Palaeolithic lndia and Human Dispersal

D.K.BHATTACHARYA

6BSTRECT

Studies of Palaeolithic evidences from lndia are numerous but most of these are based on

surface collection. So, for a majority of sites, technological analysis or demonstrating internal

evolution is not possible. A brief survey has been done to show the three basic periods through

which these studies progress. lt is also shown that lndian archaeology till date remains more orless Descrptive and one has to still wait for an Analytical phase to emerge. Human evolution

within lndia cannot be traced through hard evidence because of an almgst total absence of

fossils. Yet one cannot deny on the basis of the archaeological evidences that lndia not only

acted as the corridor of human migration to south-east Asia, but also had intensive human

occupation at a time much before any other place in the Old World.

CONTENTS

l.INTRODUC丁10N

2.CHRONOLOGY

3 THE FORMATiVE PER10D

4 THE DESCRIPTIVE PER10D

5.丁 HE ANALYTICAL PER10D

6.`OUT OF AFRICバ MODEL

7.CONCLUS10N

I. INTROOUCTION

Cfh" rise and development of studies on Palaeolithic archaeology in India can be viewed as having

I passed through three stage s - Formative, Descriptive and Analytical. The Formative stage sees

L,/ ttre exploration of virgin forests and hills leading to the discovery of stray antiquities from these

regions. Since these discoveries were made immediately after Charles Darwin's theory of evolution

became popular in the West, these antiquities were taken to be evidences of the presence ofPrehistoric man in India and the extent of their expansion.

69

ANCIEN'I'INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1

Antiquities in themselves or their context were issues that started getting greater attentiononly after the rise of archaeological studies by the Lubbockian school (:1865). Naturally issues

of chronology during this period also were dealt within a summarized manner. The attempt ofV. Commont (1910) to connect the Somme alluvial deposits with Pleistocene inter-glacials inFrance brought about a change in the direction of enquiries in Indian prehistory.

Cammiade and Burkitt (1930) attempt a typological classification. of Palaeoliths collectedfrom the Ifuishna basin. They also ascribe their defined classes of took; to past climatic cycleswith an aim to allude to their chronological status. It is interesting to observe that these worksattempt to arrive at a statement on a macro-level, although the database lbr doing the same stemsfrom the micro or regional level. In this maner, the development pattern of Indian Palaeolithicarchaeology almost mirrors similar atrempts in England and France.

The biggest flaw in this kind of generalization is that while England and France do notshow much of inner climatic variation one could take a stand of extending a regional fearure tobe representative of national picture. However, this would not be a viable option in India whereclimatic variation is much more diverse than it is in Europe.

z. cinomolocy

The lack of a general chronological framework for the entire country on the one hand and thepossibility of looking for regionai character on the other were the rw6 issues that emerged asmajor areas of concern in the Formative stage. The Yale-cambridge expedition (79g6-7939)arrived with the specific agenda of constructing a Pleistocene chronomerer for India (de Terraand Paterson 1939) . This team concentrated on the Potwar plateau, which 1,vas a lacustrine formationin the north-wesr Punjab region.

This was uplifted during Pliocene in the Tertiary period and was.subsequently desiccatedby river Sohan - an effluent of the river Sutlej. This is the first time a river terrace structure wasrried to be correlated with glacial and interglacial evenrs in the Himalayas, which were assumedas being coeval with the same in the Alps. This chronomerer was further extended to the alluvialcycles of Narmada in central India.

Again the basic assumPtion that acted as the guideline was thar pluviation or higherrainfall occurs in the tropical belt exactly when the glaciations occur in the Himalayas. Three seriesof gravel were identified in the Narmada and these were taken as coeval with three terraces inthe Sohan. Pleistocene period was identified through these three gravels which were taken asrepresenting the last three glaciations in the Aips. Consequently no specific alluvial deposits werecounted for the first glaciation or Lower pleistocene in Indian chronology.

Zeuner (1950) surveyed the rivers in Gujarat and claimed that he could identify only twoalluvial deposits representing wet cycle and not three gravels as claimed by de Terra and paterson.Subbarao (1958) provided an English translation of Zeuner's (1953:54) larer publication inGerman.l Gregory Possehl (797\) subsequently opined that probably all the gravels in Indianrivers belong to upper Pleistocene, because these gravels have not been supported by corresponding

70

PALAEOLittHIC iND!AAND H∪ MAN DiSPERSAL

marker fossils. This was 'Jre final blow on the practice of river deposits being taken as a means

of creating Pleistocene calendar without looking for marker fauna or proper palaeontological analysis.

3. THE FORMATIUE PERIOD

The number of antiquities collected tiii about 1950 is really very impressive. Although there

was no standard methodology used for reporting these, the range of their varieties - both in

core tools and flake tools remain exemplary. Most archaeological delineations concentrated on

rreating Lower Palaeoliths in great detail while both Middle Palaeoliths as also Upper

Palaeoliths seldom get much attention. Such terms as 'round pebble' or 'pointed pebble'

were common in archaeological descriptions. At times some terms used in French or British

archaeology would also be used to identify Indian finds, without exercising any standard attribute

considerations.The antiquities collected from the Potwar region soon started getting referred

. to as

belonging to Sohanian tradition. Semantically, this referred to a continuous occurrence of pebble

tools and flakes for the entire Pleistocene period. Thus, lirde attempt was necessary to seek the status

of Middle and Upper palaeolithic separately within this term. The Sohanian tradition continued to

be taken as just Palaeolithic sensulato.

Movius (1948) further extended this Sohanian concept by suggesting that if a line can be

drawn between potwar and Burma, one can observe that no handaxes or bifaces occur in the region

lying north and norrh-east of this line. Soon researchers started referring to this concept as the

,Movius line' concept. The present evidences, however, suggest that bifaces in this zone are not

altogether absent, although one has to admit that they are not as prolific as in Europe or other parts of

India. Hou et al. (2000) documented some handaxes from the Bose basin in south China. Mohapatra

(1981 and lgBT), in fact, not oniy demonstrates Acheulian bifaces in the Sohanian homeland in

the western sub-Himalayan region but even deliberates over the relationship of Sohanian with

Acheuiian (Mohapatra 7997).

ln 1947, V. D. Krishnaswami of the fuchaeological Survey of India (ASI) described the

rich palaeolithic material discovered by him from the boulder beds of Kortalayar river in Tamil

Nadu. This publication (Krishnaswami 1947) shows a detailed and rigorous treatment of both the

chronoiogical context as weli as the archaeological contents. varieties of stone fabrication techniques

of biface manufacrure, first defined in east Africa, were identified in this industry. Iftishnaswami

also attempts to show a vertical evolution of these bifaces, in order to establish them as a continuous

tradition. He named this tradition as Madrasian'

The nationalistic fervour of Indian's independence in 1947 made Ikishnaswami avoid

the name Acheulian which was then being used in Europe' By this time, both Clactonian in

England and Markkleebergian in Germany had demonstrated that some zones within Europe

are without bifaces and contain only flake and pebble tools, while there are other areas where

handaxes and cleavers occur. This led to a kind of bipolar dialecticism in the understanding of

Palaeolithic metamorphosis in the West.

