A Review of Lower Palaeolithic Studies in Central

Vivek Singh1

1. Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali, Punjab – 140 306, India (Email: [email protected])

Received: 22 August 2018; Revised: 30 September 2018; Accepted: 04 November 2018 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6 (2018): 169‐241

Abstract: The central location of the Indian subcontinent is suggestive of a very diverse Palaeolithic records. The antiquity of the human occupation in central India is at least 800 ka or older and it also yielded the only known pre‐sapiens hominin fossil in subcontinent. Some occurrences also include mutual stratigraphic associations between the lithics and fauna, possibly hinting at butchery evidence. The oldest dates for Acheulean in Subcontinent is 1.5 Ma which demonstrates the rapid dispersal from Africa to the Indian Subcontinent soon after Acheulean innovation at 1.7 Ma. This makes Central India a possible route for dispersal within India. A total of 305 Lower Palaeolithic occurrences have been reported since 1950 in this region and 17 of them have been excavated. This study highlights the known Lower Palaeolithic records of central India, and demonstrates that this region requires multidisciplinary scientific attention to better understand hominin land use and related behaviours.

Keywords: Central India, Lower Palaeolithic, Geology, Technology, Excavation, Exploration, Fossil Remains

Introduction The study of Lower Palaeolithic assemblages in India has become a major focus of attention with the findings of various stone tool types from the Pallavaram site, near Chennai in 1863 by Robert B. Foote (e.g. Foote 1916; Pappu et al. 2011). Soon after this, a large number of Palaeolithic sites were reported in Indian Subcontinent. But the study of different lithic assemblages found in central India gained momentum after the work of de Terra and Paterson and efforts of various institutes like Deccan College (), The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda (), etc. A few relevant dated Acheulean sites in the Indian Subcontinent are Attirampakkam (1.5 ma) in Tamil Nadu, Isampur (1.2 ma) in Karnataka, Chirki‐Nevasa (350 ka) and Morgaon in Maharashtra, Bamburi (130 ka) and Patpara (140 ka) in , Didwana (187 ka) in Rajasthan, and Adi Chadi Wav (69 ka) in Gujarat (Haslam et al. 2011; Misra 2001; Pappu et al. 2011; Petraglia 2006; Singhvi et al. 2010). Thus far, the oldest site Attirampakkam which is in Tamil Nadu is dated at 1.51±0.07 Ma to 1.07 Ma (Pappu et al. 2011). Here the hominins were making rough‐outs of bifaces at different locations and then bringing back to the site in order to refine them; as all evidences of ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

subsequent lithic reduction sequences were found at the site. Previously, the general notion was that the Indian Acheulean was about 0.6 myr old (Dennell, 2009). But new data highlights the need of reformation of our knowledge regarding the Indian Acheulean by confirming its presence beyond the periphery of expected ages. Till now, we do not have evidences of any site in the Gangetic plains or in the North‐eastern region, Kerala, southern Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka (Korisettar, 2007). The Indian Acheulean is very similar to the African Acheulean as they both have characteristic Large Flake elements (Sharon, 2010; Mishra et al. 2010).

The first associated in‐situ lithic artefacts and some fossil bones discovered by “Mr. Hackett” in 1873 from the left bank of Narmada in Bhutra village, around 13 km north of Gadarwada in (Medlicott, 1873:49). The first holistic approach on the Pleistocene (including lithics and fossils) of central India was proposed by de Terra and Paterson (1939). They did two weeks of fieldwork in the region between Hoshangabad and Narsinghpur and described many areas bearing lithics of different periods and associated fossils (de Terra and Paterson, 1939). These studies provided a framework for later scholars to carry out research on Palaeolithic assemblages found at various locations across central India. Since then, a large number of sites have been discovered in the region.

The published data on central India show intensive surveys around central Narmada Valley. This interest seems to be the result of previous geological as well as faunal studies and as a result Quaternary sediments are better defined as compared to other regions. This paper reviews Lower Palaeolithic investigations in central India after Independence and is a compilation of central Indian Acheulean sites reported in the Indian Archaeological Review (IAR), Man and Environment, Puratattva, select Ph.D. theses and also from other recent articles. Only those were published in English were selected for the review and it was not possible to include specific academic theses or dissertations; these will be referred to in the future.

During the compilation, it was noticed that different authors have historically used different terminologies to denote the Acheulean assemblages. They have used the term as ‘series I tools’, ‘Early Stone Age tools’ or ‘Lower Palaeolithic tools’. On the other hand, the variability in the spelling is also present. In a few studies, they used ‘Acheulian’, while others have used ‘Acheulean’. In several studies, there is an absence of details regarding the tools types, density of tools, site type, description, etc. The confusion regarding the location of sites is also present. In IAR 1984‐85 and 1985‐86, the Palaeolithic site of Hathnora is mentioned as part of , whereas in IAR 1994‐95 it was shown as part of district. Discrepancy over the names of sites and districts in IAR is also present. For example, in IAR 1964‐65 ‘Shyamala Hills’ in is written as ‘Shamla Hills’ and district ‘Shahdol’ is written as ‘Sahdol’. In a few IAR reports, proper names of the sites or their precise locations are not always mentioned (Krishan and Srivastava, 1996; Wakankar, 1996; Ansari, et al. 1967; Badam, 1979; Badam and Salahuddin, 1984).

170 Singh 2018: 169‐241

Table 1: List of Excavated Lower Palaeolithic Sites in Central India

of Material

No

No. Artefacts References Technology Sl. Site State Coordinates Raw 1 Durkadi MP 22˚ 9’ N; 75˚ 650 Quartzite LP, MPA, Armand, 1974 Nala 36’ E UP 2 Balwara MP 22° 10’ N; NS Quartzite LP Ota et al. 1993 76° 31’ E 3 Hirapur MP 22° 28’ N; NS Sandstone, LP, MPA, Bopardikar et Khadan 76° 58’ E quartzite ML al. 1992 4 Bhimbetka MP 22° 50’ N; 8505 Quartzite LP, MPA, Wakankar et 77° 37’ E UP, ML al. 1975; Alam, 2001 5 Adamgarh MP 22° 45’ N; 280 Quartzite LP, MPA, Joshi and 77° 43’ E ML Khare, 1961 6 Dhansi MP 22 47″ N; 1518 Quartzite, LP, Fauna Krishnan and 77 37″ E quartz, chert Chauhan, 2015 7 Tikoda MP 23° 18’ N; 3665 Quartzite LP Ota and Deo, 77° 59’ E 2012 8 Saguna MP NS NS NS LP, MPA, Ansari et al. Ghat Fauna 1974 9 Rati Karar MP NS NS NS LP, MPA, Ansari et al. Kalan Fauna 1974 10 Mahadeo MP 23° 06’ N; 1198 Quartzite LP, MPA Supeker, 1968 Piparia 79° 16’ E 11 Gupteshwar MP NS 1000 Sandstone, LP, MPA, Misra, 2003 quartzite ML 12 Lalitpur UP 24° 45’ N; 1048 Granite, LP Singh, 1965 78° 30’ E quartzite (unpublished) 13 Maihar I MP 24˚ 16ʹ N; 430 Quartzite LP, MPA Pandey et al. 88˚ 46 E 1992 14 Patpara MP 24° 28ʹ N; 204 Quartzite LP Blumenschine 81° 53ʹ E et al. 1983 15 Bamburi MP 24° 33’ N; 47 Quartzite LP Haslam et al. 82° 13’ E 2011 16 Sihawal MP 24° 33’ N; 119 Quartzite LP Kenoyer and 82° 13’ E Pal, 1983 17 Nakjhar‐ MP 24°32’ N; 82° 54 Quartzite LP Misra et al. Khurd 13’ E 1983 Abbreviation: MP‐ Madhya Pradesh, UP‐ Uttar Pradesh, NS‐ Not specified, LP‐ Lower Palaeolithic, MPA‐ Middle Palaeolithic, ML‐ Microlithic

171 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

The present review study was conducted to keep in mind all the above mentioned facts and attempt to provide a general idea about the Acheulean in central India covering all districts of Madhya Pradesh; Kota, Jhalawar and Baran districts of Rajasthan; and and Lalitpur districts of Uttar Pradesh . The selection of these districts from Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are done because they are separated by political boundary but lies within the same geographical position. A total of 305 sites have been noted in this review including their geological contexts, distribution technology and associated fossil remains and out of these 17 sites have been excavated (Tables 1 and 2).

Geological Context Although central India have a bigger geographical expansion but for the current study only the state of Madhya Pradesh and few districts of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are considered. The main rock group of Madhya Pradesh is Vindhyan supergroup which belongs to Neo Proterozoic period. Next is the Gondwana Supergroup which belongs to the period between Carboniferous and Lower Cretaceous (Meert and Pandit, 2015). The youngest rocks are Deccan trap which belongs to the period between Upper Cretaceous and Paleocene (Figure 1) (Sheth et al. 2001). The rocks in the selected regions of Rajasthan belong to Marwar Supergroup, Aravalli Supergroup, Vindhyan Supergroup and Deccan Trap (GSI, 2011). The rocks in the selected regions of Uttar Pradesh are Bundelkhand Granitoid Complex, Agastmuni Group, Semri Group, Rewa Group and Deccan Trap (GSI, 2011).

