Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

1/22

assemblage home>issue 8 contents> Chauhan, Acheulian

A review of the Early Acheulian evidence from South Asia

byParth R. Chauhan

AbstractIntroductionThe Initial Dispersal of the Acheulian out of AfricaThe Early Acheulian of South AsiaNorthern PakistanIndiaRajasthanGujaratMadhya PradeshMaharashtra

KarnatakaTamil NaduAssociated cognitive attributesSummary and Conclusions

AcknowledgementsBibliography

Abstract

South Asia represents the easternmost geographical occurrence of typical Acheulian bifaceassemblages in spatial and temporal abundance. All Acheulian evidence from this region isfound in a rich mosaic of diverse palaeoenvironmental, geographical, and landform contexts,highlighting the dynamic adaptive and behavioral strategies of South Asian hominins during

the Pleistocene. These assemblages have been traditionally categorised as either Early orLate Acheulian, based primarily on the absence or presence of certain tool-types or evidenttechniques. The earliest Acheulian evidence in South Asia is represented by uniquetechnological attributes such as the absence of the Levallois technique, a relatively lownumber of cleavers, and a higher presence of core-tools and choppers, when compared withthe Late Acheulian. Recent excavations and associated dating efforts by investigators workingin several parts of peninsular India have revealed that the Early Acheulian in South Asia mayextend well beyond the Matuyama/Brunhes transition. However, the frequency of these earlyoccurrences within the subcontinent is low, reasons for which are currently unknown. Incontrast, there is a significant and marked intensification in hominin activity and land-use fromthe Middle Pleistocene and onwards. South Asian Acheulian tool-types are generallycomparable in techno-morphology with similar assemblages known from other parts of the OldWorld and represent direct technological influence from Africa, where the earliest Acheuliansites are documented. This paper reviews the evidence for the Early Acheulian in South Asiaand discusses the unique attributes that separate such assemblages from the Late Acheulian,generally found in younger geomorphological contexts.

Introduction

Until about two decades ago, most prehistorians estimated that early hominin specie(s) did notmigrate from Africa much earlier than 1 myr ago. In fact, older evidence outside the Africancontinent, in the form of hominin fossils and/or stone tool assemblages, had usually been metwith skepticism. However, a growing body of recent evidence has challenged the youngerchronologies from several regions and this new data points to a significantly earlier exodus of

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

2/22

Homo from Africa. This is supported by the early dates for hominin fossils, by Swisheret al.(1994) in Southeast Asia and by Gabunia et al. (2000) in Eurasia. Simultaneously, this newevidence raises important issues about the rate and temporal/geographical extent of thisdispersal.

The earliest archaeological evidence outside of Africa compliments the known fossil evidenceand comes from such localities as 'Ubeidiya (Tchernov 1995), Java, Longuppo Cave (Wanpoet al. 1995), Riwat and Pabbi Hills (Dennell et al. 1988; Hurcombe and Dennell, 1989),Dmanisi (Gabunia et al., 2000), potentially Dursunlu, southern Anatolia (Gulec et al. 1999) andc. 2.0 mya artifacts from the Jordan valley (Tchernov 1995). Interestingly, the earliest lithicassemblages outside the African continent are found in the form of core-chopper (non-biface)artifacts (Mode 1). All bifacial material (Mode 2) known from these regions of the Old Worldpost-dates most Mode 1 assemblages. Some recent reviews and discussions on regionalhominin dispersals and colonization are offered by Arribas and Palmqvist (1999), Dennell(2003), Larick and Ciochon (1996), and Rolland (1998).

The technological innovation and maturation of the Acheulian Industrial Complex (Mode 2)represents the intellectual success of Pleistocene Homo. The earliest Acheulian sites arefound in East Africa at approximately 1.6 to 1.4 myr. While the dates vary broadly, some well-known examples of this phase are found at Konso-Gardula (Asfaw et al., 1992), Peninj(Domnguez-Rodrigo et al., 2002; Isaac and Curtis, 1974), Olduvai Gorge (Leakey, 1971),

Kariandusi (Gowlett and Crompton, 1994), Olorgesailie (Potts et al., 1999), and Kilombe(Crompton and Gowlett, 1993). When hominin remains and Early Acheulian tools areassociated within a given horizon in Africa, the species is always eitherHomo ergasterorHomo erectus, rather than Homo habilis orParanthropus boisei(Larick and Ciochon, 1996).The Acheulian tradition is represented by a suite of attributes that have been progressivelystandardized over time. For example, the selection of raw materials, preparation of cores, andbifacial flaking techniques are all hallmark characters of the Acheulian tradition.

The Initial Dispersal of the Acheulian out of Africa

From Africa, the Acheulian gradually spread throughout the Old World until it reached itseastern-most geographical domain, the Indian subcontinent. Clark (1994) has reviewed the

Acheulian evidence in global context and highlights the geographical distribution of both Mode1 and Mode 2 assemblages. The absence of Acheulian bifaces within early Pleistocene

sediments in East and Southeast Asia suggest that Homo must have initially left Africa beforethe Acheulian stage appeared in East Africa. Furthermore, in recent years, Homo erectus isbeing viewed as an Asian development rathern than an African species (Klein, 1999). Inaddition to these early sites, a second dispersal from Africa is represented exclusively by

Acheulian sites dating to the Middle Pleistocene - signifying the first appearance of Mode 2 innorthwest and southern Europe. The European bifaces are generally manufactured on flintand from nodules. Bifaces here are also produced on large flakes but the sites are not ascommon or rich as in Africa and other regions. The actual timing of the initial colonization ofEurope is still an intense debate, where some researchers favor either a lengthy chronologyreaching into the Early Pleistocene or a shorter chronology dating to the Middle Pleistocene(Dennell, 1983; Carbonell et al., 1995). The upper time-bracket for the Acheulian varies fromregion to region, but most evidence points to its gradual transformation into Middle Palaeolithicflake-based assemblages (Mode 3) at ca. 250 kyr, when Acheulian bifaces decreasesignificantly (Foley and Lahr, 1997).

The Middle Pleistocene site of Boxgrove (age of ~500 kyr) is a prime example of occupationthroughout the interglacial Oxygen Isotope Stage 13 (Roberts et al., 1997). However, thesouthern margin zones of Europe remain poorly known, but localities with Mode 1 and Mode 2assemblages have been identified (Bailey, 1995). The Acheulian sites of Torralba and

Ambrona in Spain represent one of the ideal geoarchaeological investigations, carried out byButzer (1965) and Howell (1966). At Torralba for example, the large quantities of elephantfossils in association with Acheulian handaxes were originally interpreted by Howell (1966) toreflect early hominin hunting and butchering strategies. Later work by Binford (1987) andShipman and Rose (1983) challenged these interpretations and proved that site-formation

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

3/22

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

4/22

Acheulian-like assemblages from this zone also do not conform to classicAcheulian features(Pope and Keates, 1994). Therefore, until further evidence is forthcoming, it is reasonable toaccept that most of these biface assemblages in the 'Mode 1 zone' do not represent the

Acheulian techno-complex directly (see Corvinus, 2003). Such sporadic finds probablyrepresent an independent regional and random development of the bifacial-flaking technique,but which did not attain cultural identity and morphological consistency over time.Nonetheless, the author feels that they should still be designated as Mode 2 types, given that

most of the cortex has been removed from both faces of the specimens. In other words, Mode2 assemblages in global context may be recognized as comprising any assemblages ofbifacially-flaked tools (includingAcheulian-like as well as Acheulian types).

