7 months

Nonglutinous

3 feet

Common

Whitish in milky stage and becomes black when ripened

Large

Little

11

Pakhi Lahi

Lowland Sali with medium level water

6 months

Nonglutinous

3 feet

Common

Large

Two quilllike features

12

Jota Bora

Lowland Sali with medium level water

6 months

Glutinous

3 feet

Aromatic

13

Ronga Daria

Deep Ahu water level

4½ months

Red

Naught

14

Joha Ahu

Deep Ahu water level

5 months

Red

2 inch awn

(p.239) 15

Kola jungura

Deep Ahu water level

4 months

Black

Naught

Common

Two quilllike features

Page 20 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals

No.

Local Name

Soil Moisture

Process of Maturity Cultivation Time: Early-mid or Late

16

Maguri Bao

Deep Bao water level

8 months

17

Amona Bao Deep Bao water level

18

Kholihoi Bao

Glutinous or Nonglutinous

Plant Height

Flavour

Colour

Grain Size

Awn Naught/ Exist

Nonglutinous

Common

Whitish

Large

Naught

8 months

Nonglutinous

Common

Black

Large

Naught

Deep Bao water level

8 months

Nonglutinous

Common

Pokhora

Large

8-inch awn

19

Adolia Bao Deep Bao water level

8 months

Nonglutinous

Common

Whitish

Large

Naught

20

Kokua Bao Deep Bao water level

6 months

Large

10-inch awn

Aromatic

Source: Compiled by the author.

Page 21 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals Another interesting aspect of rice cultivation in lowland areas is that wild edible fish enter the waterlogged fields in the rainy season and grow alongside the rice. In Southeast Asia, along with wet rice cultivation, rice-fish farming is a considerably old practice, developed from prehistoric times (Ruddle 1982). The same holds true for the whole of Northeast India, irrespective of the community and geography. In the Northeast, harvesting fish is an inseparable part of traditional rice agriculture. The fish is harvested by the farmers using traps made of bamboo, nets, and even simply catching fish by hand. Most farmers are adept in making fishing traps and other fishing implements from bamboo, locally known as khuka, sepa, thuha, jakoi, khaloi, leheti, lahoni, and baan. They capture fish by fixing these different types of traps in choice areas, mainly at water entries and (p.237) (p.240) exits. Kon or tukoni pukhuri (small ponds) are dug in the middle of paddy fields with fish bait. Fish is harvested frequently from these ponds as well as from natural low-lying areas. Waterlogged areas are variously named khal, dong, dubi, or hola, depending on the particular characteristics of the waterlogged area. It is a common sight to see fishing in paddy fields and ploughing and levelling by a community of men and women, young and old, being conducted at the same time. The indigenous methods employed in rice-fish farming in the region have been classified as (a) rice field capture fishery systems, (b) wild aquatic cropping systems, (c) mountain valley rice fish farming systems, and (d) running water terrace rice-fish farming systems (D.N. Das 2002). Upland Shifting Rice Agriculture

The most common agricultural practice in the tropical hilly regions of Northeast India is slash-and-burn, shifting, swidden, or jhum cultivation, as it is locally called. This form of agriculture reflects an ecological adaptation ideally suited to the relationship between man and his environment at the altitudes above the flood plains. This type of agriculture requires limited tools and equipment and depends mainly on climatic or environmental conditions. Hence jhum is often considered a primitive agricultural practice. T.C. Sharma (1990) expresses the view that an agricultural practice similar to shifting cultivation was prevalent during the Neolithic period in Northeast India. For most of the tribal people, this cultivation has been in vogue for centuries and still remains a major land-use practice, which provides the basis for subsistence farming and enables the maintenance of cultural values and social stability for the people living in lowpopulation densities (Aier and Changkija 2003: 367). The term ‘jhum’ is an Assamese word and is widely used to refer to this cultivation system, though there are several other local terms used by farmers in other parts, for example, pam lou among the Meithei of Manipur, ahanglui among the Tangkhul, tekeonglu among the Ao Naga of Nagaland, hichusisomoms among the Reang of Tripura, adimdik among the Adi of Arunachal Pradesh,

Page 22 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals lyngkhalum or shyrti among the Khasi, bogma among the Garo of the Meghalaya, and inglong arit among the Karbi of the Mikir Hills. (p.241) On the basis of the technologies used and indirect archaeological data, discussed in Chapter 5, shifting cultivation can be regarded as a distinct stage in the evolution of agriculture and modern land husbandry practices, representing a transitional stage between nomadic hunting-gathering and sedentary agriculture. The practice of shifting cultivation evolved through the struggle of small-scale human societies to supplement their hunting and food gathering in forests by the newly developed technique of raising food crops by planting (Satapathy and Sarma 2002: 122–3). Jhum rice farming is a form of upland dry rice cultivation. This rice cultivation depends on rainwater only. Without the use of animals, rice seeds are dibbled in dry jhum plots with a wooden digging stick with an iron hoe attached to a handle. High rainfall patterns in Northeast India provide ample moisture for the crops. Jhum cultivation involves the clearing of the forest cover and vegetation on the chosen hill slopes by cutting and slashing and then burning the dried biomass, all before the start of monsoon. The chosen jhum plots harbour plants of different sizes, which results in the slashed matter not being evenly burnt. The unburnt branches and twigs are collected and ignited to ensure a clear and smooth plot for farming. The ash from the burnt vegetation acts as fertilizer for the crops to be sown. With the burning of the dried plant matter in situ, harmful organisms and pests are destroyed. Digging sticks made of bamboo or simple iron hoes are used to prepare the soil, since this helps in easy germination. Weeding is constantly carried out. The inevitable loss of soil fertility after successive crops and topsoil denudation creates a compelling need to shift to another hill slope usually after two or three years, hence the epithet ‘shifting’ cultivation. The abandoned sites are left for regeneration for a few years. The shifting of the jhum fields frequently necessitates the shifting of the human settlements, as discussed in Chapter 5. Mixed cropping is essential to this type of cultivation in order to provide alternative food sources in case a crop fails due to climatic, environmental, or other factors. Jhum farming is practised by the entire community. Some common crops grown by jhum cultivation in Northeast India are Oryza sativa (rice), Zea mays (maize), Setaria italica (foxtail millet), Sesamum indicum (sesame), Eleusine coracana (finger millet), Phaseolus mungo (black gram), Cucumus saliva (cucumber), Cucurbita spp. (pumpkin), (p.242) Colocasia esculenta (taro), Manihot esculenta (tapioca, cassava, manioc), Hibiscus escuentus (okra, lady’s fingers), Capsicum frutescence (chilli), Coix lacryma Jobi (Job’s tears), Solatium tuberosum (potatoes), Ipomoea batatas (sweet potatoes), Brassica nigra (mustard), Gossypium spp. (cotton), Corchorus spp. (jute), Ricinus communis (castor oil plant), Zingiber officinale (ginger), Musa sapientum (banana), and Pisum sativum (peas) (Dikshit and Dikshit 2004: 69).

Page 23 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals Perhaps the wide agrobiodiversity of the region can be explained by the proposition made by Kingwell-Banham and Fuller (2012: 93) that the mobile forms of shifting cultivation allow a wide ‘interaction of a higher number of populations and subpopulations than fixed agriculture, potentially leading to increased diversity within both agricultural and wild plant populations’. However, the identification of cultivated, domesticated, and wild plant material in archaeological contexts becomes problematic, since morphological crossovers would be more common in these kinds of situations. In the jhum system, rice as well as other crops are sown without levelling the field. The sowing of seeds requires a hoe or a digging stick. For harvesting, an iron sickle is used, or alternatively seeds are hand-picked from the panicles and kept in baskets. The cropping season generally does not last for more than two years and is followed by a long fallow period of eight to ten years to allow the land to regain its fertility. However, in recent years, the regeneration cycles have been getting reduced to three to four years for want of sufficient land to fulfil the need of an ever increasing population. The practice of jhum has overwhelmingly influenced population mobility, material culture, and settlement patterns among the many hill tribes of Northeast India, which continue to adapt, evolve, and define traditions in relation to this system of farming. As jhum is practised by the community, shifting cultivation is imbued with a special significance in local ethos for being instrumental in defining social relationships, culture, and mythical beliefs. In the Tani tradition, the legendary ancestor Abotani is believed to have been taught the technique of jhum by the goddess Mopin (Rawat, Bomchak, and Teniya 2010). Ramakrishnan notes that ‘with over a hundred ethnic groups in this region, each with its own language and culture-specific dance, music, festivals and ceremonies linked with the shifting agricultural calendar, the result is a complex set of natural cultural (p.243) landscapes that provides an ecocultural identity’ (2007: 93). Several taboos along with different rites, rituals, and festivals developed in relation to agricultural activities. Evidently, the festivals and rituals followed by the communities living in the plains of Assam are related to lowland rice cultivation, whereas the festivals of the hill folk are invariably attached to the jhum agricultural cycle. These agricultural systems, both on the plains and in the hills, have stood the test of time and so have the festivals that developed side-by-side as a reflection of the many sentiments and feelings experienced in the process: the joy of harvest, an abiding respect for nature, a steadfast commitment to the effort and labour involved, and a shared responsibility towards the crop as well as towards the community as a whole. The jhum lands, mostly community-owned, are regulated by a village council, the decisions of which are honoured and strictly followed by the community. Where there is no flat land available for wet rice cultivation, land at the bottom of two hill slopes are selected. Terraces are developed at the bases of hill slopes to store water. The eroded fertile soil of the hills from jhum cultivation finds Page 24 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals itself at the base, acting as fertilizer for the paddy crop grown at the bottom. Besides the common lowland paddy cultivation in the plains and the jhum cultivation in the hills, there are several other cultivation systems operating in different landscapes, indicating a rich diversity in farming systems. In the rainfed and stream-fed areas of the Apatani plateau of Arunachal Pradesh, the Apatani community practices settled agriculture. The community has developed a mechanism for stream water irrigation. Rice is grown in the wetlands, where water is abundant, while other crops are grown in homesteads. Terrace cultivation in Meghalaya is a recent phenomenon. Rice Culture

Rice, one of the most widely cultivated crops since the Early Neolithic period, has shaped the culture and diet of the people occupying a large part of the Asian landmass, contributing largely towards their historical development. Arguably, rice can be considered the root of civilization in these areas. In Northeast India, rice is a staple food tied to the everyday life of the people, influencing local festivals, rituals, dance, songs, and general folklore. This grain is also used to prepare rice (p.244) beer, a drink vital for ethnic communities. In most local languages, the word used to signify food is usually the word for rice. This ubiquitous pattern of homonymy is not surprising, since all meals, breakfast, lunch, and dinner, include rice and rice items. When consumed at mealtime, rice is called bhat (boiled rice) in Assamese, as a tiffin jalpan (snacks), as a dessert pitha (cake), and as an offering to the deities proxad, and as a drink xaaj (rice beer). A local idiom says adinot sari bela sari xaji ‘rice is partaken of four times a day’. Glutinous rice is consumed mostly at breakfast and is used to prepare cakes. There are several ways of preparing rice dishes in Northeast India. Commonly, rice is boiled and also steamed in a bowl or in bamboo tubes and even soaked. The farmers of Assam use the bora variety for glutinous rice. The Sakua variety of rice, which is semi-glutinous, is used for preparing komal saul (soft rice), and the aromatic joha rice is comparable to the basmati rice grown in mainland India. Joha rice is known for its fragrance and high price. Another widely used variety is sakua dhan (rice), used to prepare the traditional komal saul, which occupies a special place in the traditional Assamese cuisine. Komal saul is made soft and edible by soaking the rice in water for one to two hours. In summer, the popular poita bhat is a variety of cooked rice which has been soaked overnight. The bora variety is used to prepare pitha, sira (boiled and flattened rice in husk), xandoh (roasted and ground rice), muri (puffed rice), and akhoi (puffed rice) during the festive season, especially during Bihu. This variety is also used to prepare xaaj by the Ahom community of Assam. At the festival of Bihu, different varieties of pithas are prepared: ghila pitha, til pitha, bhapotdiya pitha, tekeli pitha, muthiya pitha, xutuli pitha, kholasapori pitha, and sunga pitha. The bora rice is high in amylopectin, which makes the rice sticky and glutinous. After the Page 25 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals harvesting of sali rice, it is customary to have sunga saul or rice cooked in bamboo tubes. Komal saul made of the Sakua variety is convenient to prepare and ready to eat after soaking in water for an hour. The rice is first properly boiled (dhan bohua), then sun dried (rodua) on a tarpaulin made of bamboo strips known as dhari, and then dehusked, (dhan bona) by the womenfolk. This method of boiling unhusked rice is applied to other rice varieties as well to prepare ukhua or uhua saul (boiled rice). Unboiled rice is commonly known as aroi saul. It is worth noting that traditional rice varieties are named (p.245) after specific characteristics or morphological features, for instance, bor (big), xoru (small), dighol (long), and suti (short) refer to the size, ronga (red) and kola (black) refer to the colour, da (deep) and baam (shallow) refer to their adaptability to land, and glutinous or non-glutinous refers to the endosperm types. Traditional varieties are generally preferred by the farmers, even though the prevalence of improved modern varieties supplied by government agencies is on the rise. Traditional Rice Beer Culture

Preparing rice beer is a common cultural practice among most tribal groups of Northeast India. This drink has high nutritional value and is intoxicating in nature. Rice beer forms a part of the daily caloric intake of these people and also acts as a medicine. Rice beer is highly valued by the tribal groups and is a must at their festive and religious occasions. Deka and Sarma (2010: 459), while describing the herbs used in the preparation of rice beer by the Rabha tribe of the Goalpara district of Assam, also list the vernacular names of rice beer in languages spoken by some of the tribal groups, for example, apong in Adi, bunkchung in Monpa, chi in Lepcha, laopani in Aka, ijaduijang in Naga, jumai in Bodo, suze in Deori, morpo in Karbi, chu in Garo, poka in Galo, jou in Mech and Dimasa, zu in Tiwa, apong in Mishing, laopani and mod in Assamese. The rice beer making process involves the preparation of cakes by using parts of several plants. Rabhas use parts of plants such as Ananas comosus (pineapple), Artocarpus heterophyllus (jackfruit), Calotropis gigantean (crown flower), Capsicum frutescens (chilli pepper), Cleodendrum viscosum (hill glory bower, a perennial shrub), Dennstaedtia scabra (a fern), Ochthochloa coracana (a grass), Plumbago indica (Indian leadwort), Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane), and Scoparia dulcis (goat weed) (Deka and Sarma 2010: 460). The process of preparing rice beer documented by Tanti and colleagues (2010) is similar across tribal groups, including the substrate employed as a source of carbon. There are slight differences from one tribal group to another due to indigenous variation, especially in the use of different plant additives. The study also listed the sources of the starter culture with their local names and the plants used in preparation, taking into account a large number of ethnic (p.246) groups such as the Dimasa Kachari, Karbi, Ahom, Mishing, Bodo, Meithei, Apatani, Nepali, Angami, and Khasi.

Page 26 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals Agricultural Cycle and Festivals

Most festivals, rites, and rituals in the Northeast have an agricultural basis: (a) the beginning of the new agricultural cycle, preparation of the land, sowing, and transplantation, (b) protecting the crops, and (c) harvesting. Bihu, the most important festival cycle of Assam, consists of three celebrations with these three stages of the agricultural cycle of the sali rice farming system as its theme. Accordingly, Bihu is celebrated thrice in a year: mid-April (Bohag Bihu or Rongali Bihu), mid-October (Kati Bihu or Kongali Bihu), and mid-January (Magh or Bhogali Bihu). Bohag Bihu or Rongali Bihu corresponds with the start of the agricultural cycle and therefore with ploughing and the sowing of seeds. It is celebrated with great joy and the Bihu dance is an important component of the festival. Kati Bihu corresponds with the completion of sowing and transplantation and the growing of seedlings. Magh Bihu corresponds with the harvest. Bohag Bihu marks the first day of the Assamese calendar. On the first day, known as Goru (cow) Bihu, cows are taken to a water source and ceremonially bathed and then worshiped with garlands. Vegetables such as gourd, brinjal or eggplant, turmeric, and bitter gourd are offered with ceremonial singing: lau kha, bengena kha, bosore bosore barhi ja, maar xoru, baper xoru, toi hobi bor goru (eat gourd, eat brinjal and get stronger year after year; your mother and father are small, but you will become a big cow). The old tethers are removed and new tethers known as pogha made of the tora plant are tied to the cattle in the evening. Pitha is also offered. A heap of rice husk and straw from the makhiloti or dighaloti trees is lit as incense to ward off flies, mosquitoes, and potential illness. Another symbolically important aspect is the hat known as a japi, a symbol of Assamese art and culture, which is used by the farmer in the paddy field as protection from sun and rain. Different kinds of pitha and jalpan are prepared in households to be served to family members and guests. The presentation of a gift of the gamosa (a cloth made on a traditional handloom) is a sign of respect, honour, and love among the Assamese people. The Bihu dance is the most popular folk dance form of Assam, in which anyone (p.247) can participate irrespective of age and sex. A variety of musical instruments such as the dhol (drum), taal (clash cymbals), toka (an instrument made of bamboo), and gogona (a kind of jaw harp made of bamboo) are played along with a variety of Bihu songs during Rongali Bihu. Bihu reflects the rich cultural heritage of Assam. During Kati Bihu, a sacred oil lamp known as akax bonti (sky lamp) is lit in the paddy field as an offering to god to protect the crops from pests and insects, to nurture the crop, and to ensure a good harvest. Earthen lamps are also lit at granaries and under a tulasi ‘holy basil’ plant. The light of these fires may attract insects which get burnt when they come close to the flames. After the transplantation is complete, bhat pitha khua (eating of rice cake), a household ceremony, is observed. Bhat pitha (rice cake) is also offered—it is made of rice powder and is generally boiled and eaten with curd, milk, and jaggery. The na Page 27 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals khua (eating of new rice) ceremony is observed after the harvest in the naamghar (the prayer hall) and at home with the neighbours. Magh Bihu is celebrated after the harvesting season, when there is no scarcity of food and the storage bins are full of rice. As part of the celebration, bhela ghars (cottages) of rice straw and dried banana leaves are constructed in barren rice fields, where the men and boys of the community organize a bhoj (grand feast) that lasts the whole night. In the morning, temple-like formations called meji, consisting of piled up firewood, bamboo, and rice straw along with bamboo poles, are set on fire. Offerings are made to the meji for Agni Devata, the god of fire. It is believed that spreading the resultant ash from the auspicious fire brings fertility to the soil of the paddy fields and the home gardens. On the day of gooj lua (the first day of transplanting), a custom dictates that alongside paddy other plants such as banana, yam, and bamboo must be planted. According to folklore, this practice is considered essential for a good harvest because it is believed to encourage the rice plant to grow as tall as bamboo, have a stem as thick as that of a banana tree, and have roots as strong as those of a yam plant. On the last day of harvesting, after the harvesting of the paddy, a neatly prepared bundle of straw wrapped with banana leaf and a gamosa is brought home. The rite, known as Lakhimi ona, symbolizes the bringing home of Lakhimi, the goddess of wealth. (p.248) The Tiwa, a Tibeto-Burman linguistic community of the Brahmaputran branch, use a variety of wild paddy grown in the hills only to perform a ritual during Lakshmi puja. A few pre-pubescent girls are given the task of collecting the wild paddy from the hills, where it grows naturally in stony terrain. The name of the paddy is Jakoi Sila dhan, named after the shape of the place where it is grown, with the word jakoi signifying ‘fishing basket’. For the ritual, a handful of grains from every household in the community is collected and mixed with the wild grain. These grains in turn are distributed among the families and preserved for cultivation in the following year. This practice is believed to ensure a good future harvest for the participating households (Barua and Das 2006: 25). With slight variations across tribal groups, this same agricultural theme recurs, underscoring the unity of an ecological motif in religious practice within great cultural and linguistic diversity. A large number of religious rituals are performed by way of thanksgiving or as prayer ceremonies either to propitiate the deities in order to secure the guarantee of a good harvest or to satisfy the hungry appetites of evil spirits. Animals such as pigs, fowls, and mithuns are commonly sacrificed in festivals. Several festivals celebrate the stages of jhum cultivation depicted in the folk songs such as the eme laamayo eme and ojo tojo maaya of the Galo tribe of Arunachal Pradesh. These songs are intimately tied to the traditional calendar of jhum activity and its related rites and rituals. V. Gupta (2005) has recorded the Page 28 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals traditional jhum calendar of the Bangnis of Arunachal Pradesh and details the months and the corresponding agricultural activities. The Bangnis follow natural indicators as time markers for conducting their agricultural activities, which are closely related to ecological changes in each month—this practice is similar to that of the Karbis, who were mentioned in Chapter 5. The Mopin festival is practised by the Gallong community of Arunachal Pradesh during the month of April, prior to sowing paddy, while Solung is celebrated after the sowing of seeds for seeking blessings for a good harvest. Aoleang Monyu, the main festival of the Konyak, is observed in the first week of April to get blessings for a good harvest. Chapchar Kut is the most popular festival of Mizoram, celebrated after the completion of the most laborious task of jungle clearing for jhum operations. The Moastu festival is performed by (p.249) the Ao Naga in the month of May, after the sowing, while the Behdienkhlam festival is celebrated by the Jaintias after the sowing period in July. The Ka Pomblang Nongkrem festival is one of the most significant festivals of the Khasis of Meghalaya, celebrated in the first week of November to commemorate the harvest season, while the Wangala is performed after the harvesting season, generally in the month of November. The latter is essentially a ‘thanksgiving’ ceremony to celebrate a rich harvest. In the Garo Hills, some of the festivals celebrated associated with jhum are Agalmaka, celebrated before the burning of the dried biomass, Rongchugala before harvesting, Ahaia after harvesting, and Wangala after the completion all jhum activities. Some of the common aspects of these festivals are the following: 1. These are performed throughout the year according to the agricultural cycle. 2. Among these, the most important festivals are two in number: one celebrated before starting the process of cultivation and the other after harvesting. 3. Most of them are community festivals. 4. They are celebrated to ensure a good harvest, health, and prosperity. 5. Rice beer is essential to the celebration and is prepared and served on a large scale to everyone irrespective of age and gender. 6. Sacrificing animals such as fowls, pigs, goats, and mithuns is customary in most festivals to satisfy benevolent and malevolent gods and spirits, to prevent natural calamities. 7. Dance, song, and music form an integral part of these festivals. 8. The whole community wears traditional costumes and ornaments during the festival which is celebrated with great enthusiasm and deep respect. These periodic festivals, rites, and rituals observed by different communities at important stages of the cultivation act as reminders of shared responsibilities among jhum farmers. Page 29 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals Banana

Cultivated bananas and plantains are giant herbaceous plants within the genus Musa. The study conducted by Carreel and colleagues (p.250) (2002) to analyse the origins of more than 300 Musa genotypes suggests that most of the Musa cultivars are linked to two subspecies of Musa acuminata, that is, Musa acuminata banksii and Musa acuminata errans, through their mitochondrial genomes. The vast majority of the cultivated bananas (Pollefeys, Sharrock, and Arnaud 2004) are derived from inter-specific and intra-specific crosses between two diploid (2n = 2x = 22) wild species, Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana (Simmonds and Shepherd 1955). These observations are supported by recent studies, for example, Wong and colleagues (2001: 1017–25), showing that edible bananas originated from the hybridization of two wild banana species, Musa acuminata Colla and Musa balbisiana Colla, occurring in plenty in this region. Northeast India is well known for the diversity of banana and wild banana, both of which are grown widely in the hilly tracts. They occur at both low and high altitudes of the Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills, Nagaland, the Patkai range, and the Garo Hills. The wild Musa varieties grown in this region are Musa itinerans, Musa nagensium, Musa aurantiaca, Musa acuminata, Musa balbisiana, Musa ornata, Musa rosaceae, Musa sikkimensis, Musa cheesmani, Musa flaviflor, Musa velutina, Musa laterita, Musa sanguinea, Musa mannii, and Musa rubra (Häkkinen and Sharrock 2002; Subbaraya 2006). Musa balbisiana, one of the parents of many edible seedless bananas, is extremely robust, fast-growing, and drought resistant (Ploetz et al. 2007). Musa is one of the chief plants grown by the shifting slash-and-burn cultivators of Northeast India. Consequently, bananas play an important role in the life and culture of the people. Bhimkol, a variety of Musa balbisiana is intensively cultivated and used variously. This particular variety finds its place in the backyards of most households, along with other commonly consumed varieties such as jahaji, barjahaji, manjahaji, senia, manohar, senichampa, Bharat moni, and jatikol. The plantain kaskol or purakol is consumed most frequently and is considered to have medicinal value. The ash and juice from the pseudostem, the stalk of the inflorescence, the roots and the flowers, the fruit and its peel of various wild and domestic Musa species are used as medicine by the local community. Buds of several wild, semi-wild, and domestic varieties of the Musa species are consumed by the local people. Besides the consumption of kol (the banana fruit), koldil or kolphul (buds), suckers, shoots, and the (p.251) kol posola (inner core of the pseudostem), and the leaves are also used as dishes in which food is served and as sacred serving dishes during religious ceremonies. Musa is used as a medicinal plant, whereby its fruit peel is used to prepare khar (alkali) used in several local recipes. Musa is a fruit, a medicine, a beverage, and a fibre for

Page 30 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals making cloth. Its flowers are edible, and the plant yields dye, fuel, cordage, and wrapping material. In spite of the occurrence of a number of Musa species in Northeast India, little effort has been made to understand its early domestication. The presence of several wild and domesticated varieties of bananas and their common use by the inhabitants suggest a possible long history of banana cultivation in this part of India. Based on the geographical distribution as well as taxonomical and cytogenetic studies, A.K. Chakravorty (1951) suggested that the region encompassing Assam, Burma, Siam, and Indochina was the place of origin of Musa. While reviewing banana cultivation in South and East Asia, and incorporating evidence from archaeology and linguistics, Fuller and Madella (2009: 346) mention the limited nature of archaeobotanical evidence, especially in regard to the regions considered vital to banana cultivation, namely Northeast India and southern China from Yúnnán to Guangdong. This absence is mainly due to the absence of sampling. What is required is a more systematic collection of phytolith data, which would gradually help to fill the gaps in the distribution of bananas in South Asia, East Asia, and mainland Southeast Asia over time. It has been said that the seeds of the banana found in an archaeological context could provide fruitful results (de Langhe 2009: 271–81). Citrus

Northeast India is one of the richest centres of Citrus genetic diversity, with as many as 17 Citrus species, 52 cultivars, and 7 probable natural hybrids, some of them having been reported to have originated in the region (Bhattacharya and Dutta 1956). On the basis of genetic data on Citrus, Sharma, Hore, and Gupta (2004) indicate the presence of 23 species, 1 subspecies, and 68 varieties, indicating a treasure house of Citrus germplasm in the Northeast, where the climate and soil factors are highly favourable for plant growth and fruit quality. (p.252) Citrus indica and Citrus macroptera are two wild endangered species of Citrus occurring in this region (Malik et al. 2006). Citrus indica is supposed to be the most primitive species and perhaps the progenitor of cultivated Citrus (B. Singh 1981). Sharma, Hore, and Gupta (2004) recorded some of the citrus species found, for instance, Citrus jambhiri, Citrus medica, Citrus limon, Citrus karna, Citrus auraniifolia, Citrus limetta, Citrus nobilis, Citrus aurantiifolia, Citrus nobilis, Citrus indica, Citrus aurantium, Citrus lamittoides, Citrus grandis, Citrus sinensis, Citrus maxima, Citrus megaloxycarpa, Citrus assamensis, Citrus crenatifolia, Citrus macroptera, Citrus ichangensis, Citus latipes, Citrus juko, Citrus kinesu, Citrus sechen, Citrus serotina, Citrus tanaka, and so on. Nemu tenga (Citrus limon) is the most common Citrus variety grown in every household. The robab tenga or pomelo (Citrus maxima or Citrus grandis) is a very popular Citrus species of the region. The presence of some Citrus species in a wild or semi-wild form, growing in the forests of the region as well as the Page 31 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals natural diversity of undisturbed populations of Citrus has led to the conjecture that the origin of several Citrus species may have lain in this region. Roots and Tubers

In Northeast India, the economically and socially significant tropical tuber crops are cassava (Manihot esculenta), sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), the greater yam (Dioscorea alata), the lesser yam (Dioscorea esculenta), white yam (Dioscorea rotundata), potato yams (Dioscorea bulbifera var. sativa) and elephant foot yams (Amorphophallus paeoniifolius). The Asiatic yam (Dioscorea alata), alongside its possible ancestral species, Dioscorea persimilis and Dioscorea hamiltonii, grows wild in great diversity (Edison et al. 2006), alongside some other Dioscorea species such as Dioscorea brevipetiolata, Dioscorea hispida, Dioscorea kamaonensis, Dioscorea nummularia, Dioscorea pentaphylla, Dioscorea puber, and Dioscorea quinata (Asati and Yadav 2004). Taro, Colocasia esculenta of the Araceae family, is an important widely distributed food crop in this region. The kosu thur (foliage), bao (stems), and guti (roots) are consumed by the local inhabitants. A commonly held view is that the place of origin and domestication of taro was Southeast Asia, particularly the regions of what today constitutes Burma and Bangladesh (Plucknett 1976). Kuruvilla and Singh (p.253) (1981) proposed Northeast India as the place of origin of taro, based on their study on the karyotypes and electrophoretic pattern of taro strains from the Indian state of the Meghalaya. Matthews (1991) also suggested Northeast India or Southeast Asia as the place of origin of domesticated taro, since the ‘wild type’ Colocasia esculenta var. aquatilis, is found here. The time and place of the domestication of taro remain controversial (Blench 2012). While discussing the vernacular names for taro in the IndoPacific region, Blench (2012) opined that in this region the local names are likely to signify the original terms used for wild aroids, which had probably been locally transferred to taro along the way. Taro has as many as 114 genetic accessions out of the total 424 recorded in India (Edison et al. 2004). In Northeast India, the wild varieties of taro are used as vegetables and as medicine. Based on linguistics and ecological data, it has been suggested that Austroasiatic speakers were either the original domesticators of taro or ‘early adopters’ at least as far as mainland Southeast Asia is concerned (Blench 2012: 26). He also claims that there is virtually no lexical evidence for taro cultigens having been imported into Northeast India, which suggests the possibility of a separate domestication event.