71

ANCiENT IND:A,NEW SERIES,NO.1

IGishnaswami's claim that pebble tools are absent in Kortalayar valley helped in usheting

this dialecticism in Indian archaeology as well. Thus, the Formative period ended by suggesting

that the Lower Palaeolithic in India demonstrates rwo distinct 'traditions'. These are conveniently

named the Sohanian and Madrasian traditions.2 The mutually exclusive character of these two

traditions starred getting indirect support when Graham Clark (1968) suggested terms like

Mode I, II, etc., to designate techno-complexes without any indication of them being used to

enunciate cultural traditions. In European context, one can visualize these techno-complexes

as representing traditions but the mutually exclusive nature of these modes is not demonstrated

in the Indian context.

4. THE DESCRIPTIUE PERIOD

The Descriptive period of Indian Palaeolithic archaeology started with H. D. Sankalia when he

wrote the article: 'In Search of Early Man aiong the Sabarmati' published in 7942. For the next

14 years till 1956, he reported a number of Prehistoric evidences from Gujarat and Maharashtra.Prehistoric context of Gujarat was sought from river valley surveys and the Palaeolithic, Mesolithicand Neolithic and subsequent metal ages were documented in a persistent quest to reconstructthe prehistory of the region.

In 1956, one of his students, B. Subbarao published a book on Prehistoric archaeology ofIndia but chose to cali it The Personaliqr of India after the book titled Personality of Britain writtenby Cyril Fox in 7932. In fact, Subbarao deserves to be counted as heralding a post Descriptivephase occurring several decades before it can actually be seen in the research publications.

Sankalia laid the groundwork and initiated a large number of students to survey all possiblecorners of India so that in due course of time, the archaeological map of India could be completed.Some of the important surveys conducted by the students of Sankalia in the following two decadesare as follows:

R. V. Joshi surveyed the Malaprabha basin in 1955A. P. Khatri surveyed the Stone Age sites of Malwa in 1958N. Issac reported the Stone Age culture of Kurnool in 1960G. C. Mohapatra reports the Stone Age culture of Orissa in 1960V. N. Misra reports the Stone Age culture of Rajasthan in 1951Rameswar Singh reports the Palaeolithic industries of Bundelkhand in 1965Prehistoric Archaeology of Assam by T. C. Sharma in 1966Stone Age Culture of Upper Son Valley by Nisar Ahmed in 1966Stone Age Culrure of Nalgonda by S. N. Rao in 1966Stone Age Culrure of Chittoor Disrrict by M. L. K. Murry in 1966Chalcolithic Culture of the Deccan by Nagaraja Rao in 1966Pre- and Proto-history of Shorapur Doab by K. Padd ayya in 196TPre- and Proto-historic Cultures of South-West Andhra Pradesh by V. R. Reddy in 1968Quaternary Studies on the Bhadra Valley by V. S. Lele in 7972Lithic Industries of South-Wesr Orissa by K. C. Tripathy in 1972

72

PALAEOLITHiC iNDIAAND HUMAN DlSPERSAL

it r,vill be apparent from the title of these studies that most of these sur-v'eyed and reported

Stone Age culture as a major theme. Further, excepl for Bihar and lVest Bengal in the east and

Urtar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh in the north, ihe credit of completing the

scene of Palaeolithic cultural spread over India goes to Deccan College, Pune. The Palaeolithic

context of Orissa has also been explored in a pioneering study by Bose and Sen in 1948.

Ashok K. Ghosh reported the Stone Age culture of West Bengal in 7970. He aiso reported the Stone

Age culture of Singbhum in Jharkhand in the same year. P. C. Pant and V. Jayaswal reported a

Middle palaeolithic cufture from Jamalpur. Subsequently, in \99!, they published the excavation

report of Paisra, a primary Lower Palaeolithic site.

Thus, we see that for about three decades after Sankalia's pioneering work, most of the

extended explorations concentrated on Palaeolithic reportinS. Even these focused more on Lower

Palaeolithic and not on the subsequent phases. The method adopted all along has been on the

lines of Zeuner,s (1950) prescription, that is, these studies depend on alluvial deposits for ascribing

a tentative date to them.possehl,s criticism of river terrace technique without the use of palaeontological marker

fossils for chronological ascription is possibly based on the wide scale use of gravels as designating

pleistocene pluvials by almost all these descriptive studies. It is highly significant to note that

subbarao as early as 1956 (which precedes all these studies) has categorically stated, 'At present,

the whole correlarion of the Boulder Conglomerate of the 1I Glacial Potwar region and those

of Narbada, with the Orissa and Madras boulder beds depends entirely on typology' We have

already alluded to the need for a fresh evaluation of Pleistocene palaeontology for the tropics,

if we are to avoid problems.......' (1956: 61). Indeed, Subbarao was ahead of his time and yet not

much attention Seems to have been paid to his views for these five decades'

No matter what chronological ascriptions are given to these antiquities, or how it has been

done, one cannot deny the richness of this enormous coliection. It must, however, be pointed

out that since most of these collections are done from rain water gullies that cut through the

pleistocene deposits, the tools can seldom be ascribed to any specific aliuvial cycle' The second

drawback that these collections suffer from is that, more often than not, core tools are picked up

while a large amount of flake tools are overlooked. This can happen evenwith a trained eye, because

the flakes can be embedded within clay nodules. consequently, discussions about Palaeolithic

archaeology from these river valley reports cannot be used for the following:

i)forunderstandingunfinishedtofinishedtoolproportionsii) for computation of core to flake proPortions and

iii)finallytodevelopanykindofverticalprogression

Nonrrithstanding these inbuilt probiems of our river valley surveys, some important factors

of regional variations seem to be indicated. The cyclonic zone of eastern India' which includes

Bengal, Orissa and coastal Andhra, shows a stronS pebble-based industry' Handaxes and cleavers

are well-finished with cylinder hammer flaking and extensive retouching all along the border' Yet,

more often than not, a pebble butt is visible in most of them. Flakes retouched into types by Levallois

technique, bY far, are rare.

73

I ___ 1 1

ANCIENT IND:A,NEW SERIES,NO.1

r\s opposed to this, the rain-shadow areas of Rajasthan, Gujarat, inner Andhra, Karnataka

and Maharashtra show an advanced Acheulian form where handaxes and cleavers are prepared on

large flakes. The workmanship for finishing these rypes is by no means different from what has

been observed in the eastern zone. Using side struck flakes to finish cleavers seems to be a

dominant practice. Types finished on Levallois flakes are in high frequency and more in variery

than in the east. The central Indian river valleys also have yielded enormous amount of Lower

palaeolithic evidences. These seem to be inclined more towards western zone than the eastern zone.

problems of seeking many questions about the character of these finds, as enunciated above

led to the discovery and excavation of some primary sites during the closing phase of the Descriptive

period. One of the most significant among these is the excavations at Didwana in western Rajasthan'

This was done with international collaboration and could richly contribute to our understanding of

Pleistocene climate in the Thar desert (V. N. Misra et al.7992).