The Early Acheulian of South Asia

South Asia is well-known for its long and rich record of palaeolithic and related Quaternaryevidence in the form of fossils and dynamic landscape evolution. However, much of thisevidence has not been published in international journals and thus, inter-regional correlationsand comparative studies have not been forthcoming in relation to Old Worldpalaeoanthropology. South Asia or the Indian subcontinent essentially comprises the regionsof India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Bangladesh. To the west of peninsular Indiais the Arabian Sea, to the east, the Bay of Bengal, and to the south is the Indian Ocean. Theentire region comprises a diverse spectrum of ecological and topographical zones combined

with a complex geological history. The north is dominated by the Greater and Lesser Himalayaand the Siwalik hills, all ranges almost geographically parallel and temporally successive toeach other. This mountainous terrain includes northern Pakistan, northern India, most parts ofNepal, and Bhutan. South of these mountain and hill ranges are the Indo-Gangetic plainslocated in all South Asian countries except Sri Lanka and Bhutan. The plains are followed (tothe south) by the great Thar Desert (in eastern Pakistan and northwestern India), and theVindhyan range of hills. This hills are located north of the Deccan Plateau, a prominentlandscape 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 (Mohapatra,1985), such landscapes are especially prominent along the coasts of peninsular India,southeastern India (Kerala), and northeastern India or east of Bangladesh. The Subcontinentis also interspersed with a large number of rivers and streams, and although agricultural landmakes up over 65% of the region, numerous ecological and geographic features such asdeciduous woodlands, tropical evergreen forests, savanna, semi-arid and arid scrub lands,arid sand deserts, and periglacial loessic landforms (Korisettar and Rajaguru, 2002), caves,canyons, rockshelters, lakes, pools, and springs are also found in high numbers. Exceptingthe rivers of Narmada and Tapi, most rivers flow from east to west and exhibit uniquefluviosedimentary regimes.

Lower Palaeolithic assemblages from the Indian subcontinent have generally been assignedto either the Acheulian (biface) or Soanian (non-biface) traditions (Misra, 1987). Acheulianassemblages are found in abundance throughout the Indian subcontinent in varying temporaland technological modes. South Asian prehistorians have generally adopted both Europeanand African terminology to categorize the techno-morphological similarities of theassemblages. While the Acheulian-Soanian dichotomy remains an unresolved issue, recentwork shows that most Soanian assemblages may post-date the Acheulian (Gaillard andMishra, 2001). This has been assessed primarily from the geological contexts in which theSoanian and Acheulian assemblages in the Siwalik region are found. Chauhan (2003)highlights such factors as artifact density, extent of cortex-removal, the availability of suitable

quartzite clasts, and recently-dated geological features to explain the behavioral andchronological differences between the Acheulian and Soanian assemblages. Soanianassemblages are known to occur in significantly younger geomorphological contexts than the

Acheulian assemblages in the Siwalik region. In fact, the Soanian may represent a uniqueadaptive strategy contemporary to Late Acheulian and later (Middle Palaeolithic) lithicassemblages.

Although there is a strong possibility for the presence of Mode 1 assemblages (contemporarywith Early Acheulian assemblages) in the Siwalik region and peninsular India, associatedstratigraphical and geochronological evidence is currently lacking. However it is important to

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

5/22

note that Mode 1 assemblages have been securely dated to the Lower Pleistocene in theSiwalik exposures of Pakistan (Dennell, 2004). However, these and other Mode 1assemblages in the Indian subcontinent do not show any stratigraphical or technologicalevidence of evolving into subsequent Mode 2 (Acheulian) assemblages (as known fromOlduvai Gorge, for example). In addition, these early Mode 1 assemblages are not techno-culturally related to the significantly younger Soanian assemblages in the Siwalik region, nor tothe known Mode 1 assemblages in peninsular India. One explanation for this discontinuity in

the cultural record may be that the earliest hominin groups (representing Mode 1) outside ofAfrica (early Lower Pleistocene) may not have been successful enough in adapting to newlandscapes and resources (Dennell, 2003). However, the later migrations, represented by the

Acheulian-producing hominins, proved to be more wide-spread and appear to haveestablished long-term ecological adaptations. This adaptive success is reflected in thecontinuity of the archaeological record from the late Lower Pleistocene (ca. 1 myr) andonwards.

Although consistent fossil evidence is currently lacking, it has been generally assumed, fromshared techno- cultural features of the Acheulian in global context, that the Acheulianassemblages in the Indian subcontinent belong to a South Asian H. erectus. Theseassemblages have been traditionally divided into either Early or Late developmental phases,depending on their typo-technological features and associated metrical analyses (R.S. Pappu,2001). While the term 'Middle Acheulian' has been occasionally applied to 'transitional'

assemblages (see Jayaswal, 1978 for example), the term is not as common today in the SouthAsian context. Early Acheulian assemblages are generally 'characterized by such core toolsas handaxes, choppers, polyhedrons, and spheroids, a low number of cleavers and flaketools, the predominant use of the stone-hammer technique, and the absence of the Levalloistechnique' (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.

In contrast, Late Acheulian assemblages are represented 'by the low proportion of bifaces, thehigh ratio of cleavers to hand axes, the very high ratio of flake tools like scrapers, theextensive 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 andcontrolled bifacial thinning/flaking. Although only a small percentage of important LowerPalaeolithic sites have been studied in detail, Mishra (1994) and R.S. Pappu (2001) observe

that Late Acheulian sites are found predominantly in surface contexts, whereas the knownEarly Acheulian sites (albeit sparse) are usually in buried contexts. A recent review of the

Acheulian of peninsular India is offered by R.S. Pappu (2001) and the most recent review ofnon-bifacial assemblages of India was done by Jayaswal (1982). Additional syntheses on andthe significance of the South Asian prehistoric record are provided by Dennell (2000-01),Korisettar and Rajaguru (1998), Misra (1989; 2001), Petraglia ( 1998; 2001), and Sali (1990).

In the 1960s, Khatri (1962; 1966) argued for an indigenous origin for the South AsianAcheulian from Oldowan tools at Mahadeo Piparia, Narmada Valley in Central India. (He waslater disproved by Supekar (1968) and criticized by subsequent workers). A similar conclusionwas also reached by Armand (1985) from his work at the non-biface site of Durkadi, also in theNarmada Basin. Wakankar (1973) also proposed that the Acheulian horizon at an excavatedrock-shelter at Bhimbhetka was underlain by a 'pebble-tool' horizon. However, additionalexcavations by Misra (1985) at the adjacent 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 AsianAcheulian represents early migrations ofHomo from Africa sometime in the Lower Pleistocene(Petraglia, 2003). This is also supported by recent genetic studies on regional populations(see James and Petraglia, 2004). While the large number of Late Acheulian sites in peninsularIndia reflects an intensification of hominin activity during the Middle Pleistocene in South Asia,the low profile of the Early Acheulian facies is equally noteworthy. Currently, only several sitesare known to possess associated attributes and until recently, very few of these sites havebeen studied in detail and through multidisciplinary approaches.

An important issue that remains un-resolved, is establishing the initial timing of the

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

6/22

colonization of the subcontinent. Only two well-dated Acheulian sites (find-spots) are knownfrom Pakistan, and the majority of the Early Acheulian evidence comes from India (Fig. 1). Inrecent years, the application of absolute dating methods (e.g., Thorium/Uranium, Uranium-series, Electron Spin Resonance, and so forth) has become increasingly useful in constructinga chronological framework for the South Asian Lower Palaeolithic. As a result, the earliestknown Acheulian localities from South Asia have been securely dated to ~400 kyr andcontinued to persist in peninsular India until ~125 kyr (possibly longer), before yielding to

Middle Palaeolithic flake-dominated assemblages (Mishra 1995; Rendell and Dennell 1985;also see James and Petraglia, 2004) (Table 1). For example, at Teggihalli, Nevasa, andYedurwadi, the dates exceed 350 kyr from three different geographic contexts, demonstratingthat the Acheulian extends beyond the maximum dating limit of the uranium-series method(Pappu, 2001). In some areas of the subcontinent, the younger Late Acheulian evidence mayhave persisted well into the Upper Pleistocene, often being contemporary with early MiddlePalaeolithic assemblages in other parts of the region. This temporal disparity may representan irregular pattern of hominin settlement and mobility through time, where some technologicalinnovations persisted longer while others developed more rapidly. Some of the most importantEarly Acheulian evidence is discussed below, including recent discoveries and associatedchronologies (where applicable).

Figure 1: The geographical distribution of well-known Early Acheulian sites in the Indiansubcontinent.

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

7/22

Table 1. Important Early Acheulian sites from South Asia and associated dates.