The drainage pattern in central India is a result of various river systems such as Narmada, Betwa, Ken, Tawa, Parbati, Godawari, Son, Chambal, etc. The starts in the Amarkantak hills and joins the Arabian Sea ~1300 km to the west. Son and Chambal are the largest tributaries of river Ganga and Yamuna, respectively. The Quaternary alluvial of Narmada valley is divided into four terraces labeled from NT0 (youngest) to NT3 (oldest). Here, the Quaternary sedimentation is a result of various activities like glacial, fluvio‐glacial and lacustrine and fluvial phases (Khan, 2017). Central Narmada valley preserves the Quaternary sequence from Lower Pleistocene to Holocene and the oldest stratum is represented by the Pilikarar formation. The formations, in oldest to youngest order, are: Pilikarar, Dhansi, Surujkund, Baneta, Hirdepur, Baurus and Ramnagar (Figure 2) (Tiwari and Bhai, 1997). But according to Patnaik (2008), Pilikarar Formation is younger than Lower Pleistocene as they did not find concrete evidences in support of this notion. In response to this, Tiwari (2012) argues that it has primary laterite profile whereas it is absent in other formations and suggests that Pilikarar is the oldest formation. Middle Son valley has a Quaternary sequence from the late Middle Pleistocene to the Holocene and it is represented by four geological formations (from oldest to youngest): Sihawal, Patpara, Baghor and Khetaunhi. Patpara formation preserves the ash deposits from the ~74 kyr old Toba super eruption (Figure 3) (Williams and Royce, 1982; Jones and Pal, 2009; Shipton et al. 2013). Sihawal and Patpara formations are associated with the Lower Palaeolithic sites which represents the youngest Acheulean occupations in the old world (Haslam et al. 2011).

172 Singh 2018: 169‐241

Figure 1: Geological map of Central India (GSI 2011)

Site Distribution and Technology The Indian Lower Palaeolithic is largely dominated by the Acheulean technology but there are a few sites in the subcontinent which were described as Mode I or core‐and‐ flake sites. A few of these were reported from Central India: Mahadeo Piparia (Khatri, 1960; 1962), Durkadi Nala (Armand, 1983) and Dhansi (Morthekai et al. 2015). While the central Narmada valley preserves records of both Early Acheulean (e.g. Pilikarar and Tikoda) and Late Acheulean (e.g. Bhimbetka) in the region, the Middle Son Valley preserves the exclusive records of Late Acheulean assemblages. Patpara and Bamburi 1 are both Late Acheulean sites which are dated to ~140 Ka and ~131 Ka, respectively based on OSL (optically stimulated luminescence) dating (Haslam et al. 2011).

173 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Figure 2: Quaternary Sections Exposed in Central Narmada Valley (Patnaik et al. 2008)

A large number of Palaeolithic sites were discovered in the district during 1970s by Jacobson (1974; 1975). He discovered over 90 Palaeolithic sites and 18 out of them Acheulean. He did on‐site and off‐site analysis of in‐situ occurrences and collected artefacts from different localities. This area was later surveyed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which discovered the site of Tikoda which that time yielded 290 artefacts out of which 125 were cleavers (Gupta et al. 1985). The site was recently reinvestigated through collaboration between ASI (S.B. Ota) and Deccan College (Sushma Deo), in which new findings suggest that the artefacts are coming from two horizons within an eight meter section (Ota and Deo, 2014). This site is unique as it is represented dominantly by cleavers and also the high spatial concentration of the lithics. As these artefacts are coming from a buried context and are in fresh condition, multidisciplinary studies such as use‐wear and residue analysis can be used for possible utilization and behavioral interpretations of these tool makers.

One of the government projects, the Narmada Sagar Dam construction played an important role for archaeological investigations in central India. These investigations yielded sites ranging from the Acheulean to Historical time periods. In 1988, Ota (1992) carried out field surveys in 167 villages of East Nimar district, Madhya Pradesh. A total number of 71 sites of various cultures were discovered and seven of them belonged to the Acheulean. Another such archaeological project is the Narmada Basin Palaeoanthropology Project, which was initiated in 2003 by Rajeev Patnaik and Parth R. Chauhan, one of their long term objectives being to comprehensively investigate the central Narmada River valley and its adjoining regions. This project helped in a better

174 Singh 2018: 169‐241 understanding of the central Narmada Quaternary sequence and the palaeoclimate of the region suggested from the rich mammalian and pollen fossil records (Patnaik et al. 2009); this work also demonstrated that the fossil hominin site of Hathnora is in secondary context.

Figure 3: Quaternary Stratigraphy at Various Locations in the Middle Son Valley (Jones and Pal 2009)

Many open air and buried context Acheulean sites have been reported and documented; for example, Pilikarar, and Khusmeli Dam in which preserves Early Acheulean evidences (Chauhan and Patnaik, 2008; Chauhan et al. 2017). At Pilikarar, the artefacts come from buried context (alluvial deposit) and associated specimens are eroding out from a cobble fan deposit regularly. The rubble

175 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

from this alluvial deposit would have been used as a raw material for making stone tools (based on the freshness of the artefacts instead of them being rolled like the natural clasts). Although, no absolute dates are yet available for the site, this assemblage typologically belong appears to belong to the Early Acheulean. Khusmeli dam, which is located about a few hundred meters from the Vindhyan hills, also has characteristic Early Acheulean features. The scatters here become exposed annually when the water in the lake dries up.

Figure 4: All the Reported Lower Palaeolithic Assembleges in Central India

Figure 4A: All the Reported Assembleges in Cluster A

176 Singh 2018: 169‐241

Figure 4B: All the Reported Assembleges in Cluster B

Figure 4C: All the Reported Assembleges in Cluster C

The data generated from the compilation of the sites show a very clear distribution pattern over the landscape with majority of the sites located in the river valleys (Figure 4, 4A‐4C). Most number of sites are reported in the central Narmada valley and the second highest concentration can be seen in the middle Son valley. This distribution of sites overlaps with the Vindhyan Supergroup, which is the main source of sandstone and quartzite, and these two are the most utilized raw material in central India. The only exception for this pattern is the north part of Madhya Pradesh (districts: Morena, Bhind, , Sheopur, Datia and Shivpuri) where very few sites are noticed.

177 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

178 Singh 2018: 169‐241

179 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

180 Singh 2018: 169‐241

181 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

182 Singh 2018: 169‐241

183 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

184 Singh 2018: 169‐241

185 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

186 Singh 2018: 169‐241

187 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

188 Singh 2018: 169‐241

189 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

190 Singh 2018: 169‐241

191 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

192 Singh 2018: 169‐241

193 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

194 Singh 2018: 169‐241

195 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

196 Singh 2018: 169‐241

197 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

198 Singh 2018: 169‐241

199 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

200 Singh 2018: 169‐241

201 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

202 Singh 2018: 169‐241

203 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

204 Singh 2018: 169‐241

205 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

206 Singh 2018: 169‐241

207 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

208 Singh 2018: 169‐241

209 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

210 Singh 2018: 169‐241

211 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

212 Singh 2018: 169‐241

213 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

214 Singh 2018: 169‐241

215 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

216 Singh 2018: 169‐241

Table 3: Different Typological Assemblages as Reported in the Publications Sl. No. Assemblage Attributes Number of Sites 1 Acheulian‐Abbevillian 1 2 Abbevillian 10 3 Acheulian 3 4 Clactonion tools 2 5 Cleavers 3 6 Cleavers‐handaxes 27 7 Cleavers, handaxes, discoids, scrapers, choppers, flake 63 8 Early Acheulian 2 9 Early Stone Age tools 83 10 Handaxes 4 11 Late Acheulian 5 12 Lower Palaeolithic tools 55 13 Madras Handaxe culture 27 14 Pebble tools 9 15 Series I 11 Total 305

This review contains a list of 305 reported occurrences of Lower Palaeolithic in central India (Tables 2 and 3). Other important observation is that there are very few sites in the regions of Deccan Trap. Reason for this could be that it is not a good as a raw material for knapping and there are other regions in central India with good raw material in form of quartzite or these regions are less surveyed. There are few assemblages where volcanic raw material is utilized i.e., Sondha, Pakhri in have artefacts made on basalt and chert in association of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic artefacts (ASI and DC, 1969) and Gundawamada cave, Deora, Fonk, Phitari, Medha, Kosamghat, Sijhora, Piparia in district have artefacts made on dolerite, chert, sandstone and quartzite (Jha et al. 2002).

Excavations Central India is one of the most geologically and archaeologically explored region in Indian Subcontinent which, as a result, has yielded many well preserved Lower Palaeolithic sites. These sites geographically range from open‐air to rock shelter contexts. All the excavated Lower Palaeolithic sites (Figure 5) include the following: Adamgarh, Balwara, Bamburi, Bhimbetka, Dhansi, Durkadi Nala, Gupteshwar, Hirapur Khadan, Mahadeo Piparia, Maihar, Nakjhar Khurd, Patpara, Rati karar Khurd, Saguna Ghat, Tikoda in Madhya Pradesh and Lalitpur in Uttar Pradesh (Table 1). They are discussed below:

Adamgarh is a rock shelter site in Hoshangabad district and this site was excavated in between 1960 and 1961 by R.V. Joshi and M.D. Khare. It is primarily represented by rock‐art and in‐situ Palaeoliths and microliths and a total number of 18 trenches were

217 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

excavated, numbered from ADG‐1 to ADG‐18. In the stratigraphy, the lowest level is bedrock, capped by a laterite layer, followed by a layer of angular fragments and red clay which is overlaid by black clay. Here, the Acheulean implements are coming from buried context in red clay and preserves the complete chaîne opératoire sequence, indicated by finished tools and flake/cores. Artefacts retrieved by them include handaxes, cleavers, ovates, discoids, scrapers, flakes and cores made from Vindhyan quartzite and sandstone (Joshi and Khare, 1961).

Figure 5: All the excavated Lower Palaeolithic Sites in Central India

Bamburi I is located ~900 meters from the northern bank of and a 2×5m trench was laid, divided into five steps. The trench uncovered two sedimentary layers. The upper layer is comprised of around 2.5m of beige, pedogenically altered sandy silts, with carbonate nodules towards the top. The lower layer has high percentage of various clast sizes in sandy clay matrix and at the bottom; there are large weathered sub‐rounded boulders and brechiated stromatolitic limestone. A total of 22 artefacts were recovered from the trench, predominantly made on quartzite. The OSL dating of the site gave an age of 131 ka (Haslam et al. 2011).

