RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Wollongong & the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,

1. Paul, A., Singh. A. K., Sinha, A. and Saikia, K., Geotechnical
Australia (ed. Aziz, N.), 2003, pp. 50–62.
investigation for support design in depillaring panels in Indian
23. Marinos, P. and Hoek, E., GSI: a geologically friendly tool for
coal mines. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2005, 64, 358–363.
rock mass strength estimation. In Proceedings of the Geological
2. Paul, A., Singh, A. K., Rao, D. G. and Kumar, N., Empirical
Engineering 2000 at the International Conference on Geotechnical
approach for estimation of rock load in development workings of
and Geological Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, 2000, pp.
room and pillar mining. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2009, 68, 214–216.
1422–1446.
3. Paul, A., Singh, A. P., John, L. P., Singh, A. K. and Khandelwal,
24. Suresh, R. and Murthy, V. M. S. R., Seismic characterization of
M., Validation of RMR-based support design using roof bolts by
coalmine roof for rock load assessment. In First Indian Mineral
numerical modeling for underground coal mine of Monnet Ispat,
Congress, Dhanbad, 2005, pp. 31–46.
Raigarh, India – a case study. Arab. J. Geosci., 2011; doi:10.1007/
s12517-011-0313-8.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We thank the management of the mines
4. Scott, D. F., Williams, T. J., Denton, D. K. and Friedel, M. J.,
of Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL), South Eastern Coal
Seismic tomography as a tool for measuring stress in mines. Min.
Feilds, Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Tata Steel Limited and Mahanadi
Eng., 1990, 51, 77–80.
Coal Fields Limited. We also thank the Director, Indian School of
5. Singh, K. K. K., In-seam seismic application for detecting in
Mines and Director, Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research,
homogeneities in coal seams – a review. J. Min. Met. Fuel, 1994,
Dhanbad for support. This work is a part of the Ph D thesis of
42, 49–54.
A.P. being carried out at IIT ISM, Dhanbad.
6. Ritter, W., Die static der tunnelgewolbe, Springer, Berlin, Germany,
1879.
Received 7 May 2019; revised accepted 30 July 2019
7. Terzaghi, K., Rock defects and rock loads on tunnel supports. In
Rock Tunneling with Steel Supports (eds Proctor, R. V. and White,
doi: 10.18520/cs/v118/i1/123-132
T. L.), Scientific Research, Academic Publisher, 1946, vol. 1, pp.
17–99.
8. Mandal, A. and Sengupta D., Fatal accidents in Indian coal mines.
Technical Report No. ASD/99/33, Applied Statics Unit, Calcutta,
1999.
9. Deere, D. U., Technical description of rock cores for engineering An early case of lithic recycling in
purposes. Rock Mech. Eng. Geol., 1964, 1, 17–22.
10. Priest, S. D. and Hudson, J. A., Discontinuity spacing in rock. India: evidence from the Acheulian site
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech., 1976, 13, 135–148.
11. Palmstrom, A., The volumetric joint count – a useful and simple
at Damdongri, Madhya Pradesh
measure of the degree of the rock jointing. In Proceedings of the
4th Congress, International Association of Engineering Geology, S. B. Ota1,*, Niharika Srivastava2 and
Delhi, 1982, issue 5, pp. 221–228.
12. Bieniawski, Z. T., Engineering classification of jointed rock mass. Suman Pandey2
1
Trans. S. Afr. Civ. Eng., 1973, 15, 335–344. Archaeological Survey of India, Takhatmal Colony, Sherpura,
13. Bieniawski, Z. T., Rock mass classification in rock engineering. In Vidisha 464 001, India
2
Exploration for Rock Engineering, Proceedings of the Sympo- Deccan College, Pune 411 006, India
sium, (ed. Bieniawski, Z. T.), Balkema, Cape Town, South Africa,
1976, vol. 1, 97–106. Research on recycled lithic artefacts in Indian prehis-
14. Barton, N. R., Lien, R. and Lunde, J., Engineering classification of
tory is extremely limited when compared to the world
jointed rock mass for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech.,
1974, 6(4), 189–239.
