~ 20 ~

Human origins studies in India: position, problems and prospects*

by Parth R. Chauhan

Abstract

The Indian subcontinent contains one of the richest and continuous records

of hominin behavior in the Old World . This evidence is found in diverse

paleoecological settings and temporal contexts (particularly in India ),

reflecting the successful adaptive strategies of South Asian hominins

during the Pleistocene. More importantly, this evidence geographically

links similar records of behavior from both the western and eastern parts of

the Old World . Despite this significance, however, the subcontinent has

received only marginal academic attention and, until recently, its

behavioral record was not considered in general human evolutionary

syntheses. This is partly explained by the lack of early hominin fossils, a

dearth of excavated sites and associated chronometric dates. These

drawbacks are directly related to the lack of adequate funding and technical

knowledge, complex bureaucracies, and a general lack of interest in

paleoanthropology – all of which have hindered prehistoric research in

South Asia , at varying levels. Although Indian and Western researchers

have recently begun to confront such problems through multidisciplinary

excavations and international collaborations, the quality and frequency of

this level of research are minimal. Therefore, to foster the immense

research and educational potential of South Asian paleoanthropology,

greater emphasis needs to be placed (by both academic and government

institutions) on the prioritization of research themes and the adoption of

modern methodological techniques. This paper briefly reviews the salient

features and academic status of the South Asian Paleolithic and its

relevance in understanding human evolution in an Asian context.

Associated problems (theoretical as well as practical) are discussed and

broad solutions are introduced, to modernize and expand

paleoanthropological studies in India .

Introduction

In recent decades, the study of human origins has become an intense

scientific discipline at a global level, resulting in numerous discoveries as

well as debates. One of the more popular issues being addressed is the

nature and timing of various dispersal events from East Africa into other

parts of the Old World (Tattersall, 1997), and subsequent inter-regional

techno-cultural interactions. Related environmental adaptions and

~ 21 ~

technological innovations were fundamental aspects of regional hominin

behavior throughout the Old World during the Pleistocene. Therefore,

adaptive strategies probably differed vastly across the diverse eco-zones

throughout Asia , including the Indian subcontinent. The geochronological

evidence for archaeological and fossil evidence outside Africa points to a

Lower Pleistocene age for the earliest dispersal and involves the

genus Homo (Larick and Ciochon, 1986). However, most paleolithic

evidence from South Asia , which lies between the two sources of the

earliest Homo fossils outside of Africa (Gabunia and Vekua, 1995;

Swisher et al . 1994), does not fit into this chronological framework. The

South Asian landmass comprises a temperate/subtropical setting,

dominated by a seasonal monsoon regime prevalent since the Miocene.

Therefore, climatic fluctuations (e.g. such as intense but gradual cooling

and drying periods) must have had major implications on patterns of faunal

and floral distribution and associated hominin behavioral systems.

A large amount of prehistoric data has been accumulated over the last

century and the evidence points to a rich and intense period of hominin

occupation (particularly the Middle Pleistocene), encompassing a mosaic

of landforms and ecological resources. However, our present knowledge

does not yet provide a robust empirical and analytical base for

understanding human environmental adaptability in a South Asian context.

As a result, several important questions remain to be answered, such as the

timing of colonization of peninsular India , the factors responsible for

techno-cultural change, and identifying the hominin specie(s) that occupied

prehistoric India . Therefore, a question can be posed: Does the rise and

maturation of South Asian lithic industries conform to African trajectories

or were there geographically independent patterns of regional

development? Such a broad issue can only be addressed through

longitudinal and meticulous multidisciplinary research, involving the

collaboration of specialists from various scientific disciplines. Very few

such investigations have taken place in South Asia , and therefore, the

potential for such research is immense. In addition to research,

paleoanthropology as a discipline needs to be introduced in academic

syllabi at all levels, in order to replace outdated theories with new concepts

and recent interpretations (e.g. the revised taxonomic status

of Sivapithecus ).

The Indian Subcontinant and it's eco-geographical relevance

South Asia or the Indian subcontinent encompasses the political boundaries

of Pakistan , India , Nepal , Sri Lanka , Bangladesh , and Bhutan . To the

west of peninsular India is the Arabian Sea , to the east, the Bay of Bengal ,

and to the south is the Indian Ocean . The entire region comprises a diverse

~ 22 ~

spectrum of ecological and topographical zones (Figure 1) combined with

a complex geological history (Siddhartha, 1999). The north is dominated

by the Greater and Lesser Himalaya and the Siwalik hills , all ranges

almost geographically parallel and temporally successive to each other.

This mountainous terrain includes northern Pakistan , northern India , most

parts of Nepal , and Bhutan . South of these mountain and hill ranges are

the Indo-Gangetic plains located in all South Asian countries except Sri

Lanka and Bhutan . The plains are followed (to the south) by the great Thar

Desert (in eastern Pakistan and northwestern India ), and the Vindhyan

range of hills. This hills are located north of the Deccan Plateau, a

prominent landscape of peninsular India , and includes the Western and

Eastern Ghats (ranges of hills). Although most parts of India are

recognized as being tropical or sub-tropical, such landscapes are especially

prominent along the coasts of peninsular India, Kerala in southwestern

India, and northeastern India or east of Bangladesh. The subcontinent is

also interspersed with a large number of rivers and streams, and although

agricultural land makes up over 65% of the region, numerous ecological

and geographic features such as deciduous woodlands, tropical evergreen

forests, savanna, semi-arid and arid scrub lands, arid sand deserts, and

periglacial loessic landforms (Korisettar and Rajaguru, 2002), caves,

canyons, rock-shelters, lakes, pools, and springs are also found in high

numbers. Excepting the rivers of Narmada and Tapi, most rivers flow from

west to east and exhibit unique fluvio-sedimentary regimes (see Gupta,

1995).

Most importantly however, the Indian subcontinent is well-known for its

prominent monsoon regime, which has been in existence since Miocene

times (Quade et al ., 1989) and, no doubt, must have had major

implications on the patterns of human evolution and behavior during the

Pleistocene (see Joshi, 1985). The physiographic configuration of India

induces the behavior of both the Southwest and Northeast monsoons,

during summer and winter respectively (Korisettar and Rajaguru, 2002).

The geographical significance of the Indian subcontinent in understanding

Old World hominid dispersal patterns cannot be overstated, particularly

since it has received less palaeoanthropological attention that most regions

in the Old World (see Dennell, 2000-01). It lies directly between Africa to

the west and Southeast Asia to the east from where the oldest Homo

erectus specimens have been reported. Another significant fact is that it

straddles the Movius Line and represents the easternmost domain

of rich Acheulian localities (see Movius, 1948; Clark , 1994; Schick,

1994). Finally, this immensely rich source of prehistoric archaeological

evidence plays a central role in understanding the evolution of the

genus Homo in Asia, knowledge still evading Old World

palaeoanthropology (see Dennell, 2000-01). The time-bracket of most

prehistoric evidence and associated technological transitions within the

subcontinent are perfectly synonymous with rapid encephalization in

~ 23 ~

hominids which basically took place during the Middle Pleistocene

(Ruff et al ., 1997). South Asia is highly regarded for its rich source of H.

sapiens fossils dating from the Upper Pleistocene to the Holocene and

holds tremendous potential in delineating patterns of modern human

evolution within this region (Kennedy, 2000). In India, some examples of

these Upper Pleistocene/Holocene hominin fossils come from Baghai

Khor, Bagor, Pachmarhi, Mahara-Pahar, Tilwara, Valasna, Sarai Nahar

Rai, Mahadaha, Damdama, and Lekhahia; in Sri Lanka, they come from Fa

Hien, Batadomba Lena, Beli Lena Kitulgala, Bellanbandi Palassa,

Hambantota, Alu Galge, Ravan Alle and Beli Lena Athula (Kennedy,

2001).

However, hominin fossils older than the Upper Pleistocene are not

abundant and only a single specimen is known - from the sediments of the

Narmada Valley in central India . In the early 1980s, a fossil hominid

calvarium was recovered at Hathnora in a secondary basal gravel and is

currently thought to be of Middle Pleistocene age (Sonakia and Biswas,

1998). It was originally classified as that of advanced Homo erectus (de

Lumley and Sonakia, 1985), and later attributed an archaic or early form

of H. sapiens (Kennedy and Chiment, 1991). Additional phylogenetic re-

evaluation of the cranium reveals that it shares many key features

with H . heidelbergensis (Cameron et al . 2004). The calvarium has been

later supplemented by the discovery of possible clavicles and a rib

fragment from the same deposit and general location (Sankhyan, 1997;

2005).

To re-emphasize, the geographical significance of India regarding its

hominin behavioral record is multi-fold. Some of these unique attributes

are: a) it represents the eastern-most concentration of Acheulian (Mode 2)

technology in the Old World; b) it lies between East Africa/Eurasia and

Southeast Asia, the oldest known sources of Homo erectus fossils; and c)

the Middle and Upper Paleolithic assemblages exhibit potentially-

indigenous trajectories of technological evolution from the Late Acheulian

industries of the region.

A brief history of paleolithic research in India

During his academic reign (1930s to 1980s) over Indian prehistory, H. D.

Sankalia and his colleagues and students placed great emphasis on

correlating palaeoenvironmental parameters and corresponding

technological and behavioral adaptations of early hominids in the

subcontinent (Paddayya, 1994). Each area under investigation was

specifically selected on the basis of its geological nature and

archaeological potential. It is important to note that many of the paleolithic

studies in the subcontinent were also augmented by ethnoarchaeological

studies. South Asia is one of the unique regions that offer the opportunity

~ 24 ~

to study many tribal communities, whose patterns of artifact production

and land use are partly applicable to the paleolithic archaeological record.

Owing to its large size and extensive Quaternary sediments, India has

yielded the highest amount of Paleolithic evidence from South Asia .

Transitional cultural sequences from the Lower Palaeolithic to the

Mesolithic have been variably recovered from western Rajasthan, Belan

and Son valleys and the Bhimbetka rock-shelters in Madhya Pradesh, and

the Reningunta area in Andhra Pradesh (Misra, 2001). The majority of

evidence in Sri Lanka belongs to the Upper Palaeolithic and some Middle

Palaeolithic lithic assemblages have been reported (Deraniyagala, 1992),

thus signifying a relatively late colonization of that region from

southernmost peninsular India, when perhaps the sea-levels were

significantly lower.

