6. The Acheulian Succession at Bhimbetka, Central India V.N. MISRA Stone assemblages characterised by bifaces of Lower Palaeolithic type were initially discovered by Robert Bruce Foote and other explorers from 1863 onwards over large parts of Peninsular India (Foote 1916). An- other group of stone industries, characterised by micro liths, was discovered even earlier (Brown 1889). Bet- ween these two stages there lay, for a long time, a vast technological and chronological gap, and it was only, from 1930 onwards that this gap began slowly to be fil- led. In that year L.A. Cammiade and M.C. Burkitt described a succession of four industries from the allu- vial deposits in Kurnool district of present-day Andhra Pradesh and designated them as Series I-IV. Typologi- cally and technologically they can be broadly equated with Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic, and Meso- li Realy a decade later, H. de Terra andT.T. Paterson (1939) reported a sequence of Lower and Middle Pala- colithic industries from the terraces of the Soan river in the Potwar plateau of present-day Pakistan. The Lower, Palaeolithic industries comprised the Early Soan which consisted of pebble tools, and the Chauntra biface indus- ‘ry. Both came from the second terrace, of the Second Interglacial age. The Middle Palaeolithic industry of Levallois flakes and blades came from the third terrace, of the Third Glacial age. In the mid-ffties H.D. Sankalia (1956) reported two industries, Series I and II, from the gravels of the Pravara river at Nevasa in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra, Series 1 industry consisted of handaxes, cleavers, flakes and cores made on dolerite, and Series II of ordinary and Levallois flakes, blades, 35 scrapers and points made on crypto-crystalline silica. ‘During the next two decades a similar succession of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic industries was reported from several river valleys in Peninsular India by a num- ber of explorers (Khatri 1958; Mohapatra 1962; Isaac 1960; Misra 1961; Singh 1965; Ahmed 1966; Murty 1966; Pappu 1966; Rao 1966; and Paddayya 1968). A general impression was established that in the river allu- via almost everywhere in the country the coarser basal gravels yielded an Acheulian industry made on quart- zite or dolerite and the upper finer gravels yielded a ‘Middle Palaeolithic flake tool industry made mainly on crypto-crystalline silica and sometimesalso on quartzite and other rocks (Sankalia 1962, 1974). However, exca- vations in the coarser gravels at Mahadeo Piparia on the Narmada (Supekar 1968) and at Nevasa on the Pravara (Corvinus 1968) contradicted this generalized picture by yielding tools of both Lower and Middle Palaeolithic stages. The position of the Upper Palaeolithic, however, re- ‘mained even more vague. In 1956 B, Subbarao suggest- ed use of the terms Early, Middle and Late Stone Age in India, on the grounds that the absence of the Upper Palaeolithic did not justify the use of European termi nology. However, the Series III industry of Cammiade and Burkitt’s sequence from the southeast coast, which comprised blades, burins and some microlithic forms, was stratigraphically and typographically equivalent to the Upper Palaeolithic, The observations of these work- ers were supported by the later work of N. Isaac (1960) in the same area. The first typologically and stratigra-36 phically convincing evidence of an Upper Palacolithic was provided by M.L.K. Murty’s (1968) work at Reni- gunta in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh. Here a distinctive blade and burin industry made on fine-grain- ed quartzite occurred in the top silt deposit of the Ralla Kalava stream, On the surface of the sile occurred a ty- pical microlithic industry made on quartz. Blade and burin industries have also been reported from Shorapur doab in Karnataka (Paddayys 1968) and from sand dunes in Gujarat and Rajasthan (Allchin and Goudie 1971; Allchin, Hegde and Goudie 1972). A complete sequence of Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic, and Mesolithic industries has