Revising the Indian Stone Age Sequence
I had circulated a small writeup which I emailed to people involved in Indian palaeolithic studies. I also began a blog – sheilamishra.wordpress.com – where I posted the same writeup so people I missed could respond. I asked people to respond by 1st November so that the combined responses could be complied and people would have a chance to make their final statement after considering other viewpoints. I have had some responses but I realize I was not clear about about what I wanted. The format of the session in Lucknow was also not clear. I also got distracted and did not have my more detailed response ready by the deadline either. The responses I have got are all relevant and valuable, but mostly do not directly confront the issue at hand.
The Lucknow session:
The organizer of the Lucknow joint annual conference of ISPQS has talked to me and agreed to have the “Revision of the Indian Stone Age” as one session in the Special Seminar on Recent Archaeological Achievements in India sponsored by ICHR. We will have 1.5 hrs for our discussion during this session. I realized that the discussion has to be much more focused to achieve any real consensus. I am therefore breaking the discussion down into shorter topics to which people should directly respond—could be a simple agree/disagree or a more elaborate discussion (especially if you disagree). Agreement is welcome and disagreement expected. The session will be organized to discuss these questions one by one. There will not be any individual papers or presentations as such. The discussion on the twelve questions will be summarized and presented at the seminar.
will be written up and published with all commentators as co-authors of the paper. I will make a post on each of these questions in the sequence given, hopefully in the next two weeks, so that all of you have ample time to respond to each question, before we meet at Lucknow. People who are not coming to Lucknow will have their comments incorporated into the final paper. Everyone will see the final paper for approval before it it published.
The questions to be discussed are as follows:–
- Why is it important to revise the Indian Stone Age sequence? (Why bother?)
- The only discontinuity in the Indian Stone Age Sequence is between the Middle Palaeolithic and the Upper Palaeolithic.
- Indian Acheulian is Large Flake Acheulian
- Soanian is NOT Lower Palaeolithic
- Significance of Riwat and Pabbi Hills
- Acheulian of sub-Himalayan India, Pakistan and Nepal
- Significance of non Acheulian assemblages of Narmada – Durkhadi, Samnapur and Mahadeo Piparia
- Middle Palaeolithic – Acheulian continuity
- Upper Palaeolithic – Mesolithic continuity
- Archaeological discontinuities and population replacements?
- Comparing Indian Stone Age sequence with Europe, Africa, SE Asia, and China
- Proposed changes in Indian Stone Age Sequence