scenario. In the present study we group the recycled
15. Laubscher, D. H. and Taylor, H. W., The importance of geome- activity of lithic artefacts into two categories – (1)
chanics classification of jointed rock masses in mining operations. artefact that is created and recycled during one ‘cul-
In Exploration for Rock (ed. Bieniawski, Z. T.), Balkema, 1976, tural age’ and (2) artefact that is created by the
vol. 1, pp. 119–128. ‘ancestors’ and recycled during subsequent cultural
16. Laubscher, D. H., Planning mass mining operations. In Compre- ages. It is a fact that the earliest evidence of recycled
hensive Rock Engineering (ed. Hudson, J. A.), Pergamon Press, artefacts belonging to Acheulian hominin is extremely
Oxford, UK, 1993, vol. 2, pp. 547–583. limited and as such, the Damdongri site in Madhya
17. Cummings, R. A., Kendorski, F. S. and Bieniawski, Z. T., Caving Pradesh, India is the only Acheulian site where
rock mass classification and support estimates. USBM contract re-
recycled artefacts have been identified pushing back
port I0100103, Engineers International Inc, Chicago, USA, 1982.
18. Venkateswarlu, V., Ghosh, A. K. and Raju, N. M., Rock mass
the antiquity of such human behaviour to Acheulian
classification for design of roof support – a statistical evaluation culture for the first time in the country. Keeping in
of parameters. Min. Sci. Technol., 1989, 8, 97–108. view this uncommon evidence and considering the na-
19. CMRI, Geomechanical classification of roof rocks vis-à-vis roof ture of recycled artefacts from Damdongri, it is clear
supports. S&T Project Report, 1987. that recycling of lithic artefacts to put them back to
20. Ghosh, C. N. and Ghose, A. K., Estimation of critical convergence use was uncommon during the Acheulian cultural
and rock load in coal mine roadways – an approach based on rock phase in India. The present evidence from Damdongri
mass rating. Geotech. Geol. Eng., 1992, 10, 185–202. is unique, where lithic analysis has shown that
21. Sheorey, P. R., Application of modern rock classification in coal recycled activity on lithic artefacts was carried out
mines roadways. In Comprehensive Rock Engineering, Pergamon
during the Acheulian cultural phase with no intention
Press, Oxford, UK, 1993, pp. 411–431.
22. Mark, C. and Molinda, G. M., The coal mine roof rating engineer-
ing practices. In Coal Operator’s Conference, University of *For correspondence. (e-mail: [email protected])

132 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 1, 10 JANUARY 2020

 RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
to reuse them. Rather this action can be ascribed to original activities is possible on the basis of differential
certain symbolic activity. Finally, based on these evi- patination due to considerable time gap.
dences it has been hypothesized that recycling Archaeologists are well acquainted with recycling ac-
activity on ancestral lithic artefact during the Acheu- tivities, particularly while dealing with historical period
lian was probably considered ‘taboo’ and evidence sites. This is because ‘... simple exercise of historical
from Damdongri was probably indicative of a site
memory would show that recycling was fully incorpo-
where artefacts were presented as symbolic object con-
nected with some belief system during the Acheulian. rated in the behavioural repertoire of traditional societies,
from our recent past to historical times’1. For example,
Keywords: Archaeology, cultural age, prehistory, re- some valuable or curious-looking objects of an earlier pe-
cycled lithic artefacts. riod are used as ornaments, or building materials such as
bricks and stones are recycled by reusing them in subse-
STUDIES on recycled lithic artefacts in prehistoric quent structures of later periods. In a way recycling activ-
archaeology are limited. It is probably because of the fact ities are integrated as a part of culture, unless considered
that this feature becomes difficult to recognize in lithic ‘taboo’ by society.
assemblages and as such, these aspects in prehistoric arc- In spite of this, the study of recycling activities as a
haeology did not attract the attention of scholars to corre- human behaviour in archaeological research is limited,
late and understand in conjunction with human behaviour especially in Palaeolithic studies, perhaps due to scepticism
and the socio-economic implications in society. about the usefulness of this concept. According to Odell2,
Recycling of lithic artefacts as popularly understood is ‘recycling is a concept that is too difficult to characterize
that evidence on the artefacts which is indicative of some adequately in interpreting the archaeological record’.
working or fabrication on a particular artefact with a The basic theoretical concepts behind recycling activi-
temporal gap and of course, with two different objectives. ties as part of human behaviour in archaeological context
Recycling of an artefact is done with an objective to reuse were probably first put forward by Schiffer3 in his semin-
it or use it for a symbolic purpose. Sometimes, reworking al article ‘Archaeological context and systemic context’
at the recycling stage is done and discarded when it and elaborated in his subsequent contributions4–6.