Balwara was discovered as a part of investigations in the submergence area of Narmada Sagar Dam, in East Nimar district by the ASI. This is an open‐air late Acheulean site in the Vindhyan foothills (Ota, 1992; Ota et al. 1993). It was excavated for two consecutive seasons in 1988‐89 and 1989‐90. During the 1988‐89 excavation, a 5×5 trench and five more trenches were laid at various locations to confirm the stratigraphic context of the Acheulean which was deriving from a 40cm thick rubble horizon. This site revealed a Large Flake Acheulean industry with a tool kit comprised of both heavy duty as well as light duty tools including handaxes, cleavers, choppers,

218 Singh 2018: 169‐241 knives, picks, large utilized flakes and scrapers (Figure 6). Proportionately, the frequency of cleavers is high when compared to handaxes in the assemblage. There was also a large number of micro‐debitage in fresh condition confirming the primary context of the site. During the 1989‐90 season, 13 more test trenches were laid at various locations. The Acheulean bearing layer is overlaid by Narmada older alluvium, only in the area of the palaeo‐channel of the site. This older alluvium was thought to be deposited by the Pipalghati nullah and its tributaries (Ota et al. 1993; 1994).

Figure 6: Lower Palaeolithic Artefacts from Balwara (Nath et al. 1993)

Bhimbetka is a rock shelter complex with over 750 shelters; it was discovered by V.S. Wakankar in 1957 and situated on the northern margin of Vindhyan hills in the Raisen district. Most of the shelters contain paintings ranging from the Mesolithic to the medieval periods based on the superimposition and style of the paintings (Misra, 1978). Bhimbetka was first excavated in 1972 and yielded artefacts from the Lower Palaeolithic to the Late Medieval periods. The lowest level yielded choppers and this level was overlain by a sterile level and the following or third level in the sequence yielded Acheulean artefacts (Figure 7). This Acheulean level had two working floors which indicated the evolution of the industry; all this evidence has come from shelter IIIF‐24 (Wakankar, 1975; Wakankar et al. 1975).

In 1973, excavation at Bhimbetka was resumed and Acheulean occupation was found in IIIA‐29, III A‐30 and IIIF‐23 shelters. In layer 4 of IIIA‐29, several handaxes, cleavers

219 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

and scrapers were found and the lower part of the same layer yielded weathered bifacial choppers, which was similar with the findings from IIIF‐24. Shelter IIIF‐23 was excavated up to 1.40 meters, and a total of 4737 artefacts were recovered and layer five yielded Levallois flakes, points and cores, and scrapers, blades and cleavers; this assemblage was described as the Mousterian‐of‐Acheulean tradition. Layer six of the same shelter yielded a large number of handaxes and cleavers in association with Levallois flakes, blades and scrapers; and was described as evolved Acheulean. Layer five of IIIA‐30 shelter, composed of detrital laterite which yielded morethan hundreds of in situ Acheulean artefacts (Wakankar et al. 1978). The OSL dates of Acheulean and Acheulean to Middle Palaeolithic are chrono‐stratigraphically contradictory at III F‐23 shelter of Bhimbetka, as Acheulian dates (94±11ka) are coming younger than the Acheulean to Middle Palaeolithic dates (106±20 ka) (Bednarik et al. 2005; Kumar and Bednarik, 2010).

Figure 7: Example of bifaces reported from Bhimbetka (Alam 2001)

Later, IIIF‐23 was excavated by V.N. Misra for three consecutive years from 1973‐75. The maximum depth reached was 3.90 meters which reveled eight stratigraphic layers. In this shelter, the Acheulean deposit is 2.40 meters thick which typo‐technologically belongs to the Late Acheulean. Presence of flakes, cores and debitages (67.68 % of the whole assemblage) in the shelters shows that the shelters were used for stone tool production from locally derived quartzite. Regarding the bifaces, there are more cleavers compared to handaxes and various types of scrapers. This shelter clearly represents the transition from the Lower Palaeolithic to the Middle Paleolithic (Misra, 1978). The Acheulean at this site also represents possibly one of the oldest evidence of

220 Singh 2018: 169‐241 palaeo‐art in from of cupules. There are ten cupules and two of them were found in the excavation of IIIF‐24 shelter thought to be at the Acheulean level (Bednarik, 1993; 1996).

Dhansi: One step‐trench for geological purposes and two archaeological trenches of 2×2m each were laid at the site. The excavations yielded 1518 lithic specimens (pebbles and artefacts combined) (Figure 8) (Krishnan and Chauhan, 2015). The preliminary work at Dhansi shows its association with Mode I technology and this site has yielded in‐situ lithic artefacts which are coming from a pebble horizon of the Dhansi Formation (Patnaik et al. 2008). However, a detailed analysis of the lithic assemblage recovered from the excavations is required before an exclusive Mode 1 label can be applied. In any case, this site belongs to the Early Pleistocene as reflected by palaeomagnetic studies (Rao et al. 1997) and preliminary IRSL dating (800 ka) (Morthekai et al. 2015). The palaeomagnetic samples taken from the Dhansi type section (Rao et al. 1997) suggests that this formation and the associated artifacts are is older than 0.78 Ma (Brunhes‐Matuyama boundary).

Figure 8: Artefacts from Dhansi (Krishnan and Chauhan 2015)

Durkadi Nala was first reported by J. Armand in 1971 after his excavation at Durkadi Nala. During the excavation, 11 trenches (1.5×1.5 meters each) were laid along the Durkadi Nala for geological and archaeological studies. He described the Durkadi assemblage as a transitional stage between the pre‐Handaxe and the Handaxe stage (Armand, 1979; 1983). In 2009, Chauhan and colleagues (2013) excavated at this site

221 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

and found that there was modern anthropogenic exploitation of basalt due to construction work. The earlier speculated dates for this site was discarded as preliminary OSL date are < 200 ka and they also did not find any evidence of Mode I to Mode II transition as earlier reported by J. Armand. They noted two different artefact horizons: the first horizon with flakes, microliths and blades on cryptocrystalline material; the second horizon (close to bedrock) with quartzite flakes and core fragments, probably belonging to the Middle Palaeolithic. No typical bifaces were reported from the excavations or in the area surrounding the site.

Gupteshwar is a open‐air site located on the way to Tigar dam in Gwalior town, with Sank and Sonarehka rivers flowing in the north‐east of the site, discovered by B. B. Lal. Trenches were laid from Level 1 to 3 at various heights. The Level 1 ranges from 28 to 33 cm with sandstone bedrock at bottom, followed by a laterite layer, which is overlian by pebbly gravel bearing Lower Palaeolithic artefacts. The artefacts in this level are highly patinated and pulverized. The Level 2 is 1.2m thick with similar stratigraphy to Level 1, except the artefact bearing layer is 50 cm thick. In Level 3, Middle Palaeolithic artefacts were found. There are more than 1000 artefacts reported from this site, which includes cores, handaxes, cleavers, scrapers, and long blades. There were several waste flakes also suggesting it as a factory site (Mishra, 2003).

Hirapur Khadan is located in Hoshangabad District and it was excavated during 1975 and 1987. The excavation revealed a stratigraphy with nine horizons and horizons V, VII and IX yielded artifacts. Horizon V contains Upper Acheulean artefacts with a greater frequency of small flakes and blades, horizon VII contains Middle Stone Age artefacts and horizon IX contains microlithic assemblage (Banrejee et al. 1979). In 1986‐ 87, this site was re‐excavated by B. P. Bopardikar and altogether six trenches of various sizes were laid at different locations of site (however, dimensions and description of only four trenches are mentioned, viz., 3×3 m, 3×3 m, 1.50×10 m and 1.50×1.50 m). The thickness of the cultural deposits (from maximum to minimum) in these trenches is 2.20 m and 0.35 m, respectively. There was a long occupation of the site as the Acheulean artefacts range from being highly weathered to fresh when assessing from bottom to top, respectively and there is also a typo‐technological development from Early to Late phase of the Acheulean. The early phase is recognized by a greater number of bifacial choppers and handaxes, and less cleavers compared to the later phase. In addition to this, the later phase reveals a decrease in the size of tools, more symmetrical and with reduced thickness. There is a continuous linear typo‐ technological developmental succession from Early Acheulean (Figure 9) to the Middle Palaeolithic culture. Beside this, microlithic assemblages are found on the surface (Bopardikar et al. 1992).

Lalitpur: Sankalia et al. (1964) excavated two localities. At LPR I, locality 1 trench measuring 7×3.5 m is excavated and yielded 1048 specimens indicating a fairly high artefact density. The excavations revealed that artefacts are sandwiched as a thin rubble layer of 30 cm between weathered bedrock and brown soil deposit of 15 cm. The

222 Singh 2018: 169‐241

Figure 9: Artefacts from Hirapur Khadan Figure 10: A biface from Maihar (Bopardikar et al. 1992) (Pandey and Pal 1988) rubble layer comprised of quartz and granite fragments, quartzite pebbles, laterite nodules, finished and unfinished tools and debitage in a sandy matrix. Singh (1965, unpublished) performed trial trenches at three other locations and observed that ʹin situʹ tools below the soil were progressively being exposed due to tilling and erosion. In the well behind the Chhatrapal temple, there is a black soil layer between the artefact horizon and the top soil. The artefacts included 65 handaxes, 49 cleavers, 43 cores, 410 rounded pebbles, 270 angular fragments, 18 worked pebbles, and 723 waste flakes. The site was considered as a factory site because the presence of a high number of waste flakes, the freshness of the artefacts and little signs of transportation (Sankalia et al. 1964). Singh (1965, unpublished) notes the following artefact inventory of a total 1048 pieces from the excavation: 43 unifacial handaxes, 48 bifacial handaxes, 47 prepared flakes for handaxes, 21 cleavers, 51 prepared flakes for cleavers, 25 large cores, 14 small cores, 16 core‐flakes, 211 large flakes, 186 small flakes, 34 angular fragments and 340 chips. The quartz fragments, small quartzite pebbles, and many chips were not included in the final artefact inventory (Aggarwal, 2014 unpublished).