Northern Pakistan

Acheulian handaxes have been reported from Dina and Jalalpur, in the Jhelum Basin ofnorthern Pakistan (Allchin, 1995). These primary-context find-spots were found to beassociated with tilted Siwalik sediments and are estimated to be between 700 kyr to 500 kyrold, primarily based on the palaeomagnetic studies done by R.G.H. Raynolds (Allchin, 1995;Rendell and Dennell, 1985). While the beds in which the handaxes occur show normal polarity

indicating an age younger than c. 700 kyr, the artifacts predate the tectonic event which tiltedthe beds (estimated to have occurred around 400 to 600 kyr ago) (Gaillard and Mishra, 2001).Fourteen additional artifacts, including two handaxes, were also found near Jalalpur in agritstone/conglomerate lense, possibly of the same approximate age (Allchin, 1995). Richpalaeolithic workshops are known from the Rohri Hills (Biagi and Cremaschi, 1988), some ofwhich may be Early Acheulian.

India

As mentioned earlier, India contains a greater amount of Acheulian evidence than its peripheryzones (Pakistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka). The known Early Acheulian evidence has beenreported from central and southern India; sites in the northern part of the country are sparse.One reason for this disparity may be the Indo-Gangetic plains, where an extensive floodplain(alluvium) context may have been unsuitable for prehistoric occupation and resource

exploitation. The known sites are found in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra,Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. Comparable Early Acheulian sites have not been reported fromeastern and northeastern India.

Rajasthan

In the Thar Desert of Rajasthan, evidences of integrated high-energy fluvial systems datingback to the Late Tertiary and Early Pleistocene have been recorded (Korisettar and Rajaguru,1998). In the region south of the Aravallis, Mewar, and along the tributaries of the Chambal,

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

8/22

Acheulian artifacts have been documented within conglomeratic deposits. Work by Misra andRajaguru (1988; 1989) in the Nagaur District of Rajasthan demonstrated that environmentalconditions were ideal for Pleistocene hominins. Multidisciplinary studies on the playas anddune sediments around Didwana have aided in reconstructing the evolutionary sequence ofthe Thar desert, especially along its eastern margins (Misra, 1995; Wasson et al., 1984).

The oldest sediments in the Didwana region are represented by the Jayal Formation, anextensive boulder conglomerate dated to the Early Quaternary (Misra, 1987). Following itsdeposition, the gravel bed was subjected to uplift and covered by fine marly sediments,represented by the Amarpura Formation. Artifacts from this formation range from early

Acheulean to Late Middle Palaeolithic-Early Upper Palaeolithic (Misra, 1987:102). A primaryEarly Acheulian locality here is 16R, a sand dune where a 19 meter trench was excavated byMisra (1995). This work provided a sound palaeoclimatic record and the work revealed analternating sequence of stabilized/pedogenised dune surfaces with areas of active sandaccumulation (Mishra, 1994:60). Artifacts were recovered from several horizons from withinthe stabilized sand dune and shows evidence of hominin occupation in a combination oflake/playa/desert environments (Misra and Rajaguru, 1989). Excavations at Singi Talav in the

Amarpura Formation exposed an early Acheulian industry on quartzite and quartz, andcomprised hand axes, polyhedrons, spheroids, cores, flakes, and a few crudely-producedcleavers (Misra, 1987:104). The raw material was available from the nearby Aravalli outcropsand also gathered as clasts from then-extant stream beds (Misra, 1987). Furthermore, the

artifacts are in fresh condition and are found in the fine calcareous alluvium, indicating thathominin groups settled in an environment with pools, lakes, and wide and shallow floodplains.Radiometric dating by Raghavan et al. (1989) places the lowermost cultural horizons at an ageof more than 390 kyr (Mishra, 1992).

Gujarat

The peninsular region of Gujarat, the western most state of India, is also rich in palaeolithicevidence and reflects hominin adaptation and mobility in relation to changing sea levels. Manyof the sites are associated with miliolite and/or gravels. In Saurashtra, handaxes of Early

Acheulian type have been recovered from gravels at Umrethi on the Hiran River and at AdiChadi Wao near Junagarh (Marathe, 1981). The deposits represent a lower sea-level in thepast (Gaillard and Mishra, 2001) and are overlain by miliolite deposits, dated to 195 kyr and 65kyr ago, respectively (Baskaran et al., 1986) - indicating the minimum dates for the Acheulian

sites in this region. The site of Umrethi is located approximately 20 kms inland from thesouthern coast of Saurashtra and an excavated trench revealed three artifacts in freshcondition from a buried channel gravel 24 meters below the surface (Marathe, 1981). TheGujarat Acheulian record shows that while Late Acheulian sites are often associated withmiliolite pebbles, the known Early Acheulian artifacts occur in gravels that do not containmiliolite (Gaillard and Mishra, 2001; Marathe, 1981).

Madhya Pradesh

The Narmada Valley in Central India stretches from Amarkantak in the east to the Gulf ofCambay in the west ( ~1300 kms long). This valley is long known for its rich record ofvertebrate fossils and prehistoric sites and numerous Quaternary and archaeologicalinvestigations have been conducted since the 19th century (Agrawal et al., 1988; Kennedy,2000). In addition, it has yielded the only known Middle Pleistocene hominin fossils in the

subcontinent (Sankhyan, 1997; Sonakia and Biswas, 1998). It is noteworthy to mention thatalthough Khatri' s claims of an indigenous Acheulian from the Narmada Valley were refuted bySen and Ghosh (1963) and Supekar (1968) in the 1960s, similar evidence was later reportedby Supekar (1985) from the same site (Mahadeo Piparia). In addition, Armand (1983) alsoreported the presence of a few early Acheulian bifaces at Durkadi, where the artifacts arepredominantly part of a 'pebble tool industry'- suggesting the evolution of the Acheulian inpeninsular India. Although this concept is not accepted today, subsequent 'investigations atdifferent localities in the Narmada Valley by many workers,.., have established that theLower Group [of the Narmada stratigraphic sequence] contains an Early Acheulian

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

9/22

industry..' (Misra, 1987: 111).

The earliest depositional phase of the Narmada Quaternary sequence is represented by thePilikarar Formation, which rests on the Cretaceous Deccan Traps (Tiwari & Bhai, 1997). ThePilikarar Formation is considered to underlie the Dhansi Formation of Lower Pleistocene Ageand dated palaeomagnetically by Rao et al. (1997). The exposed section at the type locality(Pilikarar) comprises four distinct strata (bottom to top): a) a two-meter thick laterite bed; b) 0.5meter thick spongy laterite; c) a boulder bed (0.3 to 3.0 meters thick); and d) calcareousyellowish-brown soil with iron nodules of varying thickness. Recent investigations by Patnaikand Chauhan (2004) in the Narmada Basin resulted in the discovery of numerousassemblages ranging from the Lower to Upper Palaeolithic, including the locality of Pilikarar(Patnaik, 2004). If the dating of the Dhansi and Pilikarar Formations is accurate, a part of thepalaeolithic evidence at Pilikarar (Fig. 2) may represent one of the oldest Early Acheulianassemblages in South Asia ( of late Lower Pleistocene age).

Figure 2. An Early Acheulian assemblage from the central Narmada Basin, peninsular India.

Typologically, the bifaces broadly resemble other Early Acheulian assemblages in that theylack a sense of refinement and possess thick mid-sections and large flake scars. The Levalloistechnique is not clearly evident and younger artifact types are absent at the site. The Pilikararassemblages come from two distinct stratigraphical contexts. The first assemblage appears tobe in primary context from its location above a gravel/boulder deposit. Here, the artifacts are infresh condition and have been exposed recently by gully erosion. Some of the artifacts from

above the gravel include handaxes, cleavers, discoidal cores, large unretouched flakes, anddebitage. The second assemblage was documented from within the gravel (thus in rolledcondition) and is comprised of cores, several choppers, and a unifacial cleaver-type artifact ona large side-struck flake. Coming from a gravel context and in rolled condition, the latterassemblage cannot yet be assigned an industrial name. However, it does signify an olderassemblage than the fresh Early Acheulian types found above the gravel.