was realized that it will not serve any desired purpose. Following Schiffer’s concept, few other studies in the
The reasons for this discard could be numerous. Palaeolithic context have been carried out and while
The recycling activities in prehistoric context can be reviewing these limited works on this specific human
broadly divided into two categories based on time when behaviour, it has been rightly remarked that ‘... recycling
the recycling activity was carried out in relationship to was often identified through the recovery of artefacts
the cultural age of its primary manufacture. The first with double patina, especially in Palaeolithic sites, but
category of recycled activity is within one ‘cultural age’ this evidence was considered almost as a curiosity, with-
and the second category of recycling is performed subse- out fully considering its behavioural or economical
quent to a particular cultural age, which is termed as an implications’1.
‘ancestors’. However, subsequent to Schiffer and other isolated
‘Ancestor’ is defined as that which is earlier than the reports, interest in the study of recycling activities in lithic
existing memory of a given cultural age of a community. assemblage of Palaeolithic archaeology has increased to a
‘Ancestor’ is also from whom one has descended, who lived great extent7–11. These studies emphasize that: ‘On the
in the past beyond the human memory of a community. one hand, archaeologists are aware of the implications of
Here ‘cultural age’ denotes succession of generations recycling for different behavioural issues, like raw material
that are considered as one unit in respect of cultural value management, settlement patterns, artefact use life, organ-
and that is remembered as contemporary memory within ization of technology and knapping methods. On the other
that cultural age. Besides, the cultural age (also known as hand, recycling offers a glimpse into the temporal nature
cultural period) is usually understood in terms of culture of the archaeological assemblages’1. It was also realized
and the contemporary technology that was in use. Changes then that such studies would certainly ‘... provide a high-
in cultural age are marked by fundamental changes, the er resolution picture of human behaviour’1.
way we perceive and understand the world in a broader The renewed interest in this direction culminated with
sense of the term. a thematic workshop in Tel-Aviv University, Israel in
In case of the first category, i.e. within one cultural 2013, the contributions of which were published in Qua-
age, lithic artefacts are recycled with a small time gap. As ternary International No. 361 (ref. 12). This workshop
a result, sometimes it becomes difficult to differentiate was a turning point in recycling studies in Palaeolithic
between the original knapping surface and recycled activ- archaeology.
ity on the lithic artefact because of the absence of diffe- Lithic recycling has been studied from different pers-
rentiable patination on the same artefact. In case of the pectives and interpreted to determine diverse human
second category, i.e. lithic artefacts belonging to ances- behavioural causes, and archaeological studies have been
tors of a cultural age, identification between recycled and made to understand its implications.
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 1, 10 JANUARY 2020 133
RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
While citing certain ethnographic and archaeological artefact concentration were identified, i.e. Tikoda-Narwar
examples on recycling, Amick7 suggests that ‘... the door and Damdongri. Both areas had Acheulian
should not yet be closed on this important issue. The assemblages at a number of localities and clusters. The
behavioural context and archaeological evidence for lithic major distinction between these two areas is their loca-
recycling deserve to be examined more closely’. tion. The Acheulian localities at Tikoda-Narwar area lie
In spite of disagreement regarding the methods of mea- in the Vindhyan quartzite–sandstone context, whereas
suring and interpreting the evidence of lithic recycling by localities in Damdongri area lie in the basaltic trap con-
various scholars, there is much positive headway to text. The present study is confined to one of the localities
understand the concept of recycling in lithic artefacts. It at Damdongri.
has been variously interpreted at different sites, includ- Altogether three localities have been identified based
ing, ‘reuse and recycling of artefacts found on previously on spatial distribution of artefacts at Damdongri. Among
abandoned sites is a significant cause of intra-site differ- these, locality-2 (23°16′56″N; 77°58′32″E; Figure 1) that
ences in patterns of stone tool consumption and reduc- lies about 450 m north of the present village settlement of
tion’13; increased recycled lithic artefacts are an Damdongri has been taken up for detailed studies besides
indication of duration of occupation14, and lithic recy- other areas. This locality (DGR-2) forms part of a reserve
cling increases as a function of increased mobility (and forest in the area and major portion of this locality is
shorter length of occupation)15, etc. Based on Kuhn’s under cultivation, except a small part on the eastern side.