The Three Phases of Development

The development of Quaternary and Paleolithic research in India can be

divided into three phases: 1) from 1863 to 1964, 2) from 1964 to the early

1980s (Korisetter and Rajaguru, 1998), and 3) from the 1980s to the

present day[1]

. During the first phase, inferences relating to palaeoclimates

and palaeoenvironments depended on the characteristics of lithological

units (such as coarse-grained and fine-grained clastic sediments) and the

associated faunal material. Methodology and interpretative frameworks

that were prominent in Europe were applied to the Indian context (most

especially the glacial climatic sequence). Due to this massive influx of

European influence between 1940 and 1960, many regional surveys were

conducted to eradicate theoretical gaps, which included Pleistocene

chronology and cultural successions. The 1960s formed a decade of

important methodological and theoretical applications in the earth sciences

and archaeology, all over the world. These new standpoints called for a

reassessment of the old schemes and the use of new scientific methods.

Numerous geographic zones of study were introduced and they included

littoral, aeolin, lacustrine, and off-shore environments (Korisetter and

Rajaguru, 1998). Therefore, since 1970, Quaternary research in India has

continued to produce exceptional data that will eventually allow

prehistorians to correlate it with the known global climatic and

archaeological frameworks.

The First Phase (1863-1964)

The first discovery (in 1863) of Lower Paleolithic artifacts was made at

Pallavaram near Madras (now Chennai) by Robert Bruce Foote (Pappu,

2001). He was probably the first investigator to attempt establishing their

ages as well as reconstructing contemporary climatic conditions, and also

the first to apply a geoarchaeological perspective with an emphasis on site-

formation. Although some prehistoric research was carried out following

~ 25 ~

Foote's efforts, similar attempts to reconstruct palaeoenvironments were

not made until the 1920s and 1930s.

Cammiade and Burkitt (1930) followed up on Foote's work along the

southeast coast of India and discovered a large amount of Paleolithic sites

from various localities. Utilizing the encountered material and its

geological contexts, they observed geological gaps in Foote's fourfold

framework (borrowed from the Alpine sequence of Europe), and also

provided a climatic background to the evolution of Stone Age cultures,

resulting in an alternating succession of wet and dry periods (Korisetter

and Rajaguru, 1998). More importantly, they also made a clear-cut

comparison of the tool industries with the African material, and concluded

that all industries of southeast India have exact counterparts in Africa ,

particularly in South Africa . This observation is now known to be partly

inaccurate, in that many prehistoric assemblages in the subcontinent also

exhibit distinct technological and typological features.

In addition, Krishnaswami (1938) conducted detailed stratigraphical

surveys at Vadamadurai, Attirampakkam, and Manjankaranai in the

Kortallayar Valley . The decade of the 1930's was also a time for the Yale-

Cambridge expedition, launched by de Terra and Paterson (1939). Their

primary goal was to seek evidence of Pleistocene glaciation phases in the

Sub Himalayan region and to highlight its impact on early human cultures,

both in concordance with the European model. Following their fieldwork

in the Kashmir Valley ( Jhelum ), on the Potwar plateau ( Soan Valley ), in

the central Narmada Valley (between the towns of Hoshangabad and

Narsinghpur), and around Madras , they arrived at a fourfould glacial-

interglacial model first established by Penck and Brückner in 1909

(Korisetter and Rajaguru, 1998). The basis for this model came from their

observations of the terraces in the Soan Valley (now in Pakistan ) and the

Jhelum in Kashmir ( India ). This glacial-interglacial model became a

standard for subsequent prehistoric and Pleistocene research in India and

prevailed for four decades, until revised by various American, British, and

Pakistani workers.

On the west coast of India , K.R.U. Todd initiated prehistoric as well as

Pleistocene research (primarily expanding on the east coast model) and

described the cultural stratigraphy and climatic succession on the basis of a

depositional sequence in the Bombay (now Mumbai) region (Sankalia,

1974). During the 1950s, both Zeuner and Wainwright showed that

evidence for more than four cycles of wet and dry phases existed, at least

in the peninsular riverine environments. During this time, the notion was

adopted of the pluvial phase being a period of heavy rainfall in tropical

areas, compatible with cool and dry conditions of the temperate zone.

Zeuner's fieldwork in the late 1940s and 1950s resulted in the publication

~ 26 ~

of Stone Age and Pleistocene Chronology of Gujarat (1950).

Other regional studies on the Pleistocene climatic and cultural succession

in India followed and included the work of Bose and Sen in Mayurbhanj;

Krishnaswami and Soundara Rajan in the Singrauli Basin, Uttar Pradesh;

Soundara Rajan in the Gundlakama Valley, Andhra Pradesh; Subbarao in

the Mahi, Orsang, and Karjan Valleys, central Gujarat; Joshi in the

Malaprabha Valley, Karnataka; Sankalia in the Godavari and Pravara River

valleys in the upland Deccan, Maharashtra; and Mohapatra in the

Brahmani Valley, Orissa (see Korisetter and Rajaguru, 1998). An

interesting point to be noted is the emphasis placed (at that time) on river

valleys and basins for the investigation of paleolithic sites. Later efforts

were directed at sites between river valleys or away from river valleys

(Sankalia, 1969) and expanded the potential of these sites in peninsular

India . Nevertheless, specific regional interpretations of the evidence

gained valuable ground and inter-regional correlations were also produced.

Such terms

as Soanian , Madrasian , Mahadevian , Abbevillian ,Clactonian , Chellian ,

and Acheulian were applied to non-systematic collections of paleolithic

artifacts from riverine sections, without considering their typo-

technological and chronological implications.

The Second Phase (from 1964 to the early 1980s)

Although regional studies continued in the 1960s, interdisciplinary

approaches were beginning to be valued and began to be utilized

extensively by various workers. As a result, Sankalia (1963)

produced Prehistory and Protohistory in India and Pakistan , where he

covered the regional alluvial and cultural sequences from all investigated

regions of India and correlated them with appropriate wet and dry climatic

cycles. In 1974, he updated it by including new data produced during the

intervening decade (Korisetter and Rajaguru, 1998). The plate tectonic

concept played a major role and resulted in oceanographic expeditions and

palaeomagnetic anomaly studies of rocks and sediments. Deep-sea oxygen

isotope stratigraphy and the continental loess-palaeosol stratigraphy have

been increasingly utilized for Quaternary correlation in South Asia .

The Third Phase (from the early 1980s to the present day)

In recent decades, a third phase can be formally recognized, and is strongly

marked by a) absolute-dating efforts, b) international multidisciplinary

collaborations, and c) an implementation of genetic studies on modern

populations. Over the last two to three decades, a greater emphasis has

been placed on laboratory procedures and radiometric dating of Quaternary

sediments. The multidisciplinary collaborative efforts between South Asian

and Western scholars are represented by the work of Sharma and Clark

~ 27 ~

(1983), Rendell et al . (1989), Petraglia and Korisettar (1998), Paddayya et

al . (2002), and Pappu et al . (2003) (among others)[2]

. The work by

Pappu et al . (2003) signifies the first comprehensive study of a single

multi-component Palaeolithic site, Attirampakkam, in India[3]

.

The most prominent and long-term work by Indian and foreign workers in

prehistoric archaeology, palaeoenvironmental studies, and geochronology

in association with the archaeological studies in various parts of India, has

been carried out extensively by faculty of Deccan College Postgraduate

and Research Institute (Pune), Department of Archaeology, Allahabad

University (Allahabad), M.S. University (Baroda), Physical Research

Laboratory (Ahmedabad), Cambridge University (Cambridge), University

of California (Berkeley), some of which is mentioned in slightly more

detail below. An example of one of the most important non-archaeological

projects is the multidisciplinary work of D.P. Agrawal and his team on the

environmental history of the Kashmir valley (e.g. Agrawal et al . 1989).

This work not only established a strong foundation for additional work but

also provides a palaeoenvironmental and palaeoclimatic background to

human dispersal into the subcontinent during the Lower Pleistocene.

Another classic example of integrating the archaeological evidence with

associated chronologic and palaeoenvironmental data is the work done by

Deccan College and others on hominin adaptations in the Thar Desert of

Rajasthan, northwest India (e.g. Raghavan et al . 1989; Misra, 1995;

Misra et al . 1982)

Finally, genetic studies (e.g. Bamshad et al ., 2001) and comparisons of the

prehistoric, linguistic, and biological evidence (Kumar and Reddy, 2003)

are also being undertaken, and can reveal valuable information concerning

the origin of the diverse South Asian population. Combined, these studies

have resulted in a better understanding of hominid adaptive strategies in

changing environments (over varying periods of time) at intra-regional

levels.

The Chronology of the Indian Lower and Middle Paleolithic

The Lower Paleolithic evidence in South Asia is essentially divided into

two facies or types of lithic assemblages: Mode 1 (Soanian and non- or

pre-Acheulian) and Mode 2 (Acheulian)[4]

industries (Gaillard and Mishra,

2001), both often occurring independently as well in shared geographical,

geomorphological, and stratigraphical contexts. However, most of the

Mode 1 evidence post-dates the evidence representing Mode 2

assemblages. An intriguing related query that has remained unresolved, is

the initial timing of the colonization of the Indian subcontinent.

Traditionally, archaeologists working in India have always relied on

relative dating methods (e.g., terrace sequences, biochronology, typology,

regional stratigraphy, etc.). In recent years, the application of absolute

~ 28 ~

dating methods have become increasingly useful for identifying the ages of

Lower Paleolithic sites and site clusters (Singhvi et al ., 1998), and has

contributed in extending the lower age limit for the earliest evidence to the

early Middle Pleistocene and possibly beyond (Table 1). Most of the

localities have been dated through the Thorium-Uranium method and

include a predominance of Acheulian sites (Mishra, 1992; Korisetter and

Rajaguru, 1998; Chauhan, 2004b).

The youngest reliable dates for the Acheulian occurs at two localities:

Umrethi ( Gujarat ), which was dated to >190 kyr, and in the Hunsgi

Valley (Karnataka), where the terminus of the Kaldevanhalli travertines

dates between 166 kyr and 174 kyr. Middle Pleistocene ages were obtained

from vertebrate fossils (teeth) in stratigraphic association with Acheulian

tools in the Hunsgi-Baichbal Valley , where they were dated to 287 to 290

kyr (at Teggihalli and Sadab) (Szabo et al ., 1990). At Teggihalli, Nevasa,

and Yedurwadi, the dates exceed 350 kyr from three different geographic

contexts, demonstrating that the Acheulian extends beyond the maximum

dating limit of the uranium series method (Pappu, 2001). Although

chronological sequences through stratigraphical profiles are rare

occurrences, the Didwana assemblage was an exception and the resultant

date was between a bracket of >150 and < 390 kyr through a 19m column

in a sand dune (Raghavan et al ., 1989; Mishra, 1995a).