Maharashtra

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

10/22

The state of Maharashtra in Central India is known for its rich record of prehistoric evidencespanning from the Lower Palaeolithic to the Neolithic. A number of Palaeolithic occurrenceswere identified along cliff sections of the Pravara River, in Upland Maharashtra during the1960s and 1970s (Sankalia, 1974). At Nevasa, a gravel layer lying un-conformably on bedrockyielded Acheulian artifacts (Corvinus, 1981). The gravel/bedrock interface lies approximatelytwo meters higher than the present-day river. This gravel was buried throughout by latePleistocene sediments, and the exposure of the artifacts seems to have occurred during the

Holocene incision (Gaillard and Mishra, 2001). Horizontal excavations at Chirki-Nevasaproduced 2,400 artifacts from an area of 64 m2 (Corvinus, 1967; 1970; 1983). The tools weredesignated as handaxes, choppers, polyhedrons, cleavers, knives, and picks. Theassemblage was thought to belong to the Early Acheulian phase, based primarily on threeattributes: i) a high proportion of core tools; ii) the predominant use of the stone-hammertechnique; and iii) the absence of a Levallois technology (Corvinus, 1983). This site has beenclassified as a workshop/occupation site and cleavers occur in slightly higher numbers thanhandaxes while choppers are also prominent (R.S. Pappu, 2001). Additional metrical analysisby Joshi and Marathe (1975-76; 1985) revealed that the Nevasa bifaces are larger and lesssymmetrical than those at sites like Paleru in southern Andhra Pradesh. The cement from thegravel in the Early Acheulian horizons at Nevasa was dated to more than 400 kyr (Mishra,1994).

Additional sites in the region that show similar archaeological features and potentially early

ages are Bori (on the river Kukdi) and Moregaon (on the river Karha) (both associated withvolcanic ash beds) in the Bhima Basin of Maharashtra. The assemblage from Bori isdominated by trihedral handaxes and closely resembles Early Acheulian localities known from

Africa and 'Ubeidiya (Gaillard and Mishra, 2001). Although the initial dating at the site of Borishowed a controversial age of 1.4 myr (Korisettaret al., 1988), further work indicated that theartifacts here may be approximately 600 kyr old or younger (Mishra, 1994). However, thelatest efforts by geologists have resulted in the correlation of the volcanic ash to the YoungestToba Tephra (YTT), dated to be 75,000 years (Shane et al., 1995). However, Gaillard andMishra (2001:82) state that the Acheulian assemblage at Bori is above the tephra and"represents the most convincing evidence that the correlation of the tephra with the Tobaeruption, inspite of the chemical similarity, is erroneous". The inconsistency and controversy ofthe Bori evidence indicates a need for further work at the locality and others like it. Acheulianbifaces from Moregaon (and adjoining areas) also possess an Early Acheulian character andalso suggest a substantially early age (Kale et al., 1993; Mishra et al., 2002). Here, theartifacts occur on the surface of the regolith and are less closely associated with the tephra

(than at Bori), which is at the top of a sequence of clays (Gaillard and Mishra, 2001).

Karnataka

Systematic surveys and excavations have also been conducted in the Hunsgi-Baichbal Valley(Karnataka) since the late 1960s, exposing the presence of over 100 Acheulian occurrences inan erosional basin measuring 500 km2 (Paddayya, 1975; 1982; 1991; Paddayya et al., 2002;Petraglia et al., 2004). The localities are found in a variety of depositional contexts: situated onthe valley floor, along the plateau edge, in pediments and along streams (Paddaya et al.,2002). Paddayya and Petraglia (1993) have observed that the artifact horizons in this regionare close to the surface and overlie weathered bedrock. They further classify the sitesaccording to their geomorphological contexts and illustrate that a wide range of disturbances isseen (e.g., weathering, patination, reburial, etc.). There is a noticeable technological diversitywith the Acheulian in this region and most of the Early Acheulian sites are located in the

Hunsgi Valley, where artifacts are produced on a variety of raw materials.

Probably the most important Early Acheulian site from the Hunsgi complex is Isampur,representing the first known occurrence of artifacts in a quarry context in India (Paddayya andPetraglia, 1997; Petraglia et al., 1999; Petraglia et al., 2004). Here, primary and buriedlimestone outcrops were exploited by Acheulian groups for stone-tool manufacture.Excavations at the locality displayed large slabs and cores of limestone that were flaked andfashioned into handaxes, cleavers, and other tools. The debitage is present in abundance andshows variation in size, thus displaying all (past) preserved stages of tool use- from theprocurement stage to the retouch stage. Recent ESR dating at the locality of Isampur

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

11/22

indicates a potentially early colonization of this region - at more than 1.2 myr ago (Paddayya etal., 2002). Most tool-types are classified to be handaxes, choppers, cleavers, picks, knives,polyhedrons, scrapers, discoids, and unifaces. Most importantly, the Hunsgi-Baichbalinvestigations led to an palaeoecological assessment of the distribution of archaeologicaloccurrences. Through an inferred monsoonal palaeoclimate and the identification of seasonalsprings and ponds, an Acheulian settlement scenario has been proposed, consisting of wet-season dispersal of hominin groups and dry season aggregation of these populations

(Paddayya, 1982).

Further evidence of the Early Acheulian comes from the site of Hunsgi in the Gulbarga Districtof Karnataka (Paddayya, 1982). The Acheulian deposits (10 to 35 cm thick) were found to bein a compact gravel context, where the artifacts were produced primarily on limestoneobtained in pebble/cobble form from the stream bed and as angular blocks from the plateau(Misra, 1987; Paddayya, 1982). The assemblage comprised handaxes, cleavers, scrapers,polyhedrons, choppers, picks, and knives. The predominance of core tools and the use of thestone-hammer technique suggest an Early Acheulian character for this site (Misra, 1987). Thesite of Teggihalli, where Early Acheulian tool-types were recovered, also seems to be olderthan 350 kyr (Szabo et al., 1990).

The site of Yedurwadi is located in the Krishna Basin, which was explored initially by Joshi(1955) and later work was carried out intermittently by Pappu (1974; 1985; 2001) and Pappu

and Deo (1994). The Early Acheulian assemblage (made on doleritic basalt) was recoveredfrom a gravel context, which also preserved buried trees, represented by calcrete casts(Mishra, 1994). These calcrete deposits were dated to more than 400 kyr by the Th/U method(Kale, 1990). The artifact-yielding gravel lenses were found to be within an ancient floodplainsequence exposed recently in a meander cut-off (similar to Nevasa) (Gaillard and Mishra,2001:82). Further evidence comes from the site of Almatti, where Korisettar (1985: 67) notesthe absence of step or controlled flaking and its similarities with other Early Acheulianassemblages within the subcontinent.

Tamil Nadu

The most significant site in Tamil Nadu is Attirampakkam, located in the Kortallayar valley(southeast India), and the adjoining regions have been intermittently studied for over a centuryby various workers (De Terra and Paterson, 1939; Krishnaswami, 1938; Pappu, 1996). More

recently, S. Pappu (2001) has been meticulously investigating the site since 1999 (with theapplication of numerous modern techniques for the first time), and has contributed in revisingprevious geological interpretations. Cultural levels at the site range from the Lower Palaeolithicto the Upper Palaeolithic, and the work has also resulted in the discovery of animal footprintswithin banded clay sediments (Pappu et al., 2003). Acheulian artifacts, predominantly onquartzite, occur in ferricretes and ferricritised gravels and include choppers, discoids, sub-spheroids, bifaces (with minimum symmetry), cleavers, knives, and scrapers (Pappu, 1996:13). From geochemical studies and stratigraphic correlations, modes of tool use and discardhave been preserved by episodic sedimentation at the site. Although the dating at this site is inprogress, typological studies and geological observations at Attirampakkam point to apotentially early age of the lower Acheulian levels at the site - possibly between Late Lowerand early Middle Pleistocene (S. Pappu: pers. comm.).

Associated cognitive attributes

The morphological variation in Lower Palaeolithic tool-types (i.e., bifaces) is known to be theresult of such factors as raw material type, tool function, and variation in reduction technique(Santonja and Villa, 1990). This is also stressed by McPherron (2000:655) who argues that notenough attention has been given 'to much simpler levels of explanation that may say muchless about mental capabilities'. He confronts this concept through a re- examination ofpublished data-sets, used by others to show patterns in handaxe shape - a feature often usedto highlight the existence of definitive mental templates or for increased mental abilities.McPherron (2000) further proposes that basic factors such as raw material types and intensityof reduction, are more suitable to explicate morphological diversity; emphasizing that

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

12/22

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

13/22

extensive limestone pediment, exposed in the form of large tabular clasts. This type of diverseraw material exploitation is visible across the Indian subcontinent and reflects rapid adaptationwithin a tectonic and monsoon-affected region. Such potential impacts of geological andenvironmental events (e.g. Toba super-eruption) have been highlighted by James andPetraglia (2004).

Despite the paucity of consistent absolute dates, the Early Acheulian of South Asia mostcertainly goes beyond the Brunhes-Matayuma boundary and represents the earliest evidencefor bifacial technologies in this region. In addition to the above mentioned sites, R.S. Pappu(2001) also considers the sites of Laliltpur, Adamgarh, and Kuliana (Mayurbhanj) as Early

Acheulian. Combined geomorphological investigations, metrical/typological studies, andpreliminary dating efforts may indicate a broad techno-morphological transition from Early

Acheulian to Late Acheulian sometime between 400 to 200 kyr in South Asia. Intriguingly,most Acheulian sites (Early and Late) in the subcontinent are open-air occurrences and theearliest occupational phases in rock-shelters and caves are predominantly represented byLate Acheulian and/or younger lithic cultures. The nature and timing of the global transitionfrom Acheulian to Middle Palaeolithic assemblages represents an important shift in thetechnological organization of Pleistocene hominins, and is slightly varied in time and spaceacross the Old World. From most cases however, it is clear that the Levallois technique wasnot widely employed or known during the Early Acheulian phase in South Asia, but wasdeveloped or introduced much later.

Recent efforts have resulted in new knowledge about the Acheulian and associated behavioralpatterns from an under-studied region. Multidisciplinary investigations at sites in southern andcentral India have revealed that Lower and Middle Pleistocene hominins were exploiting arange of ecological habitats and associated resources. Most technological traits of the Early

Acheulian in the region are universal (e.g. symmetry in form, standardized morphology, andmethods of production) and shared with other assemblages from the Old World.Simultaneously, the South Asian evidence reflects unique and independent characters as well,some of which include unique modes of blank extraction from quarry contexts, regionalreduction strategies, greater levels of cognitive flexibility, varied planning depth, symbolicfeatures such as the presence of ochre and crystal fragments within archaeological horizons,the evidence of individual- and group-level behavioral configurations, dynamic land-usepatterns, and a continued sequence of certain behavioral traits over time (Petraglia et al.,2004).

The goal of this overview was to highlight the current status of our knowledge about the EarlyAcheulian facies from South Asia, and its overall contribution in hypothesizing about modernhuman evolution in Asia (James and Petraglia, 2004). The Indian subcontinent offerspalaeoanthropologists a unique opportunity to test dynamic behavioral models and establishnew and insightful theoretical frameworks. The subcontinent lies directly between Africa to thewest and Southeast Asia to the east from where the oldest Homo erectus specimens havebeen reported. Its geographical 'isolation' from the rest of the continent must have hadimportant implications on the trajectories of hominin behavioral and cultural development.

Another significant fact is that it straddles the Movius Line and represents the easternmostdomain of rich Acheulian localities. Finally, this immensely rich source of prehistoricarchaeological evidence plays a central role in understanding the evolution of the genus Homoin Asia, knowledge still evading Old World palaeoanthropology (see Dennell, 2000-01). Thetime-bracket for most prehistoric evidence and associated technological transitions within thesubcontinent are perfectly synonymous with rapid encephalization in hominids which took

place during the Middle Pleistocene (Ruffet al., 1997). If a comprehensive and accurateperspective of the Acheulian is to be gained, the South Asian record needs to be examinedmore closely and compared with the global record through additional multidisciplinaryapproaches.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the National Geographic Society (Grant No. 7386-02) forawarding a research grant to carry out explorations in the Narmada Basin. A review of an

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

14/22

earlier draft of this paper by Michael D. Petraglia, who provided critical suggestions andunpublished data, is also gratefully acknowledged.

Bibliography

Agrawal D.P., Kotlia, B.S., and S. Kusumgar. 1988. Chronology and Significance of the

Narmada Formations. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy. . 54(3): 418-424.

Allchin, B. 1995. Early Human occupation in the Northern Punjab, Pakistan: an overview of thePotwar Project of the British Archaeological Mission to Pakistan (1981 - 1991). In Wadia, S.,Korisettar, R. and Kale, V. S. (eds.) Quaternary Environments and Geoarchaeology of India.Bangalore: Geological Society of India,150-167.

Armand, J. 1983.Archaeological Excavations in the Durkadi Nala- An Early PalaeolithicPebble-Tool Workshop in Central India. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Armand, J. 1985. The Emergence of the Handaxe Tradition in Asia, with Special Reference toIndia. In Misra, V.N. and P. Bellwood (eds.) Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory. NewDelhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., 3-8.

Arribas, A. and P. Palmqvist. 1999. On the ecological connection between sabre-tooths and

hominids: Faunal dispersal events in the Lower Pleistocene and a review of the evidence forthe first human arrival in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 26: 571-585.

Asfaw, B., Beyene, Y., Suwa, G., Walter, R.C., White, T.D., WoldeGabriel, G., and T Yemane.1992. The earliest Acheulean from Konso-Gardula. Nature 360: 732-735.

Bailey, G.N. 1995. Palaeolithic Archaeology in Greece and the Balkans. Current Anthropology36: 518-20.

Balter, M. and A. Gibbons. 2000. A glimpse of humans' first journey out of Africa. Science 288:948-951.

Bar-Yosef, O. 1987. Pleistocene connections between Africa and Southwest Asia: Anarchaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review5: 29-38.

Bar-Yosef, O. 1998. Early colonizations and cultural continuities in the Lower Palaeolithic ofwestern Asia. In Petraglia, M.D. and R. Korisettar (eds.) Early Human Behaviour in GlobalContext. London: Routledge, 221-279.

Baskaran, M., Marathe, A.R., Rajaguru, S.N., and B.L.K. Somayajulu. 1986. Geochronology ofPalaeolithic Cultures in the Hiran Valley, Saurashtra, India. Journal of Archaeological Science13: 505-514.

Biagi, P. and M. Cremaschi. 1988. The early Palaeolithic sites of the Rohri Hills (Sind,Pakistan) and their environmental significance. World Archaeology19(3): 421-433.

Binford, L. R. 1987. Were there elephant hunters at Torralba? In Nitecki, M.H. and D. V.Nitecki (eds.). The Evolution of Human Hunting. New York: Plenum Press, pp.47-105.

Bridgland, D.R., Philip, G., Westaway, R., and M. White. 2003. A long Quaternary terracesequence in the Orontes River valley, Syria: A record of uplift and of human occupation.Current Science 84(8): 1080-1089.

Butzer, K. W. 1965. Acheulian occupation sites at Torralba and Ambrona, Spain: Theirgeology. Science 150: 3704.

Carbonell, E., Bermdez de Castro, J.M. Arsuaga, J.L., Diez, J.C., Rosas, A., Cuenca-Bescs,G., Sala, R., Mosquera, M. and X.P. Rodrguez. 1995. Lower Pleistocene hominids andartifacts from Atapuerca-TD6 (Spain). Science 269: 826-830.

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

15/22

Chattopadhyaya, I., Vikrama, B., and S. Vikrama. 2002. A Survey of Prehistoric Investigationsby the Archaeological Survey of India since Independence.Appendixin Volume 1 ofIndian

Archaeology in Retrospect. S. Settar and R. Korisettar ( eds.). New Delhi: Manohar.

Chauhan, P. 2003. An Overview of the Siwalik Acheulian & Reconsidering its ChronologicalRelationship with the Soanian - A Theoretical Perspective.Assemblage 7: 1-28.

Clark, J.D. 1969. The Middle Acheulian occupation site at Latamne, northern Syria.Quaternaria 10: 1-73

Clark, J.D. 1994. The Acheulian Industrial Complex in Africa and elsewhere. In Corruccini,R.S. and R.L. Ciochon (eds.) Integrative Paths to the Past- Paleoanthropological Advances inHonor of F. Clark Howell. Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 451-469.

Clark, J.D. and K.D. Schick. 1988. Context and content: impressions of Palaeolithic sites andassemblages in the People's Republic of China. Journal of Human Evolution 17:439-48.

Coon, C.S. 1965. The living races of man. New York: Knopf.

Corvinus, G. 1967. An Acheulian Occupation floor at Chirki-on-Pravara, India. CurrentAnthropology9: 216-218.

Corvinus, G. 1970. The Acheulian Workshop at Chriki on the Pravara River. Indian Antiquary4: 13-22.

Corvinus, G. 1981. The Pravara River System Vol. 1: the Stratigraphy and Geomorphology ofthe Pravara River System. Tubingen: Archaeologica Ventoria Institute fur Urgeschichte.

Corvinus, G. 1983. The Pravara River System Vol. 2: the Excavations of the Acheulian Site ofChirki-on-Pravara, India. Tubingen: Archaeologica Ventoria Institute fur Urgeschichte.

Corvinus, G. 2004. Homo erectus in East and Southeast Asia, and the questions of the age ofthe species and its association with stone artifacts, with special attention to handaxe-like tools.Quaternary International. 117: 141-151.

Crompton, R. H. and J.A.J. Gowlett. 1993. Allometry and multidimensional form in Acheuleanbifaces from Kilombe, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 25: 175-199.

Dennell, R.W. 1983. European Economic Prehistory. London: Academic Press

Dennell, R.W. 2000-2001. Palaeolithic studies in India since Independence: from an outsider'spoint of view. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Vol. 60-61: 175-187.

Dennell, R.W. 2003. Dispersal and colonisation, long and short chronologies: how continuousis the Early Pleistocene record for hominids outside East Africa? Journal of Human Evolution45(6): 421-440.

Dennell, R.W. 2004. Early Hominin Landscapes in Northern Pakistan: Investigations in thePabbi Hills. BAR International Series 1265.

Dennell, R.W., Rendell, H., and E. Hailwood. 1988. Early tool making in Asia: two million yearold artefacts in Pakistan.Antiquity62: 98-106.

De Terra, H. and T.T. Paterson. 1939. Studies on the Ice Age in India and Associated HumanCultures. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institute Publication 493.

Domnguez-Rodrigo, M., de la Torre, I., Luque, L., Alcal, L., Mora, R., Serrallonga, J., and V.Medina. 2002. The ST Site Complex at Peninj, West Lake Natron, Tanzania: Implications forEarly Hominid Behavioural Models. Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 639-665.

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

16/22

Feibel, C. S., Goren-Inbar, N., Verosub, K.L., and I. Saragusti. 1998. Gesher Benot Ya'aqov,Israel: new evidence for its stratigraphic and sedimentologic context. Journal of HumanEvolution 34: A7.

Foley, R. and M.M. Lahr. 1997. Mode 3 Technologies and the Evolution of Modern Humans.Cambridge Archaeological Journal7(1): 3-36.

Freeman, L.G. 1994. Torralba and Ambrona: A Review of Discoveries. In Corruccini, R.S. andR. Ciochon (eds.) Integrative Paths to the Past: Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F.Clark Howell. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 597-637.

Gabunia, L., Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., Swisher, C.C., Ferring, R., Justus, A., Nioradze, M.,Tvalchrelidze, M., Anton, S. C., Bosinski, G., Joris, O, de Lumley, M-A., Majsuradze, G., and

A. Mouskhelishvili. 2000. Earliest Pleistocene cranial remains from Dmanisi, Republic ofGeorgia: taxonomy, geological setting, and age. Science 288: 1019-1025.

Gaillard, C. and S. Mishra. 2001. The Lower Palaeolithic in South Asia. In Origin ofSettlements and Chronology of the Palaeolithic Cultures in Southeast Asia. ColloqueInternational de la FONDATION SINGER POLIGNAC (Under the direction of F. Smah, C.Falgueres, D. Grimaud-Herve, and A. Smah). Paris, June 3-5, 1998. Semenanjung: Paris.

Goren-Inbar, N., and I. Saragusti. 1996. An Acheulian biface assemblage from the site ofGesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel: indications of African affinities. Journal of Field Archaeology23:15-30.

Gowlett, J. A. J. and R.H. Crompton. 1994. Kariandusi: Acheulean morphology and thequestion of allometry.African Archaeological Review12: 3 - 42.

Gulec, E., Clark Howell, F. and White, T.D. 1999. Dursunlu - a new lower Pleistocene faunaland artifact-bearing locality in southern Anatolia. In H. Ulrich, H. (ed.) Hominid Evolution:Lifestyles and Survival Strategies. Berlin: Edition Andrea, 349-364.

Horn, P., Muller-Sohinus, D. Storzer, and L. Zoller. 1993. K-Ar Fission Track andThermoluminescence Ages for Quaternary Volcanic Tuffs and their Bearing on Acheulian

Artefacts from Bori, Kukdi Valley, Pune District, India. Zectschrift der Deutshen Geologischen

Gesellschaft144: 326-9.

Hou, Y.M., Potts, R., Baoyin, Y., Zhengtang, G., Deino, A., Wei, W., Clark, J., Guangmao, X.,and H. Weiwen. 2000. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like stone technology of the Bose Basin,South China. Science 287: 1622.

Howell, F. C. 1966. Observations on the earlier phases of the European Lower Paleolithic.American Anthropologist68(2). pp. 88-201.

Hurcombe, L. and R.W. Dennell. 1989. A Pre-Acheulian, Lower Pleistocene Industry in thePabbi Hills, Northern Pakistan? in South Asian Archaeology. C. Jarrige (Ed.): 133-136.Madison: Prehistory Press.

Isaac, G. L. and G.H. Curtis. 1974. Age of early Acheulian industries from the Peninj Group,Tanzania. Nature 249: 624-627.

James, H.V.A. and M.D. Petraglia. 2004. Modern Human Origins and the Evolution ofBehavior in the Later Pleistocene Record of South Asia. Current Anthropology. (in press).

Jayaswal, V. 1978. Palaeohistory of India- A Study of the Prepared Core Technique. NewDelhi: Agam Kala Prakashan.

Jayaswal, V. 1982. Chopper-Chopping Component of Palaeolithic India. New Delhi: AgamKala Prakashan.

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

17/22

Joshi, R.V. 1955. Pleistocene Studies in the Malaprabha Basin. Pune: Deccan College.

Joshi, R.V. and A.R. Marathe. 1975-76. Metrical Analysis of Handaxes from Chirki-on-Pravara(Western Maharashtra, India). Puratattva 8: 3-12.

Kale, V.S. 1990. Time-Scale of Landscape Development in the Deccan Plateau. TropicalGeomorphology Newsletter10: 4-5.

Kale, V.S., Patil, D.N., Powar, N.J., and S.N. Rajaguru. 1993. Discovery of a Volcanic Ash Bedin the Alluvial Sediments at Morgaon, Maharashtra. Man and Environment18 (2): 141-144.

Kennedy, K.A.R. 2000. God-apes and fossil men: paleoanthropology of South Asia. AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press.

Khatri, A.P. 1962. Mahadevian: An Oldowan Pebble Culture of India.Asian Perspectives 6(1):186-197.

Khatri, A.P. 1966. Origin and Evolution of Hand-axe Culture in the Narmada Valley (CentralIndia). In Sen, D. and A.K. Ghosh (eds.) Studies in Prehistory- Robert Bruce Foote MemorialVolume. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhayay, 96-121.

Klein, R. G. 1987. Reconstructing how early people exploited animals: Problems and

prospects. In Nitecki, M.H. and D. V. Nitecki (eds.) The Evolution of Human Hunting. NewYork: Plenum Press, pp.11-45.

Klein, R., 1999. The Human Career. Human Biological and Cultural Origins. 2nd Edition. TheUniversity of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Korisettar, R. 1985. The Acheulian Site of Almatti, Karnataka. In Misra, V.N. and P. Bellwood(eds.) Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory. Bombay: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. pp.65-68.

Korisettar, R., Mishra, S., Rajaguru, S.N., Gogte, V.D., Ganjoo, R.K., Venkatesan, T.R.,Tandon, S.K., Somayajulu, B.L.K., and V.S. Kale. 1988. Discovery of a Tephra Bed in theQuaternary Alluvial Sediments of Peninsular India. Current Science 58: 564-67.

Korisettar, R., and S.N. Rajaguru. 1998. Quaternary stratigraphy, palaeoclimate and the LowerPalaeolithic of India. In Petraglia, M.D. and R. Korisettar (eds.) Early Human Behaviour inGlobal Context: The Rise and Diversity of the Lower Palaeolithic Record. London: Routledge,304-342.

Korisettar, R. and S.N. Rajaguru. 2002. The monsoon background and the evolution ofprehistoric cultures of India. In K. Paddayya (ed.) Recent Studies in Indian Archaeology. NewDelhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 316-348.

Krishnaswami, V.D. 1938. Environmental and Cultural Changes of the Prehistoric Man nearMadras. Journal of Madras Geographical Association 13: 58-90.

Larick, R. and R.L. Ciochon. 1996. The African Emergence and Early Asian Dispersals of theGenus Homo.American Scientist. (The Magazine of Sigma Xi, The Scientific ResearchSociety). November-December. Volume 84: 538-551.

Leakey, M. D. 1971. Olduvai Gorge. (Volume 3). Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960-1963.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marathe, A.R. 1981. Geoarchaeology of the Hiran Valley, Saurashtra, India. Pune: DeccanCollege Postgraduate and Research Institute.

McPherron, S.P. 2000. Handaxes as a Measure of the Mental Capabilities of Early Hominids.Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 655-663.

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

18/22

Mishra, S. 1992. The Age of the Acheulian in India: New Evidence. Current Anthropology33:325-328.

Mishra, S. 1994. The South Asian Lower Palaeolithic. Man and Environment19 (1-2): 57-72.

Mishra, S. 1995. Chronology of the Indian Stone Age: the Impact of Recent Absolute andRelative Dating Attempts. Man and Environment20 (2): 11-16.

Mishra, S., Naik, S., Deo, S., Rajaguru, S.N., and S. Ghate. 2002. The Early Acheulian inIndia: Geological Context and Age. Online abstract for the 17th Congress of the Indo-PacificPrehistory Association. Academia Sinica. Taipei, Taiwan. September 9-15.

Mishra, S., Venkatesan, T.R., and B.L.K. Somayajulu. 1995. Earliest Acheulian Industry fromPeninsular India. Current Anthropology36(5): 847-51.

Misra, V.N. 1985. The Acheulian Succession at Bhimbetka, Central India. In Misra, V.N. andP. Bellwood (eds.) Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory. New Delhi: Oxford and IBHPublishing Co., 35-47.

Misra, V.N. 1987. Middle Pleistocene Adaptations in India. In Soffer, O. (ed.) The PleistoceneOld World- Regional Perspectives. New York: Plenum Press, 99-119.

Misra, V.N. 1989. Stone Age India: An Ecological Perspective. Man and Environment14: 17-64.

Misra, V.N. 1995. Geoachaeology of the Thar Desert, Northwest India. In Wadia, S., R.Korisettar, and V.S. Kale (eds.) Quaternary Environments and Geoarchaeology of India -Essays in Honour of Professor S.N. Rajaguru. Bangalore: Geological Society of India, 210-230.

Misra, V.N. 2001. Prehistoric human colonization of India. Journal of Bioscience 26 (4): 491-531.

Misra, V.N. and S.N. Rajaguru. 1988. History of Environment and Man in the Thar Desert.Journal of the Geological Society of India 1: 7-16

Misra, V. N . and S. N. Rajaguru. 1989. Palaeoenvironments and prehistory of the TharDesert, Rajasthan, India. In Frifelt, K. and R. Sorensen (eds.) South Asian Archaeology1985.Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Occasional Papers 4, 296-320.

Mohapatra, G.C. 1985. Cultural ecology of early man in India. In Deo, S.B. and K. Paddayya(eds.) Recent Advances in Indian Archaeology (Proceedings of the Seminar held in Poona in1983). Poona: Deccan College Post-graduate and Research Institute, 23-28.

Movius, H.L., Jr. l944. Early man and Pleistocene stratigraphy in southern and eastern Asia.Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology19: 1-125.

Movius, H.L., Jr. 1948. The Lower Paleolithic cultures of southern and eastern Asia.Transactions of the American Philosophical Society28: 329-420.

Noll, M., and M.D. Petraglia. 2003. Acheulean Bifaces and Early Human Behavioral Patterns

in East Africa and South India. In Soressi, M. and H. Dibble (eds.) Multiple Approaches to theStudy of Bifacial Technologies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 31-53.

Paddayya, K. 1975. Investigations into the Acheulian Phase in Shorapur Doab, PeninsularIndia. Qurtar26: 5-11.

Paddayya, K. 1982. The Acheulian Culture of the Hunsgi Valley (Peninsular India)- ASettlement System Perspective. Pune: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.

Paddayya, K. 1991. The Acheulian Culture of the Hunsgi-Baichbal Valleys, Peninsular India: a

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

19/22

Processual Study. Qurtar41/42: 111-118.

Paddayya, K. 2001. The Acheulian culture project of the Hunsgi and Baichbal Valleys,Peninsular India. In Barham, L. and K. Robson-Brown (eds.) Human Roots: Africa and Asia inthe Middle Pleistocene. Bristol: Western Academic & Specialist Press Limited, 235-258.

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

Blickstein, J.I.B., and A.R. Skinner. 2002. Recent findings on the Acheulian of the Hunsgi andBaichbal valleys, Karnataka, with special reference to the Isampur excavation and its dating.Current Science 83(5): 641-647. September 10.

Paddayya, K. and M. Petraglia. 1993. Formation Processes of Acheulian Localities in theHunsgi and Baichbal Valleys, Peninsular India. In Goldberg, P., D.T. Nash, and M.D. Petraglia(eds.) Formation Processes in Archaeological Context. Monographs in World Archaeology inWorld Archaeology No 17. Madison: Prehistory Press, 61-82.

Paddayya, K. and M. Petraglia. 1997. Isampur: an Acheulian workshop in the Hunsgi Valley,Gulbarga District, Karnataka. Man and Environment22: 95-100.

Pappu, R.S. 1974. Pleistocene Studies in the Upper Krishna Basin. Poona: Deccan College.

Pappu, R.S. 1985. Geomorphic Setting of Acheulian Sites in Peninsular India. In Misra, V.N.

and P. Bellwood (eds.) Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory. New Delhi: Oxford andIBH, 9-12.

Pappu, R.S. 2001.Acheulian Culture in Peninsular India. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd.

Pappu, R. S. and S. G. Deo. 1994. Man-Land Relationships During Palaeolithic Times in theKaladgi Basin, Karnataka. Pune: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.

Pappu, S. 1996. Reinvestigation of the Prehistoric Archaeological Record in the KortallayarBasin, Tamil Nadu. Man and Environment20 (1): 1-23.

Pappu, S. 2001. A Re-Examination of the Palaeolithic Archaeological Record of NorthernTamil Nadu, South India. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1003.

Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Taieb, M., Brugal, J., and Y. Touchard. 2003. Excavations at thePalaeolithic Site of Attirampakkam, South India: Preliminary Findings. Current Anthropology44(4). pp. 591-598.

Patnaik, R. 2004. Unpublished Report Submitted to the National Geographic Society (U.S.A.)

Patnaik, R. and P.R. Chauhan. 2004. The Narmada hominin locality revisited: implications offresh geological, paleolithic, and paleontological observations. Paleoanthropology Society

Abstracts. Montreal, Canada. March 30-31, 2004. p. 21

Petraglia, M. D. 1998. The Lower Palaeolithic of India and its bearing on the Asian Record. InPetraglia, M.D. and R. Korisettar (eds.) Early Human Behaviour in Global Context: The Riseand Diversity of the Lower Palaeolithic Record. London: Routledge, 343-390.

Petraglia, M.D. 2001. The Lower Palaeolithic of India and its Behavioural Significance. In

Barham, L. and K. Robson-Brown (Eds.) Human Roots: Africa and Asia in the MiddlePleistocene. Bristol: Western Academic & Specialist Press, Ltd., Bristol, England, 217-233.

Petraglia, M.D. 2003. The Lower Paleolithic of the Arabian Peninsula: Occupations,Adaptations, and Dispersals. Journal of World Prehistory17(2): 141-179.