concept, Amick7 mentions that ‘... the role of lithic recy- In this locality Acheulian artefacts are found in two
cling deserves attention from the standpoints of mobility distinct sedimentary contexts: (1) reddish brown sandy
and the energetic analysis of lithic procurement’. silt and (2) black clay. Interestingly, besides Acheulian,
Interestingly, while citing a number of ethnographic no subsequent cultural succession was noticed at the site.
examples where artefacts from earlier archaeological sites The reddish-brown sandy silt sediment was found at
were collected and used, and sometimes refabricated to higher elevation above 430 m amsl, whereas the sediment
bring them back to use by many communities, Amick deposited below 430 m amsl is with black clay. Artefacts
mentions that: ‘Although ethnographic accounts of lithic were noticed in both contexts. Subsequent excavations of
artefact scavenging and recycling are common, many both in reddish-brown sandy silt and black clay sediments
archaeologists have failed to appreciate the implications showed that the former remained occupied throughout,
of this behaviour for the archaeological record. Further- whereas black clay got occupied only during the last
more, those few archaeologists who have addressed lithic phase of the Acheulian in the area.
recycling seem more concerned about its potential to con- One of the high-density artefact clusters on the eastern
taminate chronological and functional assessments rather periphery of DGR-2 is associated with black sediment.
than looking at lithic recycling as meaningful behavioural This spot remained outside the cultivated zone, and hence
evidence of prehistoric procurement and technological was undisturbed. An interesting aspect of this cluster is
processes’7. the presence of high density of large-sized artefacts on
As regards the evidence of lithic recycling belonging to quartzite on the surface. Besides, the assemblage contains
Lower Palaeolithic culture and its implications in under- high frequency of cleavers and handaxes. A preliminary
standing early hominin behaviour16, such evidences are study was initiated in this cluster on the occurrence of
extremely limited and have been reported elsewhere like high frequency of large-sized artefacts in contrast to
in Spain17, Romania18, Israel19–26 and Jordan27. small-sized artefacts. Besides, there was unusually high
With regard to the study of lithic artefacts recycling frequency of bifaces in the assemblage, mostly with dam-
during the prehistoric period in India, it is extremely rare. ages due to use.
So far, there is only one report on Indian prehistory that With a view to understand human behaviour from the
discusses recycling of lithic artefacts. It is the microlithic assemblage of this unusual lithic cluster, detailed sam-
assemblage from Mandla district, Madhya Pradesh pling was carried out by plotting each of the artefacts
(MP)28,29. As described, ‘The evidence of patinated dorsal within 378 sq. m area (Figure 2). In this sampled area,
features (flake scars) from previous use along with com- two distinct sub-clusters of artefacts were observed where
paratively fresh flaking marks on the same specimen maximum number of handaxes and cleavers could be
confirmed recycling practices. Large tools discarded by noticed. Besides documenting these artefacts in the three-
earlier users were reused as raw materials for microlithic dimensional context, they were analysed considering cer-
production’28. Surprisingly, so far, no such evidence of tain well-defined parameters to understand artefact type,
lithic recycling has been reported from any Acheulian site material used, size, technology, etc. As part of taphonom-
in the Indian subcontinent. ical observations, abrasion and patination were observed
Studies on the Acheulian sites30,31 formed part of a on each of the artefacts. The degree of abrasion and pati-
larger project in the area confined to Narwar-Tikoda in nation determines the differential abrasion and patination
the north and Putlikarar in the south in district Raisen. It on each of the artefact surface and also between artefacts
was during 2011–12 when two distinct areas of Acheulian within the assemblage. Besides understanding various
134 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 1, 10 JANUARY 2020
 RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Figure 1. Location map of Damdongri locality 2, Madhya Pradesh, India.

depending on the objective(s) of the study. Since the ob-

jective of this study is to find out the recycling activities
on lithics with considerable time gap between both activi-
ties, i.e. original lithic modification and subsequent activ-
ity as part of recycling during the Acheulian, the criteria
of abrasion and patination have been considered here. In
fact, the present study attempts to find out the recycling
activity, if any, on artefacts belonging to the ancestors of
Acheulian hominin of a given cultural age during the
Acheulian cultural phase in the area. If so, what was the
intention of recycling of such artefacts? Recycled arte-
facts have been identified based on degree of patination
and degree of abrasion. Degree of patination has been
determined on the lithic artefacts based on visual obser-
Figure 2. General view of the cluster with artefacts. vation on a comparative basis between artefacts of similar
material and between flaking surfaces within one artefact.
