Q 1(a) Soanian Cultural Tradition (10M)
Introduction
The Soanian cultural tradition is a distinct Palaeolithic cultural phase identified in the Siwalik Hills of north-western India and Pakistan, deriving its name from the Soan Valley in present-day Pakistan. It was first scientifically documented by Helmut De Terra and Thomas Paterson (1939) in their landmark work “Studies on the Ice Age in India and Associated Human Cultures”. They placed the Soanian within the context of Pleistocene stratigraphy, associating it with glacial-interglacial cycles. According to H.D. Sankalia (1974, Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan), the Soanian tradition is significant because it demonstrates a regional adaptation to ecological and raw material conditions of the Siwaliks.
Body
Discovery and Environmental Context
•Located between the Indus and Jhelum rivers in the Siwaliks, the Soan (Sobhana) river terraces revealed a vast succession of cultural deposits. De Terra and Paterson linked these with Himalayan glacial–interglacial cycles, importing Alpine chronology into India. The Potwar plateau, tectonically unstable and subject to river re-cutting, provided a natural stage where climatic oscillations deposited successive terraces (T₀–T₅).
Stratigraphy and Cultural Phases
•De Terra and Paterson proposed a cultural sequence based on terraces:
•Pre-Sohan (T₀) – crude large flakes, likened to Pre-Chellean of France (Mortillet’s Somme Valley sequence). Movius (1944) doubted their artifact status, but later scholars (Fairservis 1975) argued they could represent early flake industries.
•Early Sohan (T₁) – pebble tools (choppers, chopping tools, discoid cores), heavily patinated. Suggested to represent the earliest cultural phase of the region.
•Middle Sohan (Groups A & B) – refinement in flaking; “turtle-back” types; flakes resembling Clactonian industries of England.
•Late Sohan (T₂ onwards) – essentially flake-dominated, showing Levalloisian techniques and blades, with sporadic bifaces (handaxes, cleavers). At Chauntra, more than 100 bifaces were recovered, indicating overlap with Acheulian traditions.
Typology and Techniques Soanian assemblages are dominated by:
•Core tools: unifacial and bifacial choppers, chopping tools, discoid cores.
•Flakes: tortoise-core flakes, Levallois flakes, side scrapers.
•Occasional bifaces: handaxes and cleavers (rare, but significant at Chauntra and Beas-Banganga).
•Techniques (De Terra & Paterson):
oFlat-based technique: flakes struck using flat under-surface.
oRounded-pebble technique: flakes detached without proper platform preparation.
Cultural and Chronological Placement
•The Soanian industry is broadly dated to 2.0 – 0.3 mya:
•Riwat (Pakistan): 2.0 mya.
•Dina and Jalalpur: 0.5–0.7 mya.
oAssociated fauna (Stegodon insignis, Elephas namadicus, Hexaprotodon) situates it in Villafranchian–early Middle Pleistocene.
oHere debates arise: A.P. Khatri argued pebble tools represent a pre-biface phase in India, independent of Acheulian. Yet critics note no pre-biface layer has been found at Narmada or elsewhere, and bifaces appear by early Eemian (~1.6 mya).
oK.V. Soundara Rajan (1964) considered Soanian an endogenous culture, lacking Acheulian internal dynamics, but not necessarily primitive.
Scholarly Debates and Interpretations
•Independence vs. Acheulian Affinity – While De Terra & Paterson saw Soanian as a distinct pebble-tool culture, others (e.g., Misra) view it as an ecological variant of Acheulian, shaped by the availability of pebbles in the Siwaliks.
•Movius Line – Movius (1944) drew a line separating bifacial Acheulian west of India from “chopper chopping” industries in East Asia. Soanian seemed to confirm this. But finds of bifaces at Chauntra and in China (Bose Basin) have blurred the sharp division.
•Chronological Critique – Modern researchers like Dennell and Rendell reject strict terrace succession, stressing the need for absolute dating methods, as the Siwalik terrain is tectonically unstable and terraces reworked.
Case Study: At Chauntra (Punjab), a Soanian assemblage revealed >100 bifaces alongside pebble tools, suggesting coexistence of Acheulian and Soanian traditions, undermining the rigid “non-biface” classification.
Conclusion
The Soanian cultural tradition exemplifies the regional diversity of the Palaeolithic record in South Asia. Characterized by a pebble-tool industry of the Siwalik Hills, it highlights how environmental setting, raw material constraints, and adaptive strategies shaped human technological choices.