Although this corpus of dated Acheulian sites in India indicates a late

Middle Pleistocene age for these assemblages, an earlier occupation is

suggested by recently examined sites. They include Dina and Jalalpur in

northern Pakistan , Moregaon and Bori in the Deccan region of western

India , and Attirampakkam and Hunsgi in southern India (Rendell and

Dennell, 1985; Gaillard and Mishra, 2001; Paddayya et al ., 2002), which

are among the better-studied sites. The first radiometric age was extracted

from the Bori tephra from the Kukdi Valley in the Deccan Plateau, and

yielding an average age of 1.38 myr by K/Ar method (Mishra et al ., 1995).

However, in due time, this age was rejected by several geologists, who

argued that it was probably correlated with the younger Toba ash eruption,

dated to c . 74 kyr from deep-sea cores and this was also supported through

ample geochemical sampling from various localities (Shane et al ., 1995;

Westgate et al ., 1998). Furthermore, three Ar/Ar dates were also recently

obtained, with two samples resulting in ages of 680 kyr and 660 kyr

(Mishra et al ., 1995). Most recently, preliminary ESR dates from the

Acheulian site at Isampur in Karnataka (Paddayya et al ., 2002)

compliment the dates proposed by investigators (Rendell et al ., 1987) for

an early hominid colonization of the Indian subcontinent. However, these

assemblages in the Potwar Plateau, dated to between ca. 2 and 1 myr by

Rendell et al . (1987; 1989), do not necessarily suggest a subsequent

dispersal southwards into peninsular India .

~ 29 ~

Biostratigraphic chronology and research has been conducted extensively

in India and shows clear evidence of constant taxonomic change

throughout the Plio-Pleistocene, although no index fossils have been

identified for subdividing the Pleistocene (Badam, 1979). Fluorine-

phosphate ratios on bone and fossils have been applied to numerous

archaeological circumstances, in an attempt to supplement stratigraphic

evidence and to distinguish between Middle and Late Pleistocene localities

(Kshirsagar, 1993). While there may be merit in supplementing

stratigraphic evidence through chemical ratios, the accuracy of these

measures is undetermined and thus unreliable, since little is known about

palaeoenvironments and depositional conditions, and further, few

correlations have been made with these absolute dates (Korisetter and

Rajaguru, 1998).

The Character and Distribution of the Acheulian (Mode 2) in South

Asia

India straddles the Movius Line (Schick, 1994) and marks the easternmost

domain of the Acheulian Industrial Complex, where it disappears abruptly

in the tropical evergreen forests of eastern India ( Clark , 1998). The Indian

peninsula south of the Kaveri river, some northeastern zones of the

subcontinent (e.g. Meghalaya , Assam , Manipur), and the Ganga Plains

have not yielded abundant Palaeolithic or Acheulian evidence.

Nonetheless, most of the Acheulian and non-Acheulian assemblages are

found throughout the rest of the Indian subcontinent in a variety of

ecological contexts, including montane regions, hill slopes, alluvial

settings, coastal plains, and in rockshelters (Misra, 1989). Well-studied

examples of the Acheulian come from the Thar desert (Misra, 1995), the

Son and Belan Valley assemblages (Sharma, 1973; Sharma and Clark,

1983; Clark and Williams, 1990), the Bhimbhetka area or Raisen District

of Madhya Pradesh near the Narmada Valley (Misra, 1985; Jacobson,

1985), Maharashtra (Corvinus, 1981), and southern India (Paddayya et al .,

2002; Pappu et al ., 2003)[5]

. The northernmost Mode 2 assemblages in

India are found in Kashmir , where Sankalia (1971) and Joshi et al . (1974)

discovered a handaxe, choppers, scrapers, and flakes from an interface

between a boulder conglomerate and overlying fine-grained sediments.

Lower Paleolithic tools have also been reported from the nearby region of

Ladakh (Sharma, 1995).

In the 1960s, Khatri (1966) argued for an indigenous origin for the South

Asian Acheulian from Oldowan tools at Mahadeo Piparia, Narmada Valley

in Central India . (He was later disproved by Supekar (1968) and criticized

by subsequent workers). A similar conclusion was also reached by Armand

(1985) from his work at the non-biface site of Durkadi, also in the

Narmada Basin . Wakankar (1973) also proposed that the Acheulian

horizon at an excavated Bhimbhetka rock-shelter was underlain by a

~ 30 ~

‘pebble-tool' horizon. However, additional excavations by Misra (1985) at

Shelter III F-23 did not support Wakankar's claims for a pre-Acheulian

industry. Today, it is a generally-accepted fact that the South Asian

Acheulian is a result of early migrations of Homo from Africa sometime in

the Lower Pleistocene (Petraglia, 2003). The Early Acheulian from the

Indian subcontinent appears to share a suite of technological attributes with

other similar assemblages from the Old World (McPherron, 2000).

Comparison of classic biface assemblages from India and East Africa

illustrate that they are both a result of specific ecological preferences and

represent unique modes of transport behaviors across a range of diverse

landscapes (Noll and Petraglia, 2003). Additional shared attributes include

a systematic production of certain tool-types and the application of various

reduction techniques.

However, while Acheulian assemblages of South Asia broadly resemble

those from Africa and Europe , there are differences in size, shapes, and

specialized forms (Pappu, 2001). The Acheulian (Mode 2) assemblages in

South Asia are generally divided into either Early or Late developmental

phases, depending on their typo-technological features and associated

metrical analyses (Pappu, 2001; 2002). While the term ‘Middle Acheulian'

has been occasionally applied to ‘transitional' assemblages (e.g., Jayaswal,

1978), the term is not as common today in the South Asian context. Early

Acheulian assemblages are generally “characterized by such core tools as

handaxes, choppers, polyhedrons, and spheroids, a low number of cleavers

and flake tools, the predominant use of the stone-hammer technique, and

the absence of the Levallois technique” (Misra, 1987: 117). Early

Acheulian bifaces in South Asia are often asymmetrical, large with thick

butts or mid-sections and possess large and bold flake scars (albeit

irregular), indicative of hard-hammer percussion (Chauhan, 2004b). In

contrast, Late Acheulian assemblages are represented “by the low

proportion of bifaces, the high ratio of cleavers to hand axes, the very high

ratio of flake tools like scrapers, the extensive use of the soft-hammer

technique, and the knowledge of the Levallois and discoid-core

techniques” (Misra, 1987:117). The Late Acheulian assemblages are

generally smaller, thinner, and more refined, with a significant increase in

the degree of retouching and controlled bifacial thinning/flaking.

Assemblages from Acheulian sites show differences in the proportions of

choppers, handaxes, and cleavers, probably depending on the ecology,

function, and raw material (Pappu, 2002)[6]

. Although only a small

percentage of important Lower Paleolithic sites have been studied in detail,

Mishra (1994) and Pappu (2001) observe that Late Acheulian sites are

found predominantly in surface contexts, whereas the known Early

Acheulian sites (albeit sparse) are usually in buried contexts.

While the large number of Late Acheulian sites in peninsular India reflects

an intensification of hominid activity during the Middle Pleistocene in

~ 31 ~

South Asia , the low profile of the Early Acheulian facies is noteworthy.

Currently, several sites are known to possess associated attributes, but until

recently, very few of these sites have been studied in detail and through

multidisciplinary approaches. In fact, most of the Mode 2 evidence is

represented by Late Acheulian sites, highlighted by a visible increase in

artifact density as well as overall distributional patterns throughout the

subcontinent.

The Character and Distribution of Mode 1 Evidence in South Asia

Since the beginning of paleolithic studies in the Indian subcontinent, most

research has focused on the easily-recognized Mode 2 assemblages. As a

result, an equally-robust understanding for the Mode 1 evidence is

currently lacking. Furthermore, the chronological framework for Mode 2

assemblages from South Asia does not necessarily imply a similar

framework for Mode 1 assemblages in the region, although considerable

temporal overlap is evident in all parts of the subcontinent (Jayaswal,

1978). A situation similar to that of Europe, where most Mode 1

assemblages (pre-Acheulian) are slightly older than the Mode 2

assemblages, may also exist for South Asia (Dennell, 2000-01). Although

Mode 1 assemblages of Lower Pleistocene age have been reported from

northern Pakistan , similar evidence has not yet been convincingly reported

from peninsular India . Most of the geological, geomorphological, and

archaeological evidence for Mode 1 assemblages in South Asia points to a

Middle to Upper Pleistocene age range. Furthermore, most of these Mode 1

assemblages appear to be contemporaneous to (but separate), younger than,

or a part of Mode 2 assemblages in the region. The latest review of these

Mode 1 assemblages in India was carried out by Jayaswal (1978; 1982). As

mentioned earlier, Mode 1 tool-types occur in independent contexts as well

as parts of Mode 2 assemblages[7]

. These assemblages are found in a

variety of geomorphological contexts and ecological settings throughout

the entire subcontinent and some reported examples include: de Terra and

Paterson (1939), Khatri (1966), Armand (1985), and Reddy et al . (1995)

(for a more detailed review, see Chauhan, 2004a). While some

assemblages represent Lower Pleistocene occupation (e.g. Dennell, 2004),

most of the evidence (particularly in peninsular India ) is restricted to

Middle and Upper Pleistocene contexts. De Terra and Paterson first

proposed the name ‘Soanian' for the paleolithic industry found in the Soan

valley in northern Pakistan , and reported evidence of techno-cultural

change for this evidence. However, recent studies on site-formation

(Chauhan, 2004a) shows that the techno-chronological divisions for the

Soanian are not valid.

It is important to note that Mode 1 assemblages in South Asia

have alwaysbeen reported to be made from rounded river-worn clasts

(usually quartzite), and angular or tabular raw material has never been

~ 32 ~

employed (unlike in the Oldowan where both types have been exploited).

This suggests that most Mode 1 assemblages are a result of environmental

adaptations by Pleistocene hominids in the region. This is supported by

recent studies that show the functional versatility of Mode 1 tool-types,

particularly choppers. The evidence from the Indian subcontinent

demonstrates that most Mode 1 assemblages are either contemporary with

or younger than Mode 2 assemblages. Considering the presence of

Oldowan-type assemblages in the Arabian Peninsula and Southeast Asia ,

the absence of the same in the Indian subcontinent is particularly

noteworthy. This may be due to one or more of the following reasons:

a. that the hominid groups that produced early Mode 1 assemblages in

the periphery regions (e.g., northern Pakistan, Tadjikistan, the

Arabian peninsula, Southeast Asia) did not disperse into peninsular

India (or did so, albeit much later) (e.g. Dennell, 2003);

b. that Mode 1 assemblages of Lower Pleistocene age have not been

properly recognized/identified to be as such (in peninsular India );

or

c. that Lower Pleistocene Mode 1 assemblages occur in a relatively

low profile in peninsular India and/or have not been well-preserved.

