Annals of Anthropological Research & Reviews Vol. 1 No.

2 (2022)
© Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University ISSN: 2583-0570

Recent Trends in Prehistoric Archaeological Development in India

Avick Biswas1* & Chandni Roy2
1
Department of Anthropology, Vidyasagar University, Midnapore, West Bengal, India
2
Department of Anthropology, Calcutta University, Kolkata, India
*Corresponding author: avickbiswas@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Studies of Palaeolithic evidences from India are numerous but most of these are based on surface
collection. The rise and development of studies on Prehistoric archaeology in India can be viewed as
having passed through three stages - Formative, Descriptive and Analytical. The Formative stage sees
the exploration of virgin forests and hills leading to the discovery of stray antiquities from these
regions. Since these discoveries were made immediately after C.J. Thomsen’s discovery and Charles
Darwin's theory of evolution became popular in the West, these antiquities were taken to be pieces of
evidence of the presence of Prehistoric man in India and the extent of their expansion. It is shown that
Indian Archaeology to date remains a more or less descriptive approach and one has to still wait for a
detailed Analytical phase to develop. Yet one cannot deny based on archaeological evidences that
India not only acted as the corridor of human migration to Southeast Asia but also had intensive
human occupation at a time much before any other places in the Old World. So, in this article, we will
do this by taking a review of the major stages in the development of prehistoric studies in India. We
will then come to the even more significant aspect of their relevance, particularly in view of the
detailed study that has resurfaced in recent years. Present time, prehistoric researchers in India have
mostly concentrated on the multidisciplinary study of geo-archaeological and geo-morphological
contexts within which the different tools were occurred and try to reconstruct the post-depositional
features in which the tool survived.

INTRODUCTION
Humans from the beginning are very curious about the origin of the planet and also the origin of
mankind. So, to soothe its thirst to know its past, antiquarianism came to light. This refers to the
collection of archaeological objects as a hobby and does not bother with its culture or context.
Antiquarian can be traced back to Chinese, European or middle-east travellers around the world. With
time antiquarianism convert into archaeological tradition emerged and developed in 19 th century
Europe, making archaeology a recognizable discipline in the enlightenment period. In 1807, the
Danish government to establish museums to protect sites and promote public awareness of antiquities

2
Annals of Anthropological Research & Reviews Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022)
© Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University ISSN: 2583-0570

set up an “Antiquities commission”. In the coming years, C.J Thomsen became the curator of the
Danish National Museum (Heizer 1962). Finally, in 1836, Thomsen published the illustrated
monograph ‘Guide to Northern Antiquity’, in which he described his chronology together with
comments about which things occurred together in finds (Rodden 1981 & Trigger 2006). Also, with
Darwin’s “Origin of Species” in 1859 and geological, archaeological and anthropological discoveries
soon began to challenge the concept of the Bible’s chapter of genesis to a greater extent (Fagan 2019).
Furthermore, British archaeologist Sir John Lubbock divided the stone age into the palaeolithic and
Neolithic stages in his book Prehistoric Times (1856). Among all this theoretical development going
on in the late 19th century, the palaeolithic further divide into Middle Palaeolithic and Upper
Palaeolithic by Edouard Lartet and Henry Christy, who excavated rock shelters and caves in
Aquitaine Basin in the 1860s (Pettitt and White 2014). Similarly, Paris-based prehistorian Gabrielle
de Mortillet divided Palaeolithic into further epochs incorporating Acheulian (Lower Palaeolithic),
Mousterian (Middle Palaeolithic), Perigordian, Aurignacian, Solutrean and Magdalenian (Upper
Palaeolithic). In 1866, Hodder Westropp recognised microlithic tool technology and an intermediate
category was added termed as “Mesolithic”. Moreover, V. Gordon Childe introduced the terms like
savagery, barbarism and civilisation characterized Palaeolithic, Neolithic and Bronze ages. As more
archaeological researches begin, the world started to observe the call for theoretical approaches. Thus,
scientific archaeology called processual archaeology propounded by Lewis Roberts Binford in the
early 1960s emerged with scientific theories and methods. Another theory to counter processual
archaeology appears propounded by Ian Hodder referred to as post-processual or Interpretative
Explanation Archaeology in the 1980s.