aspects of human behaviour and taphonomical processes Further, the degree of patination also varies based on rock
on artefacts, it helped identify the recycling activities on composition on which the artefacts are manufactured
these artefacts. This in fact led us to consider in details of and the condition in which artefacts remain as part of
the recycling activities in this Acheulian assemblage. As archaeological context. Therefore, taphonomical condi-
part of human behaviour, the present assemblage at this tions of artefacts have been considered while determining
cluster has been probably considered as a symbolic repre- the degree of patination. The differential degree of pati-
sentation of a certain faith, where Acheulian artefacts nation on artefacts has been considered as one of the major
have been offered as a part of the belief system. parameters to understand recycling activity on the lithic
As discussed earlier, a variety of criteria usually artefacts. Same is the case for determining the degree
adopted for identification of recycled lithic artefacts of abrasion on the artefacts. For a more standardized

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 1, 10 JANUARY 2020 135

RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
observation on the degree patination and intensity of These 62 recycled artefacts comprise handaxes, cleav-
abrasion on the artefacts, precaution has been taken for ers, scrapers, bolas, discoid, flake cores, flakes, worked
cross-checking the data by another scholar and thereby blocks, etc. Among these, 22 artefacts are on cores, 20
ensure the correctness of the observation. Interestingly, it are on various types of flakes, 16 on various types of fi-
has been realized that these two parameters help in nished tools and 4 artefacts are on worked boulder and
determining the relative chronology if properly unders- splitted nodule.
tood in taphonomical context within one lithic assem- When the nature of recycling activities was analysed, it
blage and also help in understanding different sub-phases was found that recycled artefacts can be divided in two
of lithic activity(s), if any, within one assemblage. types – the first category is retouching with a view to
The cluster that was sampled yielded altogether 2430 bring the earlier artefact into working condition, while
artefacts, of which 62 showed recycling activity constitut- the second category is of random working in the form of
ing 2.55% of the total assemblage. The recycling activity random flaking on the earlier artefact. This in fact sug-
has been determined on the basis of degree of patina and gests the intention of early hominins behind the recycling
abrasion noticed on the artefacts. The identified recycled activity. In the present collection, the first category of
artefacts fall under the category of recycling work that recycling activities constitutes 17 numbers (Figures 3 a
was undertaken after considerable time gap between and b), i.e. 27.42%, whereas the second category is of
the first knapping of raw material and the subsequent random removal of flakes constitutes 45 numbers (Fig-
recycled activity. These recycled artefacts by hominins ures 3 c, d and 4) with 72.58% out of a total number of 62
must have been known to themselves that such artefacts recycled artefacts. Interestingly, none of these artefacts
originally belonged to their ‘ancestors’. showed any signs of use damage subsequent to recycling
activity. Further, when the first category of recycled arte-
facts was analysed, it was found that only four finished
tools of the earlier period were recycled to retain the
finished tool status that included three cleavers and one
side-scraper-cum-point, whereas rest 13 simple artefacts
of the earlier period were modified to finished tools like
side scrapers, choppers and point. The nature of retouch-
ing showed that these artefacts could be utilized as cleav-
ers or scrapers in certain cases. Interestingly, none of
these retouched artefacts showed any kind of positive
sign of reuse subsequent to recycling, which is note-
worthy.
Interestingly, the second category with 45 artefacts that
were not fabricated into finished tools during the recycled
activity showed some sort of random working, which

Figure 3. a, Side flake converted to chopper after recycling. b, End

flake converted to side-cum-end scraper after recycling. c, Core recycled Figure 4. Handaxe recycled with random flaking (a) Dorsal view and
with random flaking; d, Cleaver recycled with random flaking. (b) Ventral view.

