Author's personal copy - Himalayan Languages

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Lithic industries with Palaeolithic elements in Northeast India

Manjil Hazarika a,b

a Indian Archaeological Society, New Delhi 16, IndiabHimalayan Languages Project, Leiden University, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 20 October 2011

a b s t r a c t

Northeast India is one of the poorly documented areas archaeologically and hardly is considered in thediscussions on Indian prehistory. To date, no site has pushed back the antiquity of human presence in thisregion prior to Late Pleistocene. However, circumstantial evidence indicates its significance for earlyhominin dispersals during Early/Middle Pleistocene from Africa to Island Southeast Asia. The LatePleistocene/Early Holocene shows an increase in the archaeological record of the Hoabinhian andAnyathian culture, which further demonstrates close affinities with the Southeast Asian record. Thispaper summarises the lithic industries of the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene in this region in connectionwith the adjoining areas of Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Thepresence of Palaeolithic culturalmaterial inNortheast India isa debated issue in Indian Prehistory. On the basis of tool typology,several assemblages have been placed within the context of ‘Palae-olithic’ in this region. One of the main problems with these Palae-olithic materials is that they occur in relatively younger deposits andin most cases in association with axes/adzes of Neolithic origin andpottery. The GaroHills,Meghalaya, has yielded the largest number ofstone tools with Palaeolithic characteristics (Medhi, 1988), butwithout a well-understood chrono-stratigraphic context. Severalearly workers (Sharma, 1972; Sankalia, 1974) have analysed anddivided these materials on the basis of typology into chronologicalsequences of Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic periods.However, Ghosh (1978) has contradicted these views and suggestedthat thesematerials are not Palaeolithic, but just ‘Neolithic debitage’.

This area is often referred to as inaccessible during the Pleistocenedue to dense forests, hilly terrain, heavy rainfall and harsh climaticconditions, and so was interpreted as unfavourable for humans(Ghosh,1978;Misra, 2001). However, this region is considered one ofthe principal geographic corridors for faunalmigrations between theIndian subcontinent and the rest of Asia (Hooijer, 1949; Tougard,2001; Chauhan, 2008; Nanda, 2008). Due to the lack of evidencefor early humans inNortheast India (henceforthNEI) prior to the LatePleistocene (Ramesh, 1989), this area has not figured in the theo-retical discussions pertaining to early hominiddispersals. This regionhas been regarded as a geographical barrier for early dispersals of

hominids from Africa, to Island Southeast Asia and East Asia via theIndian subcontinent (Dennell, 2009) in the Early/Middle Pleistocene,and evenwas considered a partial barrier (Field and Lahr, 2006; Fieldet al., 2007) to eastwardmigrationduringMarine Isotope Stage (MIS)4 (71e59 ka). On the contrary, most scholars (Rightmire, 2001;Mithen and Reed, 2002) depict a tentative route of the eastwardmovements of hominins fromAfrica to Island SoutheastAsia throughthe Northeast Indian corridor. However, the importance of thisregion in this regard has never been discussed in detail.

The objective of the present paper is to review the evidence forPalaeolithic remains of NEI in relation to the adjoining areas of theEastern Himalayas, especially Nepal, South China, Myanmar andBangladesh. Bhutan has not yet yielded any convincing Palaeolithicsite. Considering the archaeological record, cultural affinities/connections with its surrounding areas will be examined ina geographical perspective, bearing in mind that this regionconnects a huge landmass of Asia, lying at the junction of South Asia,Southeast Asia andEast Asia (Fig.1). Presently, the termNEI (roughlyencompassing the areas between 22o-30oN and 89o-97oE) is usedto indicate the region covering the states of Assam, Arunachal Pra-desh, Nagaland,Manipur,Meghalaya,Mizoram, Sikkim, and Tripura.The Brahmaputra valley is surrounded by several ranges such as theeastern Himalayas on the north and east, the Patkai and Naga hillson the northeast, and Mikir hills and Shillong plateau on the south.The Barak river valley forms the southern part of this region.

2. Early hominin dispersals through NEI?

One of the major focuses of attention among palaeo-Anthropologists and Prehistoric Archaeologists is the establishment of theE-mail address: [email protected].