In recent decades, the study of human origins has become an intense scientific discipline at a global
level, resulting in numerous discoveries as well as debates. One of the more popular issues being
addressed is the nature and timing of various dispersal events from East Africa into other parts of the
Old World (Tattersall 1997), and subsequent inter-regional techno-cultural interactions. Related
environmental adaptions and technological innovations were fundamental aspects of regional hominin
behavior throughout the Old World during the Pleistocene. Therefore, adaptive strategies probably
differed vastly across the diverse eco-zones throughout Asia , including the Indian subcontinent.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this paper is to present a collective overview of prehistoric researches that have been
done and going on so far together in one place to see the recent trends, its development and
knowledge obtain from the prehistoric researches on the prehistoric past of man in India. Also, to
keep a track of researches for the new generation in this field and how much more it can be advanced
in coming years with new knowledge and techniques, giving up a formidable position while
comparing with other prehistoric researches around the world.

3
Annals of Anthropological Research & Reviews Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022)
© Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University ISSN: 2583-0570

BEGINNING OF PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN INDIA

The Indian subcontinent contains one of the richest and continuous records of hominin behavior in the
Old World. In this paper we are focusing on the hunting-gathering stage of prehistory, i.e. Palaeolithic
and Mesolithic, because it represents the true prehistoric past. As we know archaeology began with
antique collections by foreign travellers and their accounts in which antiquities or human remains
were described nearly in the 17th and 18th centuries. Then with the arrival of European travellers in the
sub-continent, archaeology as a discipline was established. In 15th January 1784 Asiatic Society came
into existence by Sir William Jones for conducting proper archaeological researches in the Indian
context. Though, Prehistoric researches in India began with megaliths, many discoveries were done
by antiquarians like J.J. Babington’s work on Malabar graves in Oopulgutt and the first systematic
excavation of Megaliths in Sorapur Doab by Meadows Taylor in 1851. Also, during the period 1860s
discoveries of Neolithic appear in many places in India like Theobold reported celts from
Bundelkhand in 1862, Primrose discovered stone “knives” in his garden in 1842, Lingsigur, H.P. Le
Mesurier discovered 12 neoliths in Central India (Chakrabarti 1979). With all these discoveries going
around and after Asiatic Society, the Archaeological Survey of India established its roots and
Alexander Cunningham in 1862 made the first Archaeological Surveyor of India.
Generally, we know prehistory begins with discoveries of long-extinct mammalian bones with
chipped stone axes in the gravels of the Somme River valley (Fagan 2019) in northern France by
Bouche De Perthes and site of Hoxane in England by John Frere. These discoveries were further
analysed by geologist Joseph Prestwich and archaeologist John Evans before the Royal Society of
Antiquaries of London. Robert Bruce Foote was clearly inspired by the European discoveries and was
keen on finding “similar works of early human art” on the Indian soil during his geological surveys in
the southern territories. Since then, Palaeolithic researches in India began with the discovery of
handaxe from the lateritic gravel at Pallavaram, Madras on 30th May 1863 (Krishnaswamy 1953).
Foote discovered over 450 additional prehsioric, protohistoric and early historic sites during the next
35 years. He kept himself in close touch with his European counterparts and published his findings
both in India and Europe in the form of several periodic reports. Another striking discovery made by
another geologist, V. Ball near the Kunkune Village in Bengal, a quartzite tool which he thought to
have morphological features like “Madrasian” typology and also the same with better workmanship
found in Mayurbhanj district, Odisha in 1866 (Basak 2009).

THE DEVELOPMENT

With the beginning of prehistoric researches in India, which is generally based on antiquarian
collections, researchers thrive for more to know about their prehistoric ancestry who did roam around
this land in the past. New questions began to emerge, with newer theories and to support it newer
techniques developed. It is also observed that patterns of researchers began to change in a more viable

4
Annals of Anthropological Research & Reviews Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022)
© Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University ISSN: 2583-0570

and systematic way. So, to say prehistoric researches in India can be divided based on its development
so far into three phases: Formative, Descriptive and Analytic (Bhattacharya 2011). If we think closer,
it can be referred after pioneers as the first phase lead by Rober Bruce Foote, the second phases lead
by H.D. Sankalia and the third phase lead by H.D Sankalia and his students and their students. Not
only this, but these phases also significantly marked the different trends set by the researchers and the
developments in methodological and processual innovations.