136 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 1, 10 JANUARY 2020

 RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
suggests that they were possibly used for some sort of Both the features, i.e. random manner of working on
symbolic purpose. The specimens of this category having most of the artefacts at the recycling stage without any
random flaking at the recycled stage, contained three intention to bring back the discarded artefacts to actual
random flakes on each of the 21 artefacts. Rest 24 speci- use, and limited recycling work on finished artefact (14
mens had random flaking frequency of 4–6 flake scars on nos) of the earlier period (ancestors) can be attributed to
9 specimens, 7–9 flake scars on 11 specimens, and more some restriction or taboo on recycling activity on the
than 10 flake scars on 4 specimens. artefacts among the Acheulian hominins in Damdongri
Another interesting feature that has been noticed as area. In the light of the absence of recycled artefacts from
part of the recycling activity study based on degree of the Palaeolithic level, particularly the Acheulian horizon
patina is that, 58 and 4 artefacts showed one and double prompts us to hypothesize that recycling of artefacts
cycle of recycling activity respectively, out of the total belonging to the ancestors of any given period during the
collection identified on the basis of double and triple Palaeolithic was probably a ‘taboo’. Further, the percen-
patina. tage of flake removal during recycling stage suggests a
Further, percentage of surface removal on each of the casual attitude towards recycling activity without any
artefacts at the recycling stage is significant. It is interest- intention to bring the recycled artefacts to further use,
ing to note that the first category of recycling activity, i.e. thus supporting the view that recycling of artefacts for
retouching type, constitutes almost 7 out of 17 artefacts day-to-day use was taboo among the Acheulian hominin
on which 10% removal of flakes can be noticed (Table 1). of Damdongri.
Likewise, the second category of random removal of As it has been rightly mentioned, ‘In India, recycling
flakes as part of the recycling activity exhibits 10% evidence in prehistoric assemblage may not be so lacking,
removal of flakes that constitutes 14 out of 41 artefacts but has probably remained unnoticed in archaeological
(Table 2). Another noteworthy feature is that four of the interpretations so far’29. This is true with the present dis-
artefacts of the second category (45 nos) show two levels covery of earliest reporting of recycled lithic artefacts be-
of recycling, which is unusual. longing to the Acheulian cultural phase from Damdongri,
MP. It is noteworthy in this context that though such
observations of recycled artefacts are difficult to notice in
Table 1. Frequency of artefacts vis-á-vis percentage of flake scar area the lithic assemblage; it is certainly not impossible as has
on artefact surface (first category) been studied in various parts of the world. Surprisingly, in
India, where prehistoric studies have a long history of 150
Percentage of flake scar area on
the artefact surface (first category) Total number of artefacts years, one cannot simply argue that none of the scholars
working in the field could recognize the recycled artefacts
00–10 7 belonging to the Acheulian cultural phase in the country.
11–15 3
Based on the observations made at Damdongri and the
16–20 1
21–25 – available research in the field, we can conclude that defi-
26–30 3 nitely there is a scarcity of recycled artefacts during the
31–35 1 Acheulian cultural phase in the country. In contrast, it is
36–40 2 argued by archaeologists that recycling was part of
Total 17 human behaviour in the past, as it was a paramount
necessity. The retouching of damaged tools was done to
bring them back to use or sometimes tools of an earlier
period was used as blank for fabrication of a new tool. If
Table 2. Frequency of artefacts vis-á-vis percentage of flake scar area
on artefact surface (second category) these activities were done in one generation or within a
couple of generations in an area without considerable
Percentage of flake scar area on the time gap, then it becomes difficult to identify in archaeo-
artefact surface (second category) Total number of artefacts
logical context on the basis of degree of patination, as
00–10 14 this would remain almost the same. However, recycling
11–15 6 activity with considerable gap, i.e. recycling of artefacts
16–20 5 belonging to the ancestor of one generation can certainly
21–25 3
26–30 3
be identified based on intensity of patina. Somehow the
31–35 4 frequency of recycled working on artefacts belonging to
36–40 3 the ancestors of one generation of Acheulian Hominin is
41–45 – so limited that these have never been noticed by the arc-
46–50 1 haeologists in India, the reasons of which have neither
51–55 1
56–60 1
been questioned nor explained.
Further, though recycled artefacts have been noticed in
Total 41
the present site at Damdongri, the pattern of recycling
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 1, 10 JANUARY 2020 137
RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
activities clearly suggests that the intention at Damdongri 6. Schiffer, M. B., Downing, T. E. and McCarthy, M., Waste not,
was never to bring back the damaged and discarded arte- want not: an ethnoarchaeological study of reuse in Tucson, Arizona.
In Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us (eds Gould,
facts to use again. This limited evidence of recycled R. A. and Schiffer, M. B.), Academic Press, New York, USA,
activity of symbolic nature at Damdongri has been inter- 1981, pp. 67–86.
preted as a symbolic offering as an indication of certain 7. Amick, D. S., Behavioral causes and archaeological effects of
belief32. lithic artifact recycling. In Tools Versus Cores: Alternative
We therefore hypothesize that probably reworking on Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis (ed. McPherron, S.),
Cambridge Scholars Publications, Newcastle, 2007, pp. 223–252.
the artefacts of ancestors was ‘taboo’ in the past, at least 8. Galup, S. M., Postclassic Maya Lithic tool maintenance, recycling,
during the Acheulian period. The early hominins could and consumption patterns at Laguna de On Island. In Occasional
very well recognize their own workings of artefacts and Publication No. 13, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Depart-
also could identify/differentiate the artefacts made during ment of Anthropology, University of Albany, NY, USA, 2007.
their life time or their predecessors from the artefacts 9. Hiscock, P., Reduction, recycling, and raw material procurement
in Western Arnhem Land, Australia. In Lithic Materials and
made by their ancestors. Early hominins could have rec- Paleolithic Societies (eds Adams, B. and Blades, B. S.), Blackwell
ognized the artefacts of their ancestors from the workings Publishing Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2009, pp. 78–93.
(style/technique) and patination. It is emphasized here 10. Vaquero, M., New perspectives on recycling of lithic resources
that if recycling activities were a continuous process and using refitting and spatial data. Quartär, 2011, 58, 113–130.
done throughout the Palaeolithic period in the area, then 11. Vaquero, M., Alonso, S., García-Catalan, S., García-Hernandez,
A., Gomez de Soler, B., Rettig, D. and Soto, M., Temporal nature
one must obtain a large number of recycled artefacts with and recycling of Upper Paleolithic artifacts: the burned tools from
differential patination. In fact, such examples are very the Molí del Salt site (Vimbodí i Poblet, northeastern Spain).
few in any Acheulian site anywhere in the world. There J. Archaeol. Sci., 2012, 39(8), 2785–2796.
are many large Acheulian sites with high density of arte- 12. Barkai, R., Lemorini, C. and Vaquero, M. (eds), Quaternary
facts that continued for a long duration. In spite of this, International No. 361, Elsevier Ltd, Oxford, UK, 2015.
13. Rolland, N. and Dibble, H. L., A new synthesis of Mousterian
archaeologists do not find substantial number of recycled variability. Am. Antiquity, 1990, 55, 480–499.
artefacts with differential patination. 14. Rolland, N., The interpretation of middle paleolithic variability.
Almost absence of recycled artefacts in Acheulian lith- Man, 1981, 16, 15–42.
ic assemblage could be interpreted as some sort of belief 15. Kuhn, S. L., Mousterian Lithic Technology. An Ecological Pers-
among the Acheulian Hominin not to recycle the tools pective, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1995.
16. Amick, D. S., The recycling of material culture today and during
manufactured by their ancestors as a symbol of respect Palaeolithic. Quaternary Int., 2015, 361, 4–20.
and hence considered as ‘taboo’. Therefore, we do not get 17. Toro-Moyano, I. et al., L'industrielithique des gisements du Pleis-
substantial number of such artefacts in any Acheulian tocene inferieur de Barranco Leon etFuente Nueva 3 aOrce,
assemblage. Early hominins could recognize and diffe- Grenade, Espagne. L’Anthropologie, 2009, 113(1), 111–124.
rentiate what belonged to them and what belonged to 18. Iovita, R., Fitzsimmons, K. E., Dobos, A., Hambach, U., Hilgers,
A. and Zander, A., DealulGuran: evidence for Lower Palaeolithic
their ancestors. (MIS 11) occupation of the Lower Danube loess steppe. Antiquity,
Therefore, the present study is significant from the 2012, 86, 973–989.
point of view of Damdongri being the first such evidence 19. Goren-Inbar, N., The lithic assemblage of Berekhatram Acheulian
of recycled lithic artefacts from any Acheulian site in site, Golan Heights. Paleorient, 1985, 11(1), 7–28.
India. Besides, the limited occurrence of such activities 20. Agam, A. and Barkai, R., Small flake Acheulian: further insights
into lithic recycling at Late Acheulian Revadim, Israel. J. Inst.
during the Acheulian has been explained considering the Archaeol., 2018, 45(2), 170–192; doi:10.1080/03344355.2018.
recycling of ancestral property, i.e. lithic artefacts as 1494783.