Domestic Animals and Their Wild Counterparts Looking at the rich diversity and suitability of growth and development of various wild animal species in the region, it is likely that Northeast India might also have played an important role in the early domestication of several animal species. The domestication process, involving human control over generations, alters the physical appearance, behaviour, nature, and life cycle of the animals. Page 32 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals Most of the animals are used for meat consumption or milking, while some are used in agriculture for ploughing and other activities, where their brute strength is recruited by man. Cattle Species

One of the significant domesticated mammalian groups is cattle and related species. The domesticated variety includes humped (Bos indicus) and humpless (Bos taurus) cattle, the yak (Poephagus grunniens), the mithun (Bos frontalis), banteng or tsaine (Bos banteng), and buffalo (Bos bubalus bubalis). The Asian wild buffalo (Bubalus (p.254) bubalis) is one of the four wild oxen species found in India (Prater 1965). Another species that merits mention is the gaur (Bos gaurus) (Mathur, Malik, Muley 1995). Hilly areas are well known for bovids and are an important genetic reservoir. The gaur is believed to be the wild progenitor of the semi-domestic mithun (Bos frontalis) (Rajkhowa et al. 2004: 821–9), a ceremonial ox of the hill tribes of Assam, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Burma. These are found with the wild yak (Bos mutus) and the domestic yak (Bos grunniens) (Williamson and Payne 1978). Gaur (Bos gaurus), also known as the Indian bison, is widely distributed in the Himalayan foothills from the Narayani River throughout north Bengal to the Siang River in the Mishmi Hills, the Daphabum Range, Patkai Range, Naga Hills, Barail Range, Mizo Hills, the hill tracts of Chittagong, Tripura, and Manipur, and the Meghalaya plateau (A.U. Choudhury 2002: 199–226). The tribal people here encourage interbreeding between these wild and domestic species, indicating a long tradition of familiarity with these animals. Genetic evidence suggests that the eastern end of the Himalayas could have been the area where the domestication of yak took place (Xue-bin et al. 2008). There is increasing data on the domestication of various Bovidae species such as mithun (Bos frontalis), popularly known as ‘cattle of mountains’ (Mondal and Pal 1999), and the yak (Bos grunniens), known as the ‘hinterlander’s camel’ (D.N. Das et al. 1998) in a region comprising southern China, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Northeast India. Buffaloes and bullocks are the common domestic animals for the people of Assam living on the plains, and these animals are used for different agricultural activities such as ploughing, threshing, pulling bullock carts, and transporting goods. It is a common sight during Bihu to have a person sing and play the flute on the back of a buffalo. The horn of the buffalo is used for making the pepa (flute), which is essential to the Bihu dance. During the harvesting festival Magh Bihu, celebrated in the month of Magh (January/February), the buffalo is used for the common game of moh jhuj (buffalo fight). The buffalo is used as a dairy animal and its dung as manure.

Page 33 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals There is an interesting method of preparing the fields for wet cultivation in remote hilly areas. A few buffaloes are led by people to trample the earth until it is not puddled and has thereby been (p.255) rendered amenable for transplantation. In this method, neither a plough nor hoe is used (Sarkar and Chowdhury 2000). My fieldwork among the Karbis of the Kamrup district of Assam reveals that this practice of preparing fields was prevalent in the recent past, but is presently slowly losing currency. The domestic water buffalo is a descendant of the wild Asian water buffalo, which is fast becoming an endangered species. These bovids are easily observable in the swamps and grass jungles and in the national parks and sanctuaries. The domestic water buffalo has also been observed to graze in the habitats of the wild buffalo, and they interbreed. The mithun likewise interbreeds with the related species—the gaur, taurine cattle, and the yak (Rajkhowa et al. 2004: 821–9). One can tame a mithun by offering it common salt. Mithuns are still kept in semi-wild conditions in forest areas under the freegrazing system, as there is nobody to look after them (Rajkhowa et al. 2004: 821–9). These animals are highly valued, and they play an important role in the daily life of many tribal peoples of Arunachal Pradesh. Possessing a mithun is considered to be a sign of prosperity. The animal is used as a marriage gift, is sacrificed at cultural ceremonies and rituals, and is also consumed for its meat (Shisode et al. 2009: 480–1). Elephants

India harbours more than 50 per cent of the wild Asian elephant population and about 20 per cent of the captive elephant population of Asia (Bist et al. 2002). India has a fascinating history of domesticating wild elephants. The elephant has a special status in the life and culture of the people of Assam and, until recently, it was a sign of high rank. The elephant is used for logging operations, transportation, pulling heavy goods, and pulling logs in the forests and hilly areas. Wild elephants are captured in two ways: in the first process, wild herds of elephants are driven to an improvised rampart, and as soon as the herd enters through the gates, the gates are closed. The captured elephants are then tamed and trained with the existing kunki (trained elephants) and the entire process in known as kheda-sikar. In the second system, trained elephants are engaged by phandis (elephant catchers) in a wild herd, and a noose is cast onto the necks of selected wild elephants and (p.256) the process is known as mela-sikar. Melasikar was very popular until recently. There used to be a close association between a mahout (the keeper and rider) and a phandi (nooser) in Assam, but this tradition is no longer very active.

Silkworms Three different varieties of silk, commonly known as Assam silks, are produced in Northeast India as an age-old tradition. They are muga (Antheraea assama), eri (Samia ricini), and pat (Bombyx textor) silk. The traditional dress of most of Page 34 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals the Assamese people, worn extensively even today in villages, is made of these silk varieties. The silkworms for producing the muga and the eri varieties are endemic (S.N. Chowdhury 1970). One of the main production centres of these dresses is the Sualkuchi village located in the Kamrup district of Assam. There are several wild and semi-wild silkworms (Chatterjee and Tanushree 2004) such as the semi-wild Antheraea assama (muga), the wild Antheraea roylei, and the domestic Philosomia cynthia, which are found locally and are used in traditional silk production. Jolly and Sen (1974) expressed the view that Northeast India and the Eastern Himalayan region might have been the ‘epicentre’ or place of origin for other Antheraea species. The domesticated silkworm Bombyx mori is derived from a species native to north India, Assam, and Bengal, known as Bombyx mandarina (Good 2002). Long ago, Watt (1905) suggested that the original homeland of Bombyx mori was Manipur. The presence of domestic Bombyx mori and its nearest wild relative, Bombyx mandarina (Goldsmith, Shimada, and Abe 2004), with several other silkworm species indicate that Northeast India was a site of domestication of silkworms in ancient times. Varadarajan (1988: 564) hypothesized that the muga, the tasar, and possibly also the eri worms were indigenous to the Northeast.

What Does the Archaeology of Northeast India Have to Say about Early Plant and Animal Domestication? Neolithic is the ‘revolutionary’ period marked by a new way of life when man acquired the knowledge of producing food by domesticating certain plants and animals. The Neolithic age was a turning point (p.257) in human history. Until this time, humans were hunter-gatherers without the knowledge of food production. The transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic ways of life, during the beginning of the Holocene period, witnessed a switch in the nature of the economy of our ancestors, who progressed from food gathering to food producing. The Neolithic was no single event, and the transition occurred at different times in different places across the world. Recent discoveries on the Gangetic plain, the Yangtze valley, and on the periphery of Northeast India have begun to shed light on the Neolithic era in these areas. Particularly, new findings from different sites have pushed back the antiquity of Neolithic origins and the development of early farming communities. Even though the Neolithic sites in the area have not yet yielded any substantial amount of plant and animal fossil remains, there is great scope for archaeological research in this region with potential bearing on early domestications. Alternatively, the inhabitants practising hunting-gathering in this region during the Early Holocene period might have been inspired by the ‘first farming communities’ in the adjacent areas of the Gangetic and Yangtze River valleys. At any rate, ancient contact has been demonstrated in the archaeological record of these regions. Shouldered celts of all varieties, miniature quadrangular celts, perforated celts, cord-impressed pottery, and rice agriculture are some of the important characteristic features of the Neolithic Page 35 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals cultures of Eastern India, China, and Southeast Asia. The archaeological record indicates strong influence of the Neolithic assemblages in adjacent parts of what today is China for the origin and development of the Neolithic culture of this region (Hazarika 2006b). One of the recent theories on the origins of rice cultivation based on archaeological data indicates a time at around 10,000 years BP for the Yangtze basin and 8,000 years BP for the Gangetic plain. Northeast India must have straddled the route of dissemination of rice cultivation from the East into the subcontinent around 5,000 years BP, but we have no clear archaeological evidence for this to date from areas such as Bangladesh and Burma owing to poor preservation and a lack of research (Shinde 2002: 89–115). The available linguistic data suggest a late transition from foraging to farming in certain areas of Northeast India, particularly in Arunachal Pradesh and some other hilly areas where residual foraging played a major role in subsistence. Farming was probably (p.258) relatively late due to an abundance of natural food resources available through gathering and hunting. Tubers like taro and yam and fruits like bananas may be of considerable antiquity in the region, antedating the Neolithic period. The domestication of these plants probably took place in Northeast India (Blench 2013). The rich diversity of various plants and animals provides a clue for identifying Northeast India as an important zone for the domestication process. Several domestic plants and animals and their wild counterparts co-exist here, leaving open the possibility of domestication. Furthermore, genetic evidence supports the view that this region was a centre of origin of many plants and animals. What we need is focussed archaeological research to be able to test this hypothesis on the basis of hard and chronologically secure archaeological data and to corroborate those findings with palaeobotanical, archaeozoological, and palaeoenviornmental evidence. Further study of the biodiversity in the wild relatives of crop plants is very important in this respect, and could also help agricultural scientists to develop better crops. This region is situated at the nexus of the South Asian, Southeast Asian, and East Asian biogeographical realms and harbours diverse biota, providing a unique opportunity to archaeologists and anthropologists for the study of the relationship between man and his environment over the ages. Moreover, this region, the abode of diverse ethnic groups with diverse cultures and customs, hints at a long history of continuous and close association between humans and nature, which is important in the understanding of plant and animal domestications. Pollen and phytolith analyses can be very useful for gathering information about the early domestication process of plants and their dispersal patterns. Genetic analysis of present-day domesticates with their wild counterparts may provide valuable insights into their differentiation, time of

Page 36 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals domestication, and changes in their morphological traits through control by humans. The archaeological differentiation of the phytoliths of wild and domestic rice varieties may prove useful. It has been claimed that a discriminant analysis and classification of unknown glume bodies into three groups, namely domestic, wild, and indeterminate varieties, provides accurate data for tracing the early history of rice (Zhao et al. 1998). Moreover, for ascertaining the origin, evolution, and differentiation of wild and crop plants, modern molecular methods can (p.259) obtain better results than the mere study of morphological characteristics. The diversity of the taxa found in this region should be analysed and compared with the taxa found in the better studied regions using molecular methods. In view of the rich repertoire of wild varieties of rice in the region, there is a pressing need for systematic conservation, which will conserve the natural genetic diversity before it is lost due to human interference and natural and climatic deterioration. There is ample scope to document the traditional knowledge of farmers with regard to their capacity to produce high yields of different cultivars. Grain size and weight, the number of grains and panicles in each variety, and the reasons for choosing a particular variety are all part of traditional knowledge which should be preserved, just as the cultivars themselves should be protected from extinction. It is yet to be understood whether early farmers were growing rice in upland or lowland areas of Northeast India. There seems to be no agreement among experts as to whether rice was initially a dryland crop, which was later adapted to wet conditions or vice versa. A study conducted by Ishikawa and colleagues (2002: 976–80) revealed variation in the upland and lowland populations of rice, reflecting distinct origins for the Japanese lowland and upland populations. Compared to the Japanese lowland population, the Japanese upland rice population has unique nuclear genes and cytoplasm. The studies hinted at the relationship between the Japanese and the Southeast Asian upland cultivars, and suggested interesting scenarios for the introduction of rice plants and genetic materials into Japan. As in the case of East Asia where most of the rice remains of considerable antiquity come from archaeological sites located in the foothill areas or the bases of foothills (Nakamura 2010), there is every possibility of a similar situation in the case of Northeast India. More efforts are needed for exploring the Himalayan foothills and elevated areas of the other hills which may provide hardcore evidence for understanding the problem of domestication of rice as well as other crops. George van Driem (2012a; 2012b; 2012c) has emphasized the need for archaeological and palaeobotanical research in this part of India that would definitely provide hard scientific evidence to throw light on the hypothesis made by linguists and rice geneticists on the deep antiquity of rice cultivation. He argues for substantial work being needed in Northeast India, Page 37 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Northeast India as an Indigenous Centre for the Domestication of Plants and Animals Bangladesh, the Indo-Burmese borderlands, and (p.260) Burma. However, van Driem also alerts us on the recoverability of rice agricultural sites in the Brahmaputra flood plain which must have got buried under silty sediments or may have been washed out by the river long ago and could presently lie submerged in the depths of the Bay of Bengal (van Driem 2012c: 120). It is very likely that horizontal excavation may reveal agricultural field systems and water management systems useful for an understanding of early agricultural patterns. Ethnographic data on present-day society and the close association with wild plants and animals is valuable for inferring parallels to the early domestication process. The abundant availability of fish and other aquatic fauna in water sources might have helped early settlers with additional food resources, supplementing the hunting of wild animals and the gathering of wild edible plants. Can we find out whether agriculture arrived late in Northeast India, or whether cultigens such as rice were first domesticated here? Ecologically, Northeast India was an ideal place for developing a village-based settlement of early farming communities. Moreover, the first inhabitants of the Northeast may have been so-called ‘affluent hunter-gatherers’ because of the ease with which they could sustain themselves with the abundantly available natural food resources. The domestication of plants in this region could have begun very early, and the early ‘affluent’ hunter-gatherers would have had the leisure to innovate. In this regard, the absence of archaeological evidence is not the evidence of absence of archaeological record. Rather, the absence of archaeological evidence represents evidence for the absence of systematic archaeological research and underscores the pressing need for such research into the early domestication of plants and animals. Detailed systematic explorations and excavations with a multidisciplinary approach for recording the evidence of early human activity and for recovering the fossilized plants and animal remains are urgently required. When we finally have sufficient scientific archaeological investigations in this region, the evidence can then be carefully evaluated in relation to possible climatic changes, especially during the final Pleistocene and Holocene periods in Northeast India.

Access brought to you by:

Page 38 of 38

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Synthesis and Conclusion

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

Synthesis and Conclusion Manjil Hazarika

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199474660.003.0007

Abstract and Keywords This volume is the first systematic attempt to address the prehistory of Northeast India by combining multidisciplinary data based on archaeological, linguistic, genetic, folkloristic, ethnographic, and ethnobiological information. The book has put forward a strong case for a multidisciplinary approach to archaeological research in areas such as Northeast India, where archaeological record is extremely fragmentary. The book empirically demonstrates the contributions of the Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman linguistic communities in the making of the prehistoric scenario of Northeast India. Prehistoric movements of these linguistic groups in different directions throughout Northeast India are in evidence. This concluding chapter synthesizes the data presented in the previous chapters, attempts to draw conclusions, and explores the scope for future directions of research in the region. Keywords:   multidisciplinary data, archaeology, linguistic, genetic, folkloristic, ethnographic, conclusions, future research

The study of … the evolution of Indian culture and history has not been done proper justice to as yet.… Can we think of Indian History and Civilisation, particularly in Eastern India, without the contributions of … the Koch, Kachari … and other Bodo people, the Ahoms, the Jaintias and the Manipuris? —Suniti Kumar Chatterji (1974: 183–4)

Page 1 of 11

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Synthesis and Conclusion Prehistoric Evidence Some important archaeological discoveries made during the 21st century in India have significant implications for the overall cultural history of the Indian subcontinent. First and foremost are the recent dates obtained at the site of Attirampakkam in Tamil Nadu, which have pushed back the antiquity of the Acheulean culture in India to 1.5 million years (Pappu et al. 2011). This has contributed in a large way to the long-standing debate on the earliest human settlement in this part of Asia, which is often considered to be a major crossroads of human movement from Africa, the cradle of humankind, to the Far East, which in turn has also yielded evidence of early human presence since the Late Pliocene/Early Pleistocene. While discussing the dispersal routes of early hominids from Africa to the Far East through South Asia, one cannot deny the importance of Northeast India or the entire eastern Himalayan region due to its strategic location as a corridor for faunal and early human dispersals. Many Early Palaeolithic sites, occasionally associated with skeletal remains, are found in the neighbouring areas of Nepal, southern China, (p.262) northern Thailand, and Burma, and these are dated to the Early and Middle Pleistocene. If Northeast India acted as a corridor for these dispersals and early hominid movements, there are ample possibilities for the existence of many unexplored sites. Two potential dispersal routes may be identified: (a) the uplands along the Himalayan foothills and (b) the coastal and waterways route into Southeast Asia from West Asia along the coast of South Asia and Burma. However, it may be surmised that the sub-recent alluvial deposits of the Brahmaputra valley may not give fruitful results for such an antiquity of human presence. Vigorous sedimentation might have covered earlier deposits bearing artefacts or, if there ever were any, they may have been washed away. This salient circumstance may be responsible for the lack of stratified sites in the area. In the absence of any undisputed archaeological data from Early and Middle Pleistocene context in Northeast India, we are unable to trace any true Palaeolithic artefacts which can be divided into the Early, Middle, and Upper Palaeolithic of the Indian sequence. However, there is definite evidence of stone artefacts from Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene contexts, which are characteristically pre-Neolithic and may provisionally be considered as elements of the Palaeolithic tradition in Northeast Indian prehistory. These finds must not be confused with the established chronological sequence of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods of India, but may be equated with the Hoabinhian or similar industries of Southeast Asia that fall within the geological period of the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene. The Hoabinhian tradition must have continued in Northeast India for a longer period until the emergence of the Neolithic, as noticed in the case of Southeast Asia and late Palaeolithic hunter-foragers in South China. Recent discoveries of identical Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene artefacts across Northeast India, Page 2 of 11

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Synthesis and Conclusion Nepal, and Burma make it plausible to envisage common cultural traditions, based on the exploitation of similar environmental settings. The archaeology of the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene periods in Northeast India shows more connections with Southeast Asia than does the rest of the Indian subcontinent. Most of the lithic industries of the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene periods in Northeast India occur in upland areas, especially in hilly contexts. The region of Northeast India, the central and western (p.263) Himalayas, and Bangladesh might have been a suitable place for early populations who relied heavily on bamboo and wood, found extensively in all these areas, for making artefacts. Possibly the Hoabinhian stone artefacts were used for manufacturing tools made of wood and bamboo, a possibility which is also well supported by ethnographic parallels. Ethnographic evidence also shows a preference for settlement in similar ecozones.

Evidence of Early Farming and Rice Domestication Most of the excavated Neolithic sites in Northeast India are single-culture sites and there is no marked sign of any transition period from the pre-Neolithic to the Neolithic levels. This does not offer any direct evidence for an indigenous origin of the Neolithic phase from the existing Palaeolithic/pre-Neolithic phase. It may further add to the question of the arrival of different groups of people with different economic modes of subsistence who established the Neolithic food-producing economy in the region. In dealing with the early farming cultures of Northeast India, it appears that the region can stand alone as a separate and distinct developmental case in the context of the east Indian Neolithic tradition. The existing archaeological record suggests that an expansion of Neolithic traits into Northeast India from the Yangtze corridor may not have been direct, but may have passed through Southeast Asia, as the Northeast Indian Neolithic complex appears to be quite late, based on the available radiometric dates. However, there is also the possibility of the introduction of rice agriculture from the Gangetic river valley, which has yielded archaeobotanical evidence for an independent domestication event. Keeping aside the issue of the direction of introduction of rice farming into the region, it is clear from the historical, linguistic, genetic, and ethnobotanical data that rice cultivation in this part of India is of great antiquity.

Linguistic Evidence Four major linguistic families are found in Northeast India—the Austroasiatic, the Tibeto-Burman, the Indo-European, and the Kradai. Previous studies on the reconstruction of the sequence of arrival of (p.264) these people of different linguistic stocks have been based on philological and ethnographical considerations which lack a detailed examination and careful correlation of the archaeological, linguistic, and population genetic data.

Page 3 of 11

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Synthesis and Conclusion The arrival of Indo-Aryan linguistic communities is associated with the rise of the Kāmarūpa kingdom, which flourished from the 4th to the 13th centuries in the western part of present-day Assam. The advent of Kradai language communities, particularly the Ahom, is well known from historical sources such as the Buranjis. These Kradai groups came to Northeast India in the beginning of 12th century from the kingdom of Pong in the upper Irrawaddy basin, a polity which straddled a part of upper Burma and the adjacent portion of the Chinese province of Yúnnán.

Linguistic Palaeontology and Rice Agriculture As discussed earlier, the findings of linguistic palaeontology suggest that speakers of the Austroasiatic proto-language were quite familiar with rice agriculture, as may be deduced from the rich lexicon of rice agriculture terms reconstructible to the common proto-language. The geographical distribution of the different branches of Austroasiatic linguistic groups also points towards a centre of gravity, representing the epicentre of the greatest linguistic diversity for this phylum, located in Northeast India and spanning the flood plains of the Irrawaddy in Burma and the lower Brahmaputra in Assam and Bangladesh. In view of the linguistic palaeontological data and the location of the epicentre of phylogenetic diversity of Austroasiatic language communities, a possible site for the proto-homeland of the language family may be proposed to have lain in the area around the northern coast of the Bay of Bengal, covering the eastern extremity of South Asia and much of the southern littoral of Southeast Asia. Van Driem (2011: 141) points out that the centre of the Tibeto-Burman—also known as the Trans-Himalayan—language family lay not in Sìchuān but in Northeast India and the eastern Himalayas. The hypothesis of a Tibeto-Burman homeland in the sub-Himalayas needs much closer look at the archaeological record with good radiometric control. (p.265) With respect to the archaeological examination undertaken in this work, the origins of Austroasiatic according to the most well-informed multidisciplinary view to date must have lain in or very near Northeast India. The Austroasiatic and the Tibeto-Burman language families are crucial to our understanding of the ethnolinguistic prehistory of Northeast India, while the archaeology of this ecologically and topographically complex region remains yet largely unexplored.

Population Genetics Population geneticists have been addressing the issue of the origins, antiquity, and migration of the indigenous population of Northeast India. These studies have provided substantial evidence to suggest that Northeast India served as a major corridor for the multiple waves of migration to eastern Eurasia. This in turn corroborates the inferences made by archaeologists based on simple facts of geographical location of the region connecting a major landmass of Asia. Recent studies show that the Himalayas and especially the Terai acted as an Page 4 of 11

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Synthesis and Conclusion important passageway enabling multiple population interactions at different times, suggesting a many-layered prehistory that is also supported by the archaeological record, which shows cultural interaction across the Himalayas and its borderlands since the late Quaternary period.

Trade and state formation There is virtually no evidence of any Chalcolithic, Bronze, or Iron Age in the Northeast Indian context. The reason behind the absence of subsequent cultural developmental stages from Neolithic to the emergence of early states or kingdom is yet to be addressed. Except a few sites yielding meagre remains of iron, there is no evidence of the use and production of metals like copper and bronze in this part of the country. This is certainly due to lack of ores of copper in this region. Hence, the absence of cultural phases assignable as Chalcolithic or Bronze in Northeast India is not surprising. From 4th to 5th century AD onwards, the emergence of several political and cultural centres can be witnessed in Assam. The archaeological sites located in the Brahmaputra, Dhansiri–Doyang and Kopili–Jamuna valleys with a rich repertoire of archaeological record (p.266) including art and architectural remains, ancient settlements, religious sites, and pottery suggest such historical development since the early part of the Common Era. Intermittent trade between India and China through Northeast India provided a base for the earliest state formation in Northeast India. A long-distance exchange network is noticed in the archaeological record of Northeast India.

Archaeological Explorations at Garbhanga Reserve Forest Explorations at the Garbhanga Reserve Forest, particularly at the site of Bargaon, have provided interesting insights. The richness of the archaeological record, folk beliefs, and oral stories attached to the site suggest the great antiquity of Bargaon. Bargaon is traditionally believed to be an area inhabited by the ancestors of the present-day Karbi or Mikir ethnic group living in Garbhanga Hills. Besides pottery, iron objects, sling balls, stone dishes, net sinkers, pieces of bangles, stone sharpeners, and faunal material, a large number of menhirs are attested at the site. Several ground and polished stone tools have been recorded in and around the site, particularly from jhum fields. Pottery is grouped as red ware, having impurities of sandy particles. Besides the rims, bases, and pieces of pottery, a good number of spouts have also been observed at the site. All the iron artefacts are morphologically similar to the iron knives used by the present-day Karbis of the Garbhanga region, which are basically all-purposetools. The scattering of a large number of animal teeth of different bovine species, particularly the buffalo, are probably the remains of the hunted animals which were consumed at the site by the ancient population.