Although Palaeolithic tools were collected mostly from secondary deposits from a large

number of localities, the tools collected from Singi Talav show a larger degree of rigour in their

analysis. It appears that the Amarpura formation dated to Middle Pleistocene period shows rwo

distinct levels of Acheulian. Obviously this can be taken to indicate a vertical evolution. There is

one absolute date available for Amarpura, and this is 390,000 years BP. The fresh condition ofthe tools alludes to the tools being in primary context but so far not much in the name of description

and analysis of the total Amarpura collection has been published.

Besides this excavation we have, till date, detailed excavation reports of five primarysites. These are: Bhimbetka in Raisen district of Madhya Pradesh (Misra 7978), Adamgarh inHoshangabad district of Madhya Pradesh (Joshi 7964), Paisra in Jamui district of Bihar (Pant and

Jayaswal 7991), Chirkhi-Nevasa in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra (Corvinus 1983) and Hunsgiin Gulbarga district of Karnataka (Paddayya 1967). Unfortunately, none of these sites demonstratemore than one layer representing Lower Palaeolithic and hence no attempt at inner evolutionwithin Lower Palaeolithic of India is possible at the moment.

The fact, however, remains that Lower Palaeolithic is the only period in our Prehistoricpast that shows such enormous duration.3 Consequently, it will not be entirely wrong to attemptsome kind of a seriation done on the basis of typo-technology. If one scans through the published

reports of most Palaeolithic finds in India, one discovers tool rypological and technological analysis

to be their weakest point. It will be sufficient to state that the bifaces show the most elemental toextremely complex reduction sequence. There are also evidences of fractured tools being flakedfor reuse in many instances. Core trimming flakes and blades are numerous in these collections,which can be studied to understand the process of primary shaping of cores, as well as the retrievalof suitable flakes.

In a very general sense, if we are to take a look at the entire country, the most surprising andhence significant point that emerges is that there is very little regional variation in both style andform of bifaces. Considering the vastness of India and its diverse climatic character, the apparentuniformiry of Lower Palaeolithic is indeed very surprising. This is more so when one sees thealtogether extreme variation of Lower Palaeolithic in Europe.

74

―

PALAEOLIttH:C INDiAAND HUMAN DiSPERSAL

5. THE ANAIYTICAI PEBIOD

The issue of an Anolyrical period in Palaeolithic archaeoiogical studies in lndia can be dealt -,vith

properly when we try to define what we expect during this stage. The Analytical period, to my

mind, should ask questions which go beyond the arrangement of antiquities. Questions like

settlement pattern, subsistence pattern, reconstruction and issues governing transformation of

culture or why a culrure changes at one place and does not change at another are formulated

in research design. It is not entirely correct to say that we have not been able to launch this kind

of an investigation, mainly because the nature of our Palaeolithic context provides no clues to

afford such investigations. The evidences at Chirki-Nevasa or the recent discovery of Kalpi in

yamuna valley (Tewari et al. 2OO2), certainly indicates the possibility of more questions being

asked about human activity during the Palaeolithic period, than what has actually been done.

In the last three years, three very important publications have appeared on Indian prehistory.

In 2006, Dilip Chalaabarti published a mammoth compendium called The Oxford Companion

to Indian Archaeologt, and the trearmenr of Palaeolithic archaeology in this is commendable. Yet

one cannot see if this can be taken to open up possibilities for a future Analytical phase' In 2008,

an equally voluminous work on Indian Archaeology called A History of Ancient and Early

Medieval lndia: From the Stone Age to the 12th Cenrury by Upinder Singh was published' Even this,

however, does not pretend to break new ground in Palaeolithic archaeology'

Finally, this year, the presidential address delivered in the annual meeting of Indian Society

of prehistoric and Quarternary Studies summarized the middle Ganga Archaeology (Jayaswal

2009). Even here, the traditional manner of summarization of Paiaeolithic archaeoiogy dominates

the delineation.Korisettar,s (2006) study of basin model for understanding Palaeolithic settlement and

diversity of habitat shows an entirely new approach to understanding many of the problems of

human colonization. paddayya's (1982) study of settlement system perspectives of Hunsgi valiey

Acheulians, as well as his subsequent studies (Shipton, Petraglia and Paddayya 2OO9) in Baichbal

valley, are distinguished as trends in using archaeology to understand human endeavour and

activities. This certainly can be taken as paving the way for a future course which will lead to an

Analyticalphase in Indian Palaeolithic studies. We have to however, still wait for more analytical

study of palaeolithic tool types retrieved from various excavations. Mishra (2008) presents an

excellent review of Lower palaeolithic culture of the entire old World. However, attention towards

rypo-technology seems to not form the actual focus of her delineation. The time, therefore, is ripe

enough to initiate a re-study of these Lower Palaeolithic collections.

All the river valley surveys have tried to isolate a Middle Palaeolithic for India. In terms of

tool types, this marks an overwhelming frequency of flake tool types. In some sites Lower Palaeolithic

types including choppers are found continuing. In recent years, several absolute dates have been

Ggested for this. These vary between 144,000 BP at Didwana (Raghavan et al. 1989) to 45,000

years Bp at Kalpi (Tewari et al. 2oo2). since both flakes and blades occur within one gravel bed (the

second gravel), the Upper palaeolithic is not separately described. It was not until 7973, when G' R.

Sharma reported the Upper Palaeolithic from the Vindhyan region, and subsequently excavated an

Ｅυ

ワ／

Fr--

ANCIENT:NDlA,NEW SERIES,NO.1

Upper Palaeolithic primary site on Son (Sharma and Clark 1983) that a distinct Upper Palaeoiithic

stage in Palaeolithic archaeology was entertained.

Reporting of the typo-technological details of both the Middle as well as Upper Palaeolithic

culture of India, however, still have much to be expected. Andhra Pradhesh and southern Uttar

Pradesh also show a large number of Upper Palaeolithic assemblages, but most of these are surface

clusters occurring within atluvial deposits of Late Pleistocene period. The Renigunta assemblage on

Ralla Kallava was a similar assemblage described by Murry (1968). However, it seems that these

'blade and burin' assemblages are not common in the whole of india. It seems that this is more

common in the Vindhyan region of south Uttar Pradesh and some parts of Andhra Pradesh.

6.'OUT OF AFRICA'

Ever since the 'Out of Africa' model of human dispersal was 'conclusively demonstrated' (Kivisild

et at. 1999) on the basis of mitochondriai DNA mutations, Palaeolithic studies from India started

developing a greater significance. It seems to be, therefore, the opportune moment to thrust

ourselves into newer areas of enquiry in Palaeolithic research. In the Formative period, the discovery

of a single antiquity used to excite us and in the Descriptive period we started looking for more

antiquities so that we can create clusters or regions to demonstrate areas of human colonization inPrehistoric India. In the Analytical period, we have to formulate newer questions, and one of the

most significant among these is about inner evolution and human dispersal.