The formative phase mainly describes as collections and classification of artifacts discovered during
the exploration of virgin forests and hills. In this phase, the pioneer Foote continued his antiquarian
pursuit for the next couple of years, found 450 sites and kept a record of the discovered sites and the
collections of artifacts from them. Two publications were published by Madras Government Museum
two years after his death in 1912; the first one, catalogue based on sites and artifact wise list in 1914
and the second one, entitled “The Foote Collection of Indian Prehistoric and Protohistoric
Antiquities” in 1916 (Chakrabarti 1979). Another major development that emerged during this phase
in the 1930s was when L.A. Cammiade, who collected artifacts from the Krishna basin of Kurnool
district, Andhra Pradesh and handed over his collections to M.C. Burkitt, who later investigated and
proposed that southeast Asia went through four stages of the stone-age sequence, referred as I to IV
series corresponding to Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic period based on the
stratigraphical evidence of gravel and silt bed recorded from the river (Cammiade and Burkitt 1930).
In 1935, De Terra and Paterson lead an expedition at the Potwar Plateau region and Narmada valley to
reconstruct the Pleistocene chronological sequence in India, organised by ASI. Hence, the world was
introduced by the existence of a new palaeolithic culture named “Sohan” in north India. In 1942-42
the Archaeological Survey of India explored the Sabarmati Valley in Gujrat where Krishnaswami
claimed to have discovered a clear meeting-ground of the northern Sohan and the biface Madras
Industry. Krishnaswami’s principal work was, however, in the coastal plain of Madras
(Krishnaswamy 1953). However, it may be noted that the pioneers in the prehistoric research were
notably by the Department of Anthropology of Calcutta University, Deccan College and Postgraduate
Reseach Institute of Pune and the Archaeological Survey of India. The first named department was
the earlier initiator of prehistoric reseach in India at the university level.

Coming to the descriptive phase, the qualitative change was brought by H.D Sankalia, we can say
Sankalia created the structure on the foundation laid by R.B Foote. Perhaps the most intensive work
outside the Archaeological Survey has been due to the Deccan School under the leadership of H.D.
Sankalia. Researchers belonging to this school have been responsible for detailed excavation in
Maheswar, Navdatoli, Nevasa, Sanganakallu as well as several other sites in Rajasthan, Malwa and
other parts of western India and for exploration in Mayurbhanj and Balasore in the eastern border of
the Peninsula. Though Sankalia’s major contribution to prehistory was on the Mesolithic culture at

5
Annals of Anthropological Research & Reviews Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022)
© Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University ISSN: 2583-0570

Langhnaj and Nevasa and more than 30 Mesolithic sites were excavated by him. He also investigated
Quaternary stratigraphy and palaeolithic assemblages from sites on the Sabarmati River. We can say
this phase is more inclined towards excavations and environmental reconstructions. As we see, major
changes happen in this phase; collections of artifacts not only done by surface but excavating primary
sites, individuals researchers supported by other disciplines professionals, researchers tried to
reconstruct paleo-environment to study the lifestyle of prehistoric man, the dating techniques in
absolute dating advanced to help in climate and cultural events of prehistoric times, not only this but it
also marks the beginning of the ethnoarchaeological works comparing with indigenous society, and
rock-arts studies emerged. Apart from H. D. Sankalia, there are other contributors with exceptional
work on our past. Among them are V.D Krishnaswamy, whose intensive systematic study on
archaeological site around madras gave new insights on prehistoric man. Another marvel work in
Odisha, excavations were done by N. K Bose and D.Sen at Kuliana site in 1948, based on typo-
technological analysis of artifacts and comparing them with site formation (Bose 1940 & Bose and
Sen 1948) and (Krishnaswamy 1953). Then Microlithic site Birbhanpur, West Bengal was excavated
and investigated by B.B Lal in 1954 (B.B. Lal 1958). In 1956, B. B. Lal described Palaeolithic from
the Beas and Banganga valleys in the Panjab. Lal’s work is important as he relied extensively on
river-terraces for dating his artifacts. Thus, major works were done during this phase and Sankalia and
other contributors inspired other researchers with their immense work on Indian prehistory and gave
many new visuals to the prehistoric past of India to question more and to further continue research on.

As we move onto the analytical phase, we observe newer theoretical approaches and advanced
technological equipment to support researches that help us further to understand wider pictures of the
prehistoric past. This phase is dominated mostly by Sankalia’s students and their students, based on
ethno-archaeology and site formation process. During the period under review Indian prehistory did
certainly make a long stride and moved into a new phase. We observe many universities and
institutions came forward to initiate prehistoric researches in their respective areas, giving Pan-Indian
research data to gather a wholesome idea of our prehistoric ancestors like for example, M.S
University of Baroda (Subbarao, Sonawane, Ajitprasad) and the University of Allahabad (G.R.
Sharma) etc. Earth science was firmly established during this phase as geology being the supportive
discipline used for stratigraphical context for cultural view, palaeo-climate reconstruction, raw
material source and site formation process. This phase witnessed many research projects with
effective outcomes undertaken by Sankalia’s students like V.N Misra, S.N Rajguru, K. Paddayya,
Ravi Korisetter, M.L.K. Murthy and their students. New methodologies like dating methods,
ethnoarchaeology, palaeoanthropology, geoarchaeology, experimental archaeology emerged in this
phase and are leading as trends in this field, although few of these methods were used earlier by
scholars but are still developing. In the 1970s, Jacobson surveyed central India discovered a cluster of
Acheulian sites in Raisen district, Madhya Pradesh. Which he further believes can show us adaptive

6
Annals of Anthropological Research & Reviews Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022)
© Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University ISSN: 2583-0570

strategies of the hominin group (Jacobson 1974 & Ota and Deo 2014). Similarly, another discovery in
1957 done by Wankakar in the cave site of Bhimbhetka, Rock Shelter III F-23, Madhya Pradesh. It
was excavated by V.N Mishra, a 16m2 area yielded 4700 artifacts of quartzite. Overall, facilitated
with integrated study from lower Palaeolithic to Mesolithic stone tools, rock paintings and palaeo-
ecology of the area (Mishra 1978). Another such work done by V.N Mishra in 1979, at Rajasthan
gave new dimensions to Indian prehistory. He discovered a rich lower palaeolithic workshop-cum
habitation site with gravel ridge and evidence for multiple climatic changes in northwest Rajasthan
(Agarwal et al. 1980). Prof. M.L.K. Murthy has done marvellous ethnoarchaeological studies in the
eastern ghat on the hunting-gathering practices and settlement patterns of indigenous communities.
Thus, this empowers him to reconstruct the settlement and subsistence patterns of prehistoric man
more universally (Paddayya 2017).

As we know Narmada valley is the richest deposit of vertebrate fossils from the middle and late
Pleistocene in India and thus, attracted many palaeontologists and archaeologists for many years now.
In this context, it is significant to mention that Arun Sonakia of the Geological Survey of India
recovered a partial skull cap belonging to the genus Homo sp in December 1982, for the first time in
Indian soil from a site located near Hathnora village (40 km. north-east of Hoshangabad town in M.P.)
in the Narmada valley alluvium (Sonakia 1998). Previously, these deposits also feature stone- tools
artifacts from the palaeolithic to the Mesolithic (De Terra and Paterson1939 & Sen and Ghosh 1963).
Again, Sankalia came up with clear vision an definite plans for practising manifold approaches,
techniques and methods in his another book, New Archaeology: Its Scope and Application to India
(1974). The much needed chronological evidence, i.e., C-14 dates, of Indian prehistory had been
worked out and published by D. P. Agarwal and S. Kusumgar in their book, Prehistory Chronology
and Radiocarbon Dating in India (1974). How the application of the changing methodology can
effectively help anthropologists in understanding, interpreting and reconstructing the prehistoric way
of life in its totality was demonstrated by P.C. Dutta in his two publications – ‘The Great
Andamanes: Past and Present’ (1978) and ‘Sarai Nahar Rai man: the first and oldest human fossil
record in South Asia’ (1984).