The Middle Paleolithic Evidence from South Asia

In South Asia , separating the Middle Paleolithic horizons from the Late

Acheulian ones has proved to be a major problem (Mishra, 1995a). The

emergence of Middle Paleolithic technology, marked by the prepared-core

orLevallois technique, signifies a dramatic change in hominid cognition

and subsistence strategies. Most Middle Paleolithic assemblages, in global

context, are produced on smaller clasts or nodules of raw material, rather

than extracting blanks from large blocks or clasts of raw material (as in the

Lower Paleolithic). One main feature is an increase in the intensity of tool-

use as well as formal tool-preparation (i.e. retouch, rejuvenation). This

transition in raw material exploitation and a corresponding decrease in

tool-size are generally regarded as parts of a distinct shift in human

behavioral patterns, marked by changes in land-use, technology,

demography, and mobility. In recent decades, some of these Middle Stone

Age features are viewed as representing the emergence of modern human

behavior (Stringer, 2002).

Despite detailed inter-regional metrical and typological comparisons

(Jayaswal, 1974; 1978), the timing and character of the South Asian

Middle Paleolithic phase remain poorly-understood in comparison with

similar evidence from Africa , Europe , and West Asia . Although a large

number of sites are now known (see Sankalia, 1974), the concept of the

Middle Paleolithic as an independent technological system was

acknowledged by Indian prehistorians only in the mide-1950's (Athreya,

~ 33 ~

1996; Dennell, 2000-01). Today it is considered to be an easily-

recognizable flake-based lithic tradition found throughout the Indian

subcontinent (Misra, 1989), and similar to those from other parts of the Old

World . Some well-studied stratified examples are Nevasa (Mishra, 1995b)

in Maharashtra , Samnapur (Misra et al ., 1990) in Madhya Pradesh, and

the evidence from the Kortallayar Basin (Pappu et al ., 2003) in Tamil

Nadu.

In comparison with the Lower Paleolithic types, the four features that

distinguish Middle Paleolithic assemblages are: i) a decrease in size of the

artifacts, ii) a noticeable shift from large Acheulian bifaces to more

smaller, specialized tools iii) an increase in the prepared-core technique,

and iv) a preference for fine-grained raw material (such as chert, jasper,

chalcedony, flint, crypto-crystalline silica, and so forth). Some of the new

types within Middle Paleolithic tool-kits are cores, discoids, flakes, flake-

scrapers, borers, awls, blades, and points. Although these features are

shared with other Middle Paleolithic assemblages in the Old World , the

South Asian evidence is typo-morphologically and technologically distinct.

In fact, this uniqueness once compelled workers to attribute a formal name

to some distinct assemblages from the type-site of Nevasa, Maharashtra :

the ‘Nevasian' industry (later found to be a part of the Late Acheulian

assemblages in the region) (Mishra, 1995b; also see Athreya, 1996).

Although this term has been abandoned, the presence of certain features

such as the Levallois technique and formal Middle Palaeolithic finished

tools, such as scrapers, points, and flake types found in Africa , Europe ,

and the Levant , is notable.

A consistent geological feature of Middle Paleolithic sites in South Asia is

that they are often found near sources of raw material, such as gravel or

conglomerate beds. The cultural horizons are found within sandy-pebbly

gravel horizons, generally overlying the basal boulder gravels comprising

Lower Paleolithic artifacts (Guzder, 1980). In fact, Korisettar and Rajaguru

(2002:332) have observed: “In general the Middle Palaeolithic sites are

rarely buried with Quaternary sequences in the peninsular region; this

possible indicates the dominantly erosive mode of the streams in the

Deccan . They are common on the surface with rubble and fan gravels and

generally lie away from the streams but close to quarries or sources of raw

material.” However, certain Middle Palaeolithic assemblages have also

been recovered from within sandy gravels overlying silts, which often cap

cobbly-pebbley horizons, such as at Samnapur in the Narmada Basin

(Misra et al . 1990). While most assemblages are made on fine-grained raw

material, in some regions such as Rajasthan, parts of Andhra Pradesh, parts

of coastal Maharashtra , and the Narmada Valley , quartzite continues to be

used. Since c hoppers and diminutive handaxes are often found in certain

Middle Paleolithic contexts (Guzder, 1980; Tewari et al ., 2002; Corvinus,

2002), it may be suitable to divide Middle Paleolithic assemblages into two

~ 34 ~

separate groups: light-duty assemblages and heavy-duty assemblages. The

factors for such variation in assemblage composition may include function,

raw material variability, ecology, culture, style, and/or natural post-

depositional formation processes.

From radiocarbon dating efforts on shell, wood, etc. from different sites in

peninsular India over two decades ago, revealed that the Indian Middle

Paleolithic is younger than 100 kyr (Guzder, 1980). Later work has

revealed that this technological phase may extend back to at least 140 kyr

(Korisettar and Rajaguru, 2002) or to be 150 - 250 kyr old (see Dennell,

2000-01). Other localities in the subcontinent have been bracketed to be

between 125 and ?40 kyr old (see Mishra, 1995a), although some dates

may be too young (see Kusumgar and Yadava, 2002). Recent efforts were

made by Tewari et al ., (2002) in the Ganga Plains at the site of Kalpi,

which yielded vertebrate fossil remains as well as core-tools such as

choppers, which are uniquely small in relative size. Using TL methods, the

investigators estimated this site to be about 45 kyr in age. However, an

early Upper Paleolithic assemblage from Site 55 in northern Pakistan was

also dated to 45 kyr (Rendell and Dennell, 1987). These convergent ages

for vastly different assemblage compositions pose a problem in

understanding regional techno-functional development during the Upper

Pleistocene in the Indian subcontinent. Interestingly, choppers apparently

form a prominent feature in a flake-blade industry from the Singhbhum

region of Bihar (Ghosh, 1970), thus perhaps validating the congruency of

the dates from Kalpi and Site 55.

Current problems in Indian paleoanthropology and potential solutions

Despite the abundance of cultural evidence (described above), numerous

important issues and problems currently need to be addressed. To begin

with, a large amount of sites have been reported but has not been compiled

with related paleoenvironmental data – information usually obtained

independently by geologists and paleontologists. However, much of the

past work (in the last century) has focused on the archaeological record

(stone tools) in secondary context and little work has been done to compare

and correlate information (in primary context) at an inter-regional level.

Virtually no information exists regarding hominid subsistence, as known

from other well-preserved localities in the Old World (e.g. Olduvai Gorge

in East Africa ). Comprehensive and multidisciplinary approaches have

been applied only in the last two decades and at very few paleolithic sites

in India . Therefore, there is a significant paucity in paleoecological and

associated faunal data from the Indian subcontinent from the Middle

Pleistocene, a major time of hominin activity throughout the Old World .

As a result, very little is currently known regarding the ecological

~ 35 ~

relationships of Pleistocene hominins and their associated adaptive

strategies in this part of the Old World . It is not clear which factors were

responsible for episodes of technological change and exactly when these

behavioral transitions took place. Therefore, it is also unknown whether

these changes represent technological influences of incoming populations

(dispersal of Homo sapiens from Africa ) or represent indigenous bio-

cultural continuities (independent of external influence). In other

words: What are the factors for the poor resolution of Middle Paleolithic

sites in comparison with the Acheulian evidence?

A. The lack of a sound chronological framework : Although a large

amount of this type of data has been generated from Africa , the Levant ,

Europe , and East Asia , similar levels of high-resolution data and

interpretations are currently lacking from South Asia . Indeed, the

paleoanthropological significance of South Asia has not been appreciated

or acknowledged by most Indian departments and archaeologists, a fact

indirectly reflected by the lack of a prominent prehistoric exhibit in the

National Museum . Furthermore, while numerous paleolithic sites have

been dated through absolute geochronological techniques (such as Th/U,

ESR, and TL methods), a systematic chronological control on many

significant assemblages is still lacking (e.g. Soanian). In the past, sites have

often been excavated without the employment of a robust dating agenda.

At other times, suitable material has not been easily available or well-

preserved. While we are aware of complex spatial patterns of lithic scatters

and the techniques used to produce them, we know very little about when

crucial cognitive horizons were reached and when associated technological

transitions took place. Without an established chronological framework, it

is difficult or almost impossible to correlate data at an inter-regional level

or make comparisons with similar sets of evidence from other parts of the

Old World .

B. The lack of hominin fossils older than the Upper Pleistocene: One of

the most significant deficiencies in South Asian paleoanthropology is the

virtual lack of hominin fossils older than the Upper Pleistocene. Excepting

the Mid-Pleistocene hominin fossils from the Narmada Valley (mentioned

earlier), no additional material has been forthcoming from the

subcontinent. Despite the presence of numerous intact cave deposits and

the high preservation rates of fossil vertebrates in the major river valleys of

the region, hominin fossils have evaded archaeologists, geologists, and

physical anthropologists. This insufficiency appears to be related to a

number of possible factors:

1. Geological factors such as low rates of preservation and high rates

of erosion.

2. The fossils are exposed or preserved in very rare contexts and have

not been recovered as of yet.

~ 36 ~

3. The fossils, especially fragmentary or weathered specimens, have

not been recognized as being hominin by non-specialists, since

most investigators in the field are archaeologists, prehistorians, and

geologists, and NOT trained physical anthropologists.

The Narmada Basin and other river valleys with similarly-extensive

floodplain and paleosol deposits hold great potential for additional fossil

material, and should be explored more systematically by qualified

specialists (i.e. well-trained physical anthropologists). In addition to such

fluvial contexts, additional locations for fossil material include fine-grained

sediments away from river valleys as well as fossiliferous sediments in the

Siwalik region of northern India and cave deposits in various parts of the

subcontinent.