‘taboo’. However, it may be concluded that the observa- 21. Agam, A., Marder, O. and Barkai, R., Small flake production and
tions made at Damdongri need to be evaluated in future in lithic recycling at Late Aceulian Revadim, Israel, Quaternary Int.,
the light of more such studies carried out for prehistoric 2015, 361, 46–60.
22. Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Shimelmitz, R., Lev, Z., Stiner, M. C.
sites in other parts of India. and Gopher, A., A blade for all seasons? Making and using
Amudian blades at Qesem Cave, Israel. Hum. Evol., 2009, 24(1),
57–75.
23. Gopher, A., Barkai, R., Shimelmitz, R., Khalaily, M., Lemorini,
1. Barkai, R., Lemorini, C. and Vaquero, M., The origin of recycling: C., Hershkovitz, I. and Stiner, M., Qesem cave: an Amudian site
a palaeolithic perspective. Quaternary Int., 2015, 361, 1–3. in central Israel. J. Israel Prehist. Soc., 2005, 35, 69–92.
2. Odell, G. H. (ed.), Economizing behavior and the concept of 24. Lemorini, C., Venditti, F., Assaf, E., Parush, Y., Barkai, R. and
‘Curation’. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Pre- Gopher, A., The function of recycled lithic items at late Lower
history, Plenum Press, New York, USA, 1996, pp. 51–80. Paleolithic Qesem cave, Israel: an overview of the use-wear data.
3. Schiffer, M. B., Archaeological context and systemic context. Am. Quaternary Int., 2015, 361,103–112.
Antiquity, 1972, 37, 156–165. 25. Assaf, E., Parush, Y., Gopher, A. and Barkai, R., Intra-site varia-
4. Schiffer, M. B., Behavioral Archeology, Academic Press, New bility in lithic recycling at Qesem Cave, Israel. Quaternary Int.,
York, USA, 1976. 2015, 361, 88–102.
5. Schiffer, M. B., Toward a unified science of the cultural past. In 26. Parush, Y., Assaf, E., Gopher, A. and Barkai, R., Looking for
Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology (ed. South, S.), sharp edges: modes of flint recycling at Middle Pleistocene Qesem
Academic Press, New York, USA, 1977, pp. 13–50. Cave, Israel. Quaternary Int., 2015, 361, 61–87.

138 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 1, 10 JANUARY 2020

 RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
27. Rollefson, G. O., The Late Acheulean site at Fjaje, Wadi 32. Ota, S. B., Deo, S. G., Srivastava, N. and Pandey, S., Acheulian
el-Bustan, southern Jordan. Paleorient, 1981, 7(1), 5–21. assemblage at Damdongri locality-2: an indicator of ‘belief’ or
28. Roy, B., Use of recycled stone tools in the prehistoric culture of ‘usage activity. In Paper presented in the 21st Congress of the Indo-
Mandla. Curr. Sci., 2011, 101(6), 718–719. Pacific Prehistory Association, Hue, Vietnam, 23–28 September
29. Roy, B., Tool recycling in India. In Encyclopaedia of the History 2018.
of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures,
Springer Science + Business Media Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
2015, pp. 1–9; doi:10.1007/978-94-007-3934-5_10064-1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We thank the Director General of Arc-
30. Deo, S. G., Ota, S. B. and Mishra, S., Recent Investigations haeological Survey of India (ASI) for both permission and funding to
(2010–2011) of Acheulian occurrences around Tikoda, District undertake this study as part of an ASI project. We also thank the K. K.
Raisen, Madhya Pradesh. Bull. Deccan Coll. Res. Inst. Pune, Rai, Debashish Mishra and Ashish Vashisht (ASI) and Rajesh Kumar
2013, 72–73, 183–192. (M.D. University, Rohtak) and Dhruvendra Singh Jodha (Vikram
31. Ota, S. B. and Deo, S. G., Investigation of Acheulian localities University, Ujjain) for technical support.
TKD-I and TKD-II at Tikoda, District Raisen, Madhya
Pradesh (2010–12). In Recent Advances in Acheulian Culture
Studies in India (eds Paddayya, K. and Deo, S. G.), Indian Received 25 May 2019; accepted 5 October 2019
Society for Prehistoric and Quaternary Studies, Pune, 2014, pp.
57–66. doi: 10.18520/cs/v118/i1/132-139

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 118, NO. 1, 10 JANUARY 2020 139