Page 5 of 11

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Synthesis and Conclusion Ethnoarchaeology Ethnoarchaeological investigations seem to offer a relevant methodology for understanding the archaeological record at the site of Bargaon as well as the Garbhanga Reserve Forest. The resident Karbis have been systematically studied for potential ethnographic parallels. Traditional sources suggest that the Karbis have come to Northeast India from the Kuki-Chin area, in and around the Chindwin River valley in western Burma. (p.267) The Karbis reside mostly on the hilltops and edges of the hill by forming villages consisting of 15 to 20 households. These villages are scattered over different hilltops spread at the considerable mean distance of 5 to 10 kilometres from one settlement to the next. These are located in the middle of the forest so that jungle resources can be easily exploited. The Karbis consume a variety of plant food available in the forest, and their economy is primarily based on farming supplemented by hunting, gathering, and fishing. In all their daily subsistence activities, natural forest resources are consumed besides being used for making utensils and baskets. Forest resources are also an integral part of their settlement pattern, particularly in the construction of houses and fences. The makeshift settlement pattern, marginal material cultural remains, and use of perishable material in day-to-day life are extremely significant as parallels for understanding of the formation process of ancient habitation sites in Northeast India. Moreover, Karbis are traditionally shifting cultivators and they shift their farming land after two consecutive years of cultivation and then move to new land. Shifting or jhum cultivation compels the Karbis to shift their villages to a new jhum plot from time to time. The semi-nomadic settlement system of the Karbis has significant implications for the archaeological record. Five types of settlement activities have been recorded among the Karbis of Garbhanga area: (a) semi-permanent dwelling structures, (b) temporary farmstead, (c) activity areas, (d) sacrificial areas and (e) areas for erecting megaliths. In all these kinds of settlements or activity areas, one common feature is the use of non-permanent materials which degenerate very fast in the humid conditions and result in untraceable footprints in the archaeological context. As the resident settlements are shifted from one place to another after residing for a period of 19 to 20 years, very little amount of material deposit and only negligible traces of human habitation are likely to have accumulated. As most of the settlements are of a makeshift type and because the Karbis possess a modest material culture, the accumulation rate also tends to be minimal. The site of Bargaon has reported a significant number of spouts which were probably attached to the bowls and used for keeping and distributing liquids, particularly rice beer. Although today a wooden bowl with spout is used for

Page 6 of 11

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Synthesis and Conclusion serving rice beer, the pottery (p.268) fragments can be interpreted as having served a similar purpose in the past. Shifting cultivation has been considered to be an ancient farming system that was developed and practised since the very beginning of agriculture. Under normal and non-intensive conditions, shifting cultivation may not provide evidence of permanent or long-range structural modification of the environment that would be useful to an archaeologist for reconstructing past agricultural systems based on hard archaeological data. However, the presence of grass pollen is possibly an indication of rice cultivation from 5,700 years BP, and the sudden decline of trees at around 5,400 years BP may indirectly point towards the sheer intensity of human activity, particularly forest clearance, that was part of shifting cultivation practices in Northeast India (Bhattacharya, Mehrotra, and Shah 2011: 521–6). Most of the traditional sources also point to a deep ancestry of jhum cultivation in the hills, compared to lowland valley cultivation. This ancient trend remains evident in the region’s current agricultural practices. Agricultural tools such as wooden mortars for threshing paddy and several other jhum crops and vegetables are depicted in the traditional motifs and designs on the textiles manufactured by the Karbi. There is no clear-cut cultural stage to which the Megalithic tradition of Northeast India may be assigned due to the paucity of radiometric dates for the origin and development of the tradition. It is a living practice among several ethnolinguistic communities of the region including the Austroasiatic Khasis and the Tibeto-Burman Nagas, Manipuris, Karbis, Tiwas, and Mizo. There is no radiometric date to assign the Megalithic structures to a particular time, and therefore it becomes difficult to separate the ethnographic megaliths from the archaeological ones. Both Neolithic and Megalithic sites are found in overlapping contexts extending from the eastern part of Meghalaya, particularly the Khasi and Jaintia Hills through the Karbi Hills, the North Cachar Hills, the Naga Hills, Manipur, and Mizoram, as far as the eastern part of Arunachal Pradesh, which also represents the territory of distribution of Neolithic sites. Moreover, the distribution pattern of the ethnolinguistic groups and the Neolithic and Megalithic sites are closely associated, which points towards a hypothesis of interlinkage (p.269) between the people behind the Neolithic culture and Megalithic tradition and the presentday ethnolingusitic groups residing in these areas. The Megalithic tradition might have been commonly practised by the Neolithic people and it might then have persisted among certain descendent ethnolinguistic groups till the present day, as seen among the Karbis of Garbhanga Reserve Forest. Assam and other adjoining areas, until the beginning of its historical period in the 4th century AD, remained in the Neolithic early farming phase. The Neolithic phase itself continued until recently in certain pockets, where people still have Page 7 of 11

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Synthesis and Conclusion memories of a primitive lifestyle that may not even be a hundred years old in some cases. The historical period in Assam saw the development of cultures independent of the Neolithic, with both phases of development coexisting in different geographical zones for a considerable period of time, possibly in some sort of a symbiotic relationship.

Ethnobotanical Observations Northeast India is one of the Vavilovian centres of biodiversity that has long been considered by botanists as the place of origin of many important cultivated plant species and some domesticated animals. The centres of crop domestication are located disproportionately in or around biodiversity hotspots. Northeast India provides an excellent scope for an enhanced understanding of the domestication process and the identification of the wild progenitors and natural habitats of different cultivated plants, particularly rice, banana, citrus, several roots and tubers, all of which are attested as being associated with deeply rooted cultural traditions in this region. Various genetic, archaeological, and linguistic studies on the history and origin of cultivated rice, Oryza sativa, suggest a complex evolutionary dynamics for rice cultivars and wild progenitors, involving rapid adaptive differentiation and continuous gene flow within and between cultivated and wild rice. Molecular phylogenetic studies show that the closest wild relatives of cultivated rice were Oryza nivara and Oryza rufipogon, found in Southeast Asia and India. The Indian subcontinent and the Northeast and adjacent regions may actually be the ancestral centres of wild rice Oryza rufipogon. The Asian cultivated rice Oryza sativa was domesticated from its wild progenitor (p.270) Oryza rufipogon at least twice in two different geographical regions in eastern Asia. The products of these two independent domestication events are the two major rice cultivars Oryza sativa var. indica and Oryza sativa var. japonica. Based on a phylogeographical analysis, Oryza sativa var. indica is likely to have been domesticated south of the Himalayas, most likely in eastern India, Burma, or Thailand, whereas Oryza sativa var. japonica was domesticated from a wild rice type in southern China. In this regard, it is equally interesting that the ancient Austroasiatics and the ancestral Hmong-Mien are considered as the most likely candidates for the first cultivators of rice. The recent advances in linguistic palaeontology, rice genetics, and human population genetics of both Austroasiatic and Hmong-Mien pinpoints that rice agriculture was an early Austroasiatic technology. Van Driem suggests that the ancient Austroasiatics and ancient Hmong-Mien may have favoured Oryza nivara and Oryza rufipogon respectively (van Driem 2012a: 193–4, 197, 2012b: 338). Multidisciplinary research also suggests the crucial role the region must have played as either the homeland or an important prehistoric staging area of the ancient Austroasiatics, who are one of the two most likely candidates

Page 8 of 11

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Synthesis and Conclusion for being the first cultivators of rice, particularly Oryza nivara (van Driem 2011a: 23; 2012a: 193–4; 2012b: 118). The present work is the first systematic attempt to address the prehistory of Northeast India by combining multidisciplinary data based on archaeological, linguistic, genetic, folkloristic, ethnographic, and ethnobiological information. This study has put forward a strong case for a multidisciplinary approach to archaeological research in areas such as Northeast India, where the archaeological record is extremely fragmentary. The research empirically demonstrates the contributions of the Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman linguistic communities in the making of the prehistoric scenario of Northeast India. Prehistoric movements of these linguistic groups in different directions throughout Northeast India are in evidence. However, the possible time frame for the migration and the waves of migration is not entirely clear. Archaeological data support the introduction of new cultural traits rather than a local indigenous development of material culture from pre-Neolithic to the Neolithic in the region, thus suggesting dispersals involving newer populations. The folklore (p.271) traditions prevalent among resident groups suggest a possible East Asian origin in the form of various strands of oral lore passed down from generation to generation. The linguist Franklin C. Southworth, who has authored a volume Linguistic Archaeology of South Asia (2005a), argues for collaborative work between archaeologists and linguists: ‘If what linguists say makes sense to archaeologists … then the door is open for conversations about the ways in which the two disciplines can serve to support, supplement, and question each other’s conclusions’ (2005b: 21). However, one must also keep in mind the admonition of Lamberg-Karlovsky (2002: 75): Linguists too often assign languages to archaeological cultures, while archaeologists are often too quick to assign their sherds a language.… Linguists cannot associate an archaeological culture with words, syntax and grammar, and archaeologists cannot make their sherds utter words. We need a third arbiter, which may or may not offer some degree of resolution to the relationships between archaeological culture and language … our genes.… In the context of a renewed fashion of relating archaeology, culture and language, it is well to remember that neither sherds nor genes are destined to speak specific languages, nor does a given language require a specific ceramic type or genetic structure.

Page 9 of 11

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Synthesis and Conclusion Scope and Prospects for Future Research Based on the various discussions contained in the present study, some recommendations have been made to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of the ethnolinguistic prehistory of Northeast India that could be taken as potential prospects for future research: 1. One of the most significant questions that will perhaps dominate the future of Neolithic research in Northeast India is the origin of rice agriculture. Archaeobotanical investigations through the sieving of sediments of Neolithic cultural deposits will be the most crucial prospect in this direction. Moreover, palaeobotanical investigations of pollens, diatoms, and phytoliths may add to the knowledge of environmental settings of the region as well as the process of domestication of different plants. 2. In order to analyse the coexistence of the Neolithic phase with that of the highly developed early historical state in light of the nature of the interaction (p.272) between the two and their impact on the sociocultural complexion of the Northeast, we must first compare the distribution pattern of the archaeological record with a good chronometric control of both of the cultural phases. 3. It is conspicuous that the recorded history of Assam, whether in the early phase or the later phase, remains silent about the populations living in the hills. In fact, historical accounts are mainly confined to the dynastic achievements of the various kingdoms, principally the Kāmarūpa kingdom. It is an urgent need that problem-oriented research be conducted in order to compile and analyse local histories from whatever sources are still available. Ethnographic studies on the communities of the region have been conducted, but these have not thus far been highlighted in archaeological discourse with regard to the region. Folklore is another aspect which may reveal many unknown facts about these communities. Toponymical studies also have great potential to enhance our understanding of the prevalence and prehistoric distribution of various tribes and ethnolinguistic groups and to unravel the process of social and cultural assimilation and admixture which appears to have characterized this region through the ages. 4. It is important to understand the complex sociocultural and socioeconomic history and prehistory of Northeast India from a multidisciplinary point of view. Archaeological evidence needs to be recorded from every part of the region. Settlement pattern analysis could give us a clear picture that would enable us to identify the problem areas and then find ways to understand and build a methodology of further research. 5. The absence of absolute dates from the sites of Northeast India creates a big hazard in our attempts to augment our understanding of the Page 10 of 11

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Synthesis and Conclusion cultural sequence of the region to the fullest. More archaeological excavations could enable us to obtain sufficient dating material for both the historical as well as the prehistoric period. Excavations may also provide us with sufficient material to examine and analyse the transitional phases and also investigate and understand the probable coexistence of these two distinct phases. 6. Today the first attempts have already been made to address the issue of the origin, antiquity, and migration of the Northeast Indian tribes by population geneticists. The archaeological, linguistic, genetic, folkloristic, ethnobiological, and ethnographic data for an understanding of the ethnolinguistic prehistory of Northeast India underscore the crucial importance and urgency of a systematic programme of archaeological research throughout the region.

Access brought to you by:

Page 11 of 11

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

(p.273) References Manjil Hazarika

Bibliography references: Adekola, K.O. 2010–11. ‘Agriculture Beginnings in West Africa: A Re-Evaluation of the Evidence’. Anistoriton Journal 12: 1–9. Agarwal, K.C. 1996. Biodiversity. Agra: Botanical Publishers. Agrawal, D.P. 1982. The Archaeology of India. London: Curzon Press. Aier, A. and S. Changkija. 2003. ‘Indigenous Knowledge and Management of Natural Resources’. In Anthropology of Northeast India, edited by T.B. Subba and G.C. Ghosh. New Delhi: Orient Longman. Aiyadurai, A. 2007. ‘Hunting in a Biodiversity Hotspot: A Survey on Hunting Practices by Indigenous Communities in Arunachal Pradesh, North-East India.’ Unpublished report submitted to Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation, UK. Aiyadurai, A., N.J. Singh, and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2010. ‘Wildlife Hunting by Indigenous Tribes: A Case Study from Arunachal Pradesh, North-East India’. Oryx 44: 564–72. Allchin, B. 1985. ‘Ethnoarchaeology in South Asia’. In South Asian Archaeology 1983, edited by J. Schosmans and M. Taddei, 21–33. Naples: Instituto Universitario Orientale. Allchin, F.R. 1998. ‘The Interface of Archaeology and History’. Man and Environment XXIII (1): 19–36.

Page 1 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Ammerman, A. and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1971. ‘Measuring the Rate of Spread of Early Farming in Europe’. Man (New Series) 6: 673–88. Anderson, D.D. 1988. ‘Excavations of a Pleistocene rockshelter in Krabi and the Prehistory of Southern Thailand’. In Prehistoric Studies: The Stone and Metal Ages in Thailand, edited by P. Charoenwongsa and B. Bronson, 43–59. Bangkok: Thai Antiquity Working Group. Anderson, J. 1871. ‘The Stone Implements of Yunan etc.’, Report on Expenditure to Western Yunan Via Bhama. Calcutta. (p.274) Ansari, S. 2005. Ethnoarchaeology of Prehistoric Settlement Pattern of SouthCentral Ganga Valley. Pune: Indian Society for Prehistoric and Quaternary Studies. Ansari, Z.D. and M.K. Dhavalikar. 1970. ‘Excavations at Ambari (Gauhati)’. Journal of the University of Poona 30: 79–97. Arroyo-Kalin, M. 2012. ‘Slash-Burn-and-Churn: Landscape History and Crop Cultivation in Pre-Columbian Amazonia’. Quaternary International 249: 4–18. Arzarello, M., F. Marcolini, G. Pavia, M. Pavia, C. Petronio, M. Petrucci, L. Rook, and R. Sardella. 2007. ‘Evidence of Earliest Human Occurrence in Europe: The Site of Pirro Nord (Southern Italy)’. Naturwissenschaften 94(2): 107–12. Asati, B.S. and D.S. Yadav. 2004. ‘Diversity of Horticultural Crops in North Eastern Region’. ENVIS Bulletin: Himalayan Ecology 12(1): 1–11. Ascher, R. 1961. ‘Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation’. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17(4): 317–25. Ashraf, A.A. 1990. Prehistoric Arunachal: A Study on Prehistory and Ethnoarchaeology of Kamla Valley. Itanagar: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. ———. 2010. Stone Age Traditions of Meghalaya: A Study of Variation and Continuity. England: BAR International Series. ———. 2011. ‘On the Discovery of Prehistoric Site in Northeast India’. In People of Contemporary Northeast India, edited by Tiluttoma Baruah, 268–79. Guwahati: Pratisruti Publishers. Asouti, E. and D.Q. Fuller. 2008. Trees and Woodlands of South India: Archaeological Perspectives. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Aung-Thwin, M.A. 2001. ‘Origins and Development of the Field of Prehistory in Burma’. Asian Perspectives 40(1): 6–34.

Page 2 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Ba Maw. 1995. ‘The First Discovery of Early Man’s Fossilized Maxillary Bone Fragment in Myanmar’. The East Asian Tertiary Quaternary Newsletter 16: 72–9. Ba Maw, T.T. Aung, P. Nyein, and T. Nyein. 1998. ‘Artefacts of Anyathian Cultures Found in a Single Site’. Myanmar Historical Research Journal 2: 7–15. Badam, G.L. 1979. Pleistocene Fauna of India. Pune: Deccan College PostGraduate and Research Institute. Bahn, P.G., ed. 2002. The Atlas of World Archaeology. Oxfordshire: Andromeda Oxford Limited. Bakalial, D. 2004. ‘Banaria Dhan’. Prantik 23(11): 22–3. Banerjee, K.D. 1987. ‘Stone Age Migrations in India’. In Archaeology and History, edited by D.P. Chattopadhyay, 41–6. New Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan. Banerjee, N.R. 1971. ‘Neolithic Habitations in Nepal and Sikkim’. Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society 6(2): 145–59. Banerjee, R.D. 1924. ‘Neolithic Implements from Abor Country’. Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India 102. (p.275) Bannanurag, R. 1988. ‘Evidence for Ancient Woodworking: A Microwear Study of Hoabinhian Stone Tools’. In Prehistoric Studies: The Stone and Metal Ages in Thailand, edited by P. Charoenwongsa and B. Bronson, 61–79. Bangkok: Thai Antiquity Working Group. Barkataki, S. 1967. Tribes of Assam. New Delhi: National Book Trust. Barpujari, H.K., ed. 1990. The Comprehensive History of Assam, vol. 1, Ancient Period: From the Pre-historic Times to the Twelfth Century A.D. Guwahati: Publication Board, Assam. Barton, L., S.D. Newsome, F. Chen, H. Wang, T.P. Guilderson, and R.L. Bettinger. 2009. ‘Agricultural Origins and the Isotopic Identity of Domestication in Northern China’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(14): 5523–8. Barron, Lt. 1872. ‘Note on Stone Implements from the Naga Hills’. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 1: 62–3. Barua, I. 2009. ‘Conservation and Management of Community and Natural Resources: A Case Study from North East India’. Studies of Tribes and Tribals 7(1): 39–46. Barua, I. and D.D. Das. 2006. ‘Tiwas of Bherakuchi Borgaon: A Glimpse’. Bulletin of the Department of Anthropology, Dibrugarh University 34: 19–26. Page 3 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Barua, K.K., D. Kakati, and J. Kalita. 2004. ‘Present Status of Swallowtail Butterflies in Garbhanga Reserve Forest, Assam, India’. Zoos’ Print Journal 19(4): 1439–41. Barua, K.K., J. Slowik, K.S. Bobo, and M. Muehlenberg. 2010. ‘Correlations of Rainfall and Forest Type with Papilionid Assemblages in Assam in Northeast India’. Psyche, doi:10.1155/2010/560396. Barua, K.L. 1933. Early History of Kamarupa. Guwahati: Lawyers Book Stall. ———. 1939. ‘Prehistoric Culture of Assam’. Journal of the Assam Research Society 7(2): 35–41. Barua, M. and P. Sharma. 2005. ‘The Birds of Nameri National Park, Assam, India’. Forktail 21: 15–26. Baruah, C., P.K. Sarma, and D.K. Sharma. 2010. ‘Status and Conservation of Assam Roofed Turtle Pangshura sylhetensis in the Brahmaputra Floodplain, Assam, India’. NeBIO 1(3): 42–7. Bar-Yosef, O. 1998. ‘The Natufian Culture in the Levant’. Evolutionary Anthropology 6: 159–77. Basa, K.K., T.K. Das, and B.K. Mohanta. 2000. ‘Neolithic Culture of Pallahara, Central Orissa’. In Archaeology of Orissa, edited by K.K. Basa and P. Mohanty, 264–84. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan. Basak, B. 1997. ‘Prehistoric Settlement Pattern of the Tarafeni Valley, Midnapore District, West Bengal.’ Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to University of Poona, Pune. (p.276) Basu, A., N. Mukherjee, S. Roy, S. Sengupta, S. Banerjee, M. Chakraborty, B. Dey, M. Roy, B. Roy, N.P. Bhattacharyya, S. Roychoudhury, and P.P. Majumder. 2003. ‘Ethnic India: A Genomic View with Special Reference to Peopling and Structure’. Genome Research 13: 2277–90. Behera, P.K. 2000. ‘Neolithic Culture Complex of Bonaigarh, Orissa’. In Archaeology of Orissa, edited by K.K. Basa and P. Mohanty, 222–63. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan. Bellwood, P. 1978. Man’s Conquest in the Pacific: The Prehistory of Southeast Asia and Oceania. Auckland: William Collins Publishers Ltd. ———. 1985. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. London: Academic Press. ———. 2005. First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Page 4 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Bellwood, P. and C. Renfrew, eds. 2002. Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Bettinger, R.L., L. Barton, and C. Morgan. 2010. ‘The Origins of Food Production in North China: A Different Kind of Agricultural Revolution’. Evolutionary Anthropology 19: 9–21. Bettinger, R.L., L. Barton, C. Morgan, F. Chen, H. Wang, T.P. Guilderson, D. Ji, and D. Zhang. 2010. ‘The Transition to Agriculture at Dadiwan, People’s Republic of China’. Current Anthropology 51(5): 703–14. Bezbaruah, D. 2003. ‘Megalithic Ruins in Karbi Anglong District of Assam: A Study in the Context of Karbi Culture’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Gauhati University, Guwahati. Bhagabati, A.C. 1992. ‘Social Formation in North East India’. Bulletin of the Department of Anthropology, Gauhati University 6: 9–29. Bhatt, R.C. 2011. ‘Malari Cave Burials, Funerary Gold Mask and Evolved Ceramic Tradition in Uttrakhand Himalaya, India’. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Prehistory of the Tibetan Plateau at the Center for Tibetan Studies of Sichuan University, 21–4 August 2011. Bhattacharjee, R. 1983. ‘The Hmar Tribe: Their Society and Some of Its Aspects’. Proceedings of North East India History Association 4: 79. Bhattacharjee, T. 1986. Sociology of the Karbis. Delhi: BR Publishing Corporation. Bhattacharya, S.C. and S. Dutta. 1956. Classification of Citrus Fruits of Assam, Science Monograph 20. New Delhi: ICAR. Bhattacharya, A., N. Mehrotra, and S.K. Shah. 2011. ‘Holocene Vegetation and Climate of South Tripura based on Palynological Analysis’. Journal of Geological Society of India 77: 521–6. Bhengra, D. 2008. ‘Paleolithic–Neolithic Culture of Eastern India with Special Reference to Meghalaya and Sikkim on the Basis of Recent Exploration and Excavation’. Paper presented at the Joint Annual Conference of the Indian Archaeological Society, Indian Society for Prehistoric and Quaternary (p.277) Studies and Indian History and Culture Society at Orissa State Museum, Bhubaneswar, during 28–31 December. Billorey, R.K. 1981. ‘Oral History in Northeast India’. Proceedings of the North East India History Association 2: 14–22.

Page 5 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Binford, L.R. 1965. ‘Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process’. American Antiquity 31(2): 203–10. ———. 1967. ‘Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning’. American Antiquity 32: 1–12. ———. 1972. An Archaeological Perspective. New York: Seminar Press. Binodini Devi, P. 1993. ‘Studies on the Megalithic Remains of Manipur’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to University of Gauhati, Guwahati. ———. 2002. ‘Living Megalithic Traditions among the Poumais of Manipur’. In Archaeology of Eastern India: New perspective, edited by G. Sengupta and S. Panja, 363–77. Kolkata: Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India. ———. 2011. The Megalithic Culture of Manipur. Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan. Birand, A. and S. Pawar. 2004. An Ornithological Survey in North-East India. Forktail 20: 15–24. Bist, S.S., J.V. Cheeran, S. Choudhury, P. Barua, and M.K. Misra. 2002. ‘The Domesticated Asian Elephant in India’. In Giants on Our Hands: Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Domesticated Asian Elephant. Bangkok, Thailand, 5 to 10 February 2001, edited by I. Baker and M. Kashio, 129–48. Bangkok: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Blench, R. 2004. ‘Archaeology and Language: Methods and Issues’. In A Companion to Archaeology, edited by J. Bintliff, 52–74. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. ———. 2006. Archaeology, Language and the African Past. Lanham: Alta Mira Press. ———. 2008. ‘Re-evaluating the Linguistic Prehistory of South Asia’. In Occasional Paper 3: Linguistics, Archaeology and the Human Past, edited by Toshiki Osada and Akinori Uesugi, 159–78. Kyoto: Indus Project, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. ———. 2009. ‘If Agriculture Cannot Be Reconstructed for Proto-Sino-Tibetan, What Are the Consequences?’ Paper Presented at the 42nd Conference on SinoTibetan Language and Linguistics, Chiang Mai, 2–4 November 2009. ———. 2011. ‘The Role of Agriculture in the Evolution of Mainland Southeast Asian Language Phyla’. In Dynamics of Human Diversity, edited by N.J. Enfield, 125–52. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Page 6 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References ———. 2012. ‘Vernacular Names for Taro in the Indo-Pacific Region: Implications for Centres of Diversification and Spread’. In Irrigated Taro (Colocasia esculenta) in the Indo-Pacific, edited by Matthew Spriggs, David Addison, and Peter J. Matthews, Senri Ethnological Studies 78, 21–43. ———. 2013. ‘Was There Once an Arc of Vegeculture Linking Melanesia with Northeast India?’ In Pacific Archaeology: Documenting the Past 50,000 Years (p. 278) to the Present, edited by G.R. Summerhayes and H. Buckley, 1–17. Otago: University of Otago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology 25. Blench, R. 2014. ‘The Contribution of Linguistics to Understanding the Foraging/ Farming Transition in NE India’. In 51 Years after Daojali-Hading: Emerging perspectives in the Archaeology of Northeast India: Essays in Honour of Tarun Chandra Sharma, edited by T. Jamir and M. Hazarika, 99–109. New Delhi: Research India Press. Blench, R.M. and M. Post. 2014. ‘Rethinking Sino-Tibetan Phylogeny from the Perspective of Northeast Indian Languages’. In Selected papers from the 16th Himalayan Languages Symposium, September 2010, edited by Nathan Hill. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Blench, R. and M. Spriggs, eds. 1997–9. Archaeology and Language, 4 vols. London: Routledge. Blinkenberg, C.H.R. 1911. The Thunderweapon in Religion and Folklore: A Study in Comparative Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boivin, N. and D.Q. Fuller. 2002. ‘Looking for Post-Processual Theory in South Asian Archaeology’. In Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, volume IV – Archaeology and Historiography – History, Theory and Method, edited by S. Settar and R. Korisettar, 191–215. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research and Manohar. Bopardikar, B.P. 1972. ‘Prehistoric Investigations–Daphabum, Scientific Surveys Expedition (N.E.F.A.)’. In Archaeological Congress Seminar Papers, edited by S.B. Deo, 1–8. Nagpur: Nagpur University. Bordoloi, B.N. 1982. Chomangkan: The Death Ceremony Performed by the Karbis. Guwahati: Tribal Research Institute. Bordoloi, B.N., G.C. Sarma Thakur, and M.C. Saikia. 1987. Tribes of Assam, Part l. Guwahati: Tribal Research Institute. Borthakur, S.K. 1997. ‘Plants in the Folklore and Folk Life of the Karbis (Mikirs) of Assam’. In Contribution to Indian Ethnobotany, vol. 1, edited by S.K. Jain, 169–78. Jodhpur: Scientific Publishers.