C. Current issues in South Asian paleoanthropology: a) The lack of

Lower Pleistocene behavioral evidence in peninsular India : There is also

insufficient evidence of hominin occupation of peninsular India , prior to

the Matuyama/Brunhes magnetic polarity transition. Despite recent reports

of early Acheulian evidence from various parts of India (Chauhan, 2004b),

such old age estimates have not been found consistently and in high

frequency. If such early dates are valid, the associated evidence signifies

Lower Pleistocene occupation of peninsular India , evidence for which is

missing in other parts of India . Either hominids did not colonize most

parts of India until after the Lower Pleistocene or the evidence is rare and

very difficult to identify in well-stratified contexts. A part of the problem

may lie in the fact that late Pliocene-Lower Pleistocene aged sediments are

extremely rare south of the Siwalik hills or peninsular India . Therefore,

much of the evidence, if it did exist, may be either deeply buried under

Quaternary alluvium or geologically transposed from tectonic and

erosional processes. b) The Acheulian-Soanian dichotomy :Despite several

attempts at interpreting the Acheulian-Soanian relationship(s) (Mohapatra,

1990), this techno-morphological dichotomy is still not well-understood

(Chauhan, 2003). The lack of absolute dates for prehistoric sites (both

Acheulian and Soanian) in the Siwalik region of northern India has

contributed to this gap of knowledge in South Asian prehistory. c) Nature

and timing of technological transitions: Very little is known about the

technological transitions in the lithic industries (e.g. from Lower to Middle

Paleolithic, Middle to Upper Paleolithic, etc). It is not clear exactly which

(ecological) factors were responsible for changes in technology and when

these changes took place.Were technological transitions contemporary

throughout the subcontinent or was there independent regional

progression of certain assemblages ? The three examples described above

are not exhaustive and numerous other aspects have yet to be addressed at

both inter- and intra-regional perspectives (e.g. ecology, technology,

chronology, geographical density, regional style, limited symbolic

~ 37 ~

behavior, cultural affinities and continuities).

D. The lack of a consistent typological framework for stone tool

assemblages: An additional challenging issue is a coherent typological

framework for the regional and chronological diversity of stone tools. This

on-going problem is not only restricted to the Soanian tradition and most

lithic assemblages in South Asia , but transcends to Old World prehistory

in general. Typology and classification of any type of artifact (not just

lithic) is the foundation needed to hypothesize about behavioral change,

environmental adaptation, and technological advancement within a given

period of time. In the past, most of the descriptive terminology for lithics

has often been borrowed from other Old World localities without regard to

differences in space, time, culture, raw material, and technique. Although

attempts at establishing classificatory schemes and inter-regional

technological relationships have been made (e.g. for the Soanian), none of

these schemes is standardized and each fails to accommodate new tool-

types. Moreover, some of the interpretations concerning hominin tool use

may be a result of selective, biased, or non-systematic surface collections

rather than from comprehensive collections or systematic random

sampling. With exception of a few studies, literature on Indian prehistoric

studies rarely include discussions on sampling strategies and early attempts

at systematic sampling were made in the 1970s (Joglekar, 2002). In fact,

the non-systematic collection of lithic artifacts from secondary surface

contexts is a meaningless endeavor and results in the destruction of

important sites. Excepting the work of some archaeologists, basic concepts

such as the processing sequence of cores or the technological differences in

finished-tool morphology, have also been generally neglected. Cammidae

and Burkitt (1930) were the first workers to assign Indian lithic

assemblages to different technological ‘ Series ', without emphasizing

cultural terms. However, this trend and a similar concept of ‘Modes ' (

Clark , 1977) were adopted by South Asian prehistorians only recently.

Researchers in South Asia have traditionally ‘borrowed' broad

technological terms from evidence in other regions, and have hesitated to

go beyond the uses of such terms as Lower Paleolithic , Middle

Paleolithic ,Upper Paleolithic , Early Acheulian , Late

Acheulian , Soanian , and so on. While some cultural terms have been

adopted to demarcate regional differences in lithic assemblages

(e.g. Soanian , Mahadevian, Nevasian , andMadrasian , they are either

typologically inadequate or are found to be completely inapplicable.

Moreover, such broad terms are relatively vague and fail to elucidate

technological adaptations and cognitive capabilities. The use of basic

functional terms to describe typologically diverse artifacts is also

inadequate and ambiguous. Rather, such broad terms

as core , chopper ,chopping-tool , scraper , and numerous flake types

(among others) need to be revised from a morphological perspective to

reveal and understand the diversity of sub-types within these groups. Most

~ 38 ~

of the workers in India relied heavily on the initial interpretations made in

the 1930s by de Terra and Paterson, ultimately resulting in oversimplified

and confusing cultural interpretations (see Misra and Mate, 1995).

However, the Soanian “terraces” observed by de Terra and Paterson were

later proven to be erosional features, rather than true river terraces

(Rendell et al ., 1989; Dennell and Rendell, 1991). Nevertheless,

investigators over the decades have not hesitated in establishing relative

inter-regional chronologies, technological sequences, and cultural

dichotomies.

E. Problems at the professional level: It should be noted that some, if not

all, of the problems discussed above are directly related to problems at a

professional level. In other words, such factors as i) the lack of interest in

paleoanthropology - this is partly due to the fact that the archaeological

records for the protohistoric and historic periods are quantitatively richer

and more dynamic, ii) the lack of a suitable infrastructure for prehistoric

research; and iii) the lack of adequate funding and funding

bodies specifically for paleoanthropological research, are clearly

responsible. Currently, internal funding for most archaeological research is

provided by the Archaeological Survey of India, Indian Council of

Historical Research, and the Department of Science and Technology, in

addition to university departments and research institutes. However, most

excavation and interpretative methods have not changed (with some

exceptions) in the last several decades, and new methods and techniques

have not been adopted or introduced. Such concepts as site-formation

studies (e.g. Paddayya, 1987), multidisciplinary excavations, experimental

or actualistic studies, and the use of advanced software and technology (all

considered standard approaches by Western scientists) have yet to be

adopted consistently. Most work still involves the exploration for and

reporting of surface sites, general typological descriptions, and the lack of

specific goal-oriented research projects. For example, from an analysis of

published data, Joglekar (2002:418) concludes: “Even after 1991,

prehistoric research reporting is descriptive and confined to the limits of

typological and nominal scale of measurement.” Surface collections are

often made un-systematically and key features such as associated

topography, geology, and paleontology go virtually unmentioned or are

understudied. Longitudinal and comprehensive investigations in one region

or at single-site contexts have rarely been undertaken. The lack of interest

in paleoanthropology is also directly reflected by the amount and quality of

prehistoric excavations and publications in the subcontinent. Most Indian

researchers have hardly applied to foreign granting agencies (although they

are clearly eligible) such as The Leakey Foundation, The Wenner-Gren

Foundation, Earthwatch, and The National Geographic Society, probably

due to the cumbersome administrative/bureaucratic procedures and also

because the government generally does not encourage it. Nonetheless,

several departments and institutes have been actively engaged in

~ 39 ~

palaeoanthropological research at varying levels, the results of which have

been published in Indian as well as international peer-reviewed journals.

As a result, Western scientists are becoming more aware of the importance

of the South Asian human record, which until now had been largely

ignored in general human evolutionary syntheses. It would be fair to state

that the lack on interest in paleoanthropology is also partly related to the

lack of job opportunities.

In spite of the large number of paleolithic sites in South Asia , definitive

colonization and settlement patterns during the Early and Middle

Pleistocene are not clear and very few Lower Paleolithic sites have been

excavated in South Asia (Chattopadhyaya et al ., 2002; Pappu, 2002).

However, recent research efforts by numerous investigators have resulted

in a better understanding of ecological adaptations, technological

innovations, and associated broad temporal frameworks. Despite the

paucity of older hominid fossils, the Indian record (along with evidence

from neighboring regions) has significant implications for interpretations

of the Multi-regional vs. Out-of-Africamodels concerning the origins of

modern humans. While the general archaeological evidence reflects the

broad evolutionary trends known from other Old World regions, Indian

assemblages show considerable evidence of indigenous development of

stone-tool techniques, function, and patterns of land-use. It is relatively

clear that the Early Acheulian of South Asia most certainly goes beyond

the Brunhes-Matayuma boundary and represents the earliest evidence for

bifacial technologies in this region of the Old World . Although reports on

Lower Pleistocene archaeological occurrences have been made (Dennell,

2004), such discoveries are in need of more frequent and consistent

supporting evidence – particularly from peninsular India. In that respect,

there is ample scope for future multidisciplinary research in Indian

paleoanthropology.

A large amount of paleoanthropological data has been reported over the

last century and numerous sites are known from throughout South Asia .

Considering the availability of modern techniques, shifting research trends,

and the growing importance of the South Asian record (Petraglia, 1998;

2001), the next step should involve comprehensive analyses of this data

through the implementation of levels of action plans (Figure 2). For

example, rather than simply reporting new localities, future investigations

should focus on re-investigating the known sites through meticulous and

long-term excavations, involving various specialists in different

disciplines. Paleolithic sites need to be studied within their

paleoenvironmental context and respective sources of diverse behavioral

evidence need to be compared with each other (e.g. sites in lacustrine

context, tectonic/erosional context, semi-arid context, coastal context, and

floodplain context, for example). A long-term dating agenda should be

carried out to ascertain the circumstances in which crucial behavioral

~ 40 ~

characteristics developed and/or evolved. This should be done by

integrating biostratigraphy, geochronology, emphasis on both marine and

terrestrial records, and inter-regional stratigraphical correlations.

Composite stratigraphic section should be generated in relation to local

geology, fossils, lithic artifacts, and the configuration of sediment

exposures. This will reveal important behavioral changes with respect to

key environmental events including climatic change, faunal/floral

turnovers, and localized landscape transformations

The archaeological research should be supplemented with the creation of

online and interactive databases, containing individual stratigraphic

sections (electronically) linked with stratigraphically-associated

information on vertebrate fossils, archaeological evidence, patterns of

hominin behavior, and multiform paleoenvironmental records (e.g. stable

isotopes, sea-level oscillations, pollen records, regional climatic sequences,

tectonic phases, faunal composition, and related deep-sea proxies). Future

research should focus on the environmental factors that shaped hominin

behavior, rather than just the archaeological aspects of these localities. The

compilation of all known fauna and flora datasets and associated ecological

variables in South Asia can result in a crucial and comprehensive source or

reference for comparisons with other faunal assemblages in the Old World

– particularly regarding taxonomic diversity and faunal migrations from

Africa and East Asia . Such relationships can contribute significantly in

understanding whether Asian hominins followed ‘biogeographic routes'

and the degree of their dependence on certain large mammalian taxa for

subsistence purposes. Predictive modeling of behavioral and ecological

patterns can be a critical factor in recovering primary sites in otherwise

geologically disturbed regions. The use of Geographical Information

Systems (GIS) can benefit greatly in understanding and linking the cultural

and ecological changes that have taken place during the Quaternary in

India .