also been reported from the alluvial deposits of the Belan river in Allahabad district of Uttar Pradesh (Sharma 1973). Thus, while it is broadly clear that technological evolution over most of India proceeded from Lower through Middle and Upper Palaeolithic to Mesolithic, the precise nature of the industries of each of the Pala- eolithic stages, and therefore of the trend of evolution from one stage to another, is vague. Briefly, the situa- tion can be summarised as follows: 1) Almost all the Palaeolithic cultural material comes from secondary geological contexts such as erod- ed gravels in river beds and ftom surface sites on rock outcrops where suitable raw material for tool making, was available, Even where material has been obtained from stratified river gravels, it has been collected at, random without reference to vertical position. 2) Few sites, and hardly any in primary undisturbed contexts, have been excavated with the aim of under- standing the original compositions of Palaeolithic indus- tries. In the case of the Mesolithic a number of primary sites have been excavated and our knowledge is more comprehensive and clear. 3) Assemblages have been defined on small, selec- tively collected samples with little quantitative support. 4) Except in the case of the Billa Surgam caves in ‘Andhra Pradesh, faunal material from Palaeolithic sites is almost absent. 5) There are hardly any excavated sites with suc- cessive Palaeolithic stages which can give insights into the nature of technological evolution. 6) For reasons (1) to (4) the questions of such as- pects of Palaeolithic culture as structures and subsist- ence hardly arise at this stage. In this context, the recent excavations in the rock- shelters at Bhimbetka have made significant contribu- tions to the knowledge of the technology of several Palaeolithic stages and to the understanding of techno- VN, Misra logical evolution. THE SITE: AND ITS ECOLOGICAL SETTING Bhimbetka (77°37'E:22°50'N) is the name of a small hill in the Vindhya range of central India. It is located 45 km south of Bhopal, and about 2 km south of the tiny tribal hamlet of Bhianpur which is situated on the Bho- pal-Hoshangabad railway and highway. The hill rises about 650 m above mean sea level and about 100 m above the surrounding plain, It is topped by a chain of discontinuous monolithic rocks, eroded remnants of a former continuous ridge. Over 200 caves and rock shel- ters of varying sizes have been formed at the feet of these rocks, and other hills to the north and south of Bhimbetka are equally rich in shelters, ‘The majority of the sheiters contain paintings in red, white, green and other colours, depicting wild animals and scenes in the lives of hunter-gatherers and the later urban societies of the region (see Mathpal, this volume). Most also contain Mesolithic habitation de- posits. Together they testify to the existence of large hunting and gathering populations in the area during the Holocene. A small number of shelters have also yielded evidence of earlier occupation, from Upper Palaeolithic back to late Acheulian, The area around Bhimbetka receives an annual rain- fall of over 120.cm. The hills were once densely covered. by deciduous forest vegetation. Even today, at least thirty species of trees and plants have edible flowers, fruits, seeds and tubers which are expioited by the pre- dominantly tribal population of the region. These plant foods are particularly abundant during the summer months (March-June). Both big and small game was plentiful in the forest until recently. There are also several perennial natural springs in the area, Bhimbet- ka thus provided all the basic requirements of shelter, food and water, and it is therefore no surprise that hun- ter-gatherers occupied the shelters continuously from Acheulian times up to at least the beginning of the Christian era. Between 1972and 1977 excavations were carried out in over a dozen of these shelters by V.S. Wakankar (Vik- cam University, Ujjain), V.N. Mista (Poona University, Pune) and Susanne Haas (Museum fir Volkerkunde, Basle). Two of them, [11 F-23 and