Focusing on the fact in 1986, the Department of Archaeology and Deccan College, Pune, under the
expertise of V.N. Mishra, S.N Rajguru along with Ganjoo and Korisetter, launched a project to
investigate the palaeolithic site in central Narmada valley near Devakacher village know for rich
vertebrate fossils and palaeolithic assemblage (Mishra et al. 1990). Moving forward we see Prof. K.
Paddayya did an intensive archaeological survey for many years in the stream of Hunsgi and Baichbal
valley, revealing many Acheulian sites (Paddayya 1982 & 1996). Prof. Paddayya initiated studies of
site formation and technological development of stone artifacts. Also, Prof. Paddayya excavated the

7
Annals of Anthropological Research & Reviews Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022)
© Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University ISSN: 2583-0570

Isampur site discovered in 1983 by himself, which is situated in Hungsi valley northwestern corner,
later, that leads to the discovery of the Acheulian quarry site (Petraglia et al. 1999).

Some recent works are done by Sheila Mishra, Sushma Deo and their students under the direction of
S.N Rajguru in 2000-2007 at the Acheulian sites of Morgaon, located on Karha river in Pune (Mishra
et al. 2009). Not only, the methodologies, theories and techniques for research on prehistoric past
developed so far but also the dating methods and our knowledge on it increased in recent years. This
phase also witnessed many new absolute dating methods for dating archaeological sites, artifacts,
fossils and rock-arts etc. like, C-14, uranium,-thorium, potassium-argan, ESR (electron-spin
resonance), palaeo-magnetism, dendrochronology etc. Whereas, we find earlier phase was using
relative datings mostly to date archaeological sites or artifacts as we didn’t have advanced absolute
dating methods for it but now, we can get absolute dates for most of the earlier and newer sites and
artifacts. For example, the famous site of Attirampakkam, now gives the earliest dates for Acheulian
and middle palaeolithic in South Asia. Attirampakkam was discovered in 1863 by Robert Bruce Foote
and was re-excavated by Shanti Pappu in 1999 for geoarchaeological investigation, site formation
process and absolute dates for the site (Pappu 2003). Acheulian dates deduced from this excavations
site by Pappu and her Sharma Heritage Team is 1.5 million years ago (Pappu 2011) and middle
palaeolithic layer estimate dates are 385,000 – 172,000 years ago (Kumar 2018). Similarly, we now
have estimate absolute dates for the Isampur lower palaeolithic site at Hungsi and Baibachal valley
excavated by K. Paddayya by using ESR (Electron Spin Resonance) is 1.2 mya (Paddayya 2002).
Then, we have the earliest dates for Microlithic culture from Inamgaon given was 12000 BP but
further researches and findings gave recent dates from Jwalapuram is 35000 BP, Metakheri is 48000
BP and Mahadebbera is 34000 BP (Basak & Shrivastava 2017). Hence all these researches so far help
us to put together the pieces of the prehistoric puzzle of Indian prehistory while some pieces still
missing leaving it incomplete and scope for more development in this field.

ROCK ART STUDIES

The post-Sankalia period also marks the beginning of Rock Art studies. Pioneering research by
Wakankar on the Bhimbetka and Adamgarh rock paintings (Wakankar 1973; Wakankar and Brooks
1976) was later followed by a number of scholars such as Giriraj Kumar, J.D. Tripathi, R.K. Pancholi,
Sadasiba Pradhan and N. Chandramouli, who did considerable work on prehistoric art. These
paintings occur in a variety of colours like various shades of red, green, yellow and white. They were
made from mineral colours found in the rocks and in the earth. Pieces of pigment were ground on
stone slabs, and powder was probably mixed with the sap of green leaves and animal blood and fat.
Pieces of ground pigment nodules have been found in the excavation. They are an important source of
our knowledge about the life of prehistoric people, their food and food obtaining practices, hunting,
hunting tools and weapons, and techniques employed in hunting and plant food-gathering.

8
Annals of Anthropological Research & Reviews Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022)
© Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University ISSN: 2583-0570