Archaeological field schools generally focus on protohistoric and historic

sites, and the discipline of prehistory is largely ignored or minimally

studied. A well-structured prehistoric field school should be a vital feature

at all academic levels, and should involve the introduction of basic

concepts in paleoanthropology, geology, and paleontology. An additional

avenue of focused research that can help answer paleoanthropological

questions is genetic studies on Indian populations, of which the results are

extremely interesting and valuable. Some important steps include (but are

not limited to): i) establishing a source of funding for prehistoric studies;

ii) gaining knowledge/experience of modern excavation and analytical

techniques; iii) the chronometric dating of key paleolithic sites; iv) a

focused search for hominin fossils in appropriate sediments; v)

multidisciplinary collaborative efforts; and vi) the establishment of

comprehensive electronic databases. This can only be done through the

~ 41 ~

collaboration and cooperation of students, scientists, academic institutions,

government organizations, and private organizations (Figure 3). In fact,

focused collaborations between the Archaeological Survey of India, the

Anthropological Survey of India, and the Geological of India is

recommended to address the larger issues (geological, chronological, and

cultural) in Indian paleoanthropology. These institutions should also focus

on and encourage international scientific collaboration between Indian and

Western scientists and also enhance scientific access to

paleoanthropological and related Quaternary data from India to the

Western academic community through publication of research results in

international journals, reference monographs, and international

conferences.

Ultimately, the results from such endeavors should enable the rigorous

testing of the environmental hypotheses regarding human evolution (Potts,

1998) and explore the possibilities of ecologically-isolated behavior and

independent technological innovations. This will serve as a step in

revealing the eco-geographical role that South Asia played in the origins of

modern human behavior in Asia . Some answers to these questions are

embedded in the rich and diverse faunal record of the subcontinent, as well

as in the paleobotanical and sedimentary records. Since climatic

oscillations became more intense (globally) following the

Brunhes/Matuyama boundary, direct evidence of this should be visible in

the Middle and Upper Pleistocene sediments of the subcontinent.

Considering the significant role that South Asia has to play in Old World

prehistory, paleoanthropological studies in India need to be pursued at

greater levels of academic and non-academic participation, thus

establishing its contribution in the evolution of modern human behavior in

Asia . In light of globally changing research paradigms in human

evolutionary studies, the time has come to bring South Asian

paleoanthropology to an international platform.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank A.R. Sankhyan and the Anthropological Survey of

India for inviting me to present this paper at the Human Origins conference

in New Delhi . I am grateful to V.N. Misra and an anonymous reviewer for

their extremely helpful and critical comments on an earlier draft of this

manuscript.

Bibliography

Agrawal, D.P., Dodia, R., Kotlia, B.S., Razdan, H., and A. Sahni. 1989.

The Plio-Pleistocene Geologic and Climatic Record of the Kashmir Valley

, India : A Review and New Data. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,

~ 42 ~

and Palaeoecology 73: 267-286.

Allchin, F.R. & Chakrabarti, D.K. (Eds.) 1978. A Source-book of Indian

Archaeology . Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal Publihers Pvt. Ltd.

Armand, J. 1985. “The emergence of the handaxe tradition in Asia , with

special reference to India .” In (V.N. Misra & P. Bellwood, Eds.) Recent

Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory . New Delhi : Oxford & IBH

Publishing Co., pp. 3-8.

Athreya, S. 1996. Paleolithic Archaeology in India : Past Research and

Present Day Problems . Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Philadelphia :

University of Pennsylvania .

Badam, G.L. 1979. Pleistocene Fauna of India . Pune: Deccan College

Postgraduate and Research Institute.

Bamshad, M., Kivisild, T., Watkins, W.S., Dixon, M., Ricker, C.E., Rao,

B.B., Naidu, J.M., Prasad, B.V.R., Reddy, P.G., Rasanayagam, A., Papiha,

S.S., Villems, R., Redd, A.J., Hammer, M.F., Nguyen, S.V., Carroll, M.L.,

Batzer, M.A., & Jorde, L.B. 2001. “Genetic evidence on the origins of

Indian caste populations.” Genome Research 11, 994-1004.

Baskaran, M., Marathe, A.R., Rajaguru, S.N., & Somayajulu, B.L.K. 1986.

“Geochronology of palaeolithic cultures in the Hiran Valley , Saurashtra ,

India ”. Journal of Archaeological Science 13, 505-514.

Bhattacharya, D.K. 1993. “Is prehistory dead in India ?” Journal of the

Asiatic Society XXXV (3), 52-73.

Cammiade, L.A. & Burkitt, M.C. 1930. “Fresh light on the Stone Age of

Eastern India.” Antiquity 4 (15), 327-339.

Cameron, D., Patnaik, R., and A. Sahni. 2004. “ The Phylogenetic

Significance of the

Middle Pleistocene Narmada Hominin”. Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14:

419-447.

Chakrabarti, D.K. 1988a. A History of Indian Archaeology - From the

Beginning to 1947 . New Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt.

Ltd.

Chakrabarti, D.K. 1988b. Theoretical Issues in Indian Archaeology . New

Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

~ 43 ~

Chattopadhyaya, I., Vikrama, B., & Vikrama, S. 2002. “A survey of

prehistoric investigations by the Archaeological Survey of India since

Independence .”Appendix . In ( S. Settar & R. Korisettar, Eds.) Indian

Archaeology in Retrospect: The Archaeology of Early India . Indian

Council of Historical Research. Delhi : Manohar Publishers, Appendix.

Chauhan, P.R. 1998. An Overview of Palaeolithic Research in South

AsiaFrom 1970 to 1998: Chronology, Lacunae, and Future Scope .

Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Pune: Deccan College Post-Graduate &

Research Institute.

Chauhan, P.R. 2003. “An Overview of the Siwalik Acheulian &

Reconsidering its Chronological Relationship with the Soanian – A

Theoretical Perspective.”Assemblage 7.

Chauhan, P.R. 2004a. Site-formation studies and palaeolithic

investigations in the Siwalik hills of northern India : Reconsidering the

Soanian Industry . Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of

Archaeology, University of Sheffield .

Chauhan, P.R. 2004b. “A review of the Early Acheulian evidence from

South Asia .” Assemblage 8.

Clark, G. 1977. World Prehistory in New Perspective . Cambridge :

Cambridge University Press.

Clark, J.D. 1994. “The Acheulian Industrial Complex in Africa and

elsewhere.” In (R.S. Corruccini & R.L. Ciochon, Eds.) Integrative Paths to

the Past- Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F. Clark Howell .

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey : Prentice Hall, pp. 451-469.

Clark, J.D. 1998 “The Early Palaeolithic of the eastern region of the Old

World in comparison to the West.” In (M. Petraglia & R. Korisettar,

Eds.) Early Human Behavior in Global Context: the Rise and Diversity of

the Lower Palaeolithic Record . New York : Routledge Press, pp. 437-450.

Clark, J.D. and M.A.J. Williams. 1990. “Prehistoric ecology, resource

strategies and culture change in the Son valley, northern Madhya Pradesh ,

Central India . Man and Environment XV (1): 120-33.

Corvinus, G. 1981. A Survey of the Pravara River in

Western Maharashtra ,India . Vol. 1. The Stratigraphy and

Geomorphology of the Pravara RiverSystem . Tubingen : Institut für

Urgeschichte.

Corvinus, G. 2002. “Arjun 3, a Middle Palaeolithic Site, in the Deokhuri

~ 44 ~

Valley , Western Nepal ”. Man and Environment XXVII (2), 31-44.

de Lumley, H. & Sonakia, A. 1985. “Contexte stratigraphique et

archaeologique de l'homme de la Narmada, Hathnora, Madhya Pradesh,

Inde.” L' Anthropologie 89 (1), 3-12.

Dennell, R.W. 2000-2001. “Palaeolithic studies in India since

Independence : from an outsider's point of view.” Bulletin of

the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 60-61, 175-187.

Dennell, R.W. 2003. “Dispersal and colonisation, long and short

chronologies: how continuous is the Early Pleistocene record for hominids

outside East Africa ?” Journal of Human Evolution 45, 421-440.

Dennell, R.W. 2004. Early Hominin Landscapes in Northern Pakistan :

Investigations in the Pabbi Hills . BAR International Series 1265.

Dennell, R.W. & Rendell, H.M. 1991. “De Terra and Paterson and the

Soan Flake Industry: A new perspective from the Soan Valley , Northern

Pakistan .”Man and Environment XVI (2), 90-99.

Deraniyagala, S.U. 1992. The Prehistory of Sri Lanka : An Ecological

Perspective . Volumes 1 & 2. Colombo : Department of the Archaeological

Survey, Government of Sri Lanka .

De Terra, H. & T.T. Paterson. 1939. Studies on the Ice Age in India and

Associated Human Cultures. Washington D.C. : Carnegie Institute

Publication 493.

Gabunia, L.K. & Vekua, A.K. 1995. “A Plio-Pleistocene hominid from

Dmanisi, East Georgia , Caucasus .” Nature 373, 509-512.

Gaillard, C. & Mishra, S. 2001. “The Lower Palaeolithic in South Asia ”.

In (under the direction of F. Sémah, C. Falgueres, D. Grimaud-Herve, and

A. Sémah) Origin of Settlements and Chronology of the Palaeolithic

Cultures in Southeast Asia . Colloque International de la FONDATION

SINGER POLIGNAC. Paris, June 3-5, 1998. Paris: Semenanjung, pp. 73-

91.

Ghosh, A. 2004. “Blueprints for the future: a tentative structure for the

theories of Professor D.K. Bhattacharya.” In V.K. Srivastava and M.K.

Singh (Eds.)Issues and Themes in Anthropology: A Feschrift in Honour of

Prof. D.K. Bhattacharya . Delhi : Palaka Prakashan: pp.249-292.

Ghosh, A.K. 1970. “The paleolithic cultures of

Singhbhum . ” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 60 (1),

~ 45 ~

1-68.

Gupta, A. 1995. “Fluvial Geomorphology and Indian Rivers .” In (S.

Wadia, R. Korisettar, & V.S. Kale, Eds.) Quaternary Environments and

Geoarchaeolgy ofIndia . Bangalore : Geological Society of India , pp. 52-

60.

Guzder, S. 1980. Quaternary Environment and Stone Age Cultures of the

Konkan (Coastal Maharashtra , India ) . Pune: Deccan College

Postgraduate and Research Institute.

Horn, P., Muller-Sohinus, D. Storzer, & L. Zoller. 1993. “K-Ar fission

track and thermoluminescence ages for Quaternary volcanic tuffs and their

bearing on Acheulian artefacts from Bori, Kukdi Valley , Pune District ,

India .” Zeitschrift der Deutshen Geologischen Gesellschaft 144, 326-9.

Jacobson, J. 1985 “Acheulian surface sites in Central India.” In (V.N.

Misra & P. Bellwood, Eds.) Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory .

New Delhi : Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., pp.49-57.

Jain, K.C. 1979. Prehistory and Protohistory of India . New Delhi : Agam

Kala Prakashan.

Jayaswal, 1974. “A techno-typological review of the Middle Palaeolithic

cultures of India .” Puratattva 7, 12-16.

Jayaswal, V. 1978. Palaeohistory of India - A Study of the Prepared Core

Technique . New Delhi : Agam Kala Prakashan.

Jayaswal, V. 1982. Chopper-Chopping Component of Palaeolithic India .

Delhi : Agam Kala Prakashan.

Joglekar, P.P. 2002. “Quantification in South Asian prehistoric studies: A

few observations.” In ( S. Settar & R. Korisettar, Eds.) Indian Archaeology

in Retrospect: The Archaeology of Early India . Indian Council of

Historical Research. Delhi : Manohar Publishers, pp. 407-432.

Joshi, R.V. 1985. “The characteristics of the Pleistocene climatic events in

India Sub-continent – A land of monsoon climate.” In (S.B. Deo & M.K.

Dhavalikar, Eds.) Studies in Indian Archaeology . Bombay : Popular

Prakashan, pp. 53-63.

Joshi, R.V., Rajaguru, S.N., Pappu, R.S., & Bopardikar, B.P. 1974.

“Quaternary glaciation and palaeolithic sites in the Liddar Valley (Jammu-

Kashmir).” World Archaeology 5 (3), 369-79.

~ 46 ~

Kennedy, K.A.R. 2000. God-Apes and Fossil Men - Paleoanthropology

ofSouth Asia . Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.

Kennedy, K.A.R. 2001. “Middle and Late Pleistocene Hominids of South

Asia ”. In Humanity from African Naissance to Coming Millennia : 167-

174. Firenze : University of Firenze .

Kennedy, K.A.R., & Chiment, J. 1991 “The fossil hominid from the

Narmada valley, India : Homo erectus or Homo sapiens ?” In (P.

Bellwood, Ed.) Indo-Pacific Prehistory . Canberra : Indo-Pacific

Prehistory Association, pp. 42-58.

Khatri, A.P. 1966. “Origin and evolution of hand-axe culture in the

Narmada Valley ( Central India ).” In (D. Sen & A.K. Ghosh, Eds.) Studies

in Prehistory (Robert Bruce Foote Memorial Volume) . Calcutta : Firma

K.L. Mukhopadhyay, pp. 96-121.

Korisettar, R. & Rajaguru, S.N. 1998 “Quaternary stratigraphy,

palaeoclimate and the Lower Palaeolithic of India.” In (M. Petraglia & R.

Korisettar, Eds.)Early Human Behavior in Global Context: the Rise and

Diversity of the Lower Palaeolithic Record . New York : Routledge Press,

pp. 304-342.

Korisettar, R. & Rajaguru, S.N. 2002. “The monsoon backround and the

evolution of prehistoric cultures of India .” In (K. Paddayya, Ed.) Recent

Studies in India Archaeology . New Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal

Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 316-348.

Krishnaswami, V.D. 1938. “Environmental and cultural changes of

prehistoric man near Madras .” Journal of Madras Geographic

Association 13, 58-90.

Kshirsagar, A. 1993. “The role of fluorine in the chronometric dating of

Indian Stone Age cultures.” Man and Environment XVIII (2), 23-32.

Kumar, V. & Reddy, B.M. 2003. “Status of Austro-Asiatic groups in the

peopling of India : An exploratory study based on the available prehistoric,

linguistic and biological evidences.” Journal of Bioscience 28 (4), 502-

522.

Kusumgar, S. & Yadava, M.G. 2002. “Physical dating methods in South

Asian archaeology: A brief review.” In (K. Paddayya, Ed.) Recent Studies

in IndiaArchaeology . New Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt.

Ltd., pp. 403-453.

Larick, R. & Ciochon, R.L. 1996. “ The African emergence and early

~ 47 ~

Asian dispersals of the genus Homo. ” American Scientist (The Magazine

of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society). November-December.

Leng, J. 1992. Early Paleolithic Technology in China and India . St. Louis

: Washington University .

McPherron, S.P. 2000. “ Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities

of early hominids”. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 655–663.

Mishra, S. 1992. “The age of the Acheulian in India : new

evidence.” Current Anthropology 33 (3), 325-328.

Mishra, S. 1994. “The South Asian Lower Palaeolithic .” Man and

EnvironmentXIX (1-2), 57-72.

Mishra, S. 1995a. “Chronology of the Indian Stone Age: the impact of

recent Absolute and relative dating attempts”. Man and Environment, XX

(2), 11-16.

Mishra, S. 1995b. “Prehistoric and Quaternary studies at Nevasa: the last

forty years.” In ( S. Wadia , R. Korisettar, & V.S. Kale, Eds.) Quaternary

Environments and Geoarchaeolgy of India . Bangalore : Geological

Society of India , pp. 324-332.

Mishra, S., Venkatesan, T.R., & B.L.K. Somayajulu. 1995. “Earliest

Acheulian industry from Peninsular India”. Current Anthropology 36 (5),

847-51.

Misra, V.N. 1985. “The Acheulian succession at Bhimbetka.” In (V.N.

Misra & P. Bellwood, Eds.) Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory .

Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., pp. 35-47.

Misra, V.N. 1987. “Middle Pleistocene adaptations in India . ” In (O.

Soffer, Ed.)The Pleistocene Old World- Regional Perspectives . New York

: Plenum Press, pp. 99-119.

Misra, V.N. 1989. “Stone Age India: An ecological perspective.” Man and

Environment XIV, 17-64.

Misra, V.N., Rajaguru, S.N., Ganjoo, R.K., & Korisettar, R. 1990.

“Geoarchaeology of the palaeolithic site at Samnapur in the central

Narmada Valley . ” Man and Environment XV (1), 107-116.

Misra, V.N. 1995. “Geoarchaeology of the Thar Desert , Northwest India .”

In ( S. Wadia , R. Korisettar, & V.S. Kale, Eds.) Quaternary Environments

and Geoarchaeolgy of India . Bangalore : Geological Society of India , pp.

~ 48 ~

210-230.

Misra, V.N. 2001. “Prehistoric human colonization of India ”. Journal of

Bioscience 26 (4), 491-531.

Misra, V.N. & Mate, M.S. (Eds.) 1995. Indian Prehistory: 1964 . Pune:

Deccan College Post-graduate and Research Institute.

Misra, V.N., Rajaguru, S.N., Raju, D.R., Raghavan, H. & Gaillard, C.

1982. Acheulian occupation and evolving landscape around Didwana in

the Thar Desert , India . Man and the Environment 6, 72-86.

Mohapatra, G.C. 1985. “Cultural ecology of early man in India .” In (S.B.

Deo and K. Paddayya) Recent Advances in India Archaeology

(Proceedings of the Seminar held in Poona in 1983 . Poona : Deccan

College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 23-38.

Mohapatra, G.C. 1990. “Soanian-Acheulian relationship.” Bulletin of

theDeccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 49, 251-259.

Movius, H.L. 1948. “The Lower Palaeolithic cultures of Southern and

Eastern Asia .” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 38 (4),

329-420.

Noll, M. & Petraglia, M.D. 2003. “Acheulean bifaces and early human

behavioral patterns in East Africa and South India .” In (M. Soressi &

Dibble, Eds.) Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies .

Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 31-53.

Paddayya, K. 1987. “The place of the study of site formation processes in

prehistoric research in India .” In (D.T. Nash & M.D. Petraglia,

Eds.) Natural Formation Processes and the Archaeological Record . BAR

International Series 352, pp. 74-85.

Paddayya, K. 1994. “Investigation of man-environment relationships in

Indian archaeology: Some theoretical considerations.” Man and

Environment, XIX (1-2), 1-28.

Paddayya, K., Blackwell, B.A.B., Jhaldiyal, R., Petraglia, M.D., Fevrier,

S., Chaderton II, D.A., Blickstein, J.I.B., & Skinner, A.R. 2002. “ Recent

findings on the Acheulian of the Hunsgi and Baichbal valleys, Karnataka,

with special reference to the Isampur excavation and its dating”. Current

Science 83 (5), 641–647.

Pappu, R.S. 1985. “The geomorphic setting of Acheulian sites in

peninsular India .” In (V.N. Misra & P. Bellwood, Eds.) Recent Advances

~ 49 ~

in Indo-Pacific Prehistory . Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., pp. 9-18.

Pappu, R.S. 2001. Acheulian Culture in Peninsular India . New Delhi :

D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd.

Pappu, R.S. 2002. “The Lower Palaeolithic culture of India .” In (K.

Paddayya, Ed.) Recent Studies in India Archaeology . New Delhi :

Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., pp. 17-59.

Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Taieb, M., Brugal, J.P., & Touchard, Y. 2003.

“Excavations at the Palaeolithic site of Attirampakkam, South India :

preliminary findings.” Current Anthropology 44 (4): 591-597.

Petraglia, M.D. 1998. “The Lower Palaeolithic of India and its bearing on

the Asian record.” In (M.D. Petraglia & R. Korisettar) Early Human

Behavior in Global Context: The Rise and Diversity of the Lower

Palaeolithic Record . New York : Routledge, pp. 343-390.

Petraglia, M.D. 2001. “The Lower Palaeolithic of India and its behavioural

significance.” In (L. Barham & K. Robson-Brown, Eds.) Human

Roots: Africaand Asia in the Middle Pleistocene . Bristol , England :

Western Academic & Specialist Press, Ltd., pp. 217-233.

Petraglia, M.D. 2003. “ The Lower Paleolithic of the Arabian Peninsula :

Occupations, adaptations, and dispersals.” Journal of World Prehistory 17

(2), 141-179.

Petraglia, M.D. & R. Korisettar (Eds.). 1998. Early Human Behavior in

Global Context: The Rise and Diversity of the Lower Palaeolithic Record .

New York : Routledge.

Potts, R. 1998. “Environmental hypotheses of hominin

evolution.” Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 41, 93-136.