Petraglia, M. D., LaPorta, P. and K. Paddayya. 1999. The first Acheulian quarry in India: stonetool manufacture, biface morphology, and behaviors. Journal of Anthropological Research 55:39-70.

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

20/22

Petraglia, M.D., Shipton, C. and K. Paddayya. 2004. Life and Mind in the Acheulean: EarlyHumans of Southern India. In Gamble, C. and M. Porr (eds.) The Individual Hominid inContext. Routledge: London. (in press).

Pope, G.G. and S.G. Keates. 1994. The evolution of human cognition and cultural capacity- Aview from the Far East. In Corruccini, R.S. and R.L. Ciochon (eds.) Integrative Paths to thePast- Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F. Clark Howell. Englewood Cliff, New

Jersey: Prentice Hall, 531-567.

Potts, R., Behrensmeyer, A.K., and P. Ditchfield. 1999. Paleolandscape variation and earlyPleistocene hominid activities: Members 1 and 7, Olorgesailie formation, Kenya. Journal ofHuman Evolution 37(5): 747-788.

Raghavan, H., Rajaguru, S.N., and V.N. Misra. 1989. Radiometric dating of a Quaternary dunesection, Didwana, Rajasthan. Man and Environment13: 19 -22.

Rao, K.V., Chakraborti, S., Rao, K.J., Ramani, M.S.V., Marathe, S.D., and B.T. Borkar. 1997.Magnetostratigraphy of the Quaternary Fluvial Sediments and Tephra of Narmada Valley,Central India. In Udhoji, S.G. and M.P. Tiwari (eds.) Quaternary Geology of the NarmadaValley- A Multidisciplinary Approach. Special Publication No. 46 of the Geological Survey ofIndia. Calcutta: Geological Survey of India. pp. 65-78.

Rendell, H.M. and R.W. Dennell. 1985. Dated Lower Palaeolithic Artifacts from NorthernPakistan. Current Anthropology26 (5): 93.

Retallack, G.J. 1995. Palaeosols of the Siwalik Group as a 15 myr record of South Asianpalaeoclimate. In Wadia, S., Korisettar, R., and V.S. Kale (eds.) Quaternary Environments andGeoarchaeology of India - Essays in Honour of Professor S.N. Rajaguru. Bangalore:Geological Society of India, 36-51.

Rolland, N. 1998. The Lower Palaeolithic settlement of Eurasia, with specific reference toEurope. In Petraglia, M.D. and R. Korisettar (eds.) Early Human Behaviour in Global Context.London: Routledge, 187-220.

Roberts, M.B., Parfitt, S.A., Pope, M.I. and F.F. Wenban Smith. 1997. Boxgrove, WestSussex: Rescue excavations of a Lower Palaeolithic landsurface (Boxgrove Project B 1989-

1991). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society63: 303-358.

Ruff, C.B., Trinkaus, E., and T.W. Holliday. 1997. Body mass and encephalization inPleistocene Homo. Nature 387, 173-176.

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

Sankalia, H.D. 1974. The Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan. Pune: DeccanCollege and Postgraduate Research Institute.

Sankhyan, A.R. 1997. A new human fossil from the Central Narmada Basin and itschronology. Current Science 73: 1110-1111.

Santonja, M. and P. Villa. 1990. The Lower Palaeolithic of Spain and Portugal. Journal ofWorld Prehistory4(1): 45-94.

Schick, K.D. 1994. The Movius Line reconsidered. In Corruccini, R.S. and R.L. Ciochon (eds.)Integrative Paths to the Past- Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F. Clark Howell.Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 569-596.

Schick, K., Toth, N., Wei, Q., Clark, J. D., and D. Etler. 1991. Archaeological Perspectives inthe Nihewan Basin, China. Journal of Human Evolution 21: 13-26.

Schick, K.D. and D. Zhuan. 1993. Early Paleolithic of China and Eastern Asia. EvolutionaryAnthropology2(1): 22-35.

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

21/22

Sen, D. and A.K. Ghosh. 1963. Lithic culture-complex in the Pleistocene sequence of theNarmada Valley, Central India. Rivista Di Scienze Prestoriche, XVIII, Fasc. 1-4: 3-23.

Shane, P., Westgate, J., Williams, M.A.J., and R. Korisettar. 1995. New GeochemicalEvidence for the Youngest Toba Tuff in India. Quaternary Research 44: 200-204.

Shipman, P. and J. Rose. 1983. Evidence of butchery and hominid activities at Torralba andAmbrona; an evaluation using microscopic techniques. Journal of Archaeological Science10(5): 465-474.

Smith, P.E.L. 1986. Paleolithic archaeology in Iran. Philadelphia: The University Museum,University of Pennsylvania.

Sonakia, A. and S. Biswas, 1998. Antiquity of the Narmada Homo erectus, the early man ofIndia. Current Science 77(4): 391-393.

Supekar, S.G. 1968. Pleistocene Stratigraphy and Prehistoric Archaeology of the CentralNarmada Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Deccan College Library: Pune.

Supekar, S.G. 1985. Some Observations on the Quaternary Stratigraphy of the CentralNarmada Valley. In Misra, V.N. and P. Bellwood (eds.) Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific

Prehistory. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. pp.19-27.

Swisher, C.C. III., Curtis, G.H., Jacob, T., Getty, A.G., Suprijo, A., and Widiasmoro. 1994. Ageof earliest known hominids in Java, Indonesia. Science 263: 1118-1121.

Szabo, B.J., McKinney, C., Dalbey, T.S., and K. Paddayya. 1990. On the Age of the AcheulianCulture of the Hunsgi-Baichbal Valleys, Peninsular India. Bulletin of the Deccan CollegePostgraduate and Research Institute 50: 317-321.

Tchernov, E. 1995. The earliest hominids in the southern Levant. In Gibert, J., Sanchez, F.,Gibert, L. and F. Ribot (eds.) The Hominids and their Environment during the Lower andMiddle Pleistocene of Eurasia: Proceedings of the International Conference of HumanPalaeontology, Orce, 1995. Orce: Musee Prehistoria y Paleontologia. pp. 39-406.

Tiwari, M.P. and H.Y. Bhai. 1997. Quaternary Stratigraphy of the Narmada Valley. In Udhoji,S.G. and M.P. Tiwari (eds.) Quaternary Geology of the Narmada Valley- A MultidisciplinaryApproach. Special Publication No. 46 of the Geological Survey of India. Calcutta: GeologicalSurvey of India, pages. pp. 33-63.

Verosub, K. L., Goren-Inbar, N., Feibel, C.S., and I. Saragusti. 1998. Location of theMatuyama/Brunhes boundary in the Gesher Benot Ya'aqov archaeological site. Journal ofHuman Evolution 34: 22.

Wakankar, V.S. 1973. Bhimbetka Excavations. Journal of Indian HistoryLI(1)S, No. 151: 23-32.

Wanpo, H., Ciochon, R., Yumin, G., Larick, R., Qiren, F., Schwarcz, H., Yonge, C., de Vos, J.,and W. Rink. 1995. Early Homo and associated artefacts from China. Nature 378: 275-278.

Wasson, R.J., Smith, G.I., and D.P. Agrawal. 1984. Late Quaternary Sediments, Minerals, andInferred Geochemical History of Didwana Lake, Thar Desert, India. Palaeogeography,Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology46: 345-372.

Wynn, T. and F. Tierson. 1990. Regional comparison of the shapes of later Acheulianhandaxes.American Anthropologist92: 73-84.

Parth R. Chauhan (biography)

7/28/2019 Parth Chuhan Early Acheulian

22/22

Parth R. Chauhan studied anthropology (B.A.) with a thrust in African prehistory at RutgersUniversity (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 anarchaeologist for firms active in Cultural Resource Management in New Jersey. He hasrecently completed his Ph.D. thesis entitled SITE- FORMATION STUDIES ANDPALEOLITHIC 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 NarmadaValley of Central India and flintknapping experiments at Attirampakkam in southern India.Parth can be contacted at:[email protected]

Chauhan 2004 assemblage 2004

assemblage - the Sheffield graduate journal of archaeology

[email protected]

Research School of Archaeology and Archaeological Sciences

University of Sheffield

2 Mappin Street

Sheffield S1 4DT

Tel: (0114) 222 5102 Fax: (0114) 272 7347