RECENT TRENDS

In recent years, new methods came to light like Absolute dating, GIS and technology, DNA
reconstruction and genetic tracing, Artificial Intelligence Computerized 3D Facial Reconstruction etc.
for example, Absolute dating in India came into use only after a Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory was
established at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Bombay in 1961. Later, the
Laboratory was shifted to Physical Research Laboratory (PRL), Ahmedabad, after D. Lal, its founder
and scientist-in-charge, joined PRL as Director. Some years later the Birbal Sahni Institute of
Palaeobotany (BISP), Lucknow also started a Radiocarbon Laboratory. More recently, the Institute of
Physics, Bhubaneswar, has started a C–14 Lab with a facility for Accelerate Mass Spectrometric
(AMS) dating. PRL also developed facilities for Thermoluminescence (TL) Dating with Nuclear
Physicist, Dr A.K. Singhvi, in charge of it. Under Dr Singhvi’s leadership, the Laboratory has
developed international quality expertise. The TL Lab has dated a large number of samples from
many sand and calcrete samples from several archaeological sites. The Bhubaneswar Lab has
specialized in dating small samples of charcoal and has provided dates for many sites. Thus, India is
now self-sufficient in the dating of charcoal, bone, wood, sand and calcrete samples. GIS methods
and remote sensing are new and popular methods among many researchers like Shanti Pappu did in
Attirampakkam, they applied satellite remote sensing and GIS over an area of around 8,000 sq km in
northern Tamil Nadu (Pappu et al. 2011).

An example of one of the most important non-archaeological projects is the multidisciplinary work of
D.P. Agrawal and his team on the environmental history of the Kashmir valley (e.g. Agrawal et al .
1989). This work not only established a strong foundation for additional work but also provides a
palaeo-environmental and palaeo-climatic background to human dispersal into the subcontinent
during the Lower Pleistocene. Another classic example of integrating the archaeological evidence
with associated chronologic and palaeo-environmental data is the work done by Deccan College and
others on hominin adaptations in the Thar Desert of Rajasthan, northwest India (e.g. Raghavan et al.
1989). Finally, genetic studies (Bamshad et al. 2001) and comparisons of the prehistoric, linguistic,
and biological evidence (Kumar and Reddy 2003) are also being undertaken, and can reveal valuable
information concerning the origin of the diverse South Asian population. Combined, these studies
have resulted in a better understanding of hominid adaptive strategies in changing environments (over
varying periods of time) at intra-regional levels. Then Computerized 3D Facial Reconstruction
method employ computer programmes to transform laser-scanned 3D skull images into faces for
example noble hominin fossil discovered from the rising star cave, referred to as Homo naledi, whose
morphological reconstruction was done based on the skeletal fossil remains collected from the cave.
Facial reconstruction techniques are a major tool in the identification of human remains nowadays
among researchers. The use of computers and specialized software has induced a new era in

9
Annals of Anthropological Research & Reviews Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022)
© Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University ISSN: 2583-0570

prehistoric researches and can help to develop Indian prehistory as well. Recent researches on DNA
reconstruction and gene tracing are popular among researchers for example the archaic hominin fossil
remains of a female who died around 90,000 years ago was half Neanderthal and half Denisovan,
according to genome analysis of a bone discovered in a Siberian cave. All these methods and many
other new methods are yet to be applied in Indian prehistoric researches and it does leave a
tremendous scope for success soon in future with an intensive systematic investigation of our
prehistoric past.

From the foregoing rapid survey of the development of prehistoric studies in the country it is clear
that the matter is no longer that of assembling “a multitude of stones”, as Wheeler called it. Rather it
is aimed at the reconstruction of the very formative stages of man’s culture which E.B. Tylor, the
founder of anthropology, defined as that “complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, morals,
law, art and custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”

CONCLUSION

Study of Acheulean assemblages from Attirampakkam, Hunsgi, Isampur, Bori, Nevasa, Bhimbetka,
Singi Talav, Chotonagpur plateau sites and Paisra associated sites is providing an excellent
understanding of the evolution of typology and techniques involved in the manufacture of Acheulean
bifaces and flake tools. As new studies came up the more discoveries appears and more theories and
methods were discussed to give new knowledge about human evolution in terms of time and space.
Thus, Indian chronologies started to be compared to European and African chronologies. New studies
reveal variations among stone implements and thus classified into different groups, hence forming the
chronological sequence and development of biological and material culture in India. So, there are
always new openings for development, new methods such as G.I.S methods, use ware analysis
method, micro ware analysis, experimental and ethnoarchaeological work, genetic advancement may
show us a new way of depicting our past and bring out newer discoveries to stronghold prehistoric
studies in India. All these earlier researches and findings by archaeologists and the scholars with the
methodological and theoretical developments lead Archaeological trends in India and rise to new
heights of Indian prehistory.