Quade, J., Cerling, T.E., & Bowman, J.R. 1989. “Development of Asian

monsoon revealed by marked ecological shift during the latest Miocene in

northern Pakistan .” Nature 342, 163-166.

Raghavan, H., Rajaguru, S.N., & Misra, V.N. 1989. “Radiometric dating of

a Quaternary dune section, Didwana, Rajasthan.” Man and

Environment 13, 19 –22.

Reddy, K.T., Prakash, P.V., Rath, A., & Rao, Ch.U.B. 1995. “A Pebble

tool assemblage on the Visakhapatnam Coast .” Man and Environment XX

(1), 113-118.

~ 50 ~

Rendell, H. & Dennell, R.W. 1985. “Dated Lower Palaeolithic artefacts

from northern Pakistan .” Current Anthropology 26 (3), 293.

Rendell, H.M. & Dennell, R.W. 1987. “ Thermoluminescence dating of an

Upper Pleistocene site, Northern Pakistan .” Geoarchaeology 2 (1), 63-67.

Rendell, H.M., Dennell, R.W., & Halim, M.A. 1989. Pleistocene and

Palaeolithic Investigations in the Soan Valley , Northern Pakistan . British

Archaeological Mission to Pakistan Series 2. B.A.R. International Series

544. Oxford .

Rendell, H.M., Hailwood, E.A., & Dennell, R.W. 1987. “Magnetic polarity

stratigraphy of Upper Siwalik Sub-Group, Soan Valley , Pakistan :

implications for early human occupation of Asia . Earth and Planetary

Science Letters 85, 488-496.

Ruff, C.B., Trinkaus, E., & Holliday, T.W. 1997. “Body mass and

encephalization in Pleistocene Homo. ” Nature 387, 173-176.

Sali , S.A. 1990. Stone Age India . Aurangabad : Shankar Publishers.

Sankalia, H.D. 1963. Prehistory and Protohistory in India and Pakistan .

Bombay : Bombay University Press.

Sankalia, H.D. 1969. “Problems in Indian archaeology, and methods and

techniques adopted to tackle them.” World Archaeology 1, 29-40.

Sankalia, H.D. 1971. “New evidence for early man in Kashmir .” Current

Anthropology 12 (4-5), 558-562.

Sankalia, H.D. 1974. The Prehistory and Protohistory

of India and Pakistan . Pune: Deccan College and Postgraduate Research

Institute.

Sankhyan, A.R. 1997. “A new human fossil from the Central Narmada

Basin and its chronology.” Current Science 73 (12), 1110-1111.

Sankhyan, A.R. 2005. “New fossils of Early Stone Age man from Central

Narmada Valley .” Current Science 88 (5), 704-707.

Schick, K.D. 1994. “The Movius Line reconsidered - Perspectives on the

earlier Paleolithic of Eastern Asia.” In (R.S. Corruccini & R.L. Ciochon,

Eds.)Integrative Paths to the Past- Paleoanthropological Advances in

Honor of F. Clark Howell . Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey ,

pp. 569-596.

~ 51 ~

Shane, P., Westgate, J, Williams, M., & Korisettar, R. 1995. “New

geochemical evidence for the youngest Toba Tuff in India .” Quaternary

Research 44, 200-204.

Sharma, G.R. 1973. “Stone Age in the Vindhyans and the Ganga valley.”

In D.P. Agrawal and A. Ghosh (eds.) Radiocarbon and Indian

Archaeology , 106-110. Bombay : TFIR.

Sharma, G.R. & Clark, J.D. (Eds.) 1983. Palaeoenvironments and

Prehistory of the Middle Son Valley . Allahabad : Abinash Prakashan.

Sharma, K.K. 1995. “Quaternary stratigraphy and prehistory of the Upper

Indus Valley , Ladakh.” In ( S. Wadia , R. Korisettar, & V.S. Kale,

Eds.) Quaternary Environments and Geoarchaeology of India- Essays in

Honour of Professor S.N. Rajaguru . Bangalore : Geological Society of

India , pp. 98-108.

Siddhartha, K. 1999. India : The Physical Aspects. New Delhi : J.J.

Printers.

Singhvi, A.K., Wagner, G.A., & Korisettar, R. 1998. “Techniques for the

chronometry of the Palaeolithic: evidence for global colonization.” In

(M.D. Petraglia & R. Korisettar, Eds.) Early Human Behavior in Global

Context: The Rise and Diversity of the Lower Palaeolithic Record . New

York : Routledge, pp. 23-83.

Sonakia, A. & Biswas, S. 1998. “Antiquity of the Narmada Homo erectus ,

the early man of India .” Current Science 75 (4), 391-393.

Stringer, C. 2002. “Modern human origins: progress and

prospects.”Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

of London B357, 563-579.

Supekar, S.N. 1968. Pleistocene Stratigraphy and Prehistoric Archaeology

of the Central Narmada Basin . Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. The University

of Poona . Poona .

Swisher, C.C., Curtis, G.H., Jacob, T., Getty, A.G., Suprijo, A., &

Widiasmoro. 1994. "Age of the earliest known hominids in Java ,

Indonesia ." Science 266, 1118-1121.

Szabo, B.J., McKinney , C., Dalbey, T.S., & Paddayya, K. 1990. “On the

age of the Acheulian culture of the Hunsgi-Baichbal Valleys , Peninsular

India”.Bulletin of the Deccan College Postgraduate and Research

Institute 50, 317-321.

~ 52 ~

Tattersall, I. 1997. “Out Of Africa Again ... and Again.” Scientific

American 276 (4), 46-53.

Tewari, R., Pant, P.C., Singh, I.B., Sharma, S., Sharma, M., Srivastava, P.,

Singhvi, A.K., Mishra, P.K., & Tobschall, H.J. (2002). “Middle

Palaeolithic human activity and palaeoclimate at Kalpi in Yamuna Valley ,

Ganga Plain.”Man and Environment XXVII (2), 1-13.

Varma, R. 1997. “Prehistoric research in India : An assessment.” Man and

Environment XXII (1), 1-7.

Wakanker, V.S. 1973. “Bhim-betka Excavations.” Journal of Indian

History LI (1), 23-33.

Westgate, J.A., Shane, P., Pearce, N.J.G., Perkins, W.T., Korisettar, R.,

Chesner, C.S., Williams, M.A.J., & Acharyya, S.K. (1998). “All Toba

tephra occurrences across peninsular India belong to the 75 ka

eruption.” Quaternary Research50, 107-12.

White, T., Asfaw, B., DeGusta, D., Gilbert, H., Richards, G., Suwa, G., &

Howell, F.C. 2003. “Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash,

Ethiopia .” Nature423, 742-747.

Zeuner, F.E. 1950. The Stone Age and Pleistocene Chronology in Gujarat .

Poona : Deccan College .

Footnotes

[*] This paper was presented at the National Conference on Human

Origins, Genome, and Peoples of India , o rganized by The

Anthropological Survey of India on March 22-24, 2004 at the India

International Centre in New Delhi.

[1] Varma (1997) divides the research into three periods spanning over 160

years: 1) 1840-1939 (Pre-Sankalian Era), 2) 1940-1990 (Sankalian Era),

and 3) 1990 onwards (Post-Sankalian Era). Pappu (2002) divides the

research into four phases: 1) 1863-1912, 2) 1930-1950, 3) 1950-1970, and

4) 1970 to the present. Reviews of Indian prehistoric studies and

development have been offered by Sankalia (1974), Allchin and

Chakrabarti (1979), Jain (1979), Chakrabarti (1988a; 1988b), Misra (1987;

1989; 2001), Athreya (1996), Chauhan (1998), and Kennedy (2000).

Jayaswal (1978) also provides a good overview of major sites and offers

detailed comparisons of some of their assemblages from throughout the

subcontinent.

[2] Dennell (2000-01) highlights the historical differences of foreign

~ 53 ~

involvement in Indian paleolithic studies before and after Independence

from British rule, mostly owing to infrastructure, the availability of

funding, and the changing interests of scholars.

[3] Over the decades, most South Asian prehistorians have found it

difficult to keep abreast of updated research techniques and theoretical

approaches (Athreya, 1996). This was/is due principally to the lack of

sufficient research funds, rapidly changing trends in global and South

Asian archaeology, and even partially due to the apathy of some

archaeologists. As a result, South Asian palaeoanthropology has declined

in recent years (e.g. Bhattacharya, 1993) and today, only a small number of

researchers are actively involved. Recently, some scholars in the Indian

subcontinent have realized the need for change, and are applying the

necessary multidisciplinary methods to their respective research agendas.

[4] Additional syntheses on (and the significance of) the South Asian

prehistoric record are provided by Sali (1990), Varma (1997), Korisettar

and Rajaguru (1998), Misra (1989; 2001), Petraglia (1998; 2001), and

Dennell (2000-01). The primary focus of this paper is the Lower and

Middle Palaeolithic records of India ; therefore a discussion on younger

assemblages, such as the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, is not

provided.

[5] A recent review of the Acheulian of peninsular India is offered by

Pappu (2001) and Chauhan (2004b) and the most recent review of non-

bifacial assemblages of India was done by Jayaswal (1982) (also see Leng,

1992).

[6] Although Pappu (2002) only mentions the three main large tools found

at Acheulian sites, an immense amount of differences also probably exist

within small-tool assemblages as well, at both intra- and inter-site levels.

[7] Mode 1 artifacts that are a part of Mode 2 assemblages, are also found

throughout the subcontinent. In that respect, Mohapatra (1985) had

wrongly argued that Acheulian localities in the river valleys of peninsular

India contain more choppers and the localities in upland regions contain

more cleavers, a concept heavily criticized by most workers at the end of

his paper (for geomorphic settings of Acheulian sites in India, see Pappu,

1985; 2001).

Table and figures

About the author

Parth R. Chauhan studied anthropology (B.A.) with a thrust in African

~ 54 ~

prehistory at Rutgers University (N.J., USA), followed by an M.A. in

Archaeology from Deccan College Post- graduate & Research Institute

(Pune, India), completed in 1998. He has also worked as an archaeologist

for firms active in Cultural Resource Management in New Jersey. He has

recently completed his Ph.D. thesis entitled SITE- FORMATION

STUDIES AND PALEOLITHIC INVESTIGATIONS IN THE SIWALIK

HILLS OF NORTHERN INDIA: RECONSIDERING THE SOANIAN

INDUSTRY from the Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield

and is currently involved in Quaternary investigations in the Narmada

Valley of Central India and flintknapping experiments at Attirampakkam in

southern India. Parth can be contacted at:prchauhan@rediffmail.com

© Chauhan 2006 © assemblage 2006