The Prehistory Branch of the Survey conducted excavation at some of the localities near Lalitpur under the direction of Joshi et al. (1967) to trace the extent and richness of the artefact horizon. The excavation at LPR II (Chhatrapal Temple area) revealed a disturbed artefact horizon without any factory debris with only three quartzite artefacts recovered in the excavation. At LPR I, locality 2, the tools were found in a cultivated field on the left bank of a small tributary stream of the Biana Nullah. The

223 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

locality lay at the eastern upper slope of the Betwa terrace lying at an elevation of 381 m. They occur on or underneath black soil in a thin kankar bed mixed with brownish earth and sub‐rounded gravel. The artefacts are exposed on or near the surface. The artefacts were made predominantly on granite, with few on quartzite, sandstone and quartz.

Mahadeo Piparia was discovered by A.P. Khatri, who carried out several explorations between Hoshangabad and Narsinghpur during the 1960s. He described it as a Mode I site which he called ‘Mahadevian’ and he also suggested that subsequently a later culture (Acheulean) originated from this. This view was later challenged by S.G. Supekar, who excavated Mahadeo Piparia and found Acheulean and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts at the same site (Supekar, 1964‐65; 1968).

Maihar is a primary occupational Acheulean site in located in the Vindhyan foothills at the base of the Sharda Temple hillock and the Lalji river (perennial tributary of Tons river). On the Lalji river, there is a section of 10 meters, which can be divided into five different layers. The shale bed forms the basal layer of the section and above this, there is a boulder bed from which the artefacts are eroding (Figure 10). A total number of 430 artefacts were collected from the site, of which 120 were cleavers and 55 handaxes. Geometric microliths were also found from the site in surface context (Mishra, 1977). This site was again excavated in 1987 by J.N. Pandey and a test trench of 2×1 m was excavated with a deposit of 1.12 meters. This section was divided into three different layers and associated sub‐layers: layer 1 and 1A, layer 2 and layer 3 and 3A. The Acheulean artefacts were found in layer 3 and 3A. Various types of artefacts were found including anvils, hammerstones, different sized cores, flakes, handaxes, cleavers, knives (Pandey and Pal, 1988).

Nakjhar‐Khurd: A step trench of 3×6.6m exposing Sihawal, Patpara and Baghor formations. Lower Palaeolithic artefacts were recovered from Sihawal (n=22) and Patpara (n=32) Formations. All the recovered artefacts were found in both fresh and abraded condition in the gravel, indicating a secondary deposit (Misra et al. 1983; Sharma, 1983).

Patpara is located on the northern slope of a ridge of Vindhyans running along the Son River. Excavations were carried out at two localities, i.e., Patpara I and Patpara II. The Patpara I has four layers of various thickness of Parpara Formation and the artefacts belong to Lower and Middle Palaeolithic industries. Patapra II is located 500m east of Patpara I and two geological formations were exposed here, i.e., Patpara (4.8m) and Sihawal (1.33m). here, the lower level of Patpara Formation showed a transitional stage between Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, whereas the middle level of the same had Middle Palaeolithic (Sharma, 1983). Later, Blumenschine et al. (1983) excavated at both these above mentioned localities. At Patpara I, 73m square are was excavated upto various depths and 153 artefacts were recovered. A step trench was laid at Patpara II and 127 artefaccts were recovered. The assemblege was assigned to Middle

224 Singh 2018: 169‐241

Palaeolithic, based on various factors such as high frequency of scrapers, a high ratio of light‐duty to heavy‐duty artefact, low proportions of handaxes and cleavers, significant proportion of specialized cores, a low ration of blades to flakes and a low proportion of multi‐facetted and radially prepared flakes (Blumenschine et al. 1983). But, recent study by Haslam et al. (2011) consider the Patpara assemblege as Late Acheulean on the bases of presence of handaxes and cleavers.

Rati‐Karar‐Kalan and Sagunaghat: The explorations done by Ansari and his team along the Narmada and its tributaries between Hoshangabad and Narsinghpur, resulted in large collection of stone tools (Lower and Middle Palaeolithic) and fossils of Bos, Elephus, Hippopotamus and other unidentified animals. They carried out small scale excavations at both these sites and noted Lower Palaeolithic artefacts from the Boulder Conglomerate and the Sandy‐gravel layer (Ansari et al. 1974). Futher information on trench sizes and total number of artefacts is not provided.

Sihawal: excavation at this site was done in a 25m2 with a samller 1×2m sondage and revealed three geological levels, i.e., 1, 2 and 3 (A and B). The excavation reached the bedrock 1.5m below the surface and the bedrock is overlain by two layers of Sihawal Formation. The lower member of this formation is made of rolled to angular clasts of quartzite, sandstone, chert and shale mixed in clay matrix and the upper member is made of mottled brown clay loan. Lower Palaeolithic artefacts were found from Level 3 and recovered a total of 114 artefacts. Artefacts were found in both fresh as well as abraded condition, indicating at a secondary context (Kenoyer and Pal, 1983; Sharma, 1983).

Tikoda: Locality TKD‐I, A 5x5 m trench (TKD‐I) was laid down and out of which eight squares were taken up for excavation. The 40 cm thick layer of sandy‐silt deposit with ferruginous pellets rests upon the bedrock. The artefacts collected from excavation mainly comprised flakes and one core and one cleaver. The systematically surface collection of the artefacts was carried out at this locality. The majority of these artefacts are fresh and some are abraded. Out of 220 artefacts, 94% are made on quartzite and the rest on either chert or chalcedony. Typologically, the collection is dominated by flakes and cleavers (Figure 11) with a few handaxes.

Locality TKD‐II, A small trench (1.5 x 1.0 m) is excavated to determine the sedimentary context of the Acheulian occupation. It was dug up to 4.40 m below the surface. The stratigraphic sequence shows top layer of brown silty clay with occasional calcrete nodules caps compact yellow brown silty sand (10 YR 5/4) and olive yellow brown clay (10 YR 5/4). This layer continues up to 2.19 m below surface. The fissured clay with light grey mottles on a brownish yellow (10 YR 6/8) background continues up to the base of the profile (4.10 m from surface), interrupted by a ferruginous sandy gravel at a depth of 2.84 m from surface. It has produced some artefacts along with broken slabs of quartzite and is marked as Acheulian level 1. The artefact level is capping a sterile brown‐yellow clay deposit (1.04 m thick) with light grey mottles and overlying second

225 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

artefact‐bearing gravel at a depth of 3.88 m from surface. The Acheulian level is comprised of few slabs and more artefacts. (Ota and Deo, 2014)

Figure 11: Cleavers from Tikoda, Raisen District (Courtesy: Raphael)

Fossil Remains The Indian subcontinent may have served as a migration route for different fauna and early human species as evident from the fossil remains from Southeast Asia (Patnaik and Chauhan, 2009). The first hominin fossil (partial cranium) was discovered from Hathnora in central Narmada valley (Sonakia, 1984). Later, two clavicles and a rib

226 Singh 2018: 169‐241 fragment were also recovered from the same gravel bed. Along with this, fossils (cranial, dental and postcranial) of Bubalus palaeindicus, Bos namadicus, Equus namadicus, Elephas namadicus, Stegodon sp., Hexaprotodon palaeindicus, Cervus duvauceli were also found (Sankhyan, 1997). The morphology of the partial cranium from Hathnora resembles Homo erectus (de Lumley and Sonakia, 1985) but from the cranial capacity it resembles archaic Homo sapiens (Cameron et al. 2004). Currently this fossil is classified as Homo sp. indet by (Athreya, 2007). Much recently, two hominin bones were discovered from Netankheri. The first one is a partial femur, which is recovered from the same stratigraphical horizon as that of Hathnora and the second one is a partial humerus which is recovered from an Upper Pleistocene stratum (Sankhyan et al. 2012). But all these remains which are coming from conglomerate context have been fluvially reworked which makes it difficult to date them (Chauhan, 2008). These finds demonstrate that the central Narmada valley has immense potential for yielding more complete hominin fossils and possibly butchery sites.

Table 4: Different Contexts in which Lower Palaeolithic Occurrences are Reported Sl. No. Context Number of Sites 1 Agricultural fields 2 2 Boulder bed 3 3 Conglomerate 4 4 Fine sediments 1 5 Gravel 20 6 Laterite 12 7 River bed 23 8 Stratified section 20 9 Surface 22 10 Without context 198 Total 305 (These categories are based on the reported sites and not created by the author)

Central India is also rich in other faunal remains and they start to appear from Middle Pleistocene deposits in central Narmada valley and from Upper Pleistocene deposits in the Middle Son valley (Kshirsagar and Badam 1990). These faunal remains are found in association with different prehistoric lithic assemblages and the most common species of animal found are Elephas, Equus, Bos, Hippopotamus and Bubalus (Joshi and Pandey 1982; Chauhan, 2008; Patnaik et al. 2008). Many Acheulean occurrences in association with fossils have been reported between and Hoshangabad (Trivadi, 1959; Khatri, 1960; Ansari, et al, 1974; Wakankar, 1978; Badam, 1980; Badam and Salahuddin, 1982; Sonakia, 1984; Chauhan, 2005). For example, Acheulean artefacts are found in association of Ursasa namadicus, Bos namadicus, Bubalus palaeindicus, Leptobus frazeri, Cervus duvauceli, Hippopotamus palaindicus, Rhinoceros unicornis, Equus namadicus, Stegodon insignisganesa, Elephus maximus, Elephus hysudricus, Elephus namadicus, Crocodylus palaeindicus, Pangsura tectum, Trionyx and Emys (Badam, 1979).

227 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Discussion The Indian subcontinent represents the southern boundary of classic Acheulean culture and is also known for rich and abundant Lower Palaeolithic sites. Acheulean producing hominins were present in India as early as 1.5 ma (Pappu et al. 2011). From the migration point of view, central India would have served as a perfect ecological landscape, which is also indicated by a large number of prehistoric sites in the region including Acheulean. The Indian Lower Palaeolithic is largely equivalent to the Acheulean, as till now, no unequivocal Oldowan evidence has been reported from the subcontinent with the possible exception of the Pabbi hills evidence which is techno‐ morphologically similar. Although many researchers have reported the presence of Oldowan or Mode I assemblages, for example Mahadeo Piparia and Durkadi, these views do not hold ground in the present available data (Chauhan et al. 2013).