The possible manner of dispersal of early human ancestors to India has to be viewed in three

distinct thrusts. The first group which may have entered India anywhere between 2.8 million years to

2.2 million years ago is a pre-erecrus, possibly Homo habilis or its collateral variety. The second group

entered around 1.5 million years to 600,000 years ago. This group can be identified as Homo erectus.

Experts are not unanimous about where this form has originated. Earlier it was thought that this Homo

had evolved fromHomo habilis in east Africa, from where it migrated to China and Java, where similarforms have been described from comparable dates. Europe had no comparable form known earlier.

Recently a Homo erectus has been discovered from Dmanissi in Georgia (de Lumley et al.

2005) which is almost the eastern gateway of Europe and its date is recorded as 1.8 million years.

This fact along with the issue that the east African Homo habilb hardly shows any anatomicalancestral features that could have evolved into Homo erectus, ied many authorities to believe thatthe latter was of Asian origin. White (1995:383) suggests, 'It seems more likely that Homo erectus

is an immigrant from Asia to the east African area than an anagenetic in situ derivative ftomHomohabilis'. These authorities believe that the first major member of our genus, which spread all across

the Old World, evolved somewhere between the Caspian Sea and Jordan. Subsequently theymigrated to Africa, Europe, China and through India to south-east Asia.

Notrarithstanding the controversies surrounding the place of origin of Homo erectus, there is

another dimension to the issue of arrival of man in our subcontinent. This is due to the discovery offlaked quartzite pebbles protruding from a cemented grit stone, dated to at least 1.9 million years(Rendell et al. 1987; Denell et al. 19BB) from fuwat in Pakistan. If this date is accepted, then one

76

PALAEOLITHiC IND:AAND Hl」 MAN DISPERSAL

has to admit that tool-making man must have entered the Indo-Paldstan subcontinent much before

erectus arrived on the scene. Could this be the elusive ancestor of Homo erecd$, who spread over

west Asia, where it evolved into Homo erectus and then entered Europe through the gateway of

Dmanissi? An answer to this question is possible only when large series of fossils from this date wilibe available from the subcontinent.

Chauhan (2OO7: 257) believes that, 'The hominid group that produced early Mode I

assemblages in the periphery region (e.g., northern Pakistan, Tadjikistan, the Arabian Peninsula and

south-east Asia) did not disperse into peninsular India'. This view is obviousiy a modified version of

what later came to be known as the Movius line explanation.

One would naturally wonder who then, are the authors of the peninsular biface tradition

(Mode II), unless one entertains the possibility of two successive migrations. The first one bringing

a pre-1.8 million year Mode I tradition from Central Asia. While the other brings Mode II tradition

probably from Ubeidya in Israel (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar 1993), which records an Acheulian

with a date of 1.4 million years. This site of the Jordan valley, incidentally, till now was taken to

be the oldest evidence of Acheulian in entire Euro-Asia. Recently, Pappu et al. (2ol\) published a

date of 1.5 million years for rhe Acheulian sire of Attirampakkam in northern Tamil Nadu. Thus, the

origin of Homo erectus has to be taken as having occurred anywhere between Deccan India to the

high lands of Israel.

The issue of the third migration of Anatomicaliy Modern Homo sopiens (AMHS) is proposed

mainly on tl-ie basis of easrvvard migration of the Haplotype M, lvhich is one of the lineages of the

Haplogroup L3 of mitochondrial DNA. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited through the female

line, this theory is also nicknamed the'African Eve Theoqy'. According to this theory, AMHS evolved

in north-easr Africa and one branch of this migrated through the horn of Africa and Saudi Arabia

to china and India. Thus, India acted as the main corridor in order to populate south-east Asia,

Australia and New Zealand. The other branch moved to Europe through Senai. This theory further

proposes that this phenomenon of dispersal occurred 50,000 years ago. All the eariier inhabitants

in these countries were totally replaced by this variery of the modern man. These projections about

the dispersal of man in India appear difficult to subsrantiate with hard evidence of fossils, and this

is primarily because of a near absence of Pleistocene hominid fossils from India.

The only evidence of Pleistocene man, known till date from India, is a partial calvarirum

described from the Surajkund basal conglomerate of Narmada in Sehore district- There have been

several estimates of its date. Biswas (7gg7) ascribes this to a Middle Pleistocene date on the basis of

the association of the mammalian fauna of. Stegodon namadictLs and Sus namadicus from the same

bed. Sonaki a (2007) claims this to be 'slightly younger than 0.76 million years'.a This indeed is a

rather early date for an individual whose cranial capaciry is estimated to range bemreen 1200-1400

c.c. (de Lumley and Sonakia 1985). Incidentally, many present day surviving human populations

have a cranial capacity"falling within this range. The basion-bregma height too of the Narmada skull

is found to exceed some of the west European Neanderthals, who did not occur before 200,000

BC. It is possibly because of these facrors that Kennedy and Chiment (1991) and Kennedy (2007)

considers 'Narmada Man' an Early Sapien or an evolved erectus.

77

ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1

Hard evidence of evolution normally occurs ',arith direct association of cultural products.

Hence, evolutionary stages and cultural stages were often found as useful instruments to support

each other. This means that Homo habilis and Home erectus were taken to be associated with the

Lower palaeolithic culture while Early sapien as well as the Neanderthal man were associated with

what is generally called Middle Palaeolithic including Mousterian of France. In the same way,

the advent of the anatomically modern Homo sapien was taken to mark the beginning of Upper

Palaeolithic. In this regard, association of the Hathnora remains with choppers and early Acheulian

handaxes may not show any contradiction within a broad frame. However, an extremely rich Upper

Acheulian assemblage was subsequently discovered (Bhattacharya and Sonakia 1989) in a re-wash

of the Surajkund material in a younger gravel. These specimens seem so refined and advanced in

workmanship that anybody conversant with Somme prehistory will not hesitate to ascribe them to

either Acheulian V or VI category. This level of typo-technological refinement, at least in France,

does nor occur till the end of the Middle Pleistocene or the beginning of Upper Pleistocene.

The scene of Lower Palaeolithic culture in India and its border land has become extremely

interesting with some important discoveries in the recent years. In Siwalik extension and fromLei conglomerate at Dina and Jalalpur in Pakistan, archaeologioal evidences have been dated to2.2 million years. Nearly 3,000 km south of this region, in Isampur in Karnataka, a Palaeolithic

context is dated to 1.2 million years (Paddayya et al. 2002) Further south, Acheulian in northernTamil Nadu is now being dated to 1.5 million years. Halfway in this north-south axis, occurs Bori inMaharashtra, another Lower Palaeolithic site dated to O.7 million years (lVlishra 1995).