REFERENCES

1. Agarwal, D. P. and S. Kusumgar, 1974. Prehistoric chronology and radiocarbon dating in

India, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi.
2. Agarwal D.P., P. S Datta, Z. Hussain, R V Krishnamurthy, V.N Mishra, S.N Rajaguru and
P.K Thomas, 1980. “Palaeoclimate, Stratigraphy and Prehistory in North and West
Rajasthan”, Journal of Earth System Science, 89(1): 51-66.

3. Agrawal, D.P., Dodia, R., Kotlia, B.S., Razdan, H., and A. Sahni, 1989. “The Plio-Pleistocene
Geologic and Climatic Record of the Kashmir Valley, India: A Review and New Data”,
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, and Palaeoecology 73: 267-6.

10
Annals of Anthropological Research & Reviews Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022)
© Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University ISSN: 2583-0570

4. Bamshad, M., Kivisild, T., Watkins, W.S., Dixon, M., Ricker, C.E., Rao and B.B., Naidu,
2001. “Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste populations.” Genome Research 11:
994-1004.
5. Basak, B., 2009. “Valentine ball, the beginnings of Prehistory and the Tale of a Jungle life”,
Archaeology in India, G Sengupta and K Gangopadhyay (eds) Individuals, Ideas and
Institutions: 1-2, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, New Delhi.
6. Basak, B. and P.Shrivastava, 2017. “Earliest Dates of Microlithic Industries (42–25 ka) from
West Bengal, Eastern India: New Light on Modern Human Occupation in the Indian
Subcontinent”, Asian Perspectives 56(2): 1-23.
7. Bhattacharya, D.K., 2011. “Palaeolithic India and Human Dispersal”, Ancient India Series.1:
69-86.
8. Bose, N.K., 1940. “Prehistoric Researches in Mayurbhanj”, Science and Culture, VI (2).
9. Bose, N.K., and D.Sen, 1948. “Excavations in Mayurbhanj”, University of Calcutta.
10. Cammiade, L.A. and M.C. Burkitt 1930. Fresh Light on the Stone Age of Southeast India.
Antiquity 4: 327-9.
11. Chakrabarti, D., 1979. Robert Bruce Foote and Indian Prehistory. East and West 29(1/4): 11-26.
12. De Terra, H. and T.T. Paterson, 1939. “Studies on the Ice Age in India and Associated Human
Culture”, Carnegie Institution, Washington D.C.
13. Dutta, P. C., 1978. The Great Andamanese: Past and Present. Anthropological Survey of
India, Calcutta.
14. Dutta, P.C., 1984. Sarai Nahar Rai man: the first and oldest human fossil record in South
Asia. Anthropologie 22: 35-50.
15. Fagan, Brian M. and Nadia Durrani, 2019. “People of The Earth: An Introduction to World
Prehistory”, Fifteenth edition, Routledge, New York.
16. Foote, R. B., 1916. The Foote Collection of Indian Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities:
Notes on their Ages and Distribution. Madras: Government Museum.
17. Heizer, R.F., 1962. “The Background of Thomsen’s Three-Age System”, Technology and
Culture 3: 259-6.
18. Jacobson, J., 1974. “Early Stone Age Habitation Patterns in Raisen District, Madhya
Pradesh”, Paper presented at Seminar on Indian prehistory and Protohistory: 25-9, Deccan
College, Pune.
19. Krishnaswami, V.D., 1953. “Progress In Prehistory”, Ancient India Series, No.9: 53-79.
20. Kumar, A., Shanti Pappu, Haresh M. Rajapara, Yanni Gunnell, Anil D. Shukla and Ashok K.
Singhvi, 2018. “Early Middle Palaeolithic culture in India around
385–172 ka reframes Out of Africa models”, Nature 554: 97-101.
21. Kumar, V. & Reddy, B.M., 2003. “Status of Austro-Asiatic groups in the peopling of India :
An exploratory study based on the available prehistoric, linguistic and biological evidences.”
Journal of Bioscience 28 (4), 502-2.
22. Lal, B.B., 1958. “Birbhanpur: A Microlithic Site in the Damodar Valley, West Bengal”,
Ancient India Series 14: 4-8.
23. Mishra. S, S. Deo, R. Abbas, S. Naik, G. Shete, N. Agarwal and S.N Rajaguru, 2009.
“Excavations At Early Acheulian Site Of Morgaon”, Recent Research Trends in South Asian
Archaeology: 121-37.
24. Mishra, V.N., 1978. “The Acheulian Industry of Rock Shelter IIIF-23 At Bhimbetka, Central
India - A Preliminary Study”. Australian Archaeology 8: 63-106.

25. Mishra, V.N., S.N. Rajaguru, R.K. Ganjoo and R.K. Korisettar, 1990. “ Geoarchaeology of the
Paleolithic site at Samnapur in the Central Narmada Valley”, Man and Environment 15(1): 107-16.

26. Ota, S.B. and S.G. Deo, 2014. “Investigation of Acheulian Localities TKD-I and TKD-II at
Tikoda, District Raisen, Madhya Pradesh (2010-12)”, Recent Advances in Acheulian Culture
Studies in India (K.Paddayya and S.G. Deo Eds.): 57-66.

11
Annals of Anthropological Research & Reviews Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022)
© Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University ISSN: 2583-0570

27. Paddayya, K., 1982. “The Acheulian culture of the Hunsgi valley, peninsular India: a
settlement system perspective”, Deccan College, Pune.
28. Paddayya, K., 2017, “M.L.K. Murty and His Place in Indian Prehistory”. Bulletin of the Deccan
College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 77: 33-54.
29. Paddayya, K., B. A. B. Blackwell, R. Jhaldiyal, M. D. Petraglia, S. Fevrier, D. A. Chaderton II, J. I.
B. Blickstein, and A. R. Skinner, 2002. “Recent findings on the Acheulian of the Hunsgi and
Baichbal valleys, Karnataka, with special reference to the Isampur excavation and its
dating”. Current Science 83(5): 641-7.
30. Paddayya, K., & Petraglia, M. 1996. “Acheulian Workshop At Isampur, Hunsgi Valley, Karnataka:
A Preliminary Report”, Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 56/57: 3-26.
31. Pappu, S., Y. Gunnell, M. Taieb, J. Brugal & Y. Touchard, 2003. “Excavations at the Palaeolithic
Site of Attirampakkam, South India: Preliminary Findings”, Current Anthropology 44(4): 591-8.
32. Pappu, S., et al., 2011. “Early Pleistocene Presence of Acheulian Hominins in South India”,
Science 331: 1596-9.
33. Pappu S., K. Akhilesh, S. Ravindranath and U.Raj, 2011. “From Stone Tools To Satellites:
Recent Research Into The Prehistory of Tamil Nadu”, Ancient India New Series 1: 87-100.
34. Petraglia, M., P. Laporta and K. Paddayya, 1999. “The First Acheulian Quarry in India: Stone
Tool Manufacture, Biface Morphology, and Behaviors”, Journal of Anthropological Research
55: 41-70.
35. Pettitt, P. and M. White, 2014. “John Lubbock, Caves and The Development of Middle and
Upper Palaeolithic Archaeology”, Notes and Records 68: 35- 48.
36. Raghavan, H., Rajaguru, S.N., & Misra, V.N., 1989. “Radiometric dating of a Quaternary
dune section, Didwana, Rajasthan.” Man and Environment 13: 19 –22.
37. Rodden, J., 1981. “The Development of the Three Age System: Archaeology’s First
Paradigm”, In Daniel, Glynn (ed.), Towards a History of Archaeology (Thames &
Hudson): 51-68.
38. Sankalia, H. D., 1974. New Archaeology: its Scope and Application to India. D. N. Majumder
Lectures, Ethnographic and folk cultural society, Lucknow
39. Sen, D. and A. K. Ghosh, 1963. “Lithic Culture-Complex in the Pleistocene Sequence of the
Narmada Valley, Central India”, Rivista di Science prehistoriche XVII (1-4): 3-23.
40. Sonakia, A. and Biswas, S., 1998. “Antiquity of the Narmada Homo erectus, the early man of
India” Current Science 75 (4): 391-3.
41. Tattersall, I., 1997. “Out Of Africa Again ... and Again.” Scientific American 276 (4): 46-53.
42. Trigger, B.G., 2006. “A History of Archaeological Thought”, 2nd edition (Cambridge
University Press).
43. Wakankar, V.S., 1973. Painted Rock Shelters of India, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University
of Poona.
44. Wakankar, V.S. and R.R.R. Brooks, 1976. Stone Age Paintings in India, Taraporewala &
Sons, Bombay.

12