Geographically, the Acheulean assemblages are very diverse in central India. Acheulean occurrences have been found in the in various geological settings such as current channels of various rivers/streams, in open‐air near foothills, in agricultural fields and inside or close to various rock shelters/caves (Table 4). Sites like Bhimbetka and Adamgarh represents the occupations in shelter settings. These types of sites are very significant for studying regional evolution or transition within assemblages as most of the times the context is undisturbed. The only example of cave occupations in central India is Gundawamada cave in , although not much information is provided on this site. This cave have a 2m thick deposit also revealed Lower and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts, both finished and unfinished (Jha et al. 2002). Also, different types of raw material were also used to make artefacts, for example, sandstone, quartzite, jasper (Khatri, 1960), basalt (ASI and DC, 1969), limestone (Kumar, 1973), chert, and dolerite (Jha et al. 2002). Like many other South Asian Acheulean assemblages, central Indian assemblages can also be divided into Early (e.g. Pilikarar) and Late (e.g. Patpara) phases based on the variations in the tool type and technology. Such sites, along with the well‐stratified ones should be excavated at a large scale and studied in detail using new technologies and dating methods. This spatial occurrence of Acheulean with Middle Palaeolithic is very common when we look at sites discovered in the past decade.

While looking at the exploration records of central India, it shows an increased interest as most of the explorations were carried out in river valleys. This can also be a result of the geography of this region because most of the area is covered by Deccan Trap and also the valleys preserve better records.

Conclusion Many archaeological surveys have been carried out in central India and which have yielded a large number of Lower Palaeolithic sites. Many of these sites preserve excellent records of technology, behavior and landscape adaptations, although very few of these sites have been properly excavated and dated. Out of the 305 reported sites, only 17 have been excavated so far. Based on the current status of research in

228 Singh 2018: 169‐241 central India, the only securely dated sites are; Patpara (140 Ka) and Bamburi (131 Ka) (Haslam et al. 2011) and the minimum age for the Dhansi evidence is ~800 Ka. Of all the sites reported in central India, most of them are located along the Narmada valley. Almost all of the reported sites overlap with the distribution of sedimentary and metamorphic rock types which are suitable for knapping. Comparatively, fewer sites are reported in the regions of volcanic rock types such as basalt. Nonetheless, there are many areas which need to be surveyed or re‐surveyed thoroughly for a better understanding of landscape use by the hominins. For example, in the north‐west and south of Madhya Pradesh fewer sites have been reported compared to the other regions of the state. Primary reason for this could be raw material (dominated by Deccan Trap) or preservation issues. Sites like Mahadeo Piparia, Burwaha, Mortakka, Ramgad, Khadi ghat and Amla which have been previously associated with pebble tools need to be re‐surveyed or studied properly to confirm their affinities to a particular technological phase (Khatri, 1962; Wakankar, 1971; 1973; Tiwari and Wakankar, 1974). Similarly, Tiwari and Wakankar (1974) collected Clactonian artefacts from Ringmodya and Khajaraya in district, which need to be restudied. A multidisciplinary approach is needed which includes other disciplines such as palaeoclimate studies, systematic surveys, GIS mapping, techno‐morphological studies and use‐wear of excavated material in primary contexts.

Acknowledgment The author would like to thank Dr. Parth R. Chauhan for his valuable suggestions and inputs in the paper draft. The author is thankful to UGC –ISF Research Grant (Grant application no. 2712/16) for funding. Further, the author would also like thank Mr. Shashi B. Mehra for his help in maps.

References Ahmad, N. (1965). Exploration in District Jabalpur, Shahdol And Sidhi. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1962‐63, 11. Ahmed, N. (1964). Explorations in district Rewa and Sidhi. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1961‐62, 24. Akhilesh, K., and Pappu, S. (2015). Bits and pieces: Lithic waste products as indicators of Acheulean behaviour at Attirampakkam, India. Journal of Archaeological Science, 4, 226–241. Alam, M. S. (2001). Palaeolithic Industries of Bhimbetka, Central India. Dhaka: Bangla Acadmey. Ansari, Z. D., Rajguru, S. N., Supekar, S. C., and Karve, G. (1967). Exploration in District Hoshangabad and Narsinghpur. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1963‐64 ‐ A Review, 14. Armand, J. (1974). Excavation near Navdatoli, District West Nimar. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1970‐71 ‐ A review, 20‐22. Armand, J. (1979). The Middle Pleistocene Pebble Tool Site of Durkadi in Central India. Paléorient, 105‐144.

229 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Armand, J. (1983). Archaeological excavations in Durkadi Nala : an early palaeolithic pebble‐tool workshop in Central India. Armand, J. (1985). The Emergence of Handaxe Tradition in Asia, with special reference to India. In Recent Advances in Indo‐Pacific Prehistory (pp. 3‐8). New Delhi: Oxford ‐ IBH. ASI, and DC. (1969). Exploration in District Hoshangabad, Jabalpur, Mandla and Narsinghpur. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1964‐65, 13‐15. Athreya, S. (2007). Was Homo heidelbergensis in South Asia? A test using the Narmada fossil from central India. In M. D. Petraglia, and B. Allchin (Eds.), The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia (pp. 137‐170). Netherlands: Springer. Badam, G. L. (1979). Exploration in Central Narmada Basin. (B. K. Thaper, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1973‐74 ‐ A Review, 19. Badam, G. L. (1979). Quaternary Palaeontology of the Central Narmada Valley and its implications in the Prehistoric studies. Geological Survey of India, 311‐320. Badam, G. L. (1980). Exploration in district Narsinghpur. (B. K. Thapar, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1977‐78: AReview, 33‐34. Badam, G. L., and Salahuddin. (1982). Some new fossil sites on the central Narmada Valley, Madhya Pradesh, India. Current Science , 898‐899. Badam, G. L., and Salahuddin. (1984). Exploration in District Narsinghpur. (D. Mitra, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1981‐82 ‐ A Review, 34‐35. Bajpai, K. D., Pandey, S. K., and Jha, V. D. (1975). Exploration in district Damon and Datia. (M. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1971‐72 ‐ A Review, 27. Banrejee, K. D., Bopardikar, B. P., Prasad, P. R., Nambiraju, Gulrandhe, S. K., Venkatramiah, K. S., et al. (1979). Exploration in District Hoshangabad. (B. K. Thaper, Ed.) 22‐24. Bednarik, R. G. (1993). Palaeolithic art in India. Man and Environment, 18, 33‐40. Bednarik, R. G. (1996). The cupules on Chiefʹs Rock, Auditorium Cave, Bhimbetka. Journal of the Archaeological and Anthropological Society of Victoria, 19, 63‐72. Bednarik, R. G., Kumar, G., Watchman, A., and Roberts, R. G. (2005). Preliminary results of the EIP Project. Rock Art Research, 147‐197. Bhattacharya, S. C., Misra, V. D., Sinha, P., Gupta, M. C., Tewari, L. K., Prasad, R., et al. (2002). Explorations near Kerwa Dam, Bhopal, District Bhopal. (A. S. India, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1996‐97 ‐ A Review, 57‐62. Blumenschine, R. J., Brandt, S. A., and Clark, J. D. (1983). Excavations and analysis of Middle Palaeolithic artifacts from Patpara, Madhya Pradesh. In G. R. Sharma, and J. D. Clark (Eds.), Palaeoenvironments and Prehistory in the Middle Son Valley (pp. 39‐99). Allahabad: Abinash Prakashan. Bopardikar, B. P., Gupta, S. S., Nikoshey, N. G., Nambhiraju, A. J., Dubey, J. S., Dwivedi, R. K., et al. (1992). Excavation in Hirapur Khadan, District Hoshangabad. (M. C. Joshi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1986‐87, 53‐55.

230 Singh 2018: 169‐241

Bopardikar, B. P., Venkatramiah, K. S., and Gulrandhe, S. K. (1979). Exploration in District Hoshangabad and East Nimar. (B. K. Thaper, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1974‐75 ‐ A Review, 24. Cameron, D., Patnaik, R., and Sahni, A. (2004). The Phylogenetic Significance of the MIddle Pleistocene Narmada Hominin Cranium from Central India. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 14, 419‐447. Chauhan, P. R. (2004). A review of the Early Acheulian evidence from South Asia. Assemblage, 8. Chauhan, P. R. (2005). Faunal and Lithic associations in Peninsular India and Sri Lanka: A brief summary. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2, 181‐201. Chauhan, P. R. (2008). Large mammal fossil occurrences and associated archaeological evidence in Pleistocene contexts of peninsular India and Sri Lanka. Quaternary International, 20‐42. Chauhan, P. R. (2010). Metrical Variability Between South Asian Handaxe Assemblages: Preliminary Observations. In S. J. Lycett, and P. R. Chauhan (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies (pp. 119‐166). Springer. Chauhan, P. R., and Patnaik, R. (2008). The Narmada Basin Palaeoanthropology Project in central India. Antiquity, 82, 317. Chauhan, P. R., and Patnaik, R. (2017). Pilikarar: An Early Acheulian Site in the Central Narmada Basin, India. In K. Paddayya, and B. Basak (Eds.), Prehistoric Research in the Indian Subcontinent: A Reappraisal and New Directions (pp. 117‐ 143). Delhi: Primus Books. Chauhan, P. R., Krishnan, K., Tiwari, N., Mukherjee, A., Anoop, A., Sant, D. A., et al. (2017). At the Forest Edge: General Observations on New Microlithic Occurrences in the Central Narmada Basin, Madhya Pradesh. (S. G. Deo, A. Baptista, and J. Joglekar, Eds.) Rethinking the Past: A Tribute to Professor V.N. Misra, 65‐80. Chauhan, P. R., Sathe, V., and Saleem, S. (2013). A Short Note on Prehistoric Reinvestigations at Durkadi, Central India. Journal of Physical Anthropology and Human Genetics, 32, 185‐193. de Lumley, M. A., and Sonakia, A. (1985). First discovery of a Homo erectus on the Indian sub‐continent, at Hathnora, in the middle valley of the Narmada river. LʹAnthropologie, 89, 13‐61. de Terra, H., and Paterson, T. T. (1939). The Pleistocene in the Narbada Valley of Central India. In H. de Terra, and T. T. Paterson, Studies on the Ice Age in India and Associated Human Cultures (pp. 313‐323). Washington, D. C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Dharampala. (1984). Exploration in District raisen. (D. Mitra, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1981‐82 ‐ A Review, 37‐38. Dikshit, M. G. (1993). Explorations in District Mandasor. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1957‐58 ‐ A review, 26‐30.