Page 7 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Boruah, N. 2007. Early Assam, State Formation, Political Centres, Cultural Zones. Guwahati: Spectrum Publications. Boserup, E. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. Bowdler, S. 2008. ‘Hoabinhian and Non-Hoabinhian’. In Archaeology in Southeast Asia: From Homo Erectus to the Living Traditions, Choice of Papers from the 11th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Bougon, 25–29th September, 2006, edited by J. Pautreau, A. Coupey, V. Zeitoun, and E. Rambault, 59–66. Chiang Mai: Siam Ratana Ltd. Bradley, D. 1997. ‘Tibeto-Burman Languages and Classification’. In TibetoBurman Languages of the Himalayas, edited by D. Bradley, 1–72. Papers in Southeast (p.279) Asian Linguistics, No. 14, Pacific Linguistics, Series A, No. 86. Canberra: Australian National University. Breasted, J. 1919. Survey of the Ancient World. Boston: Ginn and Company. Brothwell, D. and P. Brothwell. 1969. Foods in Antiquity. London: Thames and Hudson. Brown, A.G. 1997. Alluvial Geoarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buckler, E.D., J.M. Thornsberry, and S. Kresovich. 2001. ‘Molecular Diversity, Structure and Domestication of Grasses’. Genetic Resources 77: 213–18. Burling, R. 1999. ‘On “Kamarupan”’. Lingusitcs of the Tibeto-Burman Area 22(2): 169–71. ———. 2012. ‘Where Did the Question “Where Did My Tribe Come from” Come from?’ In Origins and Migrations in the Extended Eastern Himalayas, edited by Toni Huber and Stuart Blackburn, 49–62. Leiden: Brill. Butzer, K.W. 1972. Environment and Archaeology: An Ecological Approach to History. London: Methuen. ———. 1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology: Method and Theory for a Contextual Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carbonell, E., J.M. Bermudez de Castro, J.L. Arsuaga, E. Allue, M. Bastir, A. Benito, I. Caceres, T. Canals, J.C. Diez, J. van der Made, M. Mosquera, A. Olle, A. Perez-Gonzalez, J. Rodriguez, X.P. Rodriguez, A. Rosas, J. Rosell, R. Sala, J. Vallverdu, and J.M. Verges. 2005. ‘An Early Pleistocene Hominin Mandible from

Page 8 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Atapuerca-TD6, Spain’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102: 5674–8. Carelli, P. 1997. ‘Thunder and Lightning, Magical Miracles: On the Popular Myth of Thunderbolts and the Presence of Stone Age Artefacts in Medieval Deposits’. In Visions of the Past: Trends and Traditions in Swedish Medieval Archaeology, edited by H. Andersson, P. Carelli, and L. Ersgard, 393–417. Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology 19, Riksantikvarieämbetet Arkeologiska undersökningar Skrifter nr 24, Stockholm. Carreel, F., D. de Leon Gonzalez, P. Lagoda, C. Lanaud, C. Jenny, J. Horry, and H. Tezenas du Montcel. 2002. ‘Ascertaining Maternal and Paternal Lineage within Musa by Chloroplast and Mitochondrial DNA RFLP Analyses’. Genome 45: 679– 92. Chakrabarti, D.K. 1988. ‘Some Aspects of Archaeological Field Research in Bangladesh’. The Jahangirnagar Review Part C 2: 35–45. ———. 1992. Ancient Bangladesh: A Study of the Archaeological Sources. Delhi: Oxford University Press. ———. 1998. The Issues in East Indian Archaeology. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. ———. 2006. The Oxford Companion to Indian Archaeology: the Archaeological Foundation of Ancient India (Stone Age to AD 13th Century). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (p.280) Chakrabarti, D.K. and N. Lahiri. 1986. The Assam–Burma Route to China. Man and Environment 10: 123–34. Chakrabarti, S. 2010. ‘Conservation of Orchids by the People of North Eastern India’. NeBIO 1(1): 48–52. Chakraborty, R., B. Deb, N. Devannac, and Saikat Sen. 2012. North-East India: An Ethnic Storehouse of Unexplored Medicinal Plants. Journal of Natural Product and Plant Resources 2(1): 143–52. Chakravorty, A.K. 1951. ‘Origin of Cultivated Banana of Southeast Asia’. Indian Journal of Genetics 11: 34–46. Chandrasekar, A., S. Kumar, J. Sreenath, B.N. Sarkar, B.P. Urade, S. Mallick, S.S. Bandopadhyay, P. Barua, S.S. Barik, D. Basu, U. Kiran, P. Gangopadhyay, R. Sahani, B. Venkata, R. Prasad, S. Gangopadhyay, G.R. Lakshmi, R.R. Ravuri, K. Padmaja, P.N. Venugopal, M.B. Sharma, and V.R. Rao. 2009. ‘Updating Phylogeny

Page 9 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup M in India: Dispersal of Modern Human in South Asian Corridor’. PLoS ONE 4(10): e7447. Chang, K.C. 1977. The Archaeology of Ancient China. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Chang, T.T. 1976a. ‘The Rice Cultures’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 275(936): 143–57. ———. 1976b. ‘The Origin, Evolution, Cultivation, Dissemination and Diversification of Asian and African Rices’. Euphytica 25 (1): 425–41. Chatterjee, S.N. and T. Tanushree. 2004. ‘Molecular Profiling of Silkworm Biodiversity in India: An Overview’. Russian Journal of Genetics 40(12): 1339–47. Chatterji, S.K. [1951] 1974. Kirata-Jana-Krti—The Indo-Mongoloids: Their Contribution to the History and Culture of India. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. ———. 1970. The Place of Assam in the History and Civilization of India. Guwahati: Gauhati University. Chattopadhyaya, B.D., G. Sengupta, and S. Chakrabarty, eds. 2005. An Annotated Archaeological Atlas of West Bengal (Prehistory and Protohistory), vol. 1. Kolkata: The Centre for Archaeological Studies & Training, Eastern India, and New Delhi: Manohar Publisher. Chattopadhyaya, U. 1996. ‘Settlement Pattern and the Spatial Organisation of Subsistence and Mortuary Practices in the Mesolithic Ganga Valley, NorthCentral India’. World Archaeology 27(3): 461–76. Chaturvedi, S.N. 1985. ‘Advances of Vindhyan Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cultures to the Himalayan Tarai: Excavation and Exploration in the Saryupar region of Uttar Pradesh’. Man and Environment 9: 101–8. Chaubey, G., M. Metspalu, Y. Choi, R. Mägi, I. Gallego Romero, S. Rootsi, P. Soares, M. van Oven, D.M. Behar, S. Rootsi, G. Hudjashov, C.B. Mallick, M. Karmin, M. Nelis, J. Parik, A. Goverdhana Reddy, E. Metspalu, G. van Driem, Y. Xue, C. Tyler-Smith, K. Thangaraj, L. Singh, M. Remm, (p.281) M.B. Richards, M. Mirazon Lahr, M. Kayser, R. Villems, and T. Kivisild. 2010. ‘Population Genetic Structure in Indian Austroasiatic Speakers: The Role of Landscape Barriers and Sex-Specific Admixture’. Molecular Biology and Evolution 28(2): 1013–24. Chauhan, P.R. 2008. ‘Large Mammal Fossil Occurrences and Associated Archaeological Evidence in Pleistocene Contexts of Peninsular India and Sri Lanka’. Quaternary International 192: 20–42.

Page 10 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References ———. 2009. ‘The Lower Paleolithic of the Indian Subcontinent’. Evolutionary Anthropology 18: 62–78. ———. 2010a. Metrical Variability between South Asian Handaxe Assemblages: Preliminary Observations. In New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies, edited by S.J. Lycett and P.R. Chauhan, 119–66. New York: Springer. ———. 2010b. ‘The Indian Subcontinent and “Out of Africa I”’. In Out of Africa I: The First Hominin Colonization of Eurasia, edited by J.G. Fleagle, J.J. Shea, F.E. Grine, A.L. Baden, and R.E. Leakey, 145–64. New York: Springer. Cheng, C.Y., R. Motohashi, and E. Ohtsuo. 2003. ‘Polyphyletic Origin of Cultivated Rice: Based on the Interspersion Pattern of SINEs. Molecular Biology and Evolution 20: 67–75. Chetry, D. and R. Chetry. 2007. Current Status and Conservation of Primate in Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, India. Project Report submitted to Aranyak, Assam, and supported by the Rufford Small Grant Foundation. Childe, V.G. 1928. The Most Ancient East: The Oriental Prelude to European History. London: Kegan Paul. ———. 1951. Man Makes Himself. New York: The New American Library. Chinh, H.X., P.D. Thong, N.V. Viet, J. Gorsdorf, J. Hermann, and G. Kohl. 1988. New Researches into Prehistory of Vietnam. Berlin-Hanoi: Archaeological Institute of the Social Sciences, Commission of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, and Central Institute for Ancient History and Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the GDR. Choudhury, A. 2001. ‘Some Bird Records from Nagaland, North-east India’. Forktail 17: 91–103. Choudhury, A.U. 1996. Survey of the White-Winged Wood Duck and the Bengal Florican in Tinsukia District and Adjacent Areas of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Guwahati: The Rhino Foundation for Nature in NE India. ———. 1998. ‘Manipur Biodiversity Threatened’. Sanctuary Asia 18(4): 30–9. ———. 2002. ‘Distribution and Conservation of the Gaur Bos gaurus in the Indian Subcontinent’. Mammal Review 32(3): 199–226. Choudhury, K. 2004. ‘The Megaliths and Their Associated Remains in Dimoria Area of Kamrup District.’ Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Gauhati University, Guwahati. (p.282) Page 11 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Choudhury, P.C. 1944. ‘Neolithic Culture in Kamrupa’. Journal of the Assam Research Society 11(1–2): 41–7. ———. 1974. ‘Studies in the History and Culture of the Karbi People’. Historical Journal (Diphu Govt. College) 1. ———. 1987. The History of Civilisation of the People of Assam to the Twelfth Century A.D. Guwahati: Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies, Assam. Choudhury, R.D. 1985. Archaeology of the Brahmaputra Valley of Assam: PreAhom Period. Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan. Chowdhury, S.N. 1970. Muga Culture, Assam (India). Guwahati: Directorate of Sericulture and Weaving. Chu, J., W. Huang, S.Q. Kuang, J.M. Wang, J.J. Xu, Z.T. Chu, Z.Q. Yang, K.Q. Lin, P. Li, M. Wu, Z.C. Geng, C.C. Tan, R.F. Du, and L. Jin. 1998. ‘Genetic Relationship of Populations in China’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95: 11763–8. Chutia, P. 2010. ‘Studies on Hunting and the Conservation of Wildlife Species in Arunachal Pradesh’. Sibcoltejo 5: 56–67. Clark, G. 1952. Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd and Stanford University Press. Clarke, D.L. 1972. ‘Models and Paradigms in Contemporary Archaeology’. In Models in Archaeology, edited by D.L. Clarke, 1–60. London: Methuen. ———. 1979. Analytical Archaeologists (Collected Papers of D.L. Clarke Edited by His Colleagues). London: Academic Press. Cockburn, J. 1879. ‘Notes on Stone Implements from Khasi Hills and the Banda and Vellore Districts’. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 48 (2): 133–43. Coggin Brown, J. 1914. ‘Grooved Stone Hammers from Assam and the Distribution of Similar Forms in Eastern Asia’. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 10(4): 107–9. Colledge, S. 2001. Plant Explotation on Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic Sites in the Levant. Oxford: Bar International Series. Conklin, H.C. 1963. The Study of Shifting Cultivation. Studies and Monographs, No. 6. Washington, D.C.: Panamerican Union.

Page 12 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Cordaux, R., G. Weiss, N. Saha, and M. Stoneking. 2004. ‘The Northeast Indian Passageway: A Barrier or Corridor for Human Migrations?’ Molecular Biology and Evolution 21: 1525–33. Cordaux, R., N. Saha, G.R. Bentley, R. Aunger, S.M. Sirajuddin, and M. Stoneking. 2003. ‘Mitochondrial DNA Analysis Reveals Diverse Histories of Tribal Populations from India’. European Journal of Human Genetics 11: 253–64. Cornwall, I.W. 1958. Soils for the Archaeologists. London: Phoenix Press. Corvinus, G. 1987. ‘Patu: A New Stone Age Site of a Jungle Habitat in Nepal’. Quartär 37/38: 135–87. (p.283) Corvinus, G. 1994. ‘Prehistoric Occupation Sites in the Dang-Deokhuri Valleys of Western Nepal’. Man and Environment XIX(1–2): 73–89. ———. 2006. ‘Acheulian Handaxes from the Upper Siwalik in Nepal’. In Axe Age: Acheulian Tool Making from Quarry to Discard, edited by N. Goren-Ibnar and G. Sharon, 415–28. London: Equinox. ———. 2007. Prehistoric Cultures in Nepal: From the Early Palaeolithic to the Neolithic and the Quaternary Geology of the Dang-Deokhuri Dun Valleys, edited by Gisela Freund and Ludwig Reisch, 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Curry, A. 2008. ‘Seeking the Roots of Ritual’. Science 319: 278–80. Crawford, G.W. 2009. ‘Agricultural Origins in North China Pushed Back to the Pleistocene-Holocene Boundary’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(18): 7271–2. d’Alpoim Guedes, J. 2011. ‘Millets, Rice, Social Complexity and the Spread of Agriculture to the Chengdu Plain and Southwest China’. Rice 4(3): 104–13. ———. 2015. ‘Rethinking the Spread of Agriculture to the Tibetan Plateau: The Holocene. Available at 1–13. doi: 10.1177/0959683615585835. d’Alpoim Guedes, J., H. Lu, Y. Li, R.N. Spengler, X. Wu, and M.S. Aldenderfer. 2013. ‘Early Agriculture on the Tibetan Plateau: The Archaeobotanical Evidence’. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 6: 255–69. d’Alpoim Guedes, J. and E. Butler. 2014. ‘Modeling Constraints on the Spread of Agriculture to Southwest China with Thermal Niche Models’. Quaternary International 349: 29–41. Dam, D.P. and P.K. Hajra. 1997. ‘Observations on Ethnobotany of Monpas of Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh’. In Contribution to Indian Ethnobotany, vol 1, edited by S.K. Jain, 153–60. Jodhpur: Scientific Publishers.

Page 13 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Dambricourt-Malassé, A., M. Singh, B. Karir, C. Gaillard, V. Bhardwaj, A. Moigne, S. Abdessadok, C.C. Sao, J. Gargani, A. Tudryn, T. Calligaro, A. Kaur, S. Pal, and M. Hazarika. 2016. ‘Anthropic Activities in the Fossiliferous Quranwala Zone, 2.6 Ma, Siwaliks of Northwest India, Historical Context of the Discovery and Scientific Investigations’. Comptes Rendus Palevol 15 (3–4): 295–316. Dani, A.H. 1960. Prehistory and Protohistory of Eastern India. Calcutta: Firma L. Mukhopadhyay. Daniels, J. and B.T. Roach. 1987. Taxonomy and Evolution. In Sugarcane Improvement through Breeding, edited by D.J. Heinz, 7–84. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press. Das, A. 2008. ‘Diversity and Distribution of Herpetofauna and Evaluation Conservation Status in Barail Hill Range (Including Barail Wildlife Sanctuary), Assam, Northeast India’. Final Report submitted to Aaranyak, Guwahati. Das, A. and S. Sengupta. 2010. ‘Herpetofaunal Diversity of Northeast India with Comments on their Biogeography and Conservation Status’. Envis Assam, April to June: 2–8. (p.284) Das, B.M. 1987. The People of Assam. Delhi: Gyan Publishing House. ———. 1990. ‘Introduction: Ethnological Background’. In The Comprehensive History of Assam, vol. 1, Ancient Period: From the Pre-historic Times to the Twelve Century A.D., edited by H.K. Barpujari, 9–24. Guwahati: Publication Board, Assam. Das, D.N. 2002. ‘Fish Farming in Rice Environments of North Eastern India’. Aquaculture Asia VII(2): 43–7. Das, D.N., B.C. Das, M. Sarkar, T. K. Mohanty, D.B. Mondal, B.P. Shingh, R.N. Pal, and S. Ray. 1998. ‘Yak and Its Domestication’. Asian Agri-History 2(2): 143–56. Das, G.N. 2001. Swidden Cultivation and Development Programmes in NorthEast India: A Study among the Karbis of Assam. New Delhi: Akansha Publishing House. Das, H.P., D.K. Singh, and H.N. Sharma. 1999. ‘Meghalaya-Mikir Region’. In India: A Regional Geography, edited by R.L. Singh, 676–97. Varanasi: National Geographical Society of India. Das, I. 2003. ‘Ethnomedical Practices among the Karbis of Goria Ghuli of Sonapur, Assam, with Special Reference to the Female Health Problems’. Journal of Human Ecology 14(2): 119–24.

Page 14 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Das, S.K. 2012. ‘An Analysis of Constraints in Women Empowerment in Tribal Area: Evidences from Assam’. Asian Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities 2(4): 62–74. Das Gupta, P.C. 1964. Excavations at Pandu Rajar Dhibi. Calcutta: West Bengal Directorate of Archaeology. Dasgupta, H.C. 1913. ‘On Two-Shouldered Stone Implements from Assam’. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 9: 291–3. Dasgupta, P.C. 1967. ‘Archaeological Discovery in Darjeeling Himalaya’. Eastern Railway Magazine 16(10). Dash, R.N. 2000. ‘The Neolithic Culture of Orissa: A Typo-Technical Analysis’. In Archaeology of Orissa, edited by K.K. Basa and P. Mohanty, 201–21. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan. Datta, A.K. 1992. Neolithic Culture in West Bengal: With Special Reference to South and South-East Asia. Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan. de Langhe, E. 2009. ‘Relevance of Banana Seeds in Archaeology’. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 7: 271–81. de Perthes, Boucher. 1847. Celtic and Antediluvian Antiquities. Paris: Treuttel et Wurtz. de Souza, J.G. 2011. ‘Linguistics, Archaeology, and the Histories of Language Spread: The Case of the Southern Jê Languages, Brazil’. Cadernos de Etnolingüística 3(2): 1–16. de Terra, H. and H.L. Movius. 1943. ‘Research on Early Man in Myanmar’. Transactions of American Philosophical Society 32: 271–393. Deka, D. and G.C. Sarma. 2010. ‘Traditionally Used Herbs in the Preparation of Rice-Beer by the Rabha Tribe of Goalpara District, Assam’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 9(3): 459–62. (p.285) DeLancey, S.C. 1991. ‘Sino-Tibetan Languages’. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited by W. Bright, 445–9. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2010. ‘Towards a History of Verb Agreement in Tibeto-Burman’. Himalayan Linguistics 9(1): 1–38. Dennell, R. 1978. Early Farming in South Bulguria from the VI to the II Millennia BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Series (Supplementary) 45. Dennell, R.W. 2009. The Palaeolithic Settlements of Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 15 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Dennell, R.W., H. Rendell, and E. Hailwood. 1988. ‘Early Tool-Making in Asia: Two-Million-Year-Old Artifacts in Pakistan’. Antiquity 62: 98–106. Dennell, R.W. and W. Roebroeks. 2005. ‘An Asian Perspective on Early Human Dispersal from Africa’. Nature 438: 1099–104. Deo, S.B. 1985. ‘The Megalithic Problem: A Review’. In Recent Advances in IndoPacific Prehistory, edited by V.N. Misra and P. Bellwood, 447–53. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Deva Nath, H.K., R. Gogoi, and G. Gogoi. 2005. ‘Insects as Human Food with Special Reference to Assam and Northeast India’. Asian Agri-History 9 (2): 119– 27. Devi, L. 2011. ‘Marriage among the Karbis’. In People of Contemporary Northeast India, edited by Tiluttoma Baruah, 205–8. Guwahati: Pratisruti Publishers. Dhamija, J. and J. Jain. 1989. Handwoven Fabrics of India. Ahmedabad: Mapin Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Dhavalikar, M.K. 1973. ‘Archaeology of Gauhati’. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 31–2: 137–49. ———. 1976. ‘Settlement Archaeology of Inamgaon’. Puratattva 8: 44–54. ———. 1977. ‘Inamgaon: Pattern of Settlement’. Man and Environment I: 46–51. ———. 1983. ‘Ethnoarchaeology in India’. Bulletin of the Deccan College PostGraduate and Research Institute 42: 49–68. ———. 1988. The First Farmers of the Deccan. Pune: Ravish Publishers. Diamond, J. 2002. ‘Evolution, Consequences and Future of Plant and Animal Domestication’. Nature 418 (8 August): 700–7. Diamond, J. and P. Bellwood. 2003. ‘Farmers and Their Languages: The First Expansions’. Science 300 (25 April): 597–603. Diffloth, G. 2005. ‘The Contribution of Linguistic Palaeontology to the Homeland of Austroasiatic’. In The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together the Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, edited by L. Sagart, R. Blench, and A. Sanchez-Mazas, 77–80. London: Routledge Curzon. Diffloth, G. and N. Zide. 1992. ‘Austroasiatic Languages’. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics 1, edited by William Bright, 137–42. New York: Oxford University Press.

Page 16 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Dikshit, K.N. 1982. ‘The Neolithic Cultural Frontiers of Kashmir’. Man and Environment VI: 30–6. (p.286) Dikshit, K.N. and M. Hazarika. 2012a. ‘The Earliest Pottery in East Asia: A Review’. Puratattva 42: 227–37. ———. 2012b. ‘The Neolithic Cultures of Northeast India and Adjoining Regions: A Comparative Study’. Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology 7: 98–148. Dikshit, K.R. and J.K. Dikshit. 2004. ‘Shifting Cultivation Studies in India: A Review’. Man and Environment 29(2): 37–69. Dolgopolsky, A. 2008. Nostratic Dictionary. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Duarah, D.K. 1979. ‘Neolithic Celts from Subansiri District’. Arunachal News, August. Dutt, K.N. 1979. Assam District Gazetteer—United Mikirs and North Cachar Hills (Karbi Anglong and North Cachar Hills). Guwahati: Government of Assam Press. Dutta, A.K. 2001. The Brahmaputra. New Delhi: National Book Trust, India. Dutta, B.K. and P.K. Dutta. 2005. ‘Potential of Ethnobotanical Studies in North East India: An Overview’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 4(1): 7–14. Dutta, H.N. 2000–1. ‘Archaeological Importance of Doiyang–Dhansiri valley of Assam’. Puratattva 31: 92–7. Dutta, R., V.K. Kashyap, R. Trivedi, and T.S. Vasulu. 2003. ‘Genomic Diversity in North-East, India: Genetic Relationship among Five Ethnic Populations from Manipur Based on VNTR Polymorphism’. International Journal of Human Genetics 3(1): 21–7. Dutta, S.K. 1993. Geology of N.E. India. New Delhi: Omsons Publications. Eckmeier, E. 2007. ‘Detecting Prehistoric Fire-Based Farming Using Biogeochemical Markers’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to University of Zurich, Switzerland. Edison, S., M. Unnikrishnan, B. Vimala, S. V. Pillai, M.N. Sheela, M.T. Sreekumari, and K. Abraham. 2006. Biodiversity of Tropical Tuber Crops in India. Chennai: Central Tuber Crops Research Institute, National Biodiversity Authority.

Page 17 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Edison, S., S.K. Sreekumari, S.V. Pillai, and M.N. Sheela. 2004. ‘Diversity and Genetic Resources of Taro in India’. In Third Taro Symposium held during 21–3 May 2003, edited by L. Guarino, M. Taylor, and T. Osborn, 85–8. Fiji: Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1969). Neolithic. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. Endle, Rev. S. 1911. The Kacharis. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd. Enfield, Nick J., ed. 2011. Dynamics of Human Diversity: The Case of Mainland Southeast Asia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Fagan, B.M. 1970. ‘Hunter-Gatherers at Gwisho’. In Introductory Reading in Archaeology, edited by B.M. Fagan, 168–74. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. ———. 1991. In the Beginning: An Introduction to Archaeology, 7th edition. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. (p.287) Feng, H.Y. and J. Shryock. 1935. ‘The Black Magic in China Known as Ku’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 55: 1–30. Field, J.S. and M.M. Lahr. 2006. ‘Assessment of the Southern Dispersal: GISBased Analyses of Potential Routes at Oxygen Isotopic Stage 4’. Journal of World Prehistory 19(1): 1–45. Field, J.S., M.D. Petraglia, and M.M. Lahr. 2007. ‘The Southern Dispersal Hypothesis and the South Asian Archaeological Record: Examination of Dispersal Routes through GIS Analysis’. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 88–108. Fleagle, J.G., J.J. Shea, F.E. Grine, A.L. Baden, and R.E. Leakey, eds. 2010. Out of Africa I: The First Hominin Colonization of Eurasia. New York: Springer Science + Business Media B.V. Fokkens, H. 1986. ‘From Shifting Cultivation to Short Fallow Cultivation: Late Neolithic Culture Change in the Netherlands Reconsidered. In Op zoek naar mens en materiële cultuur, Feestbundel aangeboden aan J.D. van der Waals ter gelegenheid van zijn emiritaat, (Groningen), edited by H. Fokkens, P. Banga and M. Bierma, 5–19. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Fornarino, S., M. Pala, V. Battaglia, R. Maranta, A. Achilli, G. Modiano, A. Torroni, O. Semino, and S.A. Santachiara-Benerecetti. 2009. ‘Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome Diversity of the Tharus (Nepal): A Reservoir of Genetic Variation’. BMC Evolutionary Biology 9(154), doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-154.