We have no specific date available for the youngest occurrence of Lower Palaeolithic.However, finds as those discovered from Bhimbandh region of Bihar (Bhattacharya and Singh7997) show remarkable freshness of tools. Such factory fresh condition of the tools, despite the factthat these were found exposed to acute surface climate of Kharagpur hills in Bihar, leaves no doubtthat Lower Palaeolithic in at least some regions of India, may have continued without much change

till possibly as late as 40-50 thousand years from today. It is, therefore, an inordinately long period{rom2.2 million years to 0.06 million years for the early erectus to remain unchanged. Even if these

changes would have taken him towards the path of sapienization, we have no other fossil evidence

except Hathnora to fall back upon. Kennedy et al. (7997) launched a multivariate analysis of severalAfrican, European and south-east Asian crania along with the Narmada skull and concluded that itrepresents an archaic Homo-sapien, aithough there are some erectus features also found in it. Thiswill, in other words, mean that we now have conclusive evidence of progression of our archaicmembers of Homo erectus, graduating into an Indian variety of early sopien (in contrast to Homoheidelb er gensrs variety in Europe).

It may be worth our while to examine evidence of the next cultural stage - the MiddlePalaeolithic. Middle Palaeolithic is marked by the appearance of flake tools which are, in every way,equally rich in the preceding cultural phase, viz., the Upper Acheulian. Consequently, a break in theculrural succession from Lower Palaeolithic to Middle Palaeolithic is difficult to demonstrate. In 7979,the present author (Bhattacharya 7979) separated the flake component of an excavated primary siteof Lower Paiaeolithic, Bhimbetka III F-23 (Misra 7978) and compared this with the four facies of

78

PALAEOLI丁 HIC INDIAAND HUMAN DISPERSAL

French Mousterian as computed by Bordes (1953) for Combe Grenal. It was found that the Bhimbetka

Acheulian in its flake component agrees with all the four facies of the French Nlousterian.

Chronologically as well, many of our late Acheulian sites may be overlapping with the

Middle Palaeolithic. In another recent study, Monnier (2006) demonstrated that in Europe as well,

the Lower Palaeolithic and Middle Palaeolithic fiake tools do not show- any sharply focused variation

either in rypo-technology or in frequency. Evidences like those in Baker's Hole in the Thames Valley,

England (Wymer 1968) or Salsgitter-Lebenstedt and Lehringen in north Germany (Tode et al. 7953)

can be taken to substantiate an unbroken and continuous evolution of Acheulian, and hence Homo

erecfiis within Europe. Even the appearance of Neanderthals, with their distinct morphological

features and equaliy distinct Mousterian cultural traditions, seem to represent a development from

within the available gene pool in western Europe (Walimbe and Mushrif 2OO7). Thus, a cultural

break in a strict sense is also not indicated. The scenario is slightly different in many parts of central

Europe and the Balkans. Here, a distinct break is visible in the form of ushering in a new tradition

of bifacially flaked leaf points named blattspitzen, around 50,000 years ago.

Thus, it will appear that the migration of Homo erectus not only flourished both through

time and space in both Europe and India, but may have also given rise [o an advanced and more

accomplished form with a larger brain capacity. In Europe, this takes up a very specialized body

structure to combat the cold climate of the last glaciation. Elsewhere, it developed a generalized

gracile form, which would probably be similar to the Narmada man. In this regard, the evidence

from Herto Bouri (\lVhite et al. 2OO3) in the middle Awash of Ethiopia can be cited as an absolute

evidence of this progression of both biology and culture. An absolute date of 160,000 years is

obtained for this important evidence, of at least two adult skulls associated with both bifaces

and Middle Palaeolithic flakes. The skulls are taken to belong to a type which could be a form

immediately preceding the Homo sapien. Maybe the Homo sopiens evolved from this, which agrees

with the theory of mitochondrial Haplorype M migrating to Asia from this epicentre. This hard

evidence of Herto, therefore, is taken to confirm the 'Out of Africa' model conclusively.

Z. CONCLUSION

Since the Upper Palaeolithic culture is associated with Homo sopiens, we might as well look at the

evidence from this cultural stage to understand the dispersal of modern man or AMHS in India.

The Upper Palaeolithic evidences are not many when one compares them with the rich occurrence

of culture form Lower Paiaeolithic period. Raju and Venkatasubbaiah (2002) list 535 sites, the

majoriry of which are in Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. The inventory of tooi types of these 535

sites show many flake tool rypes as well as blades, besides having fairly good amount of microliths.

There are either very few or no bone tools or art objects of the European kind found in these Uppet

palaeolithic sites. The absolute dates available for some of the many important and distinctly blade

dominated excavated sites are: Bhimbetka - 15,370 years BP; Didwana - 26,210 years BP; and

Baghor III (Mahagarha gravels III) - 19,160 years BP (Possehl and Rissman 7992).

79

ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1

This will imply that berween approximately 30,000 years BP till about 15,000 years BP, there harre

been some changes in the cultural material, but the heavy continuation of flake tool types r,vould

indicate that these developments may as well be internal transformations. This is more possible

because we have many evidences of late Acheulian assemblages where a fair amount of blades are

recorded (Bhattacharya and Singh 7997).It will be significant to note at this juncture, that a lot of

experrs deny the classic Upper Palaeolithic in many parts of India. Ghosh and Chaudhury (1989)

go to the extent of even suggesting an alternate term - 'flake-blade element' instead of using Upper

Palaeolithic for their area of study (West Bengal).

It is nor unril around 15,000 years BP continuing up to 9,000 years BP that a sharp break

in Palaeolithic tradition is discernable in India. A distinct form of Epi-Palaeolithic starts occurring

around this time in Jurpaniya in Bhimbandh region of Bihar (Bhattacharya and Singh 1998) and Asla

in Maharashtra (Mishr a et al. 2003). Because of its complete dependence on blade manufacture and

creation of a rich variery of finished types, one might entertain the possibility of these representing

an exogenous character. One must, however, hasten to add that this kind of transformation is not

demonstrable all over. In fact, there are large areas, especially as one progresses eastwards, where

the usual 'flake-blade' character continues till the end of Pleistocene. Thus, a total replacement of

all earlier hominid forms by the advancing AMHS as suggested by the 'Out of Africa' model is not

demonstrable on grounds of archaeological evidence.

Furthermore, that the advancing AMHS has traversed the coastal route in its easrward

migration (Majumdar 1998) also seems to be highly unlikely, since crossing to south india from

north through the western corridor is almost impossible because of the three big rivers near

Bharoach. In the historic periods, as weil, such migrations are known to have occurred from the

east. There is, however, an important point that needs to be underlined here. Many authorities

strongly warn against taking 'archaeological culture' to be synonymous with hominid kind (Bar-

Yosef and Cohen 2001). The present exercise can, therefore, be taken to show only the possibilities

and trends of dispersal of Palaeolithic man in India. Further, we believe that the cognitive frame

that governs the ability to replicate a specific form of stone knapping cannot be identical across

the level of species.