231 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Foote, R. (1916). The Foote Collection of Indian Prehistoric and Prehistoric Antiquities. Madras: Government Museum. Gaur, H. S., Jha, V. D., Tripathi, K. K., and Shukla, R. K. (2004). Explorations in District Dindori and Seoni. Indian Archaeology 1998‐99 ‐ A Review, 90‐92. GSI. (2011, 09 24). State geology and mineral maps – Geological Survey of India Miscellaneous Publication Series. Retrieved 05 02, 2018, from http://www.indiawa terportal.org:http://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/state‐geology‐and‐m ineral‐maps‐geological‐survey‐india‐miscellaneous‐publication‐series. GSI. (2011, 09 24). State geology and mineral maps – Geological Survey of India Miscellaneous Publication Series. Retrieved 07 03, 2018, from http://www.indiawa terportal.org/: http://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/state‐geology‐and‐ m ineral‐maps‐geological‐survey‐india‐miscellaneous‐publication‐series. GSI. (2011, 09 24). State geology and mineral maps – Geological Survey of India Miscellaneous Publication Series. Retrieved 07 03, 2018, from http://www.indiawater portal.org: http://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/state‐geology‐and‐min eral‐maps‐geological‐survey‐india‐miscellaneous‐publication‐series. Gupta, S. S., Stevenson, A., Nambiraju, A. J., Singh, P., Girhe, K. M., Biswas, P., et al. (1985). Exploration In District Raisen. (M. S. Rao, Ed.) Indian Archaeology1982‐83 ‐ A Review, 38‐39. Haslam, M., Harris, C., Clarkson, C., Pal, J. N., Shipton, C., Crowther, A., et al. (2012). Dhaba: An initial report on an Acheulean, Middle Palaeolithic and microlithic locality in the Middle Son Valley, north‐central India. Quaternary International, 191‐199. Haslam, M., Roberts, R. G., Shipton, C., Pal, J., Fenwick, J. L., Ditchfield, P., et al. (2011). Late Acheulean hominins at the Marine Isotope Stage 6/5e transition in north‐central India. Quaternary Research, 670–682. Jacobson, J. (1974). Early Stone Age habitation patterns in Raisen district, Madhya Pradesh. Jacobson, J. (1975). Early Stone Age Habitation Sites in Eastern . Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 119, 280‐297. Jha, V. D., Tripathi, K. K., and Shukla, P. K. (2002). Exploration in District Mandla. Indian Archaeology 1996‐97: A Review, 63‐64. Jones, S. C., and Pal, J. N. (2009). The Palaeolithic of the Middle Son valley, north‐ central India: Changes in hominin lithic technology and behaviour during the Upper Pleistocene. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 28, 323‐341. Joshi, J. P., Sharma, A. k., Ali, J., Sobti, R., and Dubey, J. S. (2005). Excavation at Sirpur, District Mahasamund. Indian Archaeology 1999‐2000 ‐ A Review, 96‐99. Joshi, R. V. (1959). Exploration in District Bhilsa, Damon and Sagar. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1958‐59: A Review, 26. Joshi, R. V., and Khare, M. D. (1961). Excavation at Adamgarh, Hoshangabad. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1960‐61‐ A Review, 13. Joshi, R. V., and Sankalia, H. D. (1975). Exploration in District Nimar. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1966‐67 ‐ A Review, 19‐20.

232 Singh 2018: 169‐241

Joshi, R. V., Badam, G. L., and Pandey, R. P. (1978). Fresh data on the Quaternary animal fossils and Stone Age cultures from the Central Narmada Valley, India. Asian Perspectives, 21, 164‐181. Joshi, R. V., Bopardikar, B. P., and Krishna Rao, M. V. (1967). Excavation at Lalitpur, District Jhansi. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1963‐64: A Review, 49‐51. Joshi, R. V., Khare, M. D., and Hamid, A. (1967). Early, Middle and Late Stone Age Tools, District Sagar. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1963‐64 ‐ A Review, 88‐89. Kenoyer, J. M., and Pal, J. N. (1983). Report on the Excavation and Analysis of an Upper Acheulean Assemblage from Sihawal II. In G. R. Sharma, and J. D. Clark (Eds.), Palaeoenvironments and Prehistory in the Middle Son Valley (Madhya Pradesh, North‐Central India) (pp. 23‐38). Allahabad: Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology, University of Allahabad. Khan, A. A. (2017). Stratigraphy of Quaternary deposits of Narmada Valley Central India. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 892‐955. Khare, M. D. (1973). Early and Late Stone Age Tools near Bhopal. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1965‐66 ‐ Review, 80. Khare, M. D. (1973). Early Stone Age tools Bhopal. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1965‐66‐ A Review, 80. Khare, M. D., and Trivedi, C. B. (1969). Early Stone Age tools, District Sagar. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1964‐65 ‐ A Review, 74. Khatri, A. (1962). Mahadevian : an Oldowan Pebble Culture in India. Asian Perspectives, 6 , 186‐196. Khatri, A. P. (1956). Palaeolithic Sites in Madhya Bharat. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1955‐56 ‐ A Review, 68. khatri, A. P. (1959). Exploration in Districts Hoshangabad, Narsinghpur, Raisen, Shahdol and Sehore. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1958‐59: A Review, 27. Khatri, A. P. (1959). Palaeoliths in District Sagar. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1958‐59 ‐ A Review, 72. Khatri, A. P. (1960). Explorations in District Hoshangabad and Narsinghpur. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1959‐60 ‐ A Review, 22. Korisettar, R. (2007). Toward developing a basin model for Paleolithic settlement of the Indian subcontinent: Geodynamics, monsoon dynamics, habitat diversity and dispersal routes. In The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia (pp. 69‐96). Neatherlands: Springer. Krishan, C., and Srivastava, J. P. (1996). Palaeoliths and Fossil, District Hoshangabad. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1960‐61: A Review, 59. Krishna, C. (1964). Early Stone Age Tools, District Guna. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1961‐62 ‐ A Review, 99. Krishnan, K., and Chauhan, P. R. (2015). Excavations at Dhansi, District Hoshangabad. (R. Tewari, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 2012‐13: A Review, 61‐65.

233 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Krishnarao, M. V., and Bopardikar, B. P. (1964). Exploration in District Hohangabad. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1961‐62 ‐ A Review, 22. Kshirsagar, A., and Badam, G. L. (1990). Biochronology and Fluorine analysis of some Pleistocene fossils from Central and Western India. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, 49, 199‐211. Kumar, G., and Bednarik, R. G. (2010). The difficulties of determining the approximate antiquityof Lower Palaeolithic petroglyphs in India. Préhistoire, art et sociétés: bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de lʹAriège, 202‐203. Kumar, K. (1973). Explorations in District Chhatarpur. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1965‐66, 21. Lai, B. B. (1978). Exploration in District Gwalior. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indina Archaeology 1972‐73 ‐ A Review, 16‐17. Lai, R. K. (1964). Exploration in District Mandasor. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1961‐62 ‐ A Review, 22. Medlicott, H. B. (1873). Notes on a Celt found by Mr. Hackett in the ossiferous deposits of the Narbada Valley (Pliocene of Falconer); on the age of deposits. Records of the Geological Survey of India, 6, 49‐57. Meert, J. G., and Pandit, M. K. (2015). The Archaean and Proterozoic history of Peninsular India: tectonic framework for Precambrian sedimentary basins in India. In R. Mazumder, and P. G. Eriksson (Eds.), Precambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context (pp. 29‐54). London: The Geological Society of London. Mishra, O. P. (Ed.). (2003). Archaeological Excavations in Central India: Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. New Delhi: Mittal Publications. Mishra, P. K. (1990). Exploration in Districk Hoshangabad. (J. P. Joshi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1985‐86 ‐ A Review, 53‐54. Mishra, S. (1985). Early Man and Environments in western Madhya Pradesh. Pune. Mishra, S., Gaillard, C., Deo, S., Singh, M., Abbas, R., and Agarwal, N. (2010). Large Flake Acheulian in India: Implications for understanding lower Pleistocene human dispersals. Quaternary International, 271‐272. Mishra, V. D. (1977). Lithic Industries of Maihar, Satna (M.P.): A priliminary study. In V. D. Mishra, Some aspects of Indian Archaeology (pp. 1‐21). Allahabad: Prabhat Prakashan. Mishra, V. D., Misra, B. B., Pandey, J. N., Chattopadhyay, U. C., Sinha, P., and Shukla, D. K. (1996). Explorations in Tons and Son Valleys, District Satna and Sidhi. (B. P. Singh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1991‐92: A Review, 57. Mishra, V. N., Badam, G. L., Ganjoo, R. K., Salahuddin, Alam, S., Sathe, V. G., et al. (1990). Exploration in Narmada valley in Districts Hoshangabad and Narsinghpur. (J. p. Joshi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1985‐86: A Review, 50‐53. Misra, O. P. (2003). Prehistoric sites. In R. K. Sharma, and O. P. Misra, Archaeological Excavations in Central India (pp. 61‐62). New Delhi: Mittal Publications. Misra, V. D., Pal, J. N., Misra, B. B., Chattopadhyaya, U. C., Shukla, D. K., and Gupta, M. C. (2003). Explorations in the Tons Valley, District Rewa (Madhya