Page 18 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Forster, P. and C. Renfrew, eds. 2006. Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Fuller, D.Q. 2005–6. ‘The Ganges on the World Neolithic Map: The Significance of Recent Research on Agricultural Origins in Northern India’. Pragdhara 16: 187–206. ———. 2006. ‘Agricultural Origins and Frontiers in South Asia: A Working Synthesis’. Journal of World Prehistory 20: 1–86. ———. 2011. ‘Pathways to Asian Civilisations: Tracing the Origins and Spread of Rice and Rice Agricultures’. Rice 4 (3–4): 78–92. Fuller, D.Q. and M. Madella. 2009. ‘Banana Cultivation in South Asia and East Asia: A Review of the Evidence from Archaeology and Linguistics’. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 7: 333–51. Fuller, D.Q. and N. Boivin. 2002. ‘Beyond Description and Diffusion: A History of Processual Theory in the Archaeology of South Asia’. In Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, volume 4, Archaeology and Historiography: History, Theory and Method, edited by S. Settar and R. Korisettar, 159–90. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research and Manohar. (p.288) Fuller, D.Q., L. Qin, and E. Harvey. 2008. ‘A Critical Assessment of Early Agriculture in East Asia, with emphasis on Lower Yangtze Rice Domestication’. Pragdhara 18: 17–52. Gaillard, C. and A. Dambricourt-Malassé. 2008. Les principales étapes de l’ occupation humaine en bordure de l’Himalaya occidentale. L’anthropologie 112: 404–422. Gaillard, C. and S. Mishra. 2001. ‘The Lower Palaeolithic in South Asia’. In Origin of Settlements and Chronology of the Paleolithic Cultures in SE Asia, edited by F. Semah, C. Falgueres, D. Grimaund-Herve, and A.M. Semah, 73–92. Paris: Semenanjung. Gaillard, C., M. Singh, and A. Dambricourt-Malassé. 2011. ‘Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene Lithic Industries in the Southern Fringes of the Himalaya’. Quaternary International 229: 112–22. Gait, E.A. 1926. A History of Assam. Guwahati: Lawyer’s Book Stall (Reprint 1997). Gao, S.L., W.W. Huang, X.H. Hao, and B.L. Chen. 1997. ‘Fission Track Dating of Ancient Man Site in Baise (Bose), China, and Its Significances in Space

Page 19 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Research, Paleomagnetism, and Stratigraphy. Radiation Measurements 28: 565– 70. Gardner, G.B. 1942. ‘British Charms, Amulets and Talismans’. Folklore 53(2): 95– 103. Geological Survey of India (GSI). 2009a. ‘Geology and Mineral Resources of Assam’. Geological Survey of India Miscellaneous Publication no. 30, part iv, vol. 2(i) Assam. Shillong: Government of India. ———. 2009b. ‘Geology and Mineral Resources of Meghalaya’. Geological Survey of India Miscellaneous Publication no. 30, part iv, vol. 2(ii) Meghalaya. Shillong: Government of India. ———. 2010. ‘Geology and Mineral Resources of Arunachal Pradesh’. Geological Survey of India Miscellaneous Publication, no. 30, part iv, vol. 1(i) Arunachal Pradesh. Shillong: Government of India. ———. 2011. ‘Geology and Mineral Resources of Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura’. Geological Survey of India Miscellaneous Publication no. 30, part iv, vol. 1, part 2. Kolkata: Geological Survey of India. ———. 2012. ‘Geology and Mineral Resources of the States of India’. Geological Survey of India Miscellaneous Publication, no. 30, part xix, Sikkim. Kolkata: Government of India. Gepts, P. 2008. ‘Tropical Environments, Biodiversity, and the Origin of Crops’. In Genomics of Tropical Crop Plants, edited by P.H. Moore and R. Ming, 1–20. New York: Springer-Verlag. Ghosh, A. 1989. Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology, vol. 2. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (p.289) Ghosh, A.K. 1978. ‘What Happens When Cultural and Biological Adaptability of Man Fails? A Case Study with the Palaeolithic Period in Garo Hills’. In Cultural and Biological Adaptability of Man with Special Reference of Northeast India, edited by R.K. Kar, 6–15. Dibrugarh: Dibrugarh University. Gladfelter, B. 1977. ‘Geoarchaeology: The Geomorphologist and Archaeology’. American Antiquity 42(4): 519–38. Glover, I.C. 1985. ‘Some Problems Relating to the Domestication of Rice in Asia’. In Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory, edited by V.N. Misra and P. Bellwood, 265–74. New Delhi: Oxford University Press and IBH Publishing. Godwin-Austin, H.H. 1875. ‘A Celt Found in the Khasi Hills at Shillong’. Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 158–9. Page 20 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Gogoi, J. 2008. Mikir (Karbi), In Axomor Jonojati, edited by P.C. Bhattacharjee, 94–111. Dhemaji: Kiran Prakashan. Gogoi Duarah, A. 2015. ‘Survival of Prehistoric Traditions in the Foothills Region of Southern Assam with Special Reference to Its Highland Counterpart’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Gauhati University, Guwahati. Goldsmith, M.R., T. Shimada, and H. Abe. 2004. ‘The Genetics and Genomics of the Silkworm, Bombyx mori’. Annual Review of Entomology 50: 71–100. Good, I.L. 2002. ‘The Archaeology of Early Silk’. Paper presented at the Eighth Biennial Symposium on Silk Roads, Other Roads, at the Smith College Campus, Northampton, Massachusetts, 26–28 September. Goodrum, M.R. 2008. ‘Questioning Thunderstones and Arrowheads: The Problem of Recognizing and Interpreting Stone Artifacts in the Seventeenth Century’. Early Science and Medicine 13(5): 482–508. Gorman, C.W. 1970. ‘Excavations at Spirit Cave, North Thailand: Some Interim Interpretations’. Asian Perspectives 13: 79–108. ———. 1971. ‘The Hoabinhian and After: Subsistence Patterns in Southeast Asia during the Late Pleistocene and Early Recent Periods’. World Archaeology 2: 300–20. Goswami, M.C. and A.C. Bhagabati. 1959. ‘A Preliminary Report on a Collection Neolithic Tool Types from Western Assam’. Man in India 39(4): 312–24. Goswami, M.C. and T.C. Sharma. 1963. ‘A Brief Report on the Investigation into Prehistoric Archaeology in the N.C. Hills’. Journal of the Gauhati University 13(2): 63–6. Goswami, M.C., H.C. Sharma, and R.C. Das. 1972. ‘A Typological Study of Some Prehistoric Tools from the Kameng District of N.E.F.A’. Journal of Assam Research society 15(1): 29–35. Grist, D.H. 1975. Rice. London and New York: Longman. Grivet, L., C. Daniels, J.C. Glaszmann, and A. D’Hont. 2004. ‘A Review of Recent Molecular Genetics Evidence for Sugarcane Evolution and Domestication’. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 2: 9–17. (p.290) Gupta A.K. and N. Sharma. 2005. ‘Conservation Status of Hoolock Gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock) in Mizoram’. In Conservation of Hoolock Gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock) in Northeast India, Final Report of Wildlife Institute of India and United States Fish and Wildlife Services Collaborative Project, edited by A.K. Gupta, 35–110. Dehradun: Wildlife Institute of India. Page 21 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Gupta, A. and K. Guha. 2002. ‘Tradition and Conservation in Northeastern India: An Ethical Analysis’. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 12: 15– 18. Gupta, S. 2006. ‘Indo-Chinese Crossroads: the Assam-Yunnan Axis in the Indian Ocean Interaction Sphere (1st–5th century CE)’. Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology 3: 90–107. Gupta, V. 2005. ‘Jhum Cultivation Practices of the Bangis (Nishis) of Arunachal Pradesh’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 4(1): 47–56. Gurdon, P.R.T. 1987. The Khasis. New Delhi: Cosmo Publication. Hajra, P.K. and A.K. Baishya. 1997. ‘Ethnobotanical Notes on the Miris (Mishings) of Assam Plains’. In Contribution to Indian Ethnobotany, vol. 1, edited by S.K. Jain, 161–8. Jodhpur: Scientific Publishers. Hakacham, U.R. 2003. ‘Karbi Jonogoshthi aru Axomiya Xomaj-Xongskritiloi Teulokor Avadan’. In Axomiya Jati aru Xongskriti, edited by P. Rajbongshi, 36–48. Guwahati: Pragjyotish College. Häkkinen, M. and S. Sharrock. 2002. ‘Diversity in the Genus Musa: Focus on Rhodochlamys’. In INIBAP Annual Report 2001, 16–23. Montpelier: INIBAP. Harlan, J.R. 1976. ‘Plant and Animal Distribution in Relation to Domestication’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 275(936): 13–25. Harris, D.R. 1973. ‘The Prehistory of Tropical Agriculture: An Ethnoecological Model’. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by Colin Renfrew, 391–417. London: Duckworth. ———. 1996a. ‘Introduction: Themes and Concepts in the Study of Agriculture’. In The Origin and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, edited by D.R. Harris, 1–9. London: UCL Press. ———. 1996b. ‘The Origin and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: An Overview’. In The Origin and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, edited by D.R. Harris, 552–73. London: UCL Press. Harvey, E.L., D.Q. Fuller, R.K. Mohanty, and B. Mohanta. 2006. ‘Early Agriculture in Orissa: Some Archaeobotanical Results and Field Observations on the Neolithic’. Man and Environment 31(2): 21–32. Hather, J.G. 1993. An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification. Oxford: Oxford Monograph 28.

Page 22 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Hazarika, M. 2005. ‘Neolithic Culture of Northeast India with Special Reference to the Origins of Pottery and Agriculture’. Unpublished MA dissertation submitted to Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Pune. (p. 291) Hazarika, M. 2006a. ‘Understanding the Process of Plants and Animal Domestication in Northeast India: A Hypothetical Approach’. Asian Agri-History 10(3): 203–12. ———. 2006b. ‘Neolithic Culture of Northeast India: A Recent Perspective on the Origins of Pottery and Agriculture’. Ancient Asia 1: 25–43. ———. 2007. ‘Homo erectus/ergaster and Out of Africa: Recent Development in Paleoanthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology’. European Anthropological Association (EAA) Summer School eBook 1: 35–41. ———. 2008a. ‘Archaeological Research in Northeast India: A Critical Review’. Journal of Historical Research, Dibrugarh University 16: 1–14. ———. 2008a. ‘Prehistoric Importance of Northeast India: Some Theoretical Considerations’. Proceedings of North East India History Association 28: 22–36. ———. 2011a. ‘Archaeological Record of Human ‘Movements’ in Northeast India’. In People of Contemporary Northeast India, edited by T. Baruah, 288–305. Guwahati: Pratisruti Publishers. ———. 2011b. ‘Shared Cultural Background of Northeast Indian Tribes: Some Thoughts in Archaeological Perspective’. In The North East Umbrella: CulturalHistorical Interaction and Isolation of the Tribes in the Region (Pre-History to 21st Century), edited by M. Mitri and D. Kharmawphlang, 16–36. Shillong: Don Bosco Centre for Indigenous Cultures Publication. ———. 2011c. ‘A Recent Perspective on the Prehistoric Cultures of Northeast India’. In Understanding North East India: Cultural Diversities, Insurgency and Identities, edited by M. Rajput, 30–55. New Delhi: Manak Publications Pvt. Ltd. ———. 2011d. ‘Late Quaternary Archaeological Record of Northeast India and Its Bearing on the Prehistory of Himalaya and Adjoining Regions’. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Prehistory of Tibetan Plateau at Sichuan University, Chengdu, China during 21–4 August, 2011. ———. 2011e. ‘Origin and Development of Rice Agriculture: Perspectives from Northeast India’. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Rice and Language across Asia: Crops, Movement, and Social Change at the Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA during 22–5 September 2011.

Page 23 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References ———. 2012a. ‘Lithic Industries with Palaeolithic Elements in Northeast India’. Quaternary International 269: 48–58. ———. 2012b. ‘Common Cultural Elements of the Tribal Groups of Northeast India’. In Social and Cultural Stratification in Northeast India, edited by M. Rajput, 49–79. New Delhi: Manak Publications Pvt. Ltd. ———. 2013a. ‘Prehistoric Cultural Affinities between Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Northeast India: An Exploration’. In Unearthing Southeast Asia’s Past, Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference of the European Association of South East Asian Archaeologists, vol. 1, edited by M.J. Klokke and V. Degroot, 16–25. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. (p.292) Hazarika, M. 2013b. ‘Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic Context of Eastern India’. In Neolithic-Chalcolithic Cultures of Eastern India, edited by K.N. Dikshit, 78–110. New Delhi: Indian Archaeological Society. ———. 2013c. ‘Glimpses of Eastern Himalayan Prehistory’. In Eastern Himalaya, edited by M. Rajput. New Delhi: Manak Publications Pvt. Ltd. ———. 2014. ‘Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman Linguistic Dispersals in Northeast India: An Archaeological Perspective’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Bern University, Switzerland. ———. 2016a. ‘Archaeological Reconnaissance in Garbhanga Reserve Forest, Assam’. Man and Environment 41(1): 52–63. ———. 2016b. ‘Tracing Post-Pleistocene Human Movements and Cultural Connections of the Eastern Himalayan Region with the Tibetan Plateau’. Journal of Archaeological Research in Asia 5: 44–53. Higham, C. 1989. The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1995. ‘The Transition to Rice Cultivation in Southeast Asia’. In Last Hunters-First Farmers, edited by T.D. Price and A.B. Gebauer, 127–56. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Hilaluddin, K.R. and D. Ghose. 2005. ‘Conservation Implications of Wild Animal Biomass Extractions in Northeast India’. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 28(2): 169–79. Hill, C., P. Soares, M. Mormina, V. Macaulay, W. Meehan, J. Blackburn, D. Clarke, J.M. Raja, P. Ismail, D. Bulbeck, S. Oppenheimer, and M. Richards. 2006. ‘Phylogeography and Ethnogenesis of Aboriginal Southeast Asians’. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23(12): 2480–91.

Page 24 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Hillman, G.C. 2000. ‘Abu Hureyra 1: The Epipalaeolithic’. In Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra, edited by A.M.T. Moore, G. Hillman, and A.J. Legge, 327–98. New York: Oxford University Press. Hillman, G.C. and M.S. Davies. 1999. ‘Domestication Rate in Wild Wheat and Barley under Primitive Cultivation: Preliminary Results and Archaeological Implications of Field Measurements of Selection Coefficient’. In Prehistory of Agriculture: New Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches, edited by P. Anderson, 70–102. Los Angeles: The Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Hooijer, D.A. 1949. ‘Mammalian evolution in the Quaternary of Southern and Eastern Asia’. Evolution 3: 125–8. Hore, D.K. 1998. ‘Diversity in Agricultural Plants: An Experience with Northeast India’. In Agriculture, Biodiversity and Climate Change Souvenir, 11–13. Shilling: North Eastern Hill University. (p.293) Hore, D.K. 2005. ‘Rice Diversity Collection, Conservation and Management in North-eastern India’. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52: 1129–1140. Hou, Y., R. Potts, B. Yuan, Z. Guo, A. Deino, W. Wang, J. Clark, G. Xie, and W. Huang. 2000. ‘Mid-Pleistocene Acheulian-like Stone Technology of the Bose Basin, South China’. Science 287 (5458): 1622–6. Huang W., X. Si, Y. Hou, S. Miller-Antonio, and L.A. Schepartz. 1995. ‘Excavations at Panxian Dadong, Guizhou Province, Southern China’. Current Anthropology 36(5): 844–6. Huidrom Singh, B.K. 1996. ‘Plants used in Medico-Sexual Purposes by Meitei community in Manipur state, India’. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 12: 364–6. Hurles, M.E., E. Matisoo-Smith, R.D. Gray, and D. Penny. 2003. ‘Untangling Oceanic Settlement: The Edge of the Knowable’. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(10): 531–40. Hutton, J.H. 1924. ‘Two Celts from the Naga Hills’. Man 24(15): 20–2. ———. 1928. ‘Prehistory of Assam’. Man in India 8(4): 228–32. Indian Archaeology: A Review (IAR), vols 1954–5, 1960–1, 1961–2, 1962–3, 1963–4, 1964–5, 1965–6, 1966–7, 1967–8, 1968–9, 1969–70, 1970–1, 1971–2, 1974–5, 1975–6, 1976–7, 1977–8, 1978–9, 1979–80, 1980–1, 1981–2, 1982–3, 1983–4, 1984–5, 1986–7, 1991–2, 1992–3, 1994–5, 1995–6, 1996–7, 1998–9, 1999–2000, 2000–1, 2012–13. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.

Page 25 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Ikehashi, H. 2009. ‘Why Are There Indica Type and Japonica Type in Rice? History of the Studies and a View for Origin of Two Types’. Rice Science 16(1): 1–13. Ishikawa, R., Y.I. Sato, T. Tang, and I. Nakamura, 2002. ‘Different Maternal Origins of Japanese Lowland and Upland Rice Populations’. Theoretical Applied Genetics 104: 976–80. Jääts, L., M. Konsa, K. Kihno, and P. Tomson. 2011. ‘Fire Cultivation in Estonian Cultural Landscapes’. In The Space of Culture: The Place of Nature in Estonia and Beyond, edited by T. Peil, 165–80. Approaches to Culture Theory 1. Tartu: Tartu University Press. Jamir, N.S. and P. Lal. 2005. ‘Ethnozoological Practices among Naga Tribes’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 4(1): 100–4. Jamir, T. 2004. ‘Megaliths of Nagaland: Reflections of Material Milieu and Social Values’. In Society and Economy of Northeast India, vol. 1, edited by M. Momin and C.A. Mawlong, 105–17. New Delhi: Regency Publications. ———. 2005. ‘Megalithic Burial Tradition of the Nagas (with special reference to the Angami and Chakhesang Nagas): An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective.’ Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Pune. (p.294) Jamir, T. 2011. ‘Integrating Traditional Knowledge, Archaeology and Heritage Management in Nagaland’. In The North East Umbrella: Cultural-Historical Interaction and Isolation of the Tribes in the Region (Pre-History to 21st Century), edited by M. Mitri and D. Kharmawphlang, 37–56. Shillong: Don Bosco Centre for Indigenous Cultures Publication. ———. 2013. ‘Piecing Together from Fragments: Re-evaluating the “Neolithic” Situation in Northeast India’. In Neolithic-Chalcolithic Cultures of Eastern India, edited by K.N. Dikshit, 44–66. New Delhi: Indian Archaeological Society. Jamir, T. and M. Hazarika. 2014. ‘Introduction’. In 50 Years after Daojali-Hading: Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of Northeast India: Essays in Honour of Tarun Chandra Sharma, edited by T. Jamir and M. Hazarika, 1–20. New Delhi: Research India Press. Jamir, W. 1997. ‘Megalithic Traditions in Nagaland: An Ethno-Archaeological Study’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Gauhati University, Guwahati. ———. 1997–8. ‘Megalithic in Nagaland’. Puratattva 28: 104–11.

Page 26 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Jensen, O.W. 1999. ‘From Divine Missiles to Human Implements : The Shift in the Perception of Antiquities during the Second Half of the 17th Century’. In Glyfer och arkeologiska rum: en vänbok till Jarl Nordbladh, edited by A. Gustafsson and H. Karlsson, 553–67. Göteborg: Göteborg University. Jin, L., M. Seielstad and C. Xiao, eds. 2001. Genetic, Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on Human Diversity in Southeast Asia. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co. Johanson, K. 2006. ‘The Contribution of Stray Finds for Studying Everyday Practices: The Example of Stone Axes’. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 10(2): 99–131. ———. 2009. ‘The Changing Meaning of “Thunderbolts”’. Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore 42: 129–74. Johansson, P. 2003. ‘The Lure of Origins: An Inquiry into Human-Environmental Relations, Focused on the “Neolithization” of Sweden’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Lund University, Sweden. Jolly M.S. and S.K. Sen. 1974. Maqbool Ahsan, Tasar Culture. Ranchi: Central Silk Board, India. Kalita, B., A. Dutta, S.K. Bhagabati, and A. Sharma. 2010. ‘Indigenous Technical Knowledge for Fish Harvesting in Karbi-Anglong District of Assam’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 9(2): 252–5. Kanungo, A.K. 2006. ‘Indian Ocean and the Naga Ornaments’. Bulletin of Indopacific Prehistory Association 26: 154–62. Kar, A. and S.K. Borthakur. 2007. ‘Wild Vegetables Sold in Local Markets of Karbi Anglong, Assam’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 6(1): 169–72. Kar, D. and N. Sen, 2007. ‘Systematic List and Distribution of Fishes in Mizoram, Tripura and Barak Drainage of Northeastern India’. Zoos’ Print Journal 22(3): 2599–607. (p.295) Kar, D., A.V. Nagarathna, T.V. Ramachandra, and S.C. Dey. 2006. ‘Fish Diversity and Conservation Aspects in an Aquatic Ecosystem in Northeastern India’. Zoo’s Print Journal 21(7): 2308–15. Kashyap, V.K., S. Guha, T. Sitalaximi, G. Hima Bindu, Seyed E. Hasnain, and R. Trivedi. 2006. ‘Genetic Structure of Indian Populations Based on Fifteen Autosomal Microsatellite Loci’. BMC Genetics 7:28, doi:10.1186/1471-2156-7-28.

Page 27 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Kayal, J.R., S.S. Arefiev, S. Barua, D. Hazarika, N. Gogoi, A. Kumar, S.N. Chowdhury, and S. Kalita, 2006. ‘Shillong Plateau Earthquakes in Northeast India Region: Complex Tectonic Model’. Current Science 91(1): 109–14. Kennedy, K.A.R. and J. Levisky. 1985. ‘The Element of Racial Biology in Indian Megalithism’. In Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory, edited by V.N. Misra and P. Bellwood, 455–64. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing. Khan, M.L., A.D. Khumbongmayum, and R.S. Tripathi. 2008. ‘The Sacred Groves and Their Significance in Conserving Biodiversity: An Overview’. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 34(3): 277–91. Kharakwal, J.S., A. Yano, Y. Yasuda, V.S. Shinde, and T. Osada. 2004. ‘Cordimpressed Ware and Rice Cultivation in South Asia, China and Japan: Possibilities of Inter-links’. Quaternary International 123–5: 105–15. Kharkonger, P. and J.A. Joseph. 1997. ‘Folklore Medico-botany of Rural Khasi and Jaintia Tribes in Meghalaya. In Contribution to Indian Ethnobotany, vol. 1, edited by S.K. Jain, 195–208. Jodhpur: Scientific Publishers. Khazanchi, T.N. 1977. ‘North-Western Neolithic Culture of India’. Newsletter of the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla 7–8. Khazanchi, T.N. and K.N. Dikshit. 1980. ‘The Grey Ware Culture of Northern Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmit and Panjab’. Puratattva 9: 47–51. Khumbongmayum, A.D., M.I. Khan, and R.S. Tripathi. 2005. ‘Sacred Groves of Manipur, Northeast India: Biodiversity Value, Status and Strategies for Their Conservation’. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 1541–82. Khush, G.S. 1997. ‘Origin, Dispersal, Cultivation and Variation of Rice’. Plant Molecular Biology 35: 25–34. Kingwell-Banham, E. and D.Q. Fuller. 2012. ‘Shifting Cultivators in South Asia: Expansion, Marginalisation and Specialization over the Long Term’. Quaternary International 249: 84–95. Kirch, P.V. 1977. ‘Valley Agricultural Systems in Prehistoric Hawaii: An Archaeological Consideration’. Asian Perspectives xx (2): 246–80. Kislev, M.E., E. Weiss, and A. Hartmann. 2004. ‘Impetus for Sowing and the Beginning of Agriculture: Ground Collecting of Wild Cereals’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101(9): 2692–5. Krishnaswami, V.D. 1962. ‘The Neolithic Patterns of India’. Ancient India 16: 25– 64.

Page 28 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Krithika, S., S. Maji, and T.S. Vasulu. 2007. ‘Geographic Contiguity, Patterns of Gene Flow and Genetic Affinity among the Tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, India’. International Journal of Human Genetics 7(3): 267–76. (p.296) Krithika, S., S. Maji, and T.S. Vasulu. 2008. ‘A Microsatellite Guided Insight into the Genetic Status of Adi, an Isolated Hunting-Gathering Tribe of Northeast India’. PLoS ONE 3(7): e2549. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002549. Kroeber, A.L. 1948. Anthropology: Race, Language, Culture, Psychology, Prehistory. New York and Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. Kuijt, I. and A. Goring-Morris. 2002. ‘Foraging, Farming and Social Complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis’. Journal of World Prehistory 16: 361–440. Kumar, V., B.T. Langsiteh, S. Biswas, J.P. Babu, T.N. Rao, K. Thangaraj, A.G. Reddy, L. Singh, and B.M. Reddy. 2006. ‘Asian and Non-Asian Origins of MonKhmer and Mundari-Speaking Austro-Asiatic Populations of India’. American Journal of Human Biology 18: 461–9. Kumar, V., A.N.S. Reddy, J.P. Babu, T.N. Rao, B.T. Langstieh, K. Thangaraj, A.G. Reddy, L. Singh, and B.M. Reddy. 2007. ‘Y chromosome Evidence Suggests a Common Paternal Heritage of Austro-Asiatic Populations. BMC Evolutionary Biology 7: 47. Kumar, V. and B.M. Reddy. 2003. ‘Status of Austro-Asiatic Groups in the Peopling of India: An Exploratory Study Based on the Available Prehistoric, Linguistic and Biological Evidences. Journal of Bioscience 28: 507–22. Kuruvilla, K.M. and A. Singh. 1981. ‘Karyotypic and Electrophoretic Studies on Taro and Its Origin’. Euphytica 30(2): 405–13. Kuzmin, Y.V. and C.T. Keally. 2001. ‘Radiocarbon Chronology of the Earliest Neolithic Sites in East Asia’. Radiocarbon 43(2B): 1121–8. Lahiri, N. 1992. The Archaeology of Indian Trade Routes up to c. 200 B.C.: Resource Use, Resource Access and Lines of Communication. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Lahkar, D., B.P. Lahkar, F. Ahmed, B.K. Talukdar, and B. Baruah. 2010. ‘Checklist of the Birds of Garbhanga Reserve Forest, Assam, India’. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50(6): 83–6. Lal, M. 1984. Settlement History and the Rise of Civilisation in the GangaYamuna Doab. Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation.