Finally, we need to explain the people inhabiting the area where no culrure break isdemonstrable. If we accept that an indigenously evolved form continued in these areas tillHolocene,

we ger ensnared with the theory of 'multi-regionalism'- which has long been rejected as genetically

improbable. Consequently, we are Ieft with no other option but to accept that Homo sapiens or AMHS

arriving from Africa must have inter-bred with local populations and did not entirely replace them

(a point opposing the suggestion of 'Out of Africa' model). We shall, therefore, like to suggest that a

fairly sapienized Homo erectus may have interbred with the AMHS migrating out of Africa. Further,

the migration may have proceeded out of the western gateway of Rajasthan along thre 24' latitude.Around Ramgarh hills, they may have divided into rwo branches - one going northwards towards

Kaimur Hills and the other going south towards Andhra Pradesh through the forests of Chhattisgarh.

The onward migration towards south-east Asia must have proceeded almost simultaneously through

24" latirude.

80

PALAEOLITHIC iNDIAAND HUh/tAN DISPERSAL

A final word about this dispersai model presented here is that we need to look for more Upper

palaeolithic evidence from Chhattisgarh and also conduct research on the mitochondrial DNA and the Y

chromosome DNA in order to be able to fine-tune our theories of human dispersal all over the world.

Endnotes1 'ln the 1,300 kilometre long and 400 kilometre broad strip of lndia between the 20 and 24 parallels, a

relatively dry climate was dominant in the younger Pleistocene which is represented in the gravel deposit

of these rivers. Two of these cycles can be distinguished and they are separated by a phase of formation of

dry wood soil (humus), which would not have needed a damper climate than the ones that exists in these

1-"gion.. The first dry cycle begins with coarser gravel than the second, which perhaps points to a greater

fluviatile action of the rivers'2 Mode I referred to pebbles and flakes, Mode ll referred to handaxes and cleavers: Mode lll referred to

flake tool types and Mode lV blade tool types.

3 According to some recent estimations based on absolute dates this may be as much as nearly

2 million years.a ,Rao et at. (1ggl) have assigned an age of 0.76 million years to the just underlying Dhansi formation

correlatable to the Gauss-Matuyama Palaeomagnetic reversal comparable to the Oldowan event. So the

near absolute date of Narmada man could be slightly younger than 0.76 million years' (Sonakia 2007: 167).

ReferencesAhmed, Nisar 1966. The StoneAge culture of Upper Son Valley. Dissertation submitted for Ph.D. in

Deccan College, Post-Graduate Research lnstitute, Pune.

Bar-yosef, O. and Goren-lnbar 1993. Ubeidya: A Lower Palaeolithic Sife rn Jordan Valley. Hebrew

University, Jerusalem.

Bar-yosef, O. and A. Belfer Cohen 2001. From Africa to Eurasia: Early dispersals. Quaternary

I nte rn ational 7 5:19-28.

Bhattacharya, D. K. 1g7g. Old sfone Age Toot Types: A Manuai of Laboratory Techniques of Analysis.

K. P. Bagchiand Co., Calcutta.

Bhattacharya, D. K. and Arun Sonakia 1989. Cultural remains from the earliest Hominid site on Narmada.

ln Changing perspectives of Anthropotogy in tndia (Tiwari, S.C. ed.) 313-320. Today and Tomorrow's

Printers and Publishers, New Delhi.

Bhattacharya, D. K. and Manoj Kumar Singh 1997. The Palaeolithic evidences from Pathalganva in

Bihar. Puratattva 28: 12-25.

Bhattacharya, D. K. and Manoj Kumar Singh 1998. Jurpaniya: The Epi-Palaeolithic Tradition of Kharagpur

Valley in Chotanagpur plateau. Man in lndiaTB(3&4):189-204

Biswas, S. 1gg7. Fossil Mammalia of the Quaternary sequence of the Narmada valley. Geological Survey

of tndia, Special Publication 46:91-104.

81

-l

ANCiENT INDlA,NEW SERIES,NO.1

Bordes, F. 1953. Essaide classification des industries Mousteriennes (in French). Bulletin de Ia society

P rehistoriq ue F ran Eoi se 59: 457 -466.

Bose, N. K. and D. Sen 1948. Excavations in Mayurbhuni. Calcutta University, Calcutta.

Cammiade, L. and M. C. Burkitt 1930. Fresh light on the Stone Age cultures of South lndia. Antiquity 4:

327-339.

Chakrabarti, D. K. 2006. The Oxford Companion to lndian Archaeology. Oxford University Press, New

Delhi.

Chauhan, Parth 2007. Human origins studies in lndia: Position, problems and prospects. ln Human

Origins, Genome and Peopte of lndia (Sankhyan, A. R. and V. R. Rao eds.) Anthropological Survey of

lndia, Kolkata.

Clark, G. 1968. World Prehistory: A new outline. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Commont, V. 1910. Note Preliminarie sur les terraces fluviatile de la Valle'e de la Somme (in French).

Annales de la Soci6t6 G1ologique du Nord 39: 185-210.

Corvinus, G. 1983. A suruey of the Pravara river system in Western Maharashtra, lndia. Vol.2: The

excavations of the Acheulian site of Chriki-on-Pravara.lnstituet fuer Urgeschichte, Tuebingen.

Corvinus, G. 2004. Homo erectus in East and Southeast Asia and the question of the age of the

species and its association with stone artefacts, with special attention to handaxe-like tools. Quaternary

lnternational 117 : 141 -151.

de Lumley, M. A. and Arun Sonakia 1985. Premier de coaverte d'un Homo erectus sur le continent lndian

A. Hathnora dans la Moyenne valke de la Narmada (in French). L'Anthropologie 109(1): 1-181 .

de Lumley, H., M. Nioradze, D. Barsky, D. Cauche, V. Celeberti, G. Nioradze, O. Notter, D. Zvania and

D. Lordkipanidze 2005. Le industries Lithiques preoldwayenneo du debut du Pleistocene inferieur du site

de Dmanissi et Georgia (in French). L'Anthropologie 109(1): 1-181.

Dennel, Robin 2009. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dennel, R. W., H. N. Rendell and E. Hailwood 1988. Early tool making in Asia: Two million year old

artefacts in Pakistan. Antiquity 63: 98-106.

de Terra, H and T. T. Paterson 1939. Studies on the lce Age in lndia and Associated Human Cultures.

Carnegie lnstitution of Washington Publication No. 499.

Fox, Cyril 1932. Personality of Britaln. National Museum of Wales, London.

Ghosh, A. K. 1966. The Stone Age cultures of West Bengal. Thesis submitted for Premchand Roychand

Research studentship in Anthropology to University of Calcutta.

Ghosh, A. K. 1970. The Palaeolithic culture of Singhbhum. Transactions of American Philosophical

Society Vol. 60 (l): 1-68.