234 Singh 2018: 169‐241

Pradesh) and Allahabad (Utter Pradesh). Indian Archaeology1997‐98 ‐ A Review, 106‐110. Misra, V. D., Rana, R. S., Clark, J. D., and Blumenshine, R. (1983). Preliminary Excavations at the Son River Section at Nakjhar Khurd. In Palaeoenvironmentals and Prehistory in the Middle Son Valley (Madhya Pradesh, North‐Central India) (pp. 101‐115). Allahabad: Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology, University of Allahabad . Misra, V. N. (1978). The Acheulian Industry of Rock Shelter IIIF‐23 at Bhimbetka, Central India ‐ A Preliminary Study. Australian Archaeology, 63‐106. Misra, V. N. (2006). A Gazetteer of Archaeological Sites in Rajasthan (From Palaeolithic to Early Historic). Man and Environment, 48‐96. Misra, V. N., Badam, G. L., Ganjoo, R. K., Salahuddin, Alam, S., Sathe, V. G., et al. (1990). Exploration in the Narmada Valley in District Hoshangabad and Narsinghpur. (J. P. Joshi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1985‐86, 50‐53. Misra, V. N., Rajaguru, S. N., Ganjoo, R. K., and Korisetter, R. (1990). Geoarchaeology of the Palaeolithic site of Samnapur in the Central Narmada Valley. Man and Environment, 107‐116. Mittra, S. K., Shivananda, V., Sahu, N. B., Tiwari, I., Girhe, K. M., Dwivedi, R. K., et al. (2004). Excavation at Chichali, District Khargone. Indian Archaeology 1998‐99 ‐ A REview, 92‐107. Morthekai, P., Chauhan, P., Jain, M., Shukla, A., Rajapara, H., Krishnan, K., et al. (2015). Thermally re‐distributed IRSL (RD‐IRSL): A new possibility of dating sediments near B/M boundary. Quaternary Geochronology, 154‐160. Mukherjee, P. K. (1985). Exploration in district Raisen. (M. S. Rao, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1982‐83 ‐ A Review, 38. Nath, A., Lekhwani, S. K., Rao, K. P., Partapchandran, S. P., Sharma, N. K., and Baraptre, H. J. (1993). Exploration in Khandwa Taluk, District East Nimar. (M. C. Joshi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1987‐88: A Review, 57‐59. Nath, A., Lekhwani, S. K., Rao, K. P., Pratapchandran, S., Sharma, N. K., and Barapatre, J. H. (1993). Exploration in Harsud Taluk, District East Nimar. (M. C. Joshi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1987‐88 ‐ A Review, 49‐57. Nautiyal, K. P., and Rajpur, D. L. (1971). Exploration in District Gwalior. (B. b. Lal, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1968‐69 ‐ A Review, 11. Ota, S. B. (1992). Archaeological Investigations in the Submergence Area of the Narmada Sagar Dam, Madhya Pradesh : A Reconnaissance Survey. Man and Environment, 17, 97‐103. Ota, S. B., and Deo, S. G. (2012). Glimpses of Acheulian Investigations at Tikoda, District Raisen, Madhya Pradesh. ISPQS Website for discussions and comments. Ota, S. B., and Deo, S. G. (2014). Investigation of Acheulian Localities TKD‐I and TKD‐ II at Tikoda, District Raisen, Madhya Pradesh (2010‐12). In K. Paddayya, and S. G. Deo (Eds.), Recent Advances in Acheulian Culture Studies in India (pp. 57‐66). Pune: Indian Society for Prehistoric and Quaternary Studies.

235 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Ota, S. B., Lekhwani, S. K., Nikoshey, N. G., Taher, N., Girhe, K. M., Ukey, M., et al. (1993). Excavation at Balwara, East Nimar. (P. C. Joshi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1988‐89: A Review, 43‐44. Ota, S. B., Nikose, N. G., Taher, N., Dubey, J. S., Dwivedi, R. K., Ninje, N. K., et al. (1993). Exploration in district East Nimar. (M. C. Joshi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1987‐88 ‐A Review, 44‐49. Ota, S. B., Shivananda, V., Bhattacharya, N., Girhe, K. M., Nimje, N. K., Dogra, P. C., et al. (2003). Exploration in District Dhar. Indian Archaeology 1997‐98 ‐ A Review, 99‐102. Pal, D. (1983). Exploration in District Raisen. (D. Mittra, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1980‐81 ‐ A Review, 35‐36. Pandey, J. N., and Pal, J. N. (1988). Acheulian Occupation at Maihar. Man and Environment , 201‐202. Pandey, J. N., Pal, J. N., Shukla, D. K., Gupta, M. C., Kar, H. N., and Prasad, R. (1992). Excavation at Maihar‐I, District Satna. (M. C. Joshi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1986‐87 ‐ A Review, 55‐56. Pandey, R. P. (1985). Stone Age Cultures of upper valley, Central India. In V. N. Misra, and P. Bellwood (Eds.), Recent Advances in Indo‐Pacific Prehistory (pp. 81‐88). Pandey, R. P., and Sharma, R. A. (1992). Exploration in District Gwalior. (M. C. Joshi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology1986‐87 ‐ A Review, 48‐49. Patnaik, R., and Chauhan, P. (2009). India at the cross‐roads of human evolution. J. Biosci, 5, 729‐747. Patnaik, R., Chauhan, P. R., Rao, M., Blackwell, B., Skinner, A., Sahni, A., et al. (2008). New geochronological, paleoclimatological, and archaeological data from the. Narmada Valley hominin locality, central India, 1‐20. Rajan, K. V., and Joshi, R. V. (1958). Exploration in District damon, Panna, Rajgarh, Rewa, Satna and Shajapur. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1957‐58 ‐ A Review, 25‐26. Rajasthan, D. o. (1974). Explorations in Districts Bharatpur, Bhilwara, Jaipur and Jhalawar. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1970‐71: A Review, 31. Rajguru, S. N., Mishra, S., and Chingunde, J. S. (1985). Explorations in District Dhar, East Nimar and West Nimar. (M. S. Rao, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1982‐83 ‐ A Review, 37. Rao, K. V., Chakraborti, S., Rao, K. J., Ramani, M. V., Marathe, S. D., and Borkar, B. T. (1997). Magnetostratigraphy of the Quaternary Fluvial sediments and tephra of Narmada Valley, Central India. Geological Survey of India, Special Publication, 65‐78. Rapheal, J. T. (2017). Cleavers: Inferring technical behaviour with special reference to Tikoda, Raisen District, Madhya Pradesh. Pune: Deccan college Post Gradurate and Research Institute.

236 Singh 2018: 169‐241

S, W. V., Arya, S. K., Mishra, V. N., and Haas, S. (1978). Excavation at Bhimbetka, District Raisen. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1972‐73 ‐ A Review, 18‐19. Sagar, A. P. (1975). Early Stone Age Tools, Arahri, District Sehore. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology1971‐72 ‐ A Review, 75. Salahuddhin, and Ganjoo, R. K. (1987). Exploration in Central Narmada Valley, District Hoshangabad. (R. C. Tripathi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1984‐85 ‐ A Review, 45. Sankalia, H. D., and Supekar, S. G. (1965). Exploration in District Narsinghpur. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Achaeology 1962‐63 ‐ A Review, 11. Sankalia, H. D., Ansari, Z. D., and Rajaguru, S. N. (1964). Excavation at Lalitpur, District Jhansi. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) India Archaeology 1961‐62: A Review, 57. Sankhyan, A. R. (1997). A new human fossil find from the Central Narmada Basin and its chronology. Current science, 73, 1110‐1111. Sankhyan, A. R., Badam, G. L., Dewangan, L. N., Chakarborty, S., Prabha, S., Kundu, S., et al. (2012). New Postcranial Hominin Fossils from the Central Narmada Valley, India. Advances in Anthropology, 2, 125‐131. Sen, D. (1961). Exploration in district Hoshangabad, Jabalpur, Mandla, Narsinghpur and Shahdol. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1960‐61‐mA Review, 13‐16. Sen, D. (1961). Palaeoliths, district Jabalpur. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1960‐61 ‐ A Review, 60. Sengupta, R. (1964). Early Stone Age site, Saduwa, District Panna. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1961‐62 ‐ A Review, 100. Sengupta, R. (1964). Stone Age Sites, district Sahdol. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1961‐62 ‐ A Review, 100. Sengupta, R. (1964). Stone Age Tools, District Rewa. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1961‐62 ‐ A Review, 100. Sharma, G. R. (1967). Exploration in District Allahabad, Mirzapur and Rewa (Madhya Pradesh). (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1963‐64, 39. Sharma, G. R. (1983). Excavation at Nakjhar‐Khurd, District Sidhi. (D. Mitra, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1979‐80 ‐ A Review, 52. Sharma, G. R. (1983). Excavation at Patpara, district Sidhi. (D. Mitra, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1979‐80 ‐ A Review, 52‐53. Sharma, G. R. (1983). Excavation at Sihawal, District Sidhi. (D. Mitra, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1979‐80:A Review, 53. Sharma, G. R., Misra, V. D., Mandal, D., Misra, B. B., Pal, J. N., Singh, R., et al. (1983). Exploration in District Rewa and Sidhi. (D. Mitra, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1979‐80 ‐ A Review, 46‐49. Sharma, S. R. (1973). Exploration in District Shahdol. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1965‐66 ‐ A review, 22‐23. Sheth, H. C., Pande, K., and Bhutani, R. (2001). 40Ar‐39Ar ages of Bombay trachytes: Evidence for a Palaeocene phase of Deccan volcanism ages of Bombay