Page 29 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Lalrimawia. 1981. ‘Pre-historic and Historic Migrations of the Mizos’. Proceedings of the North East India History Association 2: 23–33. Lalthangliana, B. 1977. History of the Mizo in Burma. Aizawl, Mizoram: Zawlbuk Agencies. Lama, G.K. 2008. ‘Neolithic Culture in Kalimpong and Sikkim: A Reassessment’. Puratattva 39: 39–49. ———. 2013. ‘Neolithic Culture of Mid North-Eastern Region of India: A Report’. In Neolithic-Chalcolithic Cultures of Eastern India, edited by K.N. Dikshit, 216– 24. New Delhi: Indian Archaeological Society. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. 2002. ‘Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians’. Current Anthropology 43(1): 63–88. (p.297) LaPolla, R.J. 2000. ‘Subgrouping in Tibeto-Burman: Can an Individual-Identifying Standard Be Developed? How Do We Factor in the History of Migrations and Language Contact?’ In Language Typology and Historical Contingency, In Honor of Johanna Nichols, edited by B. Bickel, L.A. Grenoble, D.A. Peterson, and A. Timberlake, 463–74. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ———. 2001. ‘The Role of Migration and Language Contact in the Development of the Sino-Tibetan Language Family’. In Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Case Studies in Language Change, edited by R.M.W. Dixon and A.Y. Aikhenvald, 225–54. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2006. ‘Sino-Tibetan Languages’. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition, edited by Keith Brown, 393–7. London: Elsevier. Larson, G. and K. Dobney. 2005. ‘Worldwide Phylogeography of Wild Boar Reveals Multiple Centres of Pig Domestication’. Science 307: 1618–21. Leach, M., ed. 1972. ‘Flint’. In Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend, 394–5. New York: HarperCollins. Li, C., A. Zhou, and T. Sang. 2006. ‘Genetic Analysis of Rice Domestication Syndrome with the Wild Annual Species, Oryza nivara’. New Phytologist 170: 185–94. Linhui, L. 2011. ‘Quta Burials on Zhada, Western Tibet’. Paper Presented at the International Conference on the Prehistory of the Tibetan Plateau at the Center for Tibetan Studies of Sichuan University, 21–4 August 2011. Liu, X., M.K. Jones, Z. Zhao, G. Liu, T.C. O'Connell. 2012. ‘The Earliest Evidence of Millet as a Staple Crop: New Light on Neolithic Foodways in North China’. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 149(2): 283–90. Page 30 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Londo, J.P., Y. Chiang, K. Hung, T. Chiang, and A. Barbara. 2006. ‘Phylogeography of Asian Wild Rice, Oryza rufipogon, Reveals Multiple Independent Domestications of Cultivated Rice, Oryza sativa’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 103(25): 9578–83. Lordkipanidze, D., T. Jashashvili, A. Vekua, M.S.P. de León, C.P.E. Zollikofer, G.P. Rightmire, H. Pontzer, R. Ferring, O. Oms, M. Tappen, M. Bukhsianidze, J. Agusti, R. Kahlke, G. Kiladze, B. Martinez-Navarro, A. Mouskhelishvili, M. Nioradze, and L. Rook. 2007. ‘Postcranial Evidence from Early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia’. Nature 449: 305–10. Lu, H., J. Zhang, K. Liu, N. Wu, Y. Li, K. Zhou, M. Ye, T. Zhang, H. Zhang, X. Yang, L. Shen, D. Xu, Q. Li. 2009. ‘Earliest Domestication of Common Millet (Panicum miliaceum) in East Asia Extended to 10,000 Years Ago’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(18): 7367–72. Lubbock, J. 1865. Prehistoric Times as Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. London: Williams and Norgate. (p. 298) Lubbock, J. 1867. ‘The Stone Age Stone Tools in Upper Assam’. Athenaeum June 22: 822. Lyall, C. 1908. The Mikirs. Guwahati and Delhi: Spectrum Publications (reprint). Mahanta, H.C. 1995. ‘A Study on the Stone Age Cultures of Selbalgiri, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Gauhati University, Guwahati. Majumdar, R.C. 1990. ‘Colonial and Cultural Expansion’. In The Age of Imperial Unity, edited by R.C. Majumdar, 6th edition, 635–59. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Malik, S.K., R. Chaudhury, O.P. Dhariwal, and R.K. Kalia. 2006. ‘Collection and Characterization of Citrus indica Tanaka and Citrus macroptera Montr.: Wild Endangered Species of Northeastern India’. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 53: 1485–93. Mani, B.R. 2008. ‘Kashmir Neolithic and Early Harappan: A Linkage’. Pragdhara 18: 229–47. Mani, M.S. 1974. Ecology and Biogeography in India. The Hague: Dr. W. Junk b.v. Publishers. Mao, A.A., T.M. Hynniewta, and M. Sanjappa. 2009. ‘Plant Wealth of Northeast India with Reference to Ethnobotany’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 8(1): 96–103. Page 31 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Marak, C.R. 2004a. ‘Introduction’. In Rivers and Culture: Focus on Garo Hills, edited by C.R. Marak and S. Som, v–xvi. Bhopal: Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya. ———. 2004b. ‘Some Aspects of the A.Chik Culture in the Brahmaputra Valley’. In Rivers and Culture: Focus on Garo Hills, edited by C.R. Marak and S. Som, 1– 12. Bhopal: Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya. Marak, J. 1982. Garo History, second edition, part 1. Marwick, B. 2008. ‘What Attributes are Important for the Measurement of Assemblage Reduction Intensity? Results from an Experimental Stone Artefact Assemblage with Relevance to the Hoabinhian of Mainland Southeast Asia’. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 1189–200. ——. 2009. ‘Biogeography of Middle Pleistocene Hominins in Mainland Southeast Asia: A Review of Current Evidence’. Quaternary International 202: 51–8. Mathews, J.M. 1968. ‘A Review of the “Hoabinhian” in Indo-China’. Asian Perspectives 9: 86–95. Mathur, P.K., P.K. Malik, and P.D. Muley. 1995. Ecology and Population Genetics of Asian Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis Linn.) in India. Derhadun: Wildlife Institute of India. Matisoff, J.A. 1991. ‘Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Present State and Future Prospects’. Annual Review of Anthropology 20: 469–504. ———. 1999. ‘In Defence of Kamarupan’. Lingusitics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 22(2): 173–82. (p.299) Matsumura, H., M. Yoneda, Y. Dodo, M.F. Oxenham, N.L. Cuong, N.K. Thuy, L.M. Dung, V.T. Long, M. Yamagata, J. Sawada, K. Shinoda, and W. Takigawa. 2008. ‘Terminal Pleistocene Human Skeleton from Hang Cho Cave, Northern Vietnam: Implications for the Biological Affinities of Hoabinhian People’. Anthropological Science 116(3): 201–17. Matthews, P.J. 1991. ‘A Possible Tropical Wildtype Taro: Colocasia esculenta var. aquatilis’. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 11: 69–81. ———. 2004. ‘Genetic Diversity in Taro, and the Preservation of Culinary Knowledge’. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 2: 55–71. Mawlong, C. 1990. ‘Classification of Khasi Megaliths: A Critique’. Proceedings of the North East India History Association, 11.

Page 32 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References ———. 2004. ‘Megaliths and Social Formation in Khasi Jaintia Hills’. In Society and Economy of Northeast India, vol. 1, edited by M. Momin and C.A. Mawlong. Shillong: Department of History, North Eastern Hill University. McConvell, P. and N. Evans, eds. 1997. Archaeology and Linguistics: Aboriginal Australia in Global Perspective. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Mcnamara, K.J. 2007. ‘Shepherds’ Crowns, Fairy Loaves and Thunderstones: The Mythology of Fossil Echinoids in England’. In Myth and Geology, edited by L. Piccardi and W.B. Masse, 279–94. London: Geological Society. Medhi, B.K. 1988. ‘The Karbi Society at a Glance’. Souvenir of the Anthropological Society of North-East India 1987–88: 8–13. Medhi, D.K. 1980. ‘Quaternary History of the Garo Hills, Meghalaya’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to University of Poona, Pune. ———. 1988. ‘Palaeolithic Remains from the Garo Hills, Meghalaya’. In History and Archaeology (Professor H.D. Sankalia Felicitation Volume), edited by B. Chatterjee, 346–50. Delhi: Ramanand and Vidya Bhawan. ———. 1990. ‘Prehistory of Assam’. Asian Perspectives 29(1): 37–44. ———. 2002. Man and Environment of Northeast India, vol. II. New Delhi: Omsons Publications. ———. 2003. ‘Potters and Pottery of the Assam Region’. In Earthenware of Southeast Asia, edited by John Miksic, 322–35. Singapore: University Press. Medhi, D.K., Boichhingpuii, and P. Sarma. 2006. ‘Palaeolithic Cultural Evidence in Mizoram, India’. Paper Presented at the 18th Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Congress, 20–6 March 2006. Medhi, G.C. 1974. ‘A Brief Account of Migration Route of the Karbis of Assam’. Historical Journal (Diphu Govt. College) 1. Medhi, R.P. and S. Chakrabarti. 2009. ‘Traditional Knowledge of NE People on Conservation of Wild Orchids’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 8(1): 11– 16. Mehrotra, R.C., N. Awasthi, and S.K. Dutta. 1999. ‘Study of Fossil Wood from the Upper Tertiary Sediments (Siwalik) of Arunachal Pradesh, India and (p.300) Its Implication in Palaeoecological and Phytogeographical Interpretations’. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 107: 223–47. Meyer, M.C., C. Hofmann, A.M.D. Gemmell, E. Haslinger, H. Hausler, D. Wangda. 2009. ‘Holocene Glacier Fluctuations and Migration of Neolithic Yak Pastoralists

Page 33 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References into the High Valleys of Northwest Bhutan’. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 1217–37. Meyer-Rochow, V.B. 2005. ‘Traditional Food Insects and Spiders in Several Ethnic groups of Northeast India, Papua New Guinea, Australia, and New Zealand’. In Ecological Implications of Minilivestock: Potential of Insects, Rodents, Frogs and Snails, edited by M.G. Paoletti, 389–413. Enfield: Science Publishers Inc. Mignon-Grasteau, S., A. Boissy, J. Bouix, J. Faure, A.D. Fisher, G.N. Hinch, P. Jensen, P.L. Neindre, P. Mormè de, P. Prunet, M. Vandeputte, and C. Beaumont. 2005. ‘Genetics of Aadaptation and Domestication in Livestock’. Livestock Production Science 93: 3–14. Mills, J.P. 1928. ‘Hills Tribes of Assam’. Assam Review, March 1928. ———. 1933. ‘Assam as a Field of Research’. Journal of Assam Research Society 1(1): 3–6. Mishra, K.B. 2010. ‘Ceramic Traditions of Middle Ganga Plain (From the Beginning to the Early Iron Age)’. Puratattva 40: 147–61. Mishra, K.B. and M. Hazarika. 2013. A Glimpse of the Neolithic-Chalcolithic Cultures of Eastern and Northeast India, In Art and Archaeology of Madhya Pradesh and Adjoining Regions: Recent Perspectives, edited by P. Rag, V. Shinde and O.P. Misra, 323–44. Bhopal: Govt. of Madhya Pradesh. Mishra, P.K. 2008. Archaeological Exploration in Sikkim. New Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan. Mishra, S. 2006/2007. ‘The Indian Lower Palaeolithic’. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 66–7: 47–94. ———. 2010. ‘The Movius Line: A Late Pleistocene Phenomenon’. Paper Presented at the 3rd Asian Palaeolithic Association International Symposium, Gongju, Korea, during 10–15 October 2010. Mishra, S., C. Gaillard, C. Hertler, A.M. Moigne, and T. Simanjuntak. 2010. ‘India and Java: Constricting Records, Intimate Connection’. Quaternary International 223–4: 265–70. Misra, V.D. 2007. ‘Stone Age Cultures, Their Chronology and Beginning of Agriculture in North-Central India’. Man and Environment 32(1): 1–14. Misra, V.D., J.N. Pal, and M.C. Gupta. 2000–1. ‘Excavation at Tokwa: A Neolithic– Chalcolithic Settlement’. Pragdhara 11: 59–72.

Page 34 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References ———. 2002–3. ‘Further Excavations at Jhusi: Evidence of Neolithic Culture’. Pragdhara 13: 227–9. Misra, V.D., J.N. Pal, M.C. Gupta, and P.P. Joglekar. 2009. Excavations at Jhusi (Pratishthanapur): A Fresh Light on the Archaeological Profile of the Middle Gangatic Plain. Special Report no. 3. New Delhi: Indian Archaeological Society. (p.301) Misra, V.N. 2001. ‘Prehistoric Human Colonization of India’. Journal of Bioscience 26(4): 491–531. Misra, V.N. and P. Bellwood, eds. 1985. Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Mithen, S. and M. Reed. 2002. ‘Stepping Out: A Computer Simulation of Hominid Dispersal from Africa’. Journal of Human Evolution 43: 433–62. Mitri, M. 2005. ‘A Report on the Neolithic Tools from Sohpet Bneng Hill of RiBhoi District in Meghalaya (An Ethnoarchaeological Study). Proceedings of the North East India History Association 26: 87–95. ———. 2008. ‘Tradition and Archaeology: The Concept of Thunder Axe and Evidences from North East India’. Nagaland University Research Journal 5: 217– 27. ———. 2009. An Outline of the Neolithic Culture of the Khasi-Jaintia Hills of Meghalaya, India: An Archaeological Investigation. Oxford: BAR International Series 2013. ———. 2013. ‘Neolithic Phase of Khasi–Jaintia Hills of Meghalaya: An Overview’. In Neolithic-Chalcolithic Cultures of Eastern India, edited by K.N. Dikshit, 67–77. New Delhi: Indian Archaeological Society. Mitri, M., D. Kharmawphlang, and H. Syiemlieh. 2015. ‘A Preliminary Report on the Excavation of the Neolithic Site at Law-Nongthroh (SohpetBneng Hill), Khasi Hills, Meghalaya’. Man and Environment 40(1): 33–42. Mitri, M. and D. Neog. 2016. ‘Preliminary Report on the Excavations of Neolithic sites from Khasi Hills Meghalaya’. Ancient Asia 7(7): 1–17. Mittermeier, R.A., G.A.B. da Fonseca, T. Brooks, J. Pilgrim, and J.A. Rodrigues. 2003. ‘Hotspots and Coldspots’. American Scientist 91: 384. Mittermeier, R.A., R.P. Gil, M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C.G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux, and G.A.B. da Fonseca. 2005. Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecosystems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Page 35 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Mohanty, P. 1989. ‘Mesolithic Settlement System of Keonjhar District, Orissa’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to University of Poona, Pune. Mohanty, P. and J. Mishra. 2002. ‘Fifty Years of Ethnoarchaeological Research in India: A Review’. In Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, vol. III: Archaeology and Interactive Disciplines, edited by S. Settar and R. Korisettar, 169–207. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research and Manohar. Mondal, S.K. and D.T. Pal. 1999. Mithun: Historical Perspective. Asian AgriHistory 3(4): 245–60. Moore, Andrew M.T. 1983. ‘The First Farmers at the Levant’. In The Hilly Flanks and Beyond, edited by P.E.L. Smith and P. Mortensen, 91–105. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Moral, D. 1996. ‘North-East India as a Linguistic Area’. Mon-Khmer Studies 27: 43–53. (p.302) Morrison, K.D. 2005. ‘Brahmagiri Revisited: A Re-analysis of the South Indian Sequence’. In South Asian Archaeology, 2001, edited by C. Jarrige and V. LeFevre, 1–10. Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. Paris: ADPF. Mosahary, R.N. 1983. ‘The Bodos: Their Origin, Migration and Settlement in Assam’. Proceedings of North East India History Association 4: 42–70. Movius, H.L. 1944. Early Man and Pleistocene Stratigraphy in Southern and Eastern Asia. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University 19(3). ———. 1948. ‘The Lower Palaeolithic Cultures of Southern and Eastern Asia’. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 38: 329–420. Mukherjee N., A. Nebel, A. Oppenheim, and P.P. Majumder. 2001. ‘HighResolution Analysis of Y-Chromosomal Polymorphisms Reveals Signatures of Population Movements from Central Asia and West Asia into India’. Journal of Genetics 80: 125–35. Mukherjee, S.K. 1951. ‘The Origin of the Mango’. Indian Journal of Genetics 11: 49–56. ———. 1997. The Mango. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murty, M.L.K. 1985. ‘The Uses of Plant Food by Some Hunter-Gatherer Communities in Andhra Pradesh’. In Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory, edited by V.N. Misra and P. Bellwood, 329–36. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing.

Page 36 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References ———. 2006–7. ‘Contribution of the Deccan College to Ethnoarchaeological Research in India’. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 66–7: 29–45. Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, and G.A.B. da Fonseca. 2000. ‘Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities’. Nature 403: 853–8. Myint Aung. 2000. ‘A Review of Padah-lin Culture’. Myanmar Historical Research Journal 6: 1–16. Nagar, M. 1975. ‘Role of Ethnographic Evidence in the Reconstruction of Archaeological Data’. The Eastern Anthropologist 29: 13–22. ———. 1985. ‘The Use of Wild Plant Foods by Aboriginal Communities in Central India’. In Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory, edited by V.N. Misra and P. Bellwood, 337–42. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing. Nagaraja Rao, M.S. 1985. ‘Megalithism and the Builders Studies of Relationships’. In Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory, edited by V.N. Misra and P. Bellwood, 465–70. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing. Nakamura, Shin-ichi. 2010. ‘The Origin of Rice Cultivation in the Lower Yangtze Region, China’. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 2(2): 107–13. Nanda, A.C. 2008. ‘Comments on the Pinjor Mammalian Fauna of the Siwalik Group in Relation to the Post-Siwalik Faunas of Peninsular India and IndoGangetic Plain’. Quaternary International 192: 6–13. Narayan, V. 1996. Prehistoric Archaeology of Bihar. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute. (p.303) Nene, Y.I. 2001. ‘Mango through Millennia’. Asian Agri-History 5: 39–67. Ngachan, S.V., A.K. Mohanty, and A. Pattanayak. (n.d.) Status Paper on Rice in North East India. ‘Rice Knowledge Management Portal’. Available at http:// www.rkmp.co.in, accessed on 12 March 2015. Hyderabad: Directorate of Rice Research. Nienu, V. 1974. ‘Recent Prehistoric Discoveries in Nagaland: A Survey’. Highlander: Research Bulletin of Dept. of Art and Culture, Govt. of Nagaland, vol. II, no. 1. ———. 1983. ‘The Prehistoric Archaeology and Human Ecology of Nagaland’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to University of California, Berkeley. Ningthoujam, R.K. and D. Mutum. 2010. ‘Investigation of the Tropical Forest Dynamics of the Northeast India’. NeBIO 1(2): 28–33.

Page 37 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Norton, C.J. and D.R. Braun. 2010. Asian Paleoanthropology: From Africa to China and Beyond. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer Science + Business Media B.V. Olsson, O. 2001. ‘The Rise of Neolithic Agriculture’. Working Paper in Economics 57, Dept of Economics, Göteborg University, Göteborg. Paddayya, K. 1982. The Acheulian Culture of Hunsgi Valley (Peninsular India): A Settlement System Perspective. Pune: Deccan College. ———. 1985a. ‘Theoretical Archaeology: A Review’. In Recent Advances in Indian Archaeology: Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Poona in 1983, edited by S.B. Deo and K. Paddayya, 6–22. Pune: Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute. ———. 1985b. ‘The Acheulian Culture of the Hunsgi Valley, South India: Settlement and Subsistence Patterns’. In Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory, edited by V.N. Misra and P. Bellwood, 59–64. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. ———. 2002. ‘A Review of Theoritical Perspectives in Indian Archaeology’. In Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, vol. 4, Archaeology and Historiography— History, Theory and Method, edited by S. Settar and R. Korisettar, 117–57. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research and Manohar. ———. 2002–3. ‘The Expanding Horizons of Indian Archaeology’. Bulletin of Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 62–3: 291–309. Paddayya, K., B.A.B. Blackwell, R. Jhaldiyal, M.D. Petraglia, S. Fevrier, D.A. Chaderton II, J.I.B. Blickstein, and A.R. Skinner. 2002. ‘Recent Findings on the Acheulian of the Hunsgi and Baichbal Valleys, Karnataka, with Special Reference to the Isampur Excavation and Its Dating’. Current Science 83(5): 641–7. Pal, J.N. 1986. Archaeology of Southern Uttar Pradesh, Ceramic Industry of Northern Vindhyas. Allahabad: Swabha Prakashan. (p.304) Pal, J.N. 2007–8. ‘The Early Farming Culture of the Middle Ganga Plain with Special Reference to the Excavations at Jhusi and Hetapatti’. Pragdhara 18: 263– 81. Pandya, A. and J. Thoudam. 2010. ‘Handloom Weaving: The Traditional Craft of Manipur’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 9(4): 651–5. Pandya, G., M.P. Ranjan and N. Iyer. 2004. Bamboo and Cane Crafts of Northeast India. Ahmedabad: National Institute of Design.

Page 38 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Panja, S. 1995. ‘Mobility Strategies, Site Structure and Settlement Organisation: A Case Study of Chalcolithic Sites in the Middle Bhima Valley with Special Reference to Inamgaon’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to University of Poona, Pune. Pappu, S., Y. Gunnell, K. Akhilesh, R. Braucher, M. Taieb, F. Demory, and N. Thouveny. 2011. ‘Early Pleistocene Presence of Acheulian Hominins in South India’. Science 331: 1596–600. Pedroso-Junior, N.N., C. Adams, and R.S.S. Murrieta. 2009. ‘Slash-and-Burn Agriculture: A System in Transformation’. In Current Trends in Human Ecology, edited by Priscila Lopes and Alpina Begossi, 12–34. UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Peiros, I. 1998. Comparative Linguistics in Southeast Asia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. ———. 2011. ‘Some Thoughts on the Problem of the Austro-Asiatic Homeland’. Journal of Language Relationship 6: 101–13. Peiros, I. and V. Shnirelman. 1997. ‘Rice in South-East Asia: Regional Interdisciplinary Approach’. In Archaeology and Language 2, edited by R. Blench and M. Spiggs, 379–89. London and New York: Routledge. Peng, M.S., M.G. Palanichamy, Y.G. Yao, B. Mitra, Y.T. Cheng, M. Zhao, J. Liu, H.W. Wang, H. Pan, W.Z. Wang, A.M. Zhang, W. Zhang, D. Wang, Y. Zou, Y. Yang, T.K. Chaudhuri, Q.P. Kong, and Y.P. Zhang. 2011. ‘Inland Post-Glacial Dispersal in East Asia Revealed by Mitochondrial Haplogroup M9a’b’. BMC Biology 9(2). Petraglia, M.D. 1998. ‘The Lower Palaeolithic of India and Its Bearings on the Asian Record’. In Early Human Behaviour in Global Context, edited by M.D. Petraglia and R. Korisettar, 343–90. London: Routledge. ———. 2006. ‘The Indian Acheulean in Global Perspective’. In Axe Age: Acheulian Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard, edited by N. Goren-Inbar and G. Sharon, 389–414. London: Equinox Publishing. Phangcho, P.C. 2001. Karbi Anglong and North Cachar Hills: A Study of Geography and Culture. Diphu: Printwell. Pickrell, J.K. and D. Reich. 2014. ‘Toward a New History and Geography of Human Genes Informed by Ancient DNA’. Trends in Genetics 30(9): 377–89. Playfair, A. 1909. The Garos. Guwahati and Calcutta: United Publishers. Ploetz, R.C., A.K. Kepler, J. Daniells, and S.C. Nelson. 2007. ‘Banana and Plantain: An Overview with Emphasis on Pacific Island Cultivars’. In Species Page 39 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Profiles (p.305) for Pacific Island Agroforestry, edited by C.R. Elevitch. Hawaii: Permanent Agriculture Resources. Plucknett, D.L. 1976. ‘Edible Aroids’. In Evolution of Crop Plants, edited by N.W. Simmonds, 10–12. New York: Longman Inc. Poddar, B.C. and N.R. Ramesh. 1983. ‘Spotlight on Prehistory of Tripura’. G.S.I. (NER) News Letter 2 (1): 1–4. Pokharia, A.K., T. Jamir, D. Tetso, and Z. Venuh. 2013. ‘Late First Millennium BC to Second Millennium AD Agriculture in Nagaland: A Reconstruction Based on Archaeobotanical Evidence and Radiocarbon Dates’. Current Science 104(10): 1341–53. Pollefeys, P., S. Sharrock, and E. Arnaud. 2004. Preliminary Analysis of the Literature on the Distribution of Wild Musa Species Using MGIS and DIVA-GIS. Montpellier, France: INIBAP. Pope, G.G. 1989. ‘Bamboo and Human Evolution’. Natural History 10: 49–56. Post, M.W. 2008. ‘North East Indian Linguistics: Present State and Future Prospects’. Paper presented at Conference on North East Indian Linguistics, Lakhimpur, 8 September 2008. Prasad, A.K. 1997. ‘Excavation at Taradih, Bodh Gaya’. In Art and Archaeology of Eastern India, edited by Naseem Akhtar, 31–48, Patna: Patna Museum, Directorate of Museum, Bihar. Prasad, J. 1999. ‘Eastern Himalaya’. In India: A Regional Geography, edited by R.L. Singh, 480–92. Varanasi: National Geographical Society of India. Pratap, A. 2000. The Hoe and the Axe: An Ethnohistory of Shifting Cultivation in Eastern India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. ———. 2009. ‘The Relevance of Processual vs. Postprocessual Archaeology: A Debate for Theoretical Archaeology in India’. Puratattva 39: 27–37. Prater, S.H. 1965. The Book of Indian Animals. Bombay: Bombay Natural History Society. Prokop, P. and I. Suliga. 2013. ‘Two Thousand Years of Iron Smelting in the Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, North East India’. Current Science 104(6): 761–8. Rabha, Bishnu Prasad. 1982. Bishnu Rabha Rachanavali (Writings of Bishnu Prasad Rabha). Guwahati: Bishnu Rabha Gabesana Samiti. Rahul, R. 1970. The Himalayan Borderlands. Delhi: Vikas Publications.

Page 40 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Raikar, Y.A. and S. Chatterjee. 1980. Archaeology in Arunachal Pradesh. Shillong: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Rajkhowa, S., C. Rajkhowa, H. Rahman, and K.M. Bujarbaruah. 2004. ‘Seroprevalence of Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis in Mithun (Bos frontalis) in India’. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) 23(3): 821–9. Rakshit, S., A. Rakshi, H. Matsumura, Y. Takahashi, Y. Hasegawa, A. Ito, T. Ishii, N.T. Miyashita, and R. Terauchi. 2007. ‘Large-Scale DNA Polymorphism (p.306) Study of Oryza sativa and Oryza rufipogon Reveals the Origin and Divergence of Asian Rice’. Theoretical Applied Genetics 114: 731–43. Ramakantha, V., A.K. Gupta, and A. Kumar. 2003. ‘Biodiversity of Northeast India: An Overview’. Envis Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas, Conservation of Rainforests in India 4(1): 1–24. Ramakrishnan, P.S. 1984. ‘The Science behind Rotational Bush-Fallow Agriculture System (Jhum)’. Proceedings of Indian Academy of Science (Plant Science) 93: 379–400. ———. 1993. Shifting Agriculture and Sustainable Development: An Interdisciplinary Study from North-Eastern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ———. 2007. ‘Traditional Forest Knowledge and Sustainable Forestry: A NorthEast India Perspective’. Forest Ecology and Management 249: 91–9. Ramesh, N.R. 1986. ‘Discovery of Stone Age Tools from Tripura and Its Relevance to the Prehistory of Southeast Asia’. Geological Society of Malaysia Bulletin 20: 289–310. ———. 1989. ‘A Study on Geomorphology, Quaternary Geology and Associated Cultural Remains of West Tripura District’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Gauhati University, Guwahati. Ramesh, N.R. and G. Rajagopalan. 1999. ‘Late Quaternary Sediments of NorthEastern India: A Review’. Gondwana Geological Magazine 14(1): 13–35. Rana, R.S. and S. Chatterjee. 2000. ‘Prioritisation of Wild Relatives and Crop Plants of India and Domesticated Animals’. In Setting Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in India, edited by S. Singh, A.R.K. Sastry, R. Mehta, and V. Uppal. New Delhi: WWF-India. Ranjan, A. and M.P. Ranjan, eds. 2007. Crafts of India: Handmade in India. New Delhi: Council of Handicraft Development Corporations.

Page 41 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Rao, R.R. 1994. Biodiversity in India (Floristic aspects). Dehradun: Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh. Rao, S.N. 1977. ‘Excavation at Sarutaru: A Neolithic Site in Assam’. Man and Environment 1: 39–42. ———. 1979. ‘Survival and Continuity of Neolithic Traditions of North-Eastern India’. Asian Perspectives 20(2): 191–205. ———. 1991. ‘Megalithic Practices among Khasis and Nagas of North-Eastern India’. In Archaeology of Northeastern India, edited by J.P. Singh and G. Sengupta, 106–25. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House. Rawat, J.S., Riba Bomchak, and Rina Teniya. 2010. ‘Jhumming: A Traditional Lifestyle than Merely a Cultivation Method’. Current Science 98(8): 998–9. Rawat, M.S. and S. Choudhury. 1998. Ethnomedicobotany of Arunachal Pradesh (Nishi and Apatani tribes). New Delhi: Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh. Reddy, B.M., B.T. Langstieh, V. Kumar, T. Nagaraja, A.N.S. Reddy, A. Meka, A.G. Reddy, K. Thangaraj, and L. Singh. 2007. ‘Austro-Asiatic Tribes of Northeast (p. 307) India Provide Hitherto Missing Genetic Link between South and Southeast Asia’. PLoS ONE 11: e1141. Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. ———. 2008. ‘Preface’. In Nostratic Dictionary, edited by A. Dolgopolsky, v–viii. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Renfrew, C., A. McMahon, and L. Trask, eds. 2000. Time Depth in Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Reynolds, T.E.G. 1990. ‘Problems in the Stone Age of Thailand’. Journal of the Siam Society 48: 109–14. Rightmire, G.P. 2001. ‘Patterns of Hominid Evolution and Dispersal in the Middle Pleistocene’. Quaternary International 75: 77–84. Roe, D.A. 2000. ‘Early Human Migrations: Using All the Evidence’. In Early Humans at the Gates of Europe: Proceedings of the First International Symposium Dmanisi, Tbilisi (Georgia), edited by D. Lordkipanidze, O. Bar-Yosef, and M. Otte, 87–92. Liège: Université de Liège. Romeo Singh, M. and A. Gupta. 2011. ‘Nutrient Content in Fresh Water Red Algae (Lemaneaceae, Rhodophyta) from Rivers of Manipur, North-East India’. World Journal of Diary and Food Sciences 6(1): 27–34.

Page 42 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Ronghang, R. and R. Ahmed. 2010. ‘Edible Insects and Their Conservation Strategy in Karbi Anglong District of Assam, Northeast India’. The Bioscan: An International Quarterly Journal of Life Sciences 2: 515–21. Ronghang, R., R. Teron, A.K. Tamuli, and R.C. Rajkhowa. 2011. ‘Traditional Zootherapy Practised among the Karbis of Assam (India)’. The Bioscan: An International Quarterly Journal of Life Sciences, Special issue 1: 161–6. Rongmuthu, D.S. 1997. Apasong Agana. Tura. Ronquillo, W.P. 1981. The Technological and Functional Analysis of the Lithic Flake Tools from Rabel Cave, Northern Luzon, Philippines. Manila: National Museum of the Philippines. Rösch, M., O. Ehrmann, L. Hermann, E. Schulz, A. Bogenrieder, J.G. Goldammer, M. Hall, H. Page, and W. Schier. 2002. ‘An Experimental Approach to Neolithic Shifting Cultivation’. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11(1–2): 143–54. ———. 2004. ‘Slash-and-Burn Experiments to Reconstruct Late Neolithic Shifting Cultivation. International Forest Fire News 30: 70–4. Roy Burman, B.K. 1974. ‘New Age in Ageless North East’. Man in India 54(4): 303–7. Roy, D. 1963. ‘The Megalithic Cultures of the Khasis’. Anthropos 58: 520–56. Roy, N.N. 1991. ‘The Tribes of Northeast India: A Living Museum of Man’. Bulletin of Assam State Museum XII: 73–81. Roy, P.S., S. Saran, S. Ghosh, N. Prasad, and G. Talukdar. 2002. ‘Development of Biodiversity Information system for Northeast India using Internet (p.308) GIS’. Proceedings of the ISPRS Technical Commission IV Symposium 2002 on Geospatial Theory, Processing and Applications, Ottawa, Canada, 9–12 July. Roy, S.K. 1981. ‘Aspect of Neolithic Agriculture and Shifting Cultivation, Garo Hills, Meghalaya’. Asian Perspectives 14(2): 193–219. Rouse, I. 1965. ‘The Place of “People” in Prehistoric Research’. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 95(1): 1–15. Ruddle, K. 1982. ‘Traditional Integrated Farming Systems and Rural Development: The Example of Ricefield Fisheries in Southeast Asia. Agricultural Administration 10: 1–11. Sagart, L., R. Blench, and A. Sanchez-Mazas, eds. 2005. The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon.

Page 43 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Sahoo, S., A. Singh, G. Himabindu, J. Banerjee, T. Sitalaximi, S. Gaikwad, R. Trivedi, P. Endicott, T. Kivisild, M. Metspalu, Richard Villems, and V.K. Kashyap. 2006. ‘A Prehistory of Indian Y- Chromosomes: Evaluating Demic Diffusion Scenarios’. Proceedings of National Academy of Science 103(4): 843–8. Saikia, P.C. 1988. Stone Tools of Dibru Valley. Dibrugarh: North East Museum Society. Saikia, P.K. 2005. Qualitative and Quantitative Study of Lower and Higher Organisms and Their Functional Role in the Deepor Beel Ecosystem. Report of the project funded by North Eastern Space Applications Centre, Department of Space, Government of India, Umium, Shillong, Meghalaya. Sajem, A.L. and K. Gosai. 2006. ‘Traditional Use of Medicinal Plants by the Jaintia Tribes in North Cachar Hills District of Assam, Northeast India’. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2(33): 1–7. Salles, J-F. 2004. ‘Archaeology and History of Bangladesh: Recent Perspective’. In Archaeology as History in Early South Asia, edited by H.P. Ray and C.M. Sinopoli, 185–218. New Delhi: ICHR and Aryan Books International. Sanchez-Mazas, A., R. Blench, M. Ross, I. Peiros, and M. Lin, eds. 2008. Human Migrations in Continental East Asia and Taiwan: Matching Archaeology, Linguistics, and Genetics. London: Routledge. Sang, T. and S. Ge. 2007a. ‘Genetics and Phylogenetics of Rice Domestication’. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 17: 533–8. ———. 2007b. ‘The Puzzle of Rice Domestication’. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 49(6): 760–8. Sangma, M.N. 1983. ‘Traditions of Garo Migration’. Proceedings of the North East India History Association 4: 71–8. Sankalia, H.D. 1974. Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan. Pune: Deccan College. Sanyal, C.C. 1973. The Meches and Totos of North Bengal. Darjeeling: North Bengal University. Sarkar, N. 1982. Neolithic Celts from Arunachal Pradesh. Resarun 8(2): 11–15. (p.309) Sarkar S. and S. Chowdhury. 2000. ‘Survey of the Diversity of Living Economic Flora and Their Conservation and Development in the Karbi-Anglong District of Assam’. ENVIS Bulletin 8(1): 12–14.

Page 44 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Sarma, J.N. 2005. ‘Fluvial Process and Morphology of the Brahmaputra River in Assam, India’. Geomorphology 70: 226–56. Sarma, P.C. 1988. Architecture of Assam. New Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan. Sarma, P.J. 2006. ‘Roles Played by Two River Valleys of Assam in the IndoChinese Trade Network’. Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology 3: 108–16. ———. 2007. ‘Archaeology of Early Settlements in Dhansiri–Doyang Valley, Assam: A Study in Regional Perspective’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Pune. Sarma, P.J. and M. Hazarika. 2014. ‘Situating Northeast Indian Archaeology in Chronological Perspective: Fresh Observations’. In 50 Years after DaojaliHading: Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of Northeast India: Essays in Honour of Tarun Chandra Sharma, edited by T. Jamir and M. Hazarika, 37–59. New Delhi: Research India Press. Sarmah, A. 2011. ‘Role of Traditional Institutions in Governance: Experience from Karbi Anglong, Assam’. Dialogue 13(2). Available at http:// www.asthabharati.org/Dia_Oct%20011/alak.htm, accessed on 10 December 2013. Sarmah, R., A. Arunachalam, M. Melkania, M. Mazumder, and D. Adhikari. 2006. ‘Ethno-Medico-Botany of Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh, India’. The Indian Forester 132(4): 474–84. Sastry, A.R.K. and S. Chatterjee. 2000. ‘Prioritisation of Medicinal Plants of India’. In Setting Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in India, edited by S. Singh, A.R.K. Sastry, R. Mehta, and V. Uppal. New Delhi: WWF-India. Satapathy, K.K. and B.K. Sarma. 2002. ‘Shifting Cultivation in India: An Overview’. Asian Agri-History 6(2): 121–39. Sato, Yo-Ichiro. 2002. ‘Origin of Rice Cultivation in the Yangtze River Basin’. In The Origins of Pottery and Agriculture, edited by Y. Yasuda, 143–50. New Delhi: Lustre Press/Roli Books. Sauer, C.O. 1952. Agriculture Origins and Dispersals. New York: American Geographical Society. Scheinfeldt, L.B., S. Soi, and S.A. Tishkoff. 2010. ‘Working toward a Synthesis of Archaeological, Linguistic, and Genetic Data for Inferring African Population History’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 107: 8931–8.

Page 45 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Schepartz, L.A., S. Miller-Antonio, and D.A. Bakken. 2000. ‘Upland Resources and the Early Palaeolithic Occupation of Southern China, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and Burma’. World Archaeology 32(1): 1–13. Schmidt, K. 2010. ‘Göbekli Tepe: The Stone Age Sanctuaries—New Result of Ongoing Excavations with a Special Focus on Sculptures and High Reliefs’. Documenta Praehistorica 17: 239–56. (p.310) Sémah, F., H. Saleki, C. Falguères, G. Féraud, and T. Djubiantono. 2000. ‘Did Early Man Reach Java During the Late Pliocene?’ Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 763–9. Sen, N. 2000. ‘Occurrence, Distribution and Status of Diversified Fish Fauna of Northeastern India’. In Fish Diversity of North-East India, edited by A.G. Ponniah and U.K. Sarkar, 31–48. Lucknow: NAPTP Publications no. 2. Sengupta, G. and S. Sharma. 2011. ‘Archaeology in North-East India: The PostIndependence Scenario’. Ancient India 1 (New Series): 353–68. Shankar Raman, T.R. and D. Mudappa. 1998. ‘Hornbills: Giants among the Forest Birds’. Resonance August: 56–65. Sharma, A.K. 1981. ‘Prehistoric Explorations in Sikkim’. Puratattva 10: 82–3. ———. 1985. ‘Comments on Sundara’s “Cultural Ecology of the Neolithic in India”’. In Recent Advances in Indian Archaeology, edited by S.B. Deo and K. Paddayya, 51–2. Pune: Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute. ———. 1993. Emergence of Early Culture in North-East India. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. ———. 1994. Manipur: The Glorious Past. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. ———. 1996. Early Man in Eastern Himalayas. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. Sharma, B.D., D.K. Hore, and S.G. Gupta. 2004. Genetic Resources of Citrus of North-Eastern India and Their Potential Use. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 51: 411–18. Sharma, D. 2012. Glimpses of Northeast India Archaeology. Guwahati: Eastern Book House. Sharma, G.R. and D. Mandal. 1980. Excavations at Mahagara 1977–78 (A Neolithic Settlement in the Belan Valley). Allahabad: University of Allahabad. Sharma, G.R., V.D. Misra, D. Mandal, B.B. Misra, and J.N. Pal. 1980. Beginnings of Agriculture. Allahabad: Abhinav Prakashan. Page 46 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Sharma, H.C. 1972. ‘Prehistoric Archaeology: Stone Age Cultures of Garo Hills, Meghalaya’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Gauhati University, Guwahati. ———. 1975. ‘Archaeological Findings in Meghalaya’. Bulletin of Assam State Museum 1: 29–35. ———. 2003. ‘Prehistoric Archaeology of the Northeast’. In The Anthropology of Northeast India, edited by T.B. Subba and G.C. Ghosh, 11–30. New Delhi: Orient Longman. Sharma, H.C. and S.K. Roy. 1985. ‘On the Discovery of a Pebble-Tool Industry in the Garo Hills, Meghalaya’. In Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory, edited by V.N. Misra and P. Bellwood, 89–91. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Sharma, S. 2001. ‘Cultural Affinities between Southeast Asia and Northeast India during Prehistoric Times with Special Reference to Ganol and Rongram (p.311) Valleys in Meghalaya’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Pune. Sharma, S. 2002a. ‘Geomorphological Contexts of the Stone Age Record of the Ganol and Rongram Valleys in the Garo Hills, Meghalaya’. Man and Environment 27(2): 15–30. ———. 2002b. ‘The Prehistoric Sites of Western Garo Hills’. In Archaeology of Eastern India: New Perspective, edited by G. Sengupta and S. Panja, 93–107. Kolkata: Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India. ———. 2007. Celts, Flakes and Bifaces: The Garo Hills Story. South Asian Archaeology Series No. 7. England: BAR International Series. Sharma, S.D., S. Tripathy, and J. Biswal. 2000. ‘Origin of O. sativa and Its Ecotypes’. In Rice Breeding and Genetics: Research Priorities and Challenges, edited by J.S. Nanda, 349–69. Enfield and New Delhi: Science Publishers and Oxford and IBH. Sharma, T.C. 1966. ‘Prehistoric Archaeology of Assam: A Study of the Neolithic Culture’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to University of London, London. ———. 1967. ‘A Note of the Neolithic Pottery of Assam’. Man 2(1): 126–8. ———. 1974. ‘Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Northeastern India’. Puratattva 7: 17–19.

Page 47 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References ———. 1979. ‘Sources of the Prehistory of Meghalaya’. In Sources of the History of India, vol. 2, edited by S.P. Sen, 157–67. Calcutta: Institute of Historical Studies. ———. 1980. Sources of the History of Assam – Ancient Period, In Sources of the History of India, vol. 4, edited by N.R. Ray, 69–83. Calcutta: Institute of Historical Studies. ———. 1981. ‘Neolithic Pattern in Eastern India’. In Recent Researches in Indian Archaeology and Art History, edited by M.S. Nagaraja Rao, 41–52. New Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan. ———. 1985. ‘Problems of the Upper Palaeolithic in Northeast India’. In Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory, edited by V.N. Misra and P. Bellwood, 171–3. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. ———. 1986. ‘Recent Advances in Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India’. Journal of the Assam Research Society 27: 1–2. ———. 1988. ‘Discovery of Hoabinhian Cultural Relics in Northeast India’. In Adaptation and Other Essays: Proceedings of the Archaeological Conference, edited by N.C. Ghosh and S. Chakrabarty, 136–9. Shantiniketan: Research Publications, Vishwa Bharati. ———. 1989. ‘Neolithic: Eastern Region’. In An Encyclopedia of Indian Archaeology, vol. 1, edited by A. Ghosh, 225–7. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd. (p.312) Sharma, T.C. 1990. ‘The Prehistoric Background of Shifting Cultivation’. In Shifting Cultivation in Northeast India, edited by D.N. Majumdar, 1–5. Guwahati: Osmos Publications. ———. 1991. ‘Prehistoric Situation in Northeast India’. In Archaeology of Northeastern India, edited by J.P. Singh and G. Sengupta, 41–58. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House. ———. 1997–8. ‘The Living Megalithic Culture of Manipur’. Puratattva 28: 112– 13. Shinde, V.S. 1998. Early Settlements in the Central Tapi Basin. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. ———. 2002. ‘The Emergence, Development and Spread of Agricultural Communities in South Asia’. In The Origins of Pottery and Agriculture, edited by Y. Yasuda, 89–115. New Delhi: Lustre Press/Roli Books.

Page 48 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Shisode, M.G., A.V. Khanvilkar, M.D. Kulkarni, S.R. Samant, G.B. Yadav, and M.S. Bawaskar. 2009. ‘Mithun: The Pride Animal of North-Eastern Hilly Region of India’. Veterinary World 2(12): 480–1. Shoocongdej, R. 2000. ‘Forager Mobility Organization in Seasonal Tropical Environments of Western Thailand’. World Archaeology 32(1): 14–40. Sidwell, P. 2010. ‘The Austroasiatic Central Riverine Hypothesis’. Journal of Language Relationship 4: 117–34. Simanjuntak, T., F. Sémah, and C. Gaillard. 2010. ‘The Palaeolithic in Indonesia: Nature and Chronology’. Quaternary International 223–4: 418–42. Simmonds, N.W. and K. Shepherd. 1955. ‘The Taxonomy and Origins of the Cultivated Bananas’. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Botany 55: 302– 12. Singh Roy, J. and S.M.K. Ahsan. 2002. ‘A Study of Prehistoric Tools on Fossil wood from Chaklapunji, Hobiganj’. Pratnatattva 6: 21–32. ———. 2007. ‘Raw Material and Technology of Stone Age Artefacts from Lalmai Hills and Chaklapunji Area’. Pratnatattva 13: 49–56. Singh, B. 1981. Establishment of First Gene Sanctuary for Citrus in Garo Hills. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Singh, B.P. 1988–9. ‘Early Farming Communities of Kaimur Foot Hills’. Puratattva 19: 6–18. Singh, H.B. and R.K. Arora. 1978. Wild Edible Plants of India. New Delhi: ICAR Publication. Singh, J., T.C. Bhuyan, and A. Ahmed. 1996. ‘Ethnobotanical Studies on the Mishing Tribes of Assam with Special Reference to Food and Medicinal Plant’. Journal of Economic and Taxonomic Botany 12: 350–6. Singh, M.J. 1991. ‘Prehistory of Manipur’. In Archaeology of Northeast India, edited by J.P. Singh, and G. Sengupta, 126–130. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House. Singh, O. and S.N. Mukherjee. 1999. ‘Purvanchal Region’. In India: A Regional Geography, edited by R.L. Singh, 493–513. Varanasi: National Geographical Society of India. (p.313) Singh, O.K. 1972. Antiquities of Manipur, vol. 1. Bulletin of Manipur State Museum 1: 1–3.

Page 49 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References ———. 1983. Archaeology in Manipur, Naba Chik: A Stone Age Site in the Manipur Valley. Imphal: State Archaeology, Government of Manipur. ———. 1991. Neolithic Stone Tool of Manipur: A Catalogue of Neoliths in the People’s Museum, Kakching. Imphal: People’s Museum, Kakching. ———. 1993. ‘Stone Age Culture of Manipur’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to University of Manipur, Imphal. ———. 1997. Stone Age Archaeology of Manipur. Imphal: Amusana Institute of Antiquarian Studies, Manipur. ———. 1998–9. ‘Cord-Marked Pottery Making Tradition in Manipur’. Puratattva 29: 60–1. ———. 2013. ‘Neolithic Culture of Manipur’. In Neolithic–Chalcolithic Cultures of Eastern India, edited by K.N. Dikshit, 33–43. New Delhi: Indian Archaeological Society. Singh, O.K. and R.K. Ranjit Singh. 1990. ‘A Preliminary Report on an Archaeological Exploration at Singtom, Chandel District, Manipur’. Man and Environment 15(1): 103–6. Singh, P. 1974. Neolithic Cultures of Western Asia. London: Seminar Press. ———. 1985. ‘Megalithic Remains of the Northern Vindhyas’. In Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory, edited by V.N. Misra and P. Bellwood, 473–6. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing. ———. 1992–3. ‘Archaeological Excavation at Imlidih Khurd’. Pragdhara 3: 21– 35. ———. 2010. Archaeology of the Ganga Plain: Cultural Historical Dimensions. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. Singh, P. and A.K. Singh. 1995–6. ‘Trial Excavation at Waina, District Ballia (U.P.)’. Pragdhara 6: 41–61. Singh, T.A. 1987. ‘Quaternary Studies in the Manipur Valley’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to University of Poona, Pune. Singh, U. 2009. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India. New Delhi: Pearson and Longman. Sinha, B.K. 2000. ‘Golabai: A Protohistoric Site on the Coast of Orissa’. In Archaeology of Orissa, vol. 1, edited by K.K. Basa and P. Mohanty, 322–55. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan.

Page 50 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Sinopoli, C.M. 1991. ‘Seeking the Past through Present: Recent Ethnoarchaeological Research in South Asia’. Asian Perspectives 30: 177–92. Smith, B.D. 1998. The Emergence of Agriculture. New York: W.H. Freeman. ———. 2001. ‘The Transition to Food Production’. In Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, edited by G.M. Feinman and T.D. Price, 199–229. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Soares, P., J.A. Trejaut, J.H. Loo, C. Hill, M. Mormina, C.L. Lee, Y.M. Chen, G. Hudjashov, P. Forster, V. Macaulay, D. Bulbeck, S. Oppenheimer, M. Lin, and (p. 314) M.B. Richards. 2008. ‘Climate Change and Postglacial Human Dispersals in Southeast Asia’. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25(6): 1209–18. Solheim (II), W.G. 1970. ‘Northern Thailand’. Asian Perspectives 13: 149–53. Soni, V.S. and A.N. Soni. 2010. ‘Forum Comment: Large Size Cleaver-Like Flakes and Hoabinhoidal Elements from Terminal Pleistocene to Mid-Holocene Epoch Sites’. Quaternary International 223–4: 242–4. Sonowal, M. 1987. ‘A Brief Survey of Investigation into the Prehistoric Archaeology of Northeast India’. Journal of the Assam Research Society 31(1–2): 97–105. Sonowal, M. and T.C. Sharma. 1986. ‘On the Evidence of Flake and Blade Industries in the Michimagiri (III) area of the Central Garo Hills, Meghalaya’. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the ISPQS and IAS, edited by P. Singh and O.P. Tandon, 32–4. Varanasi: Bharat Kala Bhavan, BHU. ———. 1988. ‘Studies on the Blunted Back Flake-Knives Industries of the Garo Hills, Meghalaya’. In Adaptation and Other Essays: Proceedings of the Archaeological Conference, edited by N.C. Ghosh and S. Chakrabarty, 131–5. Shantiniketan: Research Publications, Vishwa Bharati. Southworth, F.C. 2005a. Linguistic Archaeology of South Asia. London and New York: Routledge Curzon. ———. 2005b. ‘Proto-Dravidian Agriculture’. Paper presented at the 7th ESCA Round Table Conference, Kyoto, June 2005. Spennemann, D.H.R. 1990. ‘Don’t Forget the Bamboo: On Recognising and Interpreting Butchery Marks in Tropical Faunal Assemblages, Some Comments Asking for Caution’. In Problem Solving in Taphonomy: Archaeological and Palaeontological Studies from Europe, Africa and Oceania, edited by S. Solomon, I. Davidson, and D. Watson, 108–34. Queensland: Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland, St Lucia.

Page 51 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Spriggs, M. and R. Blench. 1998. ‘Correlating Archaeological and Linguistic Hypotheses’. In Archaeology and Language, vol. 2: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses, edited by R. Blench and M. Spriggs, 20–30. London: Routledge. Srivastava, P., S.S. Bhakuni, K. Luirei, amd D.K. Misra. 2009. ‘MorphoSedimentary Records at the Brahmaputra River Exit, NE Himalaya: Climate– Tectonic Interplay during the Late Pleistocene–Holocene’. Journal of Quaternary Science 24(2): 175–88. Steel, E.H. 1870. ‘Celts Found among the Namsang Nagas’. Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 267–8. Steward, J.H. 1955. The Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Su, B., C. Xiao, R. Deka, M.T. Seielstad, D. Kangwanpong, J. Xiao, D. Lu, P. Underhill, L. Cavalli-Sforza, R. Chakraborty, and L. Jin. 2000. ‘Y Chromosome Haplotypes Reveal Prehistoric Migrations to the Himalayas’. Human Genetics 107: 582–90. (p.315) Subba Rao, B. 1958. The Personality of India. Baroda: M.S. University. Subbaraya, U. 2006. Farmer’s Knowledge of Wild Musa in India. Thiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu: National Research Centre for Banana, Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Subudhi, P.K., T. Sasaki, and G.S. Khush. 2006. ‘Rice’. In Genome Mapping and Molecular Breeding in Plants, vol. 1: Cereals and Millets, edited by C. Kole, 1–78. Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Sundara, A. 1985. ‘Cultural Ecology of the Neolithic in India’. In Recent Advances in Indian Archaeology, edited by S.B. Deo and K. Paddayya, 39–57. Pune: Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute. Sung-Mo, A.H.N. 1993. ‘Origin and Differentiation of Domesticated Rice in Asia’. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to Institute of Archaeology, London. Tag, H., A.K. Das, and P. Kalita. 2005. ‘Plants Used by the Hill Miri Tribe of Arunachal Pradesh in Ethno-Fisheries. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 4(1): 57–64. Taher, M. 1977. ‘Tribes in North East India: A Diagnostic Survey in Spatial Pattern’. The North East Geographer 9(1–2): 16–26. ———. 2004. ‘Northeast India: The Land and People’. In Peace Initiative: A North East India Perspective, edited by Thomas Vattathara and Elizabeth Georage. Page 52 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Guwahati: Don Bosco Institute, Center for Human Development, Leadership and Research. Taher, N. and L.S. Rao. 2005. ‘A Neolithic Factory Site at Pynthorlangtein’. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conferences of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, Paris, 2–6 July 2001, vol. 1: Prehistory, edited by C. Jarrige and V. Lefevre, 311–15. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Takhtajan, A. 1969. Flowering Plants: Origin and Dispersal. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd Ltd. Talwar, P.K. and A.G. Jhingran. 1991. Inland Fishes of India and Adjacent Countries, vols 1–2. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Co. Pvt. Ltd. Tanaka, M., V.M. Cabrera, A.M. González, J.M. Larruga, T. Takeyasu, N. Fuku, L. Guo, R. Hirose, Y. Fujita, M. Kurata, K. Shinoda, K. Umetsu, Y. Yamada, Y. Oshida, Y. Sato, N. Hattori, Y. Mizuno, Y. Arai, N. Hirose, S. Ohta, O. Ogawa, Y. Tanaka, R. Kawamori, M. Shamoto-Nagai, W. Maruyama, H. Shimokata, R. Suzuki, and H. Shimodaira. 2004. ‘Mitochondrial Genome Variation in Eastern Asia and the Peopling of Japan’. Genome Research 14: 1832–50. Tanti, B., L. Gurung, H.K. Sarma, and A.K. Buragohain. 2010. ‘Ethnobotany of Starter Cultures Used in Alcohol Fermentation by a Few Ethnic Tribes of Northeast India’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 9(3): 463–6. Tchernov, E. 1995. ‘The Earliest Hominids in the Southern Levant’. In The Hominids and Their Environment during the Lower and Middle Pleistocene of (p.316) Eurasia: Proceedings of the International Conference of Human Palaeontology, Orce, edited by J. Gibert, F. Sanchez, L. Gibert, and F. Ribot, 369– 406. Orce: Musee Prehistoria y Paleontologia. Teegalapallik, K., G.V. Gopi, and K.S. Prasanna. 2009. ‘Forest Recovery Following Shifting Cultivation: An Overview of Existing Research’. Tropical Conservation Science 2(4): 374–87. Terang, R. 1981. Rongmilir Hahi. Guwahati: Assam Prakashan Parishad. Teron, D. 2011. Reclaiming the Ancestor’s Voices … Karbi Studies, vol. 2. Guwahati: Assam Book Hive. Teron, R. 2005. ‘Bottle Gourd: Part and Parcel of Karbi Culture’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 4(1): 86–90. ———. 2006. ‘Hor: The Traditional Alcoholic Beverage of Karbi Tribe in Assam’. Natural Product Radiance 5(5): 377–81.

Page 53 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References ———. 2008. ‘The Traditional Woodcraft, Jambili Athon of the Karbis’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 7(1): 103–7. ———. 2009. ‘Influence of the Evil Figure, Tisso Jonding on the Socio-ReligioCultural Life of Karbis’. Indian Folklore Research Journal 9: 37–44. Teron, R. and S.K. Borthakur. 2009. ‘Traditional Knowledge Relating to Use of Flora and Fauna as Indicators in Predicting Annual Seasons among Karbi Tribe of Assam’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 8(4): 518–24. ———. 2012. ‘Biological Motifs and Designs on Traditional Costumes among Karbis of Assam’. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 11(2): 305–8. Tewari, R. 2011. ‘...Given Another Life…’. Man and Environment 36(1): 14–30. Tewari, R., R.K. Srivastava, and K.K. Singh. 2001–2. ‘Excavations at Lahuradewa, District Sant Nagar, Uttar Pradesh’. Puratattva 32: 54–62. Tewari, R., R.K. Srivastava, K.S. Saraswat, I.B. Singh, and K.K. Singh. 2008. ‘Early Farming at Lahuradewa’. Pragdhara 18: 347–73. Thakur, A.K. 2005. ‘Socio-Economic Formations in Pre-Colonial Arunachal Pradesh: Myth and Reality’. The Indian Historical Review 32(2): 37–63. Thapar, B.K. 1965. ‘Neolithic Problems in India’. In Indian Prehistory: 1964, edited by V.N. Misra and M.S. Mate, 87–142. Pune: Deccan College. ———. 1974. ‘Problems of the Neolithic Cultures in India: A Retrospect’. Puratattva 7: 61–5. ———. 1978. ‘Early Farming Communities in India’. Journal of Human Evolution 7: 11–22. ———. 1985. ‘Fresh Light on the Neolithic Cultures of India’. In Archaeological Perspective of India since Independence, edited by K.N. Dikshit, 37–43. New Delhi: Books and Books. Thapar, R. 2002. The Penguin History of Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. London: Penguin Books. (p.317) Tougard, C. 2001. ‘Biogeography and Migration Routes of Large Mammal Faunas in South–East Asia during the Late Middle Pleistocene: Focus on the Fossil and Extant Faunas from Thailand’. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 168(3–4): 337–58. Trigger, B.G. 1970. ‘Culture Change’. In Introductory Reading in Archaeology, edited by B.M. Fagan, 297–325. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Page 54 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References ———. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trivedi, R., T. Sitalaximi, J. Banerjee, A. Singh, P.K. Sircar, and V.K. Kashyap. 2006. ‘Molecular Insights into the Origins of the Shompen, a Declining Population of the Nicobar Archipelago’. Journal of Human Genetics 51: 217–26. van Driem, G. 1998. ‘Neolithic Correlates of Ancient Tibeto-Burman Migrations’. In Archaeology and Language, vol. 2, edited by Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, 67–102. London: Routledge. ———. 1999. ‘A New Theory on the Origin of Chinese’. Bulletin of the IndoPacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 18(2): 43–58. ———. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region, Containing an Introduction to the Symbiotic Theory of Language. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2002. ‘Tibeto-Burman Phylogeny and Prehistory: Languages, Material Culture and Genes’. In Examing the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, edited by P. Bellwood and C. Renfrew, 233–49. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. ———. 2003. ‘Tibeto-Burman vs. Sino-Tibetan’. In Language in Time and Space: A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday, edited by B. Bauer and G. Pinault, 101–19. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ———. 2005. ‘Sino-Austronesian vs. Sino-Caucasian, Sino-Bodic vs. Sino-Tibetan, and Tibeto-Burman as Default Theory’. In Contemporary Issues in Nepalese Linguistics, edited by Y.P. Yadava, G. Bhattarai, R.R. Lohani, B. Prasain, and K. Parajuli, 285–338. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal. ———. 2006. ‘The Prehistory of Tibeto-Burman and Austroasiatic in Light of Emergent Population Genetic Studies’. Mother Tongue 9: 160–211. ———. 2007a. ‘South Asia and the Middle East’. In Encyclopaedia of the World’s Endangered Languages, edited by Christopher Mosely, 283–347. London: Routledge. ———. 2007b. ‘Endangered Languages of South Asia’. In Handbook of Endangered Languages, edited by Matthias Brenzinger, 303–41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ———. 2007c. ‘Austroasiatic Phylogeny and the Austroasiatic Homeland in Light of Recent Population Genetic Studies’. Mon-Khmer Studies 37: 1–14. (p.318)

Page 55 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References van Driem, G. 2007d. ‘The Diversity of the Tibeto-Burman Language Family and the Linguistic Ancestry of Chinese’. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 1(2): 211–70. ———. 2008a. ‘The Naga Language Groups within the Tibeto-Burman Language Family’. In Naga Identities: Changing Local Cultures in the Northeast of India, edited by M. Oppitz, Thomas Kaiser, Alban von Stockhausen, Marion Wettstein, 311–21. Zurich: Snoeck Publishers. ———. 2008b. ‘To Which Language Family Does Chinese Belong, or What’s in a Name?’ In Past Human Migrations in East Asia: Matching Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, edited by Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, Roger Blench, Malcolm D. Ross, Ilia Peiros, and Marie Lin, 219–53. London and New York: Routledge. ———. 2008c. ‘Linguistic Population Prehistory of the Greater Himalayan Region: Interpretations of Emergent Genetic Data’. In Proceedings of the International Conference ‘First Greet Migrations of Peoples’ under the Auspices of UNESCO (UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 19 June 2008), edited by V.G. Tomachev and Aiym M. Zholdasbekova, 98–112. Paris: The Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan to UNESCO. ———. 2011a. ‘Lost in the Sands of Time Somewhere North of the Bay of Bengal’. In Himalayan Languages and Linguistics: Studies in Phonology, Semantics, Morphology and Syntax, edited by M. Turin and B. Zeisler, 13–38. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011b. ‘Rice and the Austroasiatic and Hmong-Mien Homelands’. In Dynamics of Human Diversity: The Case of Mainland Southeast Asia, edited by N.J. Enfield, 361–89. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. ———. 2011c. ‘The Trans-Himalayan Phylum and Its Implications for Population Prehistory’. Communication on Contemporary Anthropology 5: 135–42. ———. 2011d. ‘Tibeto-Burman Subgroups and Historical Grammar’. Himalayan Linguistics 10(1) (Special Issue in Memory of Michael Noonan and David Watters): 31–9. ———. 2012a. ‘Glimpses of the Ethnolinguistic Prehistory of Northeastern India’. In Origins and Migrations in the Extended Eastern Himalayas, edited by Toni Huber and Stuart Blackburn, 187–211. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2012b. ‘Etyma, Shouldered Adzes and Molecular Variants’. In Methods in Contemporary Linguistics, edited by A. Ender, A. Leemann and B. Wälchli, 335– 61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ———. 2012c. ‘The Ethnolinguistic Identity of the Domesticators of Asian Rice’. Comptes Rendus Palevol 11(2): 117–32. Page 56 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References ———. 2013. ‘East Asian Ethnolinguistic Phylogeography’. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 7(1): 1–55. ———. 2014a. ‘Trans-Himalayan’. In Trans-Himalayan Linguistics, edited by N. Hill and T. Owen-Smith, 11–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ———. 2014b. ‘A Prehistoric Thoroughfare between the Ganges and the Himalayas’. In 50 Years after Daojali-Hading: Emerging Perspectives in the (p. 319) Archaeology of Northeast India, edited by T. Jamir and M. Hazarika, 60– 98. New Delhi: Research India Press. Varadarajan, L. 1988. ‘Silk in Northeastern and Eastern India: The Indigenous Tradition’. Modern Asian Studies 22(3): 561–70. Vasks, A. 2003. ‘The Symbolism of Stone Work-Axes (Based on Material from the Daugava Basin)’. Archaeologia Lituana 4: 27–32. Vasu, N.N. 1922. A Social History of Kamarupa, vol. 1. Culcutta: Bisvakosh Press. Vasudeva, M.K. and R. Shampru. 1997. ‘Some Plants in the Life of the Garos of Meghalaya’. In Contribution to Indian Ethnobotany, vol. 1, edited by S.K. Jain, 179–86. Jodhpur: Scientific Publishers. Vaughan, D.A. 1994. The Wild Relatives of Rice: A Genetic Resources Handbook. Manila: International Rice Research Institute. ———. 2003. ‘Genepools of the Genus Oryza’. In Monograph on Genus Oryza, edited by J.S. Nanda and S.D. Sharma, 113–38. Enfield, New Hampshire: Science Publishers. Vavilov, N.I. 1949. ‘The Origin, Variation, Immunity and Breeding of Cultivated Plants’. Chronica Botanica 13: 1–366. Verma, B.S. 1970–1. ‘Excavation at Chirand: New Light on the Indian Neolithic Culture Complex’. Puratattva 4: 19–23. Vitte, C., T. Ishii, F. Lamy, D. Brar, and O. Panaud. 2004. ‘Genomic Palaeontology Provides Evidence for Two Distinct Origins of Asian Rice (Oryza sativa L.)’. Molecular Genetic Genomics 272: 504–11. von Heine-Geldern, Robert. 1932. ‘Urheimat und fruheste Wanderungen der Austronesier’. Anthropos 26: 543–619. Walker, G.D. 1931. ‘Garo Manufacturing of Bark Cloth’. Man 27(5): 15–16. Wang, H., Y. Li, F. Sun, M. Zhao, B. Mitra, T.K. Chaudhuri, P. Regmi, S. Wu, Q. Kong, and Y. Zhang. 2012. ‘Revisiting the Role of the Himalayas in Peopling

Page 57 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Nepal: Insights from Mitochondrial Genomes’. Journal of Human Genetics 57: 228–34. Wang, Y. and J. Li. 2005. ‘The Plant Architecture of Rice (Oryza sativa)’. Plant Molecular Biology 59: 75–84. Wanpo, H., R. Ciochon, G. Yumin, R. Larick, F. Qiren, H. Schwarcz, C. Yonge, J. de Vos, and W. Rink. 1995. ‘Early Homo and Associated Artifacts from China’. Nature 378: 275–8. Watt, G. 1905. Journal of the Society of Arts 53 (2733). Weisler, M. 1989. ‘Chronometric Dating and Late Holocene Prehistory in the Hawaiian Islands: A Critical Review of Radiocarbon Dates from Moloka’i Island’. Radiocarbon 31(2): 121–45. Weiwen, H. and Z. Pu. 2007. ‘Les plus anciennes occupations humaines en Chine’. L’anthropologie 111: 166–81. West, J.A. and J. Louys. 2007. ‘Differentiating Bamboo from Stone Tool Cutmarks in the Zooarchaeological Record, with a Discussion on the Use of Bamboo Knives’. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 512–18. (p.320) White, A.D. 1898. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. New York: D. Appleton and Company. White, J.C. 2011. ‘Emergence of Cultural Diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia: A View from Prehistory’. In Dynamics of Human Diversity: The Case of Mainland Southeast Asia, edited by N.J. Enfield, 9–46. ANU: Asia-Pacific Linguistics. White, L. 1959. The Evolution of Culture. New York: Mcgraw-Hill. Whittekar, R.H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystem. New York and London: Macmillan Publishing Company. Willey, G.R. 1953. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Perú. Washington DC. Williamson G. and W.J.A. Payne. 1978. An Introduction to Animal Husbandry in the Tropics. London: The English Language Book Society and Longmans. Wong, C., R. Kiewj, J.P. Loh, L.H. Gan, O. Set, S.K. Lee, S. Lum, and Y.Y. Gan. 2001. ‘Genetic Diversity of the Wild Banana Musa acuminata Colla in Malaysia as Evidenced by AFLP’. Annals of Botany 88: 1017–25. Worman, E.C. 1949. ‘The Neolithic Problem in the Prehistory of India’. Journal of Washington 39(6): 181–201.

Page 58 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Xue-bin, Q., H. Jianlin, R. Blench, J. Edward O. Rege, and O. Hanotte. 2008. ‘Understanding Yak Pastoralism in Central Asian Highlands: Mitochondrial DNA Evidence for Origin, Domestication, and Dispersal of Domestic Yak’. In Human Migrations in Continental East Asia and Taiwan: Matching Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, edited by A. Sanchez-Mazas, R.M. Blench, M.D. Ross, I. Peiros, and L. Marie, 427–42. London: Routledge. Yadav, R.K., B.C. Deka, and S.K. Sanwal. 2009. ‘Genetic Resources of Vegetable Crops of Northeastern Himalayan Region’. ENVIS Bulletin: Himalayan Ecology 17: 8–18. Yadav, R.K., D.S. Yadav, and P. Sarma. 2005. ‘Diversity of Cucurbitaceous Crops in Northeastern Region’. ENVIS Bulletin: Himalayan Ecology 13(2): 18–28. Yadav, R.K., D.S. Yadav, N. Rai, and K.K. Patel. 2003. ‘Prospects of Horticulture in Northeastern Region’. ENVIS Bulletin: Himalayan Ecology 11(2): 13–28. Yamanaka, S., I. Nakamura, H. Nakai, and Y.I. Sato. 2003. ‘Dual Origin of the Cultivated Rice Based on Molecular Markers of Newly Collected Annual and Perennial Accessions of Wild Rice Species, Oryza nivara and O. rufipogon’. Genetic Resource and Crop Evolution 50: 529–38. Yang, X., Z. Wan, L. Perry, H. Lu, Q. Wang, C. Zhao, J. Li, F. Xie, J. Yu, T. Cui, T. Wang, M. Li, and Q. Ge. 2012. ‘Early Millet Use in Northern China’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. pnas.1115430109: 1–5. Yasuda, Y. 2002. ‘Origins of Pottery and Agriculture in East Asia’. In The Origins of Pottery and Agriculture, edited by Y. Yasuda, 119–42. New Delhi: Lustre Press/ Roli Books. (p.321) Yasuda, Y. 2004. ‘Introduction: Discovery of Riverine Civilisation in Monsoon Asia’. In Monsoon and Civilisation, edited by Y. Yasuda and V. Shinde, 12–19. New Delhi: Lustre Press/Roli Books. Yi, S., J.J. Lee, S. Kim, Y. Yoo, and D. Kim. 2008. ‘New Data on the Hoabinhian: Investigations at Hang Cho Cave, Northern Vietnam’. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 28: 73–9. Yobin, Y.S.H. 1999. ‘Ethobiological Studies of Arunachal Pradesh: The Yobins of Changlang District’. In Biodiversity: North East India Perspectives, edited by B. Kharbuli, D. Syiem, and H. Kayang, 116–20. Shillong: North Eastern Biodiversity Research Cell, North-Eastern Hill University. Yumnam, J.Y. 2008. ‘Rich Biodiversity of Northeast India Needs Conservation’. Current Science 95(3): 297.

Page 59 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

References Zaman, A. 2008. ‘An Appraisal to the Marriage System of the Karbis of Assam’. Studies of Tribes and Tribals 6(2): 93–7. Zeder, M. A., E. Emshwiller, B.D. Smith, and D.G. Bradley. 2006. ‘Documenting Domestication: The Intersection of Genetics and Archaeology’. Trends in Genetics 22(3): 139–55. Zhang, D., C. Fahu, R.L. Bettinger, L. Barton, J. Duxue, C. Morgan, W. Hui, C. Xiaozhong, D. Guanghui, T.P. Guilderson, and Z. Hui. 2010. ‘Archaeological Records of Dadiwan in the Past 60 ka and the Origin of Millet Agriculture’. Chinese Science Bulletin 55(16): 1636–42. Zhao, Z., D.M. Pearsall, R.A. Benfer, jr., and D.R. Piperno. 1998. ‘Distinguishing Rice (Oryza sativa Poaceae) from Wild Oryza Species through Phytolith Analysis, II: Finalized Method’. Economic Botany 52(2): 134–45. Zhu, Q. and S. Ge. 2005. ‘Phylogenetic Relationships among A-genome Species of the Genus Oryza Revealed by Intron Sequences of Four Nuclear Genes’. New Phytology 167: 249–65. Zhang, C. and H.C. Hung. 2008. ‘The Neolithic of Southern China: Origin, Development and Dispersal’. Asian Perspectives 47(2): 299–329. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. 2007. ‘Jomon Pottery: Cord-Imitating Decoration’. Documenta Praehistorica 34: 21–9. Zoller, L. 2000. ‘Chronology of Upper Pleistocene “Red Silts” in the Siwalik System and Constrains for the Timing of the Upper Palaeolithic in Nepal’. Catena 41: 229–35.

Access brought to you by:

Page 60 of 60

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Index

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

(p.322) Index abandoned: areas, 181; farmstead, 209; jhum plots, 185; river courses, 30; settlement, 14; sites, 241 Acheulean, 82, 83; artefacts, 73, 82, 114; assemblage region, 82; contexts, 78; culture, 13, 152, 261; like industries, 81; tradition, 77; types of tools, 77 adaptation strategies, 15, 219 adaptive: differentiation, 223, 269; patterns 85; selection 226 agricultural and linguistic group dispersal hypothesis, 6, 8 agricultural: calendar, 242; cycle, 243, 246, 249; fairs and festivals, 221; homelands, 7; implements, 19, 67, 68; origins, 8, 58, 221; practice, 18, 41, 58, 85, 187, 196, 232, 240, 268; surplus, 227; transition, 220 Page 1 of 7

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Index agrobiodiversity, 242 agro-climatic conditions, 227 Ahom, 3, 246, 261, 264; advent of the, 46; community, 244; kingdom, 46; period, 46; polity, 46; pre-Ahom period, 71 ahu (rice), 232, 233, 236, 238, 239 ailments, 34, 37, 173, 191, 196, 212 alkali, 190, 192, 193, 200, 215, 216 aman (rice), 234 Ambari, 2, 11, 68, 70, 156; ware, 115, 121, 156 ancient DNA, 6, 65 ancient migrations of linguistic groups, 7 animal domestication, 6, 93, 226, 256, 258 animal husbandry, 41, 95, 136, 145, 188 anthropomorphs, 71 Anyathian, 82, 83, 90 Ao Naga, 37, 240, 249 Apatani, 38, 246; community, 243; plateau, 243; tribes, 40 arboriculture of sago, 58 archaeobotanical, 60; discoveries, 5; evidence, 251, 263; investigations, 138, 140, 144, 271; remains, 115, 136 Arjun (site in Nepal), 91 Assam silk, 256 Assam–Burma route, 69 Attirampakkam, 73, 262 aus (rice), 234 Australian aboriginal, 91 Australopithecine, 152 (p.323) Austroasiatic: homeland, 49, 50, 51; linguistic group, 3, 51, 59, 264 Austronesian, xvi, 63 Bambooti, 103, 132 Ban Kao, 112 bao (rice), 229, 232, 233, 239 bar celts, 134 Bargaon, xx, 17, 159, 160, 162–3, 165, 171–3, 181, 194–5, 266 basket-impressed design, 99 Page 2 of 7

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Index beads, 115, 120; glass, 70; terracotta 97 beater and paddle method, 104 belief system, 16, 23, 37, 201, 211–12, 214 Bhishmaknagar, 71, 98 Bhutan, 3, 64–5, 70, 76, 107, 218, 223, 254 Bihu, 244, 246–7, 254 biodiversity hotspots, 218–19, 269 blade techniques, 77 Bodo-Koch, 22, 46, 66–8 Bombyx mori, 256 Bos frontalis, 58, 115, 253–4 Bos indicus, 115, 253 Brakhuti culture, 65 broomcorn millet, 57–8, 146 Buddhism, 70 Buranji, 3, 264 Central Asian Neolithic tradition, 147 Chalcolithic culture, 14, 145, 204 chipped: celts, 101–2; stone axe industry, 76; stone tool, 79, pebble tool, 84 Chungliyimti, 60, 104, 115, 121, 130, 156, 164 Citrus indica, 252 corded ware, 100, 107, 111, 136, 139, 141–2 cord-marked pottery, 93, 119 cord-wrapped paddle, 112, 142 cultural bridge, 3, 10; change, 6, 13; diversity, 8, 17; ecology, 20; heritage, 4, 247; identity, 17, 21–2, 209, 237; links, 14, 68, 145; practices, 18, 23, 245; process, 220; value, 240 Daojali Hading, 2, 97, 108–9, 118, 130 Daparbatiya, 71 Deo-Parbat, 69 Dhansiri–Doyang valley, 14, 46, 68, 70, 265 Dibru valley, 99, 132 Dimasa Kachari, 167, 246 direct historical analogy, 18 domestication of plants and animals, 4, 145, 217–18, 260 double-shouldered celt, 161, 198, 206 early farming communities, 8, 12, 95, 143, 205, 227, 257, 260 Page 3 of 7

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Index East Asian Neolithic complex, 147–8 ecological adaptation, 17, 23, 240 edge-grinding tool, 90, 93 endangered: language, 44; species, 36, 252, 255 ethnoarchaeological, 14, 18, 150, 166, 171, 181, 266 ethnobotanical, 5, 14–15, 38, 58, 163, 269 ethnolinguistic: diversity, 23, 42, 64; prehistory, 8, 23, 59, 61, 265, 271–2 ethno-medicine, 38, 221 Fallen Leaves model, 56 Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, 19, 61 Father Tongue Hypothesis, 63 feasts of merit, 151 Fertile Crescent, 5, 144, 220–1 (p.324) Gangetic valley, 5, 224, 227 Ganol River, 78, 102 Garbhanga Reserve Forest, 14, 16–18, 154–5, 157–60, 167, 171, 183, 229, 266, 269 Garo Hill, 18, 27, 30, 65, 68, 75–80, 84–9, 92–3, 96, 100–3, 114, 117, 152, 155, 204, 249– 50 general comparative analogy, 18 geo-archaeological study, 102 Göbekli Tepe, 145 goera gitchi, 212, 213 gold masks, 69 ground and polished stone industry, 76 ground celts, 101, 111–12, 119 Gupta architectural style, 71 Hemudu, 50, 146 historical phonology, 46 Hmong-Mien, xvi, 8, 59, 63, 270 Hoabinhian, 49, 62, 65, 80, 83–5, 88–9, 91–4, 97, 101, 111, 153, 262–3 Indian Ocean trade network, 69 Indo-Aryan, 3, 46, 66, 226–7, 264 Indo-European, 7, 22, 49, 53–4, 69, 263 Iron Age, 16, 68, 136, 147, 150–1, 211, 265 iron smelting, 55 Irrawaddy valley, 81, 83 Ithabo, 214 Jadeite, 94, 104–5, 212 Jaintia Hills, 27, 48, 103, 114, 151, 168, 250, 268 Jambili Athon, 196 jhum cultivation, 15, 41–2, 68, 172, 179, 182–3, 186–7, 190, 196, 202, 240–1, 243, 248, 267–8 joha rice, 244 Jomon culture, 141 Kāmarūpa kingdom, 46, 264, 272 Page 4 of 7

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Index Kopili–Jamuna valley, 46, 70 Karuo, 57 Kashmir Neolithic, 147–8 Khangkhui, 79, 81, 89, 92–3 Khasi Hills, 30, 55, 84, 89, 96, 114, 149, 168, 250 Khasi-Aslian, xvi, 47–8, 50 Kradai language, 3, 264 Lahuradewa, 117, 128, 131 Large Flake Acheulean, 74 Last Glacial Maximum, 62, 64 Lawnongthroh, 114–15, 120, 130, 132 linguistic palaeontology, 49–50, 264, 270 Longshan culture, 112 Lower Palaeolithic, 65, 73, 76, 152 Lungshanoid culture, 112 Majiayao Neolithic, 57 Mangifera indica, 182, 222 Masol, 73 Megalithic, 18, 55, 72, 145, 149, 151, 154, 173, 182, 202–3, 209, 268–9 Mesolithic culture, 13, 140 microlith, 78, 81, 86–7, 102–3, 111, 113, 117, 119, 134–5, 137, 140, 149 mid-Gangetic plain, 117, 137–9, 146, 148–9 Middle Palaeolithic, 77, 80–1 mitochondrial DNA, 62 Mizo-Kuki-Chin language communities, 61 Molecular: genetics, 54, 219; markers, 224; phylogenetic studies, 223–4, 269; polymorphisms, 62 Mon-Khmer, xvi, 47–9, 61 Movius Line, 81–2 Myrkhan, 114–15, 120, 130, 132 (p.325) Naga ancestral sites, 115, 132 Neolithic Revolution, 4, 218 Nongpok Keithelmanbi, 2, 85, 100, 111, 118, 130, 132 North Cachar Hills, 81, 99, 108, 168–9, 268 Northeast Indian Neolithic complex, 153, 263 Oinam, 142 oral tradition, 67–8, 172, 181 Oryza nivara, 59, 115, 121, 223–6, 228, 269–70 Oryza officinnalis, 227, 229 Oryza perennis, 227 Oryza rufipogon, 121, 228–9 Oryza sativa, 115, 121, 138, 222–5, 241, 269–70 ‘out of Africa’, 62, 73 Palaeolithic technology, 74 Parsi-Parlo, 98, 107, 118, 130 Patu, 91; Page 5 of 7

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Index culture, 65 phylogenetic diversity, 55, 59, 264 plant and animal domestication, 6, 226, 256, 258 population: genetics, xv, xvii, 4, 43, 50–1, 56, 59, 61–3, 92, 264–5, 270, 272; movement, 7, 13, 53, 57, 62–3, 65, 74; prehistory, 4, 45, 53–4, 57, 62 Purakha, 116, 121, 130, 132 Pynthorlangtein, 2, 113–14, 119, 130, 156 Quaternary: formation, 27–8, 30; geology, 26, 28; sediment, 29, 81 Ranyak Khen, 60, 65, 90 rice: beer, 159, 174, 177, 194, 196, 198–9, 200–1, 208, 215–16, 244–5, 249, 267; farming, 5, 188, 190, 221, 246, 263; population genetics, 50 Robert von Heine-Geldern, 23, 49, 51, 55 Rongram, 76, 84, 88, 92, 100–1, 103 Rukmininagar, 71 Sarutaru, 2, 109–10, 118, 130, 156 Saw Mer, 84, 89 Schulterbeilkultur, 49 Sekta, 2, 69, 70, 104, 156 Selbalgiri, 76, 78, 80, 86, 101–2, 113, 119, 130 semilunar harvesters, 148 settlement pattern, 8, 13–14, 17–18, 21, 94, 174, 203, 242, 267, 272 short axes, 81, 84, 89 Sìchuān, 23, 51, 56, 58, 69, 146, 264 Sino-Tibetan, 52 site formation process, 14, 16, 68, 156 slash-and-burn (agriculture), 11, 15, 202–3, 240 Soanian, 77, 82 Sohpet Bneng Hill, 103, 114 Spirit Cave, 94, 97 Tai speaking groups, 3 thunder axes, 212, 214 Tibeto-Burman linguistic groups, 3, 64, 159 Trans-Himalayan linguistic phylum, 53, 56, 58 tripod legged ware, 112, 119 Upper Palaeolithic, 75, 78, 80–1, 83, 87–8, 153, 262 Vadagokugiri, 2 Vavilovian centre of biodiversity, 217, 269 Yangtze, 5, 23, 50–1, 60, 140–1, 146, 149, 153, 169, 223–4, 257, 263 Y-chromosomal: haplogroup, 63–4; polymorphisms, 63 Yellow River, 23, 141, 143, 169, 223; Page 6 of 7

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

Index civilization, 146 Yúnnán, 146, 222, 223, 251, 264

Access brought to you by:

Page 7 of 7

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020

About the Author

Prehistory and Archaeology of Northeast India: Multidisciplinary Investigation in an Archaeological Terra Incognita Manjil Hazarika

Print publication date: 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780199474660 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199474660.001.0001

(p.326) About the Author Manjil Hazarika

Manjil Hazarika is Assistant Professor at the Department of Archaeology, Cotton College State University in Guwahati, Assam, India. Previously he has served at the Indian Archaeological Society, New Delhi, as a Research Associate from 2010 to 2013 and at the Department of Heritage Conservation of the Institute of Palaeoenvironment and Heritage Conservation, Mekelle University, Ethiopia, as Assistant Professor from 2013 to 2015. He earned his PhD from Bern University, Switzerland, with the highest accolade of summa cum laude. He has published widely in books and journals and has co-edited (with T. Jamir) 50 Years after Daojali-Hading: Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of Northeast India—Essays in Honour of Tarun Chandra Sharma (2014).

Access brought to you by:

Page 1 of 1

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 22 September 2020