Ghosh,A. K. and D. Chaudhury 1989. On Flake-Blade Elementin lndia. Puratattva 19: 31-37.

Hou, Y., R. Potts, B. Yuan, Z. Guo, A. Deino, W. Wang, J. Clark, G. Xie and X. Huang 2000. Mid

Pleistocene Acheulian like stone technology of the Bose Basin, south China. Science 287: 1622-1626.

lssac, N. 1960. Stone Age Culture of Kurnool. Dissertation submitted for Ph.D. in Deccan College Post-

Graduate Research lnstitute, Pune.

Jayaswal, Vidula 2009. Sfatus of Archaeology of the Middle Ganga Valley: Sfone and Early lron Age

C ultu re. Allahabad University, Allahabad.

82

PALAEOLITHIC INDIAAND HUMAN DISPERSAL

Joshi, R. V. 1g55. pleistocene Studies of Malaprabha basin. Dissertation submitted for Ph.D. in Deccan

College Post-Graduate Research lnstitute, Pune.

Joshi, R. V. 1964. Microtiths from Adamgarh Rock She//ers, Madhya Pradesh. Central Museum Nagpur

Centenary volume.

Kennedy, K. A. R. 2007. The Narmada Fossil Hominid. ln Human Oigins, Genome and People of lndia

(Sankhyan, A. R. and V. R. Rao eds.) 188-192. Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi'

Kennedy, K. A. R. and J. Chiment 1991. The fossil hominid from the Narmada valley, lndia: Home

erectus or Homo sapiens? ln tndo-Pacific Prehisto4z 1990 (Bellwood, P. ed.) 42-58.lndo- Pacific Prehistory

Association, Canberra.

Kennedy, K. A. R., A. Sonakia, J. Chiment and K. K. Verma 1991. ls Narmada Hominid an lndian Homo

e re ctu s? Am e ri ca n J o u rn al of P hy si ca I Anth ropol ogy 86 : 475-496'

Khatri, A. p. 1gSB. Stone Age culture of Malwa. Dissertation submitted for Ph.D. in Deccan College Post-

Graduate Research lnstitute, Pune.

Kivisild, T., M. J. Bamshed, K. Kaldama et at. (15 authors) 1999. Deep common Ancestry of lndian and

Western-Eurasian Mitochondrial DNA Lineages. Current Biology 9: 1331-1334'

Korisettar, Ravi 2006. Towards developing a basin model for Palaeolithic settlement of the lndian

subcontinent: Geodynamics, monsoon dynamics, habitat diversity and dispersal routes. ln Human

Evotution and History of Human populations in South Asra (Petraglia, M. D. and B. Allchin eds.) 69-95.

Springer, London.

Krishnaswami, V. D. 1947. Stone Age in lndia. Anclent lndia 3: 11-57.

Lele, V. S. 1g72. Late euaternary studies of Bhadar Valley. Dissertation submitted for Ph'D. in Deccan

College, Post-Graduate Research lnstitute, Pune.

Lubbock, J. 1865. Prehistoric Times. williams and Norgate, London.

Majumdar, p. p. 1998. people of tndia: Biological diversity and Affinities. Evolutionary Anthropology 6:

1 00-1 1 0.

Misra, V. N. 1961. Sfone Age Culture of Rajasthan. Deccan College, Post-Graduate Research lnstitute'

Pune.

Misra, V. N. 1978. The Acheulian lndustry of Rock Shelter lll F-23, at Bhimbetka, Central lndia: A

Preliminary Study. P uratattva, B: 1 2-36.

Misra, V. N, S. N. Rajguru, D. R. Raju, H. Raghavan and C. Gaillard 1982. Acheulian occupation and

Evolving landscape around Didwana in the Thar Desert. Man and Environment.6:72-86.

Mishra, S. 1995. Chronology of the lndian Stone Age: The lmpact of the Recent Absolute and Relative

Dating Attempts. Man and Environment 20: 11-16.

Mishra, Sheila 200g. The Lower palaeolithic: A Review of Recent Findings. Man and Environmenf 33(1):

14-29.

Mishra, S., Sonali Nayak, S. N. Rajguru, S. Deo and Savita Ghate 2003. Flirvial Response to late

euaternary climatic cnan!e: Case studies of upland western lndia. Proceedings of lndian Nationalscience

Academy-A69(2): 1 85-200

Mohapatra, G. C. 1960. Sfone Age Cuttures of Orissa. Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research

lnstitute, Pune.

83

ANCIENT:ND:A,NEW SER!ES,NO,1

Mohapatra, G. C. 1981" Acheulian Discoveries in the Siwalik Frontal range. Current Anthropology 22"'

433-435.

Mohapatra, G. C. 1960. Soanian-Acheulian relationship. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate

and Research lnstitute. 49. 251-260.

Mohapatra, G. C. 1997. Re-identification of Acheulian element in the Western Sub-Himalayan Lithic

complex in the light of New Discoveries . ln lndian Prehistory 1980 (Misra, V. D. and J. N. Pal eds.) 43-50.

University of Allahabad, Allahabad.

Monnier, Gilliane F. 2006. The Lower/Middle Palaeolithic Periodization in Western Europe. Current

Anth ropology a7 (5): 7 09-7 37 .

Movius, Hallam J. Jr. 1948. The Lower Palaeolithic Cultures of Southern and Eastern Asia. Iransactions

of the Philosophical Society 38: 329-420.

Murty, M. L. K. 1966. Stone Age Cultures of Chittor District, Andhra Pradesh. Dissertation submitted for

Ph.D. in Deccan College, Post-Graduate and Research lnstitute, Pune.

Murty, M. L. K. 1968. Blade and Burin lndustries near Renigunta on southeast coast of lndia. Proceedings

of the Prehistoric Society 34: B3-101 .

Nagaraja Rao, M. S. 1966. Chalcolithic cultures of the Deccan. Dissertation submitted for Ph.D. in

Deccan College, Post-Graduate and Research lnstitute, Pune.

Paddayya, K. 1967. Pre-and Proto-historic lndustries of Shorapur Doab, Karnataka. Dissertation

submitted for Ph.D. in Deccan College, Post-Graduate Research lnstitute, Pune.

Paddayya, K. 1982. The Acheutian Culture of the HunsgiValley (Peninsular lndia): A Settlement Sysfem

Perspective. Deccan College Post-graduate and Research lnstitute, Pune.

Paddayya, K., B. A. B. Blackwell, R. Jhaldiyal, M. D. Petraglia, S. Fevrier, D. A. Chaderton ll, J. l. B.

Blickstein and A. R. Skinner 2002. Recent Findings on the Acheulian of the Hunsgi and Baichbal Valleys,

Karnataka, with special reference to the lsampur excavations and its dating. Current Science 83 (5): 641-

647.

Pant, P. C. and V. Jayaswal 1991 . Paisra: The Stone Age Seftlement of Bihar. Agam Kala Prakashan,

Delhi.