237 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

trachytes: Evidence for a Palaeocene phase of Deccan volcanism. Geophysical Research Letters, 28, 3513‐3516. Shipton, C., Clarkson, C., Pal, J. N., Jones, S. C., Roberts, R. G., Harris, C., et al. (2013). Generativity, hierarchical action and recursion in the technology of the Acheulean to Middle Palaeolithic transition: A perspective from Patpara, the Son Valley, India. Journal of Human Evolution, 65, 93‐108. Shrinivasan, L. K. (1961). Exploration in district Chanda. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1960‐61, 22‐25. Singh, R. (1961). Exploration in district Guna, Sagar and . (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1960‐61 ‐ A Review, 13. Singh, R. (1965). Palaeolithic Industries of Northern Bundelkhand, PhD thesis. Poona. Singh, R. D., Vyas, N., and Rao, K. V. (1987). Palaeoliths, Gaughat, District Kota. (R. C. Traipathi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1984‐85: A Review, 152. Singh, R. D., Vyas, N., and Rao, K. V. (1987). Palaeoliths, Kherdi, District Kota. (R. C. Tripathi, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1984‐85: A Review, 152. Singh, V. (2011). Prehistory of Central India (Bhopal, M.P.). Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi, New Delhi. Graduation thesis. Singhvi, A. K., Williams, M. A., Rajaguru, S. N., Misra, V. N., Chawla, S., Stokes, S., et al. (2010). A ~ 200 ka record of climatic change and dune activity in the Thar Desert, India. Quaternary Science Reviews, 1‐11. Sonakia, A. (1984). The skull cap of early man and associated mammalian fauna from Narmada Valley alluvium, Hoshangabad area, Madhya Pradesh, India. Rec. Geol. Surv. India, 113, 159‐172. Srivastava, S. K. (1978). Exploration in District Guna. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1972‐73 ‐ A Review, 15. Srivastava, S. K. (1978). Exploration in District Morena. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1972‐73 ‐ A Review, 17. Supekar, S. G. (1968). Pleistocene Stratigraphy and Prehistoric Archeaology of the Central Narmada Basin. Pune. Supekar, S. G. (1969). Excavation at Mahadeo‐Piparia, District Narsinghpur. Indian Archaeology 1964‐65: A Review, 16. Taher, N., Raha, P. K., Sonikia, A., Biswas, S., and Sitaramaiah, Y. (2000). Exploration in district Hoshangabad and Sehore. (H. M. Banerji, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1994‐95 ‐ A Review, 45‐46. Tiwari, M. (2012, October 15). Narmada valley, Quaternary stratigraphy, Lower Pleistocene, Tephra beds, Neotectonics. Retrieved December 15, 2017, from wordpress: https://maheshtiwari02.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/narmada‐valley‐ quaternary‐stratigraphy‐lower‐pleistocene‐tephra‐beds‐neotectonics/ Tiwari, M. P., and Bhai, H. Y. (1997). Quaternary Stratigraphy of the Narmada Valley. Quaternary Geology of the Narmada Valley‐ A Multidisciplinary Approach, 46, 33‐63. Tiwari, V. K. (1971). Stone Age Tools, District Jabalpur. (B. B. Lal, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1968‐69, 65.

238 Singh 2018: 169‐241

Tiwari, V. K., and Wakankar, V. S. (1974). Explorations in District Indore, Ratlam and West Nimar. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1970‐71 ‐ A review. Trivadi, C. B. (1959). Exploration in District Jabalpur. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeolgy 1958‐59 ‐ A Review, 27. Trivedi, C. B. (1960). Stone Impliments in District Jabalpur. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1959‐60 ‐ A Review, 69. Trivedi, C. B. (1961). Palaeoliths, District Chhatarpur. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1960‐61‐ A Review, 59. Trivedi, C. B. (1961). Palaeoliths, District Sagar. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1960‐ 61, 62. Trivedi, C. B. (1964). Early Stone Age Tools, District Sagar. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1961‐62 ‐ Review, 100. Trivedi, C. B. (1964). Early Stone Age Tools, Khariaheda, district Damon. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1961‐62‐ A Review, 99. Trivedi, C. B. (1967). Early and Late Stone Age tools, District Sehore. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1963‐64: A Review, 89. Trivedi, C. B. (1969). Early, Middle and Late Stone Age Tools, District Sehore . (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1964‐65, 74. Trivedi, C. B. (1971). Early Stone Age Tools, Malthone, District Sagar. (L. B. B, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1968‐69 ‐ A Review, 66. Trivedi, C. B. (1971). Stone Age tools, , District Vidisha. (B. B. Lal, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1968‐69 ‐ A Review, 67. Trivedi, C. B. (1973). Early Stone Age tools, district Mandasor. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1965‐66, 81. Trivedi, C. B. (1974). Stone Age Tools, Chanderi, District Guna. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1970‐71 ‐ A review, 66. Trivedi, C. B. (1975). Early and Late Stone Age Tools, Rajghat, District Guna. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1971‐72, 74. Trivedi, C. B. (1975). Early and Middle Stone Age tools, Amkhera, District Raisen. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1971‐72 ‐ A Review, 75. Trivedi, C. B. (1975). Early and Middle Stone Age tools, Dhamoni, District Sagar. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 19971‐72 ‐ A Review, 75. Trivedi, C. B. (1978). Early and Middle Stone Age Tools, Tehari, District Shivapuri. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian archaeology 1972‐73 ‐ A Review, 59. Trivedi, C. B. (1979). Early Stone Age toold, Uldan, District Sagar. (B. K. Thaper, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1974‐75 ‐ A Review, 70. Trivedi, C. B., Nagarch, B. L., and Vyas, N. (1978). Early and Middle Stone Age Tools, Kahwaha, District Guna. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1972‐73 ‐ A Review, 59. Trivedi, C. B., Nagarch, B. L., and Vyas, N. (1979). Stone Age Tools, Kadwaha, District Guna. (B. K. Thaper, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1973‐74 ‐ A Review, 51.

239 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Trivedi, G. B. (1974). Early and Middle Stone Age tools and Late Medieval remains, District Bundi. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1970‐71 ‐ A Review, 66. Trivedi, H. V., and Wakankar, V. S. (1960). Exploration in District Mandasor. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1959‐60 ‐ A Review, 22‐24. Venkataramayya, M., Joshi, R. V., and Khare, M. D. (1967). Early, Late, Middle Stone Age tools, District Vidisha. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1963‐64 ‐ A Review, 89. Verma, R. K., Misra, V. D., Misra, B. B., Pandey, J. N., Pal, J. N., Singh, R., et al. (1985). Explorations in Mid‐Son Valley, District Sidhi. (M. S. Rao, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1982‐83 aA Review. Vyas, N. (1981). Exploration in District Raisen. Indian Archaeology 1978‐79 ‐ A Review, 13‐16. Vyas, N. (1996). Stone Age Tools, Sukhi Siwania, District Bhopal. (B. P. Singh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1991‐92 ‐ A Review, 126. Vyas, N. (1996). Stone Age Tools, Wasvi, District Dhar. (B. P. Singh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1991‐92: A Review, 126. Wakankar, V. S. (1957). Prehistoric sites in Madhya Pradesh. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1956‐57 ‐ A Review, 78‐79. Wakankar, V. S. (1960). Palaeolithis in district Indore. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1959‐60 ‐ A Review, 69. Wakankar, V. S. (1960). Palaeoliths in District Raisen. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1959‐60 ‐ A Review, 70. Wakankar, V. S. (1966‐67). In Indian Archaeology: A Review (p. 67). Wakankar, V. S. (1971). Pebble Tools, Ramgad, District West Nimar. (B. B. Lal, Ed.) Indian archaeology 1968‐69 ‐ A Review, 67. Wakankar, V. S. (1971). Stone Age tools, Jawad, District Mandasor. (B. B. Lal, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1968‐69 ‐ A Review, 65. Wakankar, V. S. (1973). Exploration in Districts Mandasor, Rajgarh, Shajapur, and West Nimar . (B. B. Lal, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1969‐70 ‐ A Review, 16‐ 17. Wakankar, V. S. (1975). Bhimbetka—the prehistoric paradise. Prachya Pratibha, 3, 7‐29. Wakankar, V. S. (1975). Early Stone Age tools, Bhopal, District Sehore. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1966‐67 ‐ A Review, 67. Wakankar, V. S. (1978). Exploration in District Narsinghpur. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1972‐73 ‐ A Review, 17‐18. Wakankar, V. S. (1978). Exploration in District Narsinghpur. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1972‐73: A Review, 17‐18. Wakankar, V. S. (1983). Exploration in District Ujjain. (D. Mirta, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1979‐80 ‐ A Review, 53‐54. Wakankar, V. S. (1996). Early Site in District Nimar (West). (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1959‐60: A Review, 70.

240 Singh 2018: 169‐241

Wakankar, V. S. (1996). Palaeolithic sites and rockshelters, Distrcit Sagar. (A. Ghosh, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1960‐61: A Review, 62. Wakankar, V. S., and Joshi, J. C. (1971). Exploration in District Raisen. (B. B. Lal, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1968‐69 ‐ A Review, 12. Wakankar, V. S., and Joshi, P. C. (1968‐69). In Indian Archaeology: A Review (p. 12). Wakankar, V. S., Arya, S. K., Vyas, S. N., Joshi, J. C., and Gill, D. K. (1971‐72). In Indian Archaeology (p. 30). Wakankar, V. S., Arya, S. K., Vyas, S. N., Joshi, J. C., and Gill, D. K. (1972‐73). In Indian Archaeology:A Review (p. 19). Wakankar, V. S., Arya, S. K., Vyas, S. N., Joshi, P. C., and Gill, D. K. (1975). Excavation at Bhimbetka, District Raisen. (M. N. Deshpande, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1971‐72 ‐ A Review, 30‐31. Wakankar, V. S., Joshi, B., and Misra, O. P. (1984). Palaeolithic, Early Historic and Medievial sites, District Guna. (D. Mitra, Ed.) Indian Archaeology 1981‐82 ‐A Review, 94. Williams, M. A., and Royce, K. (1982). Quaternary geology of the Middle Son Valley, North central India: Implications for prehistoric archaeology. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 38, 139‐162.

241