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

1040-6182/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.10.006

Quaternary International 269 (2012) 48e58


earliest human occupation in different areas. Moreover, emphasis isgiven towards understanding the early human dispersal in the OldWorld from Africa, the cradle of humankind. This issue emerged as‘out of Africa’ model, implying early Homo species stepping footoutside Africa and dispersing to different parts of the OldWorld. Theformulation of this popularly known model is based on the recentevidence of early human presence in the form of hominin remainsthemselves or traces of their cultural activities from different sites.Recent datawith numerical dates authenticates a humanpresence inthe Early Pleistocene time outside Africa at Atapuerca (Carbonellet al., 2005) in Spain, Pirro Nord in Italy (Arzarello et al., 2007),Dmanisi in Georgia (Lordkipanidze et al., 2007), Ubeidiya (Tchernov,1995) in Israel, Riwat, Pabbi Hills (Dennell et al., 1988) in Pakistan,Isampur (Paddayya et al., 2002) and Attirampakkam (Pappu et al.,2011) in India, Java (Sémah et al., 2000; Simanjuntak et al., 2010) inIndonesia, and Longuppo Cave (Wanpo et al., 1995) and in other sitesof China (See Weiwen and Pu, 2007). Lower Palaeolithic Acheulianartefacts are not yet recorded from NEI (Petraglia, 1998, 2006;Mishra, 2006/2007; Chauhan, 2009, 2010a). Routes, dispersalpatterns and colonisation of different regions of the Old World byearly hominins with different cultural traditions, in relation to theclimatic and ecological factors responsible, are thoroughly discussedin recent publications (see Fleagle et al., 2010; Norton and Braun,2010, 2011, in press). To date, few attempts have been made toestablish the earliest human occupation in NEI. Recently on the basisof circumstantial evidence, Hazarika (2008, 2011, in press) argues,this region, as it connects the Indian Subcontinent with the East andSoutheast Asian landmass, may have acted as a possible mid-pointfrom Africa to Southeast Asia through South Asia for the eastwarddispersal of early hominids.

Many early Palaeolithic sites, occasionally associated withskeletal remains, are found in neighbouring areas of Nepal(Corvinus, 2006), South China (Gao et al., 1997; Hou et al., 2000;Weiwen and Pu, 2007), Northern Thailand (Reynolds, 1990),Myanmar (Movius, 1944; Ba Maw, 1995; Ba Maw et al., 1998) datedto Early/Middle Pleistocene. Mishra et al. (2010) suggests closeconnections between India and Java in the Lower and MiddlePleistocene on the basis of Palaeolithic technology of Large Flake

Acheulian and supported by paleontological material. If NEI actedas a corridor for these dispersals and early hominid movements,there are ample possibilities for many unexplored sites dated to theEarly/Middle Pleistocene. However, as Dennell (2009) suggested, ifthe lower reaches of the Ganges-Brahmaputra River were difficultto cross, then the uplands along the Himalayan foothills might haveserved as a route for human movement. After reviewing thebiogeography of Middle Pleistocene hominins in mainland South-east Asia, Marwick (2009) proposed the possibility of a coastal andwaterways route, although not supported with archaeological datato date, for the initial migration of hominins into Southeast Asiafrom West Asia along the coast of South Asia and Myanmar. Thisalso supports the importance of NEI in early human movements.

Chauhan (2010b) considers two routes of entry into the IndianSubcontinent and subsequent population movements from India;Afghanistan and Pakistan to the northwest and Myanmar in thenortheast. He also predicts NEI as a greater potential area for EarlyPleistocene sites, reflecting a major human and faunal corridorbetween India and Southeast Asia, as recently put forward byMishra et al. (2010).

3. The Garo Hills ‘dilemma’

Nearly four decades (initiated in mid-1970s) of intermittentprehistoric investigations in Garo Hills, Meghalaya have revealedthe existence of several assemblages with Palaeolithic elements.The archaeological record and the views expressed and conclusionsdrawn by earlier workers are discussed sequentially. The details ofthe archaeological record are based entirely on the descriptions ofthe original investigators; hence this description is dependent ontheir interpretations and the terminologies adopted by them.Subsequently, discussion will focus on evaluation of the nature andcontexts of the artefacts which are identified (or claimed) to be ofLower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic traditions, following Euro-pean nomenclature. Most of these artefacts were collected fromsecondary depositional contexts and were placed in differentcultural stages on typological grounds. Some of the industries werecompared and correlated with the Indian as well as southeast Asian

Fig. 1. Location of NEI and important localities bearing Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene sites.

M. Hazarika / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 48e58 49


traditions. Such comparisons made during the 1970s and 1980sneed further scrutiny, considering the present day archaeologicaldata with good chrono-stratigraphic control. As these artefacts aremostly surface collections and the chronology is not yet wellunderstood, the issue of the presence of Palaeolithic artefactsremains as a ‘dilemma’ in the prehistory of NEI. The contradictoryview, regarding these artefacts as simply ‘Neolithic debitage’(Ghosh, 1978), has also created an enigmatic situation which hascontinued to influence the conceptual and theoretical discussions.