III F-24, produced long cultural sequences from late Acheulian to late Me- solithic. Acheulian deposits were also found in shelters I A-29 and IMI A-30, and Mesolithic deposits were encountered in these as well as in other excavated‘The Acheulian Succession at Bhimbetka, Central India shelters. The most complete sequence and the richest evidence of occupation, however, occurred in shelter I-23, THE STRATIGRAPHY OF SHELTER III F-23 Shelter III F-23 is one of the largest on Bhimbetka hill, and so far has produced the greatest thickness of habi- tation deposit. It opens to the south on to a level plateau which overlooks an extensive green valley sur- rounded by hills on all sides. An area of about 32 sqm enclosed on three sides by rock walls can be called the ‘cave proper, while the massive rocky overhang extends forward and to the left over a further area of about 80 sqm. The surface of the shelter has a gentle slope to- ward the south. By late Mesolithic times the shelter floor had been filled to within 1 m of the ceiling, and the shelter would appear to have been abandoned for occupation only when movement inside it became al- most impossible, An area of 52 sq m was excavated during four seasons between 1973 and 1976. The maximum thickness of habitation deposit en- countered was 3.80 m but this occurred only in a few squares of trenches, E, F and J. In the remaining squ- ares the deposit was less because the original floor was very uneven. The back (northern) wail of the shelter is. sloping, thereby exposing the rock surface in square 1 oftrenches G, Hand I between depths of 1,80 and 2.0 m. In squares 3-5 of trench K and squares 4-6 of trench. LL the rock surface also appeared between 1,05 m and 1.35 m. In the centre of the shelter there was a large rock which covered part or most of squares G 3, H 3-4 and 13-4, and the habitation deposit in this area was only between 1.30 and 1.70 m thick. Thus, along the back wall of the shelter and in trench J only narrow areas, not more than | m wide, contained Acheulian deposits. Eight layers were recognized in the deposit (Fig. 1). ‘Their physical and cultural characteristics are briefly as follows: Layer 1. 5-10 om thick; a dull yellowish-brown (10 YR 5/3) softsilty sand, poor in clay content, with occa- sional angular stones. It contained a geometric micro- lithic industry, made on chalcedonic silica and a small, quantity of quartzite comprising flakes, blades and microblades in association with hammers, grinders and querns of basalt, occasional stone beads, small quanti- ties of highly fragmentary sherds of plain red and grey ceramics and a few bone pieces. Layer 2. 10-25 cm thick; a dull yellowist-brown (10 YR 4/3) sandy silt and clayey sift. Cultural material as 37 in (1) but without pottery and beads; stone industry richer than in (1). Layer 3. 10-20 om thick; a brown (7.5 YR 4/3) sandy silt. A characteristic feature of this layer is the presence of thin weathered stone chips almost all over the excavated area. However, in the inner part of the cave, the colour of the earth becomes lighter and the quantity of stone chips declines. There is a decline in the quantity of the microlithic industry. Layer 4. 15-20 em thick; a dull brown (7.5 YR 5/4) silty clay with more rock fragments than in the three upper layers, There are no microliths, and the quartzite flakes, blades, and scrapers belong to a late Middle Palaeolithic or Upper Palaeolithic industry. Layer 5. 40-50 cm thick; a dull reddish-brown (5 YR 5/4) silty sand, moist and sticky when freshly dug with an increasing number of stone fragments. A wide variety of side scrapers, less common but typical end scrapers, Levallois flakes and blades and a few hand- axes and cleavers occur in the lower 10-15 cro, Many tools are made on thin flat natural stone slabs and have red staining; this is a typical Middle Palaeolithic industry. Layer 6. 80-90 cm thick; a bright reddish-brown (S YR 5/6) silty sand, siltier and more compact than (5). ‘The sizes of the stone blocks are larger and the artefacts red stained; a late Acheulian industry. Layer 7. 90-100 cm thick; a bright reddish-brown deposit (5 YR 5/8) more reddish and far more compact than (6) and more deeply weathered. The finer com- ponent of the deposit is more silty than in (6) and the Junction between this layer and (6) is sharply marked; it contains a late Acheulian industry. Layer 8. 80-90 cm thick; an orange (5 YR 6/6) de- posit which consists essentially of heavily weathered chips and blocks of argillaceous sandstone. It contains a late Acheulian industry but the basal 30cm is sterile. Throughout its thickness the whole deposit is com- posed of artefacts, rock manuports of varying sizes which were brought into the shelter for making arte- facts and floors, roof-fall blocks, and weathered stone chips and finer sediments which must have been intro- duced into the shelter by wind and rain from the open sides. Except in the Mesolithic layers where the majo- rity of the tools are made of chatcedonic silica, the arte- facts and natural rock pieces are of quartzite, the rock of which the shelter, indeed the entire hill, is formed, Several floors made by arranging rocks of various sizes, were encountered in the Upper Acheulian, Middle Pala- colithic and Upper Palaeolithic levels. In the Mesolithic 1tosa540 There is a further rise in quartzite in the Acheulian deposit, but here one sees a fluctuating trend. From 120 to 170 em the density is from 23.75 to 60.0 in trench. E and from 26.25 to 80.0 in trench F. There is a slight decline between 170 and 210 cm, where the densities in trenches E and F range from 17.25 to 27.75 and from 13.0 to 31.25 respectively. A distinct increase is then registered between 210 and 260 cm. Here the density is between 43.30 and 153.15 in trench E and between 32.25 and 100.00 in trench F. Below 260 cm depth there is a steady dectine in the number of artefacts in both trenches which becomes very marked in the bot- tom 30 cm of the deposit. In trench E the density bet- ‘ween 260 cm and 380 cm declines from 29 to 0.50 and in trench F from 14.0 to 2.0. From this pattern of artefact distribution, it would appear that the occupation of the shelter was initially sporadic and intermittent. There was then greater acti- vity in the shelter during the period represented by the deposit between 2.60 and 2.10 m depth, but consider- ably less activity between 2.10 and 1.70 m, From 1.70 m upwards no horizon indicates any marked fluctuation in activity and the slow but steady decline in density during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic may suggest an increasing use of tools made of organic materials. During the Mesolithic, however, the much lower pro- portion of quartzite tools is compensated for by the high proportion of microliths made of chalcedonic silica, VN. Misra THE TYPOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL COMPOSITIONS OF THE ARTEFACT ASSEMBLAGES The classification of the quartzite artefacts follows the typological scheme of the late Prof. Francois Bordes (see Appendix). The quantitative data for the main classes of quartzite artefacts from the four cultural phases are set out in Table 1. Data on the individual types of non-biface tools are given in Table 2, and these are grouped into major classes of non-biface tools in Table 3. ‘The Acheulian deposit yielded a total of 18721 aste- facts, Of these, only 1.65 per cent (308) are bifaces, and the proportion of cleavers to handaxes is 2.30: 1. Both handaxes and cleavers (Fig. 2) are made on flakes, and have symmetrical outlines and even surfaces. Secondary flaking was done by soft hammer technique. Some of the specimens are too thin and delicate for any practi- cal use, and were probably manufactured purely for aesthetic satisfaction. The low proportion of bifaces contrasts with the very high percentage (28.50 per cent) of non-biface (flake) tools (Fig. 3). Among these side scrapers (41.26 per cent) constitute the largest single group. Other numerically large groups are notches (11.06 per cent), truncated flakes (9.16 per cent), end sorapers (8.45 per cent) and denticulates (5.21 per cent). Levallois flakes (3.61 per cent) are also well represented. ‘A comparative typological and technological study of ‘Table 1. Frequencies of the main classes of quartzite artefuets from Rock Shelter JILF-23, Bhimbetka Lower Midele Axtefact type Palaeolithic Palaeolithle Palaeolithic Mesolithic Total No. % No. No. % No. Handaxes 93 030 Cleavers 215 Las Flake tools 5336 Flakes 5335 Blades 383 Microblades 7 5902 874 366 Blade cores 6 Microblade cores 4 Total 18721 100% 100% 2522 «100% += 2278 100% +3026,The Acheulian Succession at Bhimbetka, Central India 4 ‘Table 2. Frequencies of noa-biface quartzite tools in the stone industries of Rock Shelter III F-23, Bhimbetha ‘Artefact” Lower Palaeolithic Middle Palacoiithi Upper Palaeolithic ‘Mesolithic ‘ype No. No. % No. % No, % 1 20 a8 4 430 21 6@ 2 3 1108 9 1.08 2 6.09 3 1 0.04 1 a9 = 4 1 0.04 = = - - 3 6 oat 1 9 = - 6 = 1 0.04 2 037 = = 9 22 % 234 6 113, 9 287 10 456 281 97 “ 825 8 53 n 386 137 5.46 20 3.75 u 350 n 0 2 007 1 19 = = B 2 B 045 2 037 = = 6 0 4 014 5 = Ss = 15 2 7 0.59 2 037 = = 16 2 u 038 - = = ” 40 15 02 1 019 64 1B 0 9 03t 1 019 a 19 36 18 0.63 2 937 - » 26 3 os 2 037 = 2 14 7s 261 5 094 139 2 a 2 042 2 037 159 2 126 4 223 n 2.06 235 4 50 15 02 2 037 oss 3 259 109 379 19 3.36 235 26 261 3 289 9 1.69 223 2 2 = = = = = 2 5 2 07 = = S 2 85 2 1 4 07s 427 30 316 23 7.06 30 5.63 732 3 7 4 133 10 1.88 03s 32-33, 4 2 0.08 5 — 0.64 3435 15 0.82 2 037 = 3637123 1s sz 1 131 1.27 38 9 31 1.08 16 3.00 139 9 9 = = = = = ry 489 306 10.64 31 937 1274 4a 3 3 010 = = 032 a 324 262 ot o 1144 7.96 a 28 24 814 a 1.88 184 “a 10 4 04 1 a9 = 4s 4 2 0.76 1 131 0.64 4647413 219 162 45 844 287 449287 410 14.26 84 15.76 38 0 3 - = < = — 2 2 1 0.04 ~ = - 4 a 18 868 2 037 = 35 1 - =a ~ = = 56 9 1 0.08 = = 0.64 7 1 1 0.08 - = 2 2 2 - = = 7 - 6 1 3 o.10 1 9 _ a e B os 3 0.36 127 “a 1 3 010 1 a9 O64 6 = 7 = = - = 032 6 = =Levallois lakes Side scrapers ind scrapers Knives ‘Truncated flakes Notches Denticulates Utilized fakes 193 3.61 8 1.85 u 6.38 2203 41.26 10053495 HD. 4st 84527 8.39 cy 751 ry 4.00 46 1.60 23 431 489 9.16 305 tO st 9st 530 11.0628 9.78 6 nat 278 su 234 a4 a 7.88 m0 1329 at). 5336 99.97 2875100005 533 99.95 Fig. 2. Bhimbetka f1I F-23: Acheulian toots: handaxes (1-6); cleavers (7-12).The Acheulian Succession at Bhimbetka, Central India Fig. 3. Bhimbetka III F-23: Acheulian tools: scrapers (1-6, 8-12); noteh (7). Acheulian assemblages from all excavated Acheulian sites in India has shown that the Bhimbetka industry belongs to a late and evolved Acheulian stage (Misra 1980). The Middle Palaeolithic industry of Bhimbetka de- ‘velops from the Acheulian without any stratigraphic or cultural break, This is seen in the essential typological continuity between the two cultural stages (Fig. 4). Although the proportion of non-biface tools goes up to 33.81 per cent (from 28.50 per cent in the Acheulian), there is no change in the tool types. There is, however, change in the proportion of individual classes of tools. There is a decline in the proportions of side scrapers, knives and notches (34.95, 1.60 and 9.78 per cent respectively). On the other hand, there is a slight increase in the proportions of end scrapers (8.59 per cent), truncated flakes (10.64 per cent), and denticu- lates (8.14 per cent), and a marked increase in the pro- 43 Fig. 4. Bhimbetka III F-23: Middle Palacolithic tools. portion of utilised flakes (21.88 per cent), There are also other quantitative and qualitative ‘changes from the preceding Acheulian stage. Handaxes almost disappear, as only eight pieces (0.09 per cea) occurred in a collection of 8505 artefacts. Cleavers go completely out of use. There is an increase in the pro- portion of blades (2.12 per cent) and microblades (0.18, per cent) and both are smaller, narrower and thinner than their counterparts in the Acheulian (Misra 1982). ‘There is also a general decrease in the sizes of other tools, although this is not yet quantitatively demons- trated. Further, there isa general decline in the standard of craftsmanship. The proportion of Levallois flakes declines to 1.85 from 3.61 per cent in the Acheulian, A much higher proportion of tools are made on thin natural pieces by retouching the margins than during the Acheulian period. ‘The Upper Palaeolithic again isa continuation of the existing cultural tradition (Fig. 5). The assemblage from this horizon is much smaller, comprising only 2522artefacts. The proportion of shaped tools declines to 21.13 from 33.81 per cent during the Middle Palae~ lithic. This is contrasted with a sharp increase in the proportion of small (less than 25 mm long) flakes and chips, These constitute 43.74 per cent of the collection, against 33.06 per cent in the Middle Palaeolithic. This increase appears to be a consequence of the small size of artefacts in general and greater and finer secondary work on retouched tools in particular. The percentage of blades increases to more than twice (4.25 per cent) and that of microblades to more than six times (1.15 per cent) the Middle Palaeolithic figures. Also, both blades and microblades tend to be narrower and V.N. Misra thinner than those of the Middle Palaeolithic (Misra 1982). There is also a substantial increase in the per- centage of Levallois flakes to 6.38, against only 1.85 in the preceding phase. ‘The Mesolithic industry is typologically and techno- logically very different from the Upper Palaeolithic. ‘The major component comprises microlithic tools which have been made by very fine retouch on tiny microblades detached from fluted cores of chalcedony and chert (Fig. 6). Other new cultural traits which appear during this phase are querns and grinders, bored stones, human burials within the shelter, haema- tite pieces with smooth surfaces produced by grinding for pigment, bone tools, and profuse rock art. There is little doubt that the Mesolithic people came to Bhim- betka from outside, but they came while the Upper Palaeolithic people were still occupying the shelters. This is demonstrated by the lack of any stratigraphic break and the presence of old and new cultural ele- ‘ments in a homogeneous complex. While mainly rely- ing upon microliths of chalcedonic silica for their tools, the Mesolithic people also used in substantial quantity quartzite tools of the local Upper Palaeolithic tradi- tion. Certain differences are, however, noticeable bet- ween the quartzite industries of the Mesolithic and Upper Palaeolithic phases. The percentage of Levallois flakes during the Mesolithic ({.38) is more than twice that of the Upper Palaeolithic (6.38). The percentages, of blades (7.24) and microblades (3.29) are also nearly twice and thrice those of the Upper Palaeolithic (4.28 and 1.15, respectively). ‘The excavations in the rock-shelters at Bhimbetka have thus provided for the first time in India artefact, assemblages from the Lower Palaeolithic to Mesolithic phases in undisturbed contexts and in a continuous stratigraphic sequence. These have not only facilitated a correct idea of the technology of each of these cul- tural phases, but have also given an insight into the processes of technological and cultural change. While it is unlikely that many sites with such long undis- turbed sequences exist, specially outside the rock- shelter zone of central India, it will still contribute immensely to knowledge if more primary sites with even two chronologically related cultural phases can be located and excavated.VAN. Misra APPENDIX ‘Typology of non-biface tools (after Bordes) 1, Levalloisian flake—typical ia, Levalloisian blade—typical 2. — Levalloisian flake—atypical 2a. Levalloisian blade—atypical 3. Levalloisian point 4. 8, 6. Retouched Levalloisian point Pseudo-Levalloisian point . - Mousterian point 7. Elongated Mousterian point Limace 9. Simple straight side scraper 10. Simple convex side scraper 11. Simple concave side scraper 12. Double straight side scraper 13. Double straight & convex side scraper 14, Double straight & concave side scraper 15, Double biconvex side scraper 16, Double biconcave side scraper 17. Double concave & convex side scraper 18. Convergent straight side scraper 19. Convergent convex side scraper 20. Convergent concave side scraper 21. Dejété side scraper 22, Straight transversal side scraper 23. Convex transversal side scraper 24, Concave transversal side scraper 25. Side scraper with ventral retouch 26. Side scraper with steep retouch 27. Side scraper with thinned back 28. Side scraper with bifacial retouch 29. Side scraper with alternate retouch. 30. End scraper 31. End scraper & side scraper 32. Burin—typical 33. Burin—atypical 34. Borer—typical 38. Borer—atypical 36. Backed knife—typical 37. Backed knife—atypical 38. Knife with natural back 39, Raclette 40, Truncated flake 41. Mousterian tranchet 42. Notch 43. Denticulate 44, Alternate burinate beak 45, _ Retouch on ventral face 46-47. Alternate thick abrupt retouch 48-49, Alternate thin abrupt retouch 50. Bifacial retouch SL. Tayacian point 52, Notched triangle 53. Pstudo-microburin 54, Notch on end 55. Hachoir 56. Rabot 57, Tanged point 58, Tanged tool 59, Chopper 60, Inverse chopper 61. Chopping tool ©2. Miscellaneous 63. Bifacial leaf point 64. Discoid 65. Obliquely truncated microblade 66. Backed blade REFERENCES Abmed, N. 1966. The stone age cultures of the upper Son Valley. Ph.D. Thesis, Poona University. Allchin, B. and Goudie, A. 1971. Dunes, aridity and early man in Gujarat, western India. Man (N.S.). 5: 248-65. Allchin, B., Hegde, K.TM. and Goudie, A. 1972. Pre~ history and environmental change in western India: a note on the Budha Pushkar basin, Rajasthan. Man (N.S.). 7(4): 541-64. Brown, J.A. 1889. On some small, highly speci forms of stone implements found in Asia, north Africa and Europe. Journal of the Royal Anthropo- logical Institute. XVM: 134-39, Cammiade, L.A. and Burkitt, M.C. 1930, New light on the stone ages of southeast In i : 327-39. Corvinus, G. 1968. Stratigraphy and geological back- ground of an Acheulian site ChiThe Acheulian Succession at Bhimbetka, Central India India. Anthropos. 63-64: 921-40. De Terra, H. and Paterson, TT. 1939. Studies on the Tee Age in India and associated human cultures. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institution. Foote, R.B. 1916. The Foote Collection of Indian prehis- toric and protohistoric antiquities. Madras: Madras Govt. Museum. Isaac, N. 1960, The stone age cultures of Kurnool. Ph.D. Thesis. Poona University. Khatri, A.P. 1958. The stone age cultures of Malwa. Ph.D. Thesis. Poona University. Misra, V.N. 1961. The stone age cultures of Rajputana. Ph.D. Thesis. Poona University. Misra, V.N. 1980. The Acheulian industry of rock shelter III F-23 at Bhimbetka, Central India—a pre- liminary study. Australian Archaeology. 8: 63-106. Misra, V.N. 1982. Evolution of the blade element in the stone industries of the rock shelter III F-23, Bhimbetka. In Indian Archaeology: New Perspec~ tives, pp. 7-13. (ed. R.K. Sharma). Delhi: Agam, Mohapatra, G.C. 1962. The stone age cultures of Orissa. Poona: Deccan College. Murty, MLK, 1966. The stone age cultures of Chit- toor district. Ph.D. Thesis. Poona University. Murty, M.L.K. 1968. Blade and burin industries near Renigunta on the southeast coast of India. Pro- 47 ceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 34: 83-101. Paddayya, K. 1968. Pré- and proto-historic investigations in Shorapur doab. Ph.D. Thesis. Poona University. Pappu, RS, 1966. Pleistocene studies in the upper Krishna basin. Ph.D. Thesis. Poona University. Rao, S.N. 1966. Stone age cultures of Nalgonda. Ph.D. Thesis. Poona University. Sankalia, HD. 1956. Animal fossils and Palaeolithic industries from the Pravara basin at Nevasa, dis- trict Ahmednagar. Ancient India. 12: 35-52. Sankalia, H.D. 1962. Prehistory and protohistory in India and Pakistan. Bombay University. Sankalia, H.D. 1974. Prehistory and protohistory of India and Pakistan. Poona: Deccan College. Sharma, G.R. 1973. Stone age in the Vindhyas and the Ganga valley. In Radiocarbon and Indian Archaco- logy, pp. 106-10. (eds D.P. Agrawal and A. Ghosh). Bombay: TIFR. Singh, R. 1965. The Palaeolithic industries of northern Bundelkhand. Ph.D. Thesis. Poona University. Subbarao, B. 1956. The personality of India. Baroda: MS. University. Supekar, S.G. 1968. Pleistocene stratigraphy and pre~ historic archaeology of the Central Narmada basin, Ph.D. Thesis. Poona University.