Pappu, R. S. 1974. Pleistocene studies in upper Krishna basin. Dissertation submitted for Ph.D. in

Deccan College, Post-Graduate and Research lnstitute, Pune.

Pappu, Shanti, Yanni Gunnelli, Kumar Akhilesh, Regis Braucher, Maurice Taiel, Francois Demory and

Nicholas Thourreny 2A11. Early Pleistocene Presence of Acheulian Hominins in South lndia. Science 331:

1 596-1 598.

Possehl, Gregory 1971. Pleistocene Chronology of lndia, Appendix in WalterA. Fairservis Ihe Roofs ofAncient /ndia. Allen and Unwin, London.

Possehl, G. and Paul C. Rissman 1992. The Chronology of Prehistoric lndia from the Earliest times

to the lron Age. ln Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (Ehrich, R.W. ed.). Chicago University Press,

Chicago.

Raghavan, H., S. N. Rajguru and V. N. Misra 1989. Radiometric dating of a quaternary dune section,

Didwana, Rajasthan. Man and Environment 13:19-22.

Raju, D. R. and P. C. Venkatasubbaiah 2002. The Archaeology of Palaeolithic phase in lndia. ln lndianArchaeology in Retrospect: Archaeology of South Asla Vol. l. (Settar, S. and Ravi Korisettar eds.) 85-109.

lndian Council of Historical Research, New Delhi.

84

PALAEOLITHIC INDIAAND HUMAN DISPERSAL

Rao, S. N. 1966. Stone Age Culture of Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh. Dissertation submitteci for

Ph.D. in Deccan College, Post-Graduate and Research lnstitute, Pune.

Rao, K. V. et at.1997. Magnetostratigraphy of the Quaternary Fluvial sediments and Tephra of Narmada

valley, Central lndia, lndia Geological Survey of lndia, Specla/ Publication 46: 65-78.

Reddy, V. R. 1968. Pre- and Proto-historic cultures of south-west Andhra Pradesh. Dissertation submitted

for Ph.D. in Deccan College, Post-Graduate and Research lnstitute, Pune.

Rendell, H., E. Hailwood and R. W. Dennell 1987. Magnetic polarity stratigraphy of Upper Siwalik sub-

groups, Soan Valley, Pakistan: lmplications for early human occupance of Asia. Earth and Planetary

Science Letters 85: 488-96.

Sankalia, H. D. 1942.1n search of Early Man along the Sabarm ati. Journal of Guiarat Research Society

4: 75-80.

Sharma, G. R. 1973. StoneAge in Vindhyas and the Ganga valley. ln Radiocarbon and lndianArchaeology(Agrawal. D. P. and A. Ghosh eds.). TATA lnstitute of Radiocarbon, Bombay.

Sharma, G. R. and J. D. Clark 1983. Palaeo-Environment and Prehistory in the Middle Son Valley.

Allahabad University, Allahabad.

Sharma, T. C. 1966. Pre- and Proto-history of Assam. Dissertation submitted for Ph.D. in Deccan College,

Post-Graduate and Research lnstitute, Pune.

Shipton, C., M. D. Petraglia, K. Paddayya 2009. lnferringAspectsof Acheulean Socialityand cognitionfrom Lithic Technology.ln, Lithic Materials and Palaeolithic Societies (Adams, Brian and Brooke S. Blades

eds.) 21 9-231.Willey-Blackwell, West Sussex.

Singh, Rameswar 1965. Palaeolithic lndustries of Northern Bundelkhand, M. P. Dissertation submitted

for Ph.D. in Deccan College, Post-Graduate and Research lnstitute, Pune.

Singh, Upinder 2008. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval lndia: From the Stone Age to the 12th

Century. Pearson Longman, New Delhi.

Sonakia, A.2007. On The Taxonomic Status of Narmada Skullcap. ln Human Origins, Genome and People

of lndia (Sankhyan, A.R. and V. R. Rao eds.) 183-187. Allied Publishers Pvt. Limited., New Delhi.

Subbarao, B. 1956 and 1958 (second edition). The Personality of lndia: Pre- and Proto-historic Foundation

of lndia and Pakistan. M. S. University, Baroda.

Tewari, R., P. C. Pant, l. B. Singh, S. Sharma, M. Sharma, P. Srivastava, A. K. Singhvi, P. K. Misra and

H. J. Tobsch all2002. Middle Palaeolithic Human Activity and Palaeoclimate at Kalpi in Yamuna valley. Man

and Environment 27 (2): 1 -13.

Tode, A., F. Preul, K. Richter, W. Selle, K. Pfaffenberg, A. Kleinschmidt, E. Guenther, A. Mueller and

A. Schwartz. 1953. Die Untersuchung der Palaeolithischen Freilandstation von Salzgitter-lebenstedt (ir

German). Eiszeitalter und Gegenwar 3: 144-216.

Tripathi, K. C. 1972. Lithic lndustries of southwest Orissa. Dissertation submitted for Ph.D. in Deccar

College, Post-Graduate and Research lnstitute, Pune.

Walimbe, S. R. and Veena Mushrif 2007.Palaeo biography and Prehistoric migrations in the lndiarr

subcontinent. ln Human Origins, Genome and People of lndia (Sankhyan, A. R. and V. R. Rao eds.) 262'272. Allied Publishers Private Limited, New Delhi.

White, T. D. 1995. African Omnivores: Global climate change and Plio-Pleistocence Hominids and suids.

ln Palaeoclimate and Evolution with Emphasrs on Human origins (Vrba, E.S., G. H. Denton, T. C. Patridgtl

and L. H. Burckle eds.)369-84. Yale University Press, New Haven/London.

Ｅυ

ＯＯ

|

ANCiENT IND:A,NEW SER:ES,NO,1

VVhle,T.D.,N Asfaw,D.Degusta,H.Gilbert,GD.Richards G.Suwa and F.C.Howe‖ 2003.Pleistocene

月0“ o saρiens from Middle Awash,Ethiopla.Narυre 423:742-747

WymeL」 .1968.lower ParaeOlilhた ハrcr7aeO10gyわ 3油b"as Represenred by tte ttames yalley,London.

Zeuner,FE.1950.Sror7θ ハge and Pleislocer7e Cわ ronorogy′n GJJiarar Deccan College,Pune.

Zeuner,FE.1953.Cited by Subbarao,B.1958.The Persona〃

`/ofノ

ndia.M.S.Universityt Baroda.

Zotz,L.F1955.Das Palaθο″詢汝υ177加 den胎わわergわ Oθわ′enわθ′Maυerr7(in German).Quanaer_

Bib‖othek 2.Ludwig Roehrscheid Verlag,Bonn.

下

86

――

― ― ― … …… …

‐ ‐ ‐ 口

・ ・

■ ■ 口 ■ 目 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ |■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ||||||■ ■ ■ 口 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ロ ロ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ロ ロ ロ ■ ■ 口 ‐ ‐ ロ ロ ‐

"―

~~~~― ― ――