4. Lithic industries from the Garo Hills

Sharma (1974) in his field explorations in the Rongram andSimsang river valleys of the Garo Hills located several Stone Agesites at Rongram Alagiri, Chitra Abri, Selbalgiri, Michimagiri, WatriAbri, Waramgiri, Chibragiri and Rombhagiri in an undulating areaof 500e800 m asl. A trial trench at the site of Selbalgiri, located ona terrace of the Rongram River, was undertaken. Typologically, theartefacts found in the trench are categorized into four distinctindustries: (i) a flake and blade industry, (ii) a microlithic industry,(iii) a chipped stone axe industry, and (iv) a ground and polishedstone industry associated with a crude handmade pottery.Furthermore, he observed some roughly flaked discoid tools andstone axes ‘‘showing Lower Palaeolithic tool tradition”. The site ofWaramgiri has well exposed dolerite dykes which were utilised asraw material for making artefacts from the “Lower Palaeolithic” tothe end of the Neolithic. The artefacts occur in the eroded surfaceand in mint condition in a yellowish silt layer. A few handaxes,scrapers and points showing “Mousterian” characteristics wereexcavated from the silt layer. Ground and polished stone andpottery were not found atWaramgiri. Flake and blade industries arefound at both Michimagiri and Watri Abri. The frequency of bladesis greater at Watri Abri.

Sharma (1974) noted that:

1. Both pebble tool and chopper elements in association with thehandaxe facies of crudely flaked “Abbevillian” and lateAcheulian types are present in this industry.

2. Elements of “Levalloisian-Mousterian” tradition are present inthe flake tools. The tools include usual types of scrapers andpoints, and tanged points of “Aterian” type, and “Mousterian”types of flakes with thick blunt backs.

3. The Blade industry also shows good development.4. Lesser development of the microliths is attributed to the

unsuitability of dolerite as raw material for the preparation ofmicroliths.

5. Another significant observation is the presence of Hoabinhiancultural elements, a stone axe industry dominantly found inSoutheast Asia, based on the production of unifacially flakedaxes from flattish oval pebbles.

Sharma (1975) studied the archaeological remains of Meghalayaand discusses the Neolithic and Palaeolithic periods. He divides theentire prehistoric period into four series:

Series I: includes artefact types such as handaxes, cleavers,choppers, chopping tools, discoids, and pointed tools found at theprehistoric sites of Garo Hills. These artefacts are found associatedwith cemented coarse gravel in in-situ position or resting directlyover sandstone and shale at Rongram, Rombhagiri, and Chibragiri.

Series II: This series is characterised by the flake tools, and themajority of these flakes show prepared multifaceted striking plat-form with a prominent bulb of percussion. Regular tool types arescrapers, points and borers.

Series III: Blades and blade tools such as scrapers, points, bladesand burins are the main components of this series. These artefacts

come from erosional surface of the river terraces, and hence thestratigraphic position is not understood.

Series IV: This is represented by microliths such as points,scrapers, borers, blades, bladelets and arrowheads made on finegrained dolerite.

According to Sharma (1975), the Stone Age artefacts bear simi-larities with the Early, Middle and Late Stone Age complexes ofIndia. Moreover, the handaxe tradition of Garo Hills has a closeparallel with the Padjitanian of Java. He argues for developmentalstages within the artefacts from Early Palaeolithic to Neolithicstages.

Surface collections as well as the artefacts recovered during theexcavation at the site of Michimagiri (25�330N, 90�17’E) (Sharmaand Roy, 1985) during March 1976, show homogeneity in natureindicating the same industrial tradition. The raw material is finegrained blackish dolerite which is heavily weatheredwith a reddishbrown patina. Besides the prepared core technique as a dominanttechnique, a hinged fracture technique was also used for prepara-tion of the artefacts. Typologically, the artefacts reveal at least threeindustrial traditions: Levallois flake tradition as the dominant one,blade production, and Acheulian tradition. The artefacts includeside-scrapers, end-scrapers, borers, and utilised Levallois flakes,points, blades, micro- lunates and leaf shaped points. The excava-tors concluded with an argument that, in the absence of a similarassemblage in Southeast Asia and as the Garo Hills, the materialdoes not differ significantly from those found in mainland Indiansites, and an Indian origin of the Michimagiri artefacts can bepostulated.

Sharma and Roy (1985) discovered Stone Age artefacts in-situ attwo sites (NBG-A and NBG-B) at Nangwalbibra at the confluence ofthe Simsang and Rongu rivers during 1977 and 1978. The site ofNBG-A has yielded choppers, chopping tools and flakes of doleritein a cemