Cultural remains of 70,000-year-old civilisation found in Orissa

[Adsos Letter]

Source: Hindustan Times
Priya Ranjan Sahu


In a major breakthrough, researchers from Sambalpur University recently discovered the cultural remains of a civilisation that is supposed to be more than 70,000 years old. The discovery was made at Barpadar village in the upper Jira river of Bargarh district in Orissa.

"The site has tremendous potential for further research to unravel the Palaeolithic life in this part of the sub-continent," said the head of the research team P.K.Behera of the university’s History department.

The Palaeolithic period is the second part of the Stone Age, beginning about 750,000 to 500,000 years BC and lasting until the end of the Ice Age around 8,500 years BC.

The archaeological excavations were conducted near Barpadar village by the bank of the Jira river. The work was also assisted by Prakash Sinha of the Department of Archaeology, Allahabad Central University. The team, including history students of the university, found stone tools like axes, cleavers and scrapers at the site. The stone tools, used for food processing -- cutting, chopping and scraping -- were manufactured on par with European and African models. Behera and Sinha are of the opinion that the site was inhabited by the Palaeolithic band for food processing purposes. However, in the absence of evidence of on-site manufacturing of processing tools, the experts observed that these tools were manufactured elsewhere -- where suitable raw materials such as fine-grained quartzite was available. The raw materials were brought to the site in finished forms for use. "Future excavations will reveal the nearby manufacturing sites also," Behera told HT.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=NLetter&id=d558c95e-09a8-4d19-bed1-285481635dad&Headline=Cultural+remains+of+70%2c000-year-old+civilisation+found+in+Orissa

[varun]

1. I was born in this state (Orissa)

Its a beautiful state with a long history. I'm not surprised they found this. There are many tribes that live in this state that still live untouched by modern technology.

See:

http://www.travelmasti.com/domestic/orissa/tribal.htm

[Adsos Letter]

5. I would love to visit that region someday...

I've had friends who have been, and found it a life-changing experience, in a good way.

"An Oraon marriage partner can contest for divorce on the grounds of not only adultery but also for bad temper and laziness."

Sounds pretty advanced to me... :)

[comrade snarky]

2. Very cool find

But civilization?
My anthro classes were a long time ago but I don't think you can call "The stone tools, used for food processing -- cutting, chopping and scraping" evidence of a civilization.

Habitation sure, but depending on the the types of tools used this doesn't sound too unusual to me. If I remember right the human toolkit was similar across a lot of Europe, Asia and Africa at that time. We're talking fist appearance of modern Homo Sapiens outside of Africa around this time or even a little later.

Of course this is a newspaper article and we know they never get the science wrong or misunderstand what they are told :-)

[Adsos Letter]

3. I was going to include a caveat emptor....

but I figured you guys would realize that they may very well be revising this... :D

[comrade snarky]

7. Sure

70,000 is a tough time to date, that's at the far edge of carbon dating.

Oh god... at least it was 20 years ago. I'm old and bent, my ears are knackered.

[roguevalley]

18. that makes this about 60,000 years older than the Natufians. this

is such neat news. What a legacy to the people there. :)

[Chulanowa]

9. "Civilization" is a meaningless, ambiguous term anyway

Designed for no reason other than to make "us" better than "them". The British were civilized, but the French weren't - or vice versa. The Romans, with their gigantic class inequities and need to make constant war just to maintain cohesion were civilized, but the Huns, largely egalitarian and able to maintain some sort of unity through negotiation and intermarriage, were savage barbarians.

[comrade snarky]

10. In general usage, yes I agree with you

But when you start talking about human history from an anthropological point of view less so.
It's fluid and the definitions change all the time as we learn and grow. For the vast majority of the field we've come a long way from the judgments made against the "less advanced" and all that old Victorian prejudice.

By today's standards all the groups you mention would be civilizations. If I remember correctly, and it has been 20 years so don't judge me too harshly, civilizations are defined by having have complex political structures like bureaucracies and social stratification. Things you don't usually find in hunter gatherer or tribal societies.

I debated about using the term just because it does carry so much baggage in the common language.

[Chulanowa]

20. Then I think the definition you're looking for...

Is a human society that has a specialization of labor, generally a trait of agrarian societies. However it exists in no few tribal societies as well, with delineated leaders and priests, plus the very common sexual and age divisions in labor.

When dealing with an extinct society like this, it's probably just best to err on the side of "civilization" for the sake of politeness... Nobody likes having it implied that they're savages, after all :)

[comrade snarky]

26. I did say the definition is fluid

But very few tribal societies I can bring to mind have a professional bureaucracy. You are right though, division of labor and specialization does appear with cultivation and settlement.

The terms are way of breaking down the various types and relative complexities of human cultures and societies. To avoid confusion we need to have some way of delineating and describing the most common forms of societal organization. There are bands, pastoral societies, tribes or chiefdoms and civilizations. It's not a judgment, it's a description and believe me, when you reduce all human cultures to 4 groups it ain't exact.
Really even saying one society is more complex than another is in many ways wrong. Sure the Maya have a lot more building skill and one hell of a calendar but is their society really more complex than Indigenous Australians who have far less material goods but have a stunningly rich mythology.
Of course it gets interesting when you start talking about pre homo-sapien societies. At 70,000 years old this habitation may not have been modern humans.

These are the topics that kept me up late drinking and arguing in many a bar.

I certainly didn't want to imply anyone is savage or one form of society is "above" another. If I came across that way it is not what I intended.

<edited for repeated word repeating>

[Chulanowa]

29. I've always been intrigued by hte possibility of pre-Sapiens societies...

I mean really when you think about it, as a species we've had what, about a hundred thousand years of existence? Homo erectus was probably damn near as sharp as we are, and lived ten times as long. I'm sure that in a million years of existence, you can come up with a pretty complex culture.

[LanternWaste]

31. it's a valid descriptor....

In the context of Anthropology and History it simply means, "...that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of his specific society." (Habitat, Economy and Society by C.D. Forde )

The term is not one of judgement, it's a valid descriptor.

[Maru Kitteh]

4. What a beautiful find. It's nice to be reminded of the "big picture"

Thanks for bringing this. :-)

[Adsos Letter]

6. You're welcome...I'm glad you enjoyed it.

:hi:

[xchrom]

8. +3 nt

[wroberts189]

11. 70,000 years !!! ?? 67,991 BC? Whoa ..thats a long time. nt

[Adsos Letter]

12. I suspect there will be some revision on that. n/t

[davepc]

16. Modern Humas have been arround for 200,000 years or so...give or take.

What we consider "ancient" civilizations (Sumer, Egyptian) only have a record going back about 5000 years or so.

[Hekate]

13. Always enjoyable, Adsos.

:hi:

Hekate

[malaise]

14. Another great post

Thanks.

[progressoid]

15. That's impossible. How can you have a civilization that is 64,000 years OLDER than the universe???

Must be a typo. :eyes:

[DRoseDARs]

17. First off, I suggest Sambalpur University look up the definition of "civilization"...

...as it doesn't mean what they think it means. And second, it's already been established that tool-making, paleolithic Humans penetrated the Indian subcontinent by 70k-50k years ago, so these researchers aren't breaking new ground just reaffirming the science.

[eppur_se_muova]

19. Yes, they seem to be using 'civilization' for 'culture' here ...

coincidentally, I'm reading "After the Ice" right now ... will get to the chapter on India and southern Asia in a day or two. :)

[Vehl]

21. yes the word "civilization" is mis-used here

These are archeological findings that show human habitation and the use of tools; but to call it Civilization would require much more evidence..such as proof of buildings/religion/language

Ive been to Orissa and its a great place to visit; but this University folks need to get their terminology right


but interestingly enough; one of the Oldest towns in the ancient world was Mehrgarh(~7000-4000Bc); that was probably the starting point of the Indus valley civilization of India.

[Hanse]

22. Huh.

I thought the upper limit for human habitation of the Indian subcontinent was 63,000 years ago.

I think I'll wait for more, better written articles.

[Vehl]

23. genetic evidence shows it as 70000 i believe

If i remember correctly; genetic studies show that some south Indian genes unique to the subcontinent are at least 70 000 years old

cant find the source right off the top of my head; but i remember watching a BBC documentary called the "history of India" that stated the same thing

[McCamy Taylor]

24. This confirms my theory that humans survived the 70,000 BC volcanic winter

by living near hot springs.

Here is a link about the hot springs of Orissa in India.

http://www.tourismoforissa.com/water-bodies-in-orissa/hot-springs-in-orissa.html

Here is more info on Toba's eruption c. 70,000 BC and how evidence of continuous human occupation around the time of the eruption has been found in India.

http://anthropology.net/2007/07/06/mount-toba-eruption-ancient-humans-unscathed-study-claims/

If you look at maps from Africa of the sites where humans were supposed to have survived the long, sudden year round winter, those sites are also near hot springs.

Hot springs would have provided several advantages to humans during the volcanic winter, besides the obvious as a source of heat and water. Humans would have been reduced to cripples by the lack of sunlight leading to rickets in children----unless they had a source of Vit. D food---which meant fish. However, much of the world's water would have become too cold to support enough marine life. In a region with a natural hot spring, the temperature could have remained warm enough to keep plenty of fish alive, which would have provided a Vit. D source.

Neanderthal, who did not eat fish, would have suffered from Vit. D deficiency.

[Vehl]

25. very interesting theory

It would have been possible that as you said; humans could have survived by living near hot springs



and here is the link to the video i was talking about in my previous post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id7VvjQ2G9c

its from a BBC documentary called "The story of India".
The above link is to the first episode of this 10 episode?(not sure) series and one of the best ive seen that gives an adequately deep yet comprehensive view of indian history.


PS: the part about humans moving into india 80-70 000 years ago can be found at the timepoint 7:20 onwards in the above link


PPS:interestingly enough; the first arrivals are thought to be beachcombers; hugging the coastline from Africa

[McCamy Taylor]

28. Only sensible way for early humans to travel. Coast gives you steady food and water supply.

An overland journey would be too risky. When they came upon a river or stream that fed the sea, they would have a good place for a new settlement. However, the archeological remains from these coastal settlements would be poor due to floods, erosion etc.

I also believe that humans are over adapted to aquatic environments for animals that are supposed to be strictly terrestrial. Diving reflex, loss of hair (except scalp to keep the sun off the head), erect posture which could easily have started from standing up in water----those suggest to me that early humans thrived by spending a lot of time in the water.

[TankLV]

27. I understand they also found the worlds oldest Disco Ball there, too...!!!

[WilliamPitt]

30. But the Earth is only 7,000 years old and stuff, right?

D'oh.

[LanternWaste]

32. What I wouldn't give...

What I wouldn't give to go back in time and simply observe, even for one day. sigh