Pre-historic Manipur :: Part 5
Extracts from the book 'Emergence Of Manipur As A Nation State'

N. Joykumar Singh *

Pre Pottery Neolithic B:- According to ASPRO(Atlas de Sites du Proche – Orient) the pre-pottery Neolithic B began around 8,800 B.C. ASPRO is the 9th period dating system of the ancient Near East used by the 'maision de lórient et de la mediterrance' for archaeological site aged between 14,000 to 5700 B.D. During this period people lived together either in a single or multiple room of a house constructed by rectangular mudbrick.

They had an ancestor cult where the people preserved skulls of the dead which were plastered with mud to make facial feature. This is suggestion is based on the finding of burial areas with the archaeological site. The bones were buried inside the settlement underneath the floor or between houses.

Pottery Neolithic Period (PN):- The emergence of pottery industry marked the beginning of the first human civilization. "About 600 years ago, in a few areas of particularly intensive agriculture, the dispersed villages of Neolithic people gave way to more complex societies. These were the first civilizations and their emergence marks the start of a new phase of world history".65 More advance culture with pottery technology was begun in the areas between Tigris and Euphrates rivers which is also called 'Fertile Cresent' around 6,400 B.C. with the introduction of pottery industry a distinctive cultures emerged like Halofan 9Turkey, Syria, Northern Mesopotamia) and Ubaid ( Southern Mesopotamia).

There are four Neolithic sites discovered so far in Manipur. It is mentioned that apart from the archaeological sites, a large number of artifacts of Neolithic stone tools have also been collected as stray finds from many places of this region.

Napachik:- Npachik is one of the major archaeological sites of the Neolithic stone culture. This place is described as an elliptical shape small hillock on the right bank of the Manipur River at Wangoo village. It lies between 24024/6 N and 93050/E. The Neolithic cult was unearth in the year 1979 while leveling the homestead of one local man. The official excavation was started during the 3rd week of October 1981.

In this first exploration a trench of 4 x 2 sqm. was dug at south western slope and in 1985 another trench of 5 x 2 sqm was dug in the eastern foothills. It is mentioned that the excavation of 1981 exposed the character of soil as redeposition after being washed off the upper slope. But the excavation of 1985 shows the undisturbed soil66 and accordingly eight soil layers was prepared for the discovery of archaeological artifacts. The depth of the layers of soil was from 0.152 metres to 4.62 metres with different stages.

The archaeological findings from these different layers also show the climatic fluctuation at the time of the deposition in the form of wet and dry. The archaeological finding first two layers of 0 – 1.52 m and 1.52 – 2.36 m are 'sterile' from the third and fourth layer i,e, 2.36- 2.54m and 2.54 – 3.23 m. The findings were 'fresh water molluse, microlith, corded ware' and 'Neolithic celt, microliths, grinding stone, tripod ware with cord marks'.

The findings from fifth and six i,e, 3.23 – 4.46 m and 3.46 – 3.85 m. were 'Neolithic celts, microliths, cores, grinding stone, quartz crystals with wear marks, flakes, spindle whorls of pottery, tripod wares with cord-marks' and 'Microliths, cores a netsinker, flakes, grinding stones, tripod and ringfooted wares'. The artifacts like 'microliths, flakes, tripod and ring footed wares' were discovered from the layer number seventh i,e, 3.85 – 4.14 m and from eight layer i,e, 4.14 – 4.62 m the discovery were 'microliths, cores perforators, quartz crystal, tripod and ring – footed wares'.67

The number of stone artifacts discovered from Napachik are
(1) Pebble tools,
(2) Flake Tool,
(3) Flake,
(4) Core,
(5) Ground Celt (a) complete (b) broken,
(6) Grinding stone (a) Complete (b) broken).

From the two excavation one hundred and sixteen artifacts were discovered.68

Laimanai:- It is also another Neolithic stone cultural site which is located towards the southwest of Kakching at a distance of about 5 k.m. Just after getting information from the local people about the discovery of some stray stone tools the exploratory digging took place in the year 1990 and could collect many potsherds and fen fragments of grinding stone, waste flakes and a flat pebble hammer stone.

The items of stone artifacts collected from the site are
(1) Chipped celt,
(2) Chipped and ground celt,
(3) Fully ground celt,
(4) Ring stone (Broken),
(5) Flate pebble hammer,
(6) Grinding stone (a) complete (b) broken),
(7) Waste flakes and
(8) Unclassified (unfinished ringstone?)69

Phunan:- This place is located at the Southwest of the Phuman Maring Village which south east of Imphal. This site was explored during the October 1967 when a number of potsherds and two large grinding stone discovered from the exposed road cut section on the southern upper hill slope. It is also mentioned that three artifacts such as triangular hoe, chisel and quadrangular axe was also discovered from the other parts of Phunam hill.

However it is also said that this archaeological site have not done any excavation officially. Therefore since the excavation have not done the association of the ground stone tools with the potsherds cannot be established.70

Nongpok Keithelmanbi:- The importance of Nongpok keithelmanbi as an archaeological site has already been discovered both in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic or Haobinhian stone culture. O. Kumar Singh further discovered the Neolithic artifacts particularly from the locality No. I. According to his report a number of corded wares were found and the pottery is ill fired and handmade.71

At the same time most of the artifacts are in the form of the potsherds. Therefore since no complete vessel is recovered from the site it is extremely difficult to identity the shapes of the corded wares. In regard to the identification of the archaeological finding as the artifacts of Neolithic period. It is said that since the corded ware stratum of this site is not associated with the stone artifact. Therefore it is very difficult to say whether it would be a continuation of the Haobinhian culture or a separate cultural phase.

The same character was also found in other countries. From these evidences it is suggested that the corded ware found at Nongpok keithelmanbi was of a separate cultural phase. O.K. Singh used a term called 'Sub-Neolithic'72 phase. Apart from this a large number of neoliths also collected on stray finds from the unstratified sites. It is recorded that both the private agencies and government collected one hundred and sixty-nine neoliths from every districts of Manipur.

In his analytical comparative observation O.K. Singh has pointed out many similarities between the Neolithic tools discovered so far from Manipur with the other countries particularly the South East Asia. He was of the view that the remains of the Neoliths of Manipur has clearly indicates a very strong affinity with both India and South East Asia countries. He made a comparison between the tools of cave deposits of Gua Cha. of Malaya and Tampara Miner of Thailand with the findings of the Laimanai Neolithic assemblage.

However according to his observation Malayan type of edge with beaked edge and pierced implements are not found so far. On the other hand tripod of Napachik and Laimanai are not common in the Neolithic culture of Malaya. The stone tools which are found with cord marked and mat-marked pottery at Chande Cave B of Thailand are comparable with those from Manipur, except the lance head and parallel sided polished adze. The tiny tools, the tanged axe, rectilinear shouldered adze and small chisels are closely comparable with the Neolithic tools of Kyaupadaung in Upper Burma are closely comparable with the findings in Manipur.

The neoliths assemblage of Napachik also can be comparable with the Yang- shao culture of Pan – po- tsúm and Miao – ti – kou I of Middle Huangho. The rim form with out bevelled flat tips from Phuman are quite similar to the one from Tipen-Keng culture of Taiwan. The cord – marked pottery is also abundantly found in the areas of north – eastern region such Daojali Hading, North Cachar Hills, Sarutarn in Kamarup District, Dibru Valley etc. In some sites the corded wares are found without associating with any stone tools. It is also mentioned that the round butted axe from Sarutares is closely comparable with the axe type from Manipur.

Thus after having a close observation and comparative analysis with the other parts of the world O.K. Singh gave a strong hypothesis of the possible influence from the South East Asia or China in the development process of the stone culture in Manipur. He further said that it may be "either by diffusion from a common Centre of origin, probably the Late Chaukoutien of China through South China or by population expansion for insular South East Asia along the newly formed landbridge during the maximum cold period of the Upper Pleistocene"73

With this observation and on the basis of the nature of the tool industry he makes an attempt to propose the approximate age of the pre-historic period of Manipur on the basis of the existing tool industry. He puts three approximate ages of Neolithic period according to the types differenced of the tools. He divided three types of technology i,e, Phuman ware and its age is fixed 'first millennium B.C.' Tripod Ware 1450 B.C. and corded Ware 4,460+-120 years B.P.

The Mesolithic or Haobinhian period is divided into two periods i,e, 'Late Haobinhian(Lates Mid-Holocene) and Early Haobinhian(Early Mid-Holocene)'. Like wise Palaeolithic also divided into two i,e, 'Late Paleolithic (Later late Pleistocene) and Early Palaeolithic (Late Pleistocene)'.74

Chapter – 2
End Note

1. E. Sreedharan – A Textbook of Historiography 500 B.C. to 2000 A.D. Reprint. 2006 p.1.
2. Ibid.
3. (Ed.) S.N. Pandey - Sources of the History of Manipur Pub. 1985. p. 15.
4. Jia Lanpo - Early Man in China p. i.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid. p. 3.
7. Fossil Discovery : More Evidence for Asia, Not Africa, as the Source of Earliest Anthropoid primate. Science News from 4. 2012.
8. (Ed) Geoffrey Barraclough – The Times History of the Word New Ed 1 2000 p. 34.
9. Ibid. p.32.
10. Human Prehistory – Ency Web.
11. (Ed) Geoffrey Barraclough – Op. Cit. p.32.
12. Jia Lanpo – Op. Cit. p(iii).
13. (Ed) Nicholas Tarling – The Cambridge History of South East Asia Vol. I Part I From Early tines to C 1500. p. 65.
14. (Ed) Geoffery Barraclough – Op. Cit. p. 32.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid. p.31.
18. Human Migration. (Wikipedia the Encyclopedia) p. 3.
19. Dennis O'Neil – Models of Classification.
20. B. Kullachandra Shingh - Manipurgi Nunjgi Chakta Leiramba Misio Pub. 1996. p. 3
21. Ed. S.N. Pandey – Sources of the History of Manipur. Pub. 1985. p.13.
22. Gangmumei Kabui – History of Manipur Vol. One Pre-Colonial Period. pub. 1991 p. 48.
23. Dr. O. Kumar. Presidential Address in the Inaugural session of the National Seminar on Pre And Proto-History of North-East India. Feb. 8 to 10th 2008.
24. B. Kullachandra Sharma – Op. Cit. p. 3.
25. Ibid. p.vi.
26. O. Kumar Singh – Stone Age Archaeology of Manipur. 1997. p. 21.
27. Ibid. p. 20.
28. Ibid. p.21.
29. Ibid.
30. B. Kullachandra Sharma – Op. Cit. p. vi.
31. O. Kumar – Op. Cit. p.21.
32. B. Kullachandra Sharma – Op. cit. p. vi.
33. O. Kumar – Op. Cit. p. 25.
34. Ibid. p. 26.
35. Ibid. p. 29.
36. Ibid. p.30.
37. Ibid. p.34.
38. B. Kullachandra Sharma – Op. Cit. p.vi.
39. (Ed) S.N. Pandey – Op. Cit. p.17.
40. O. Kumar – Op. Cit. p. 45.
41. Ibid. p.48.
42. (Ed) S.N. Pandey – Op. Cit. p.17.
43. Gangmumei Kabui – Op. Cit. p.49.
44. O. Kumar – Op. Cit. p. 101.
45. Ibid. p. 103.
46. Ibid. p. 104.
47. Ibid. p. 108.
48. H.G. Wells – The Outline of History From Primordial Life to Nineteenth sixty. Reprint 1966. p.96.
50. H.D. Sankalia – Indian Archarology Today. Pub. 1979. p. 27.
51. Nicholas Tarling – The Cambridge History of South East Asia Vol.I From Early Times to C 1500. Pub 1999. p. 86.
52. Mathews J.M. – A Review of the Haobinhian in Indio-China, Asian Perspective 1966, p. 9. Quoted in O. Kumar p.49.
53. Nicholas Tarling(Ed) – Op. Cit. p. 86.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid. p. 87.
56. Ibid.
57. O. Kumar – Op. Cit. p.51.
58. Ibid. p. 109.
59. Gangmumei Kabui – Op. cit. p. 54.
60. O. Kumar Singh – Op. Cit. p.57.
61. Report of Archaeology 1983 p. 3.
62. O. Kumar Singh – Op. Cit. p. 109.
63. Ibid. iii p.
64. H.G.Wells – Op. cit. p. 100.
65. (Ed) Geoffrey Baraclough – History of the World. p. 51 New Edition. 1999.
66. O.K.Singh – Op. Cit. p. 67.
67. Ibid. p.69.
68. Ibid. p.70.
69. Ibid. p.78.
70. Ibid. p.79.
71. Ibid. p.64.
72. Ibid. p.65.
73. Ibid. p. 129.
74. Ibid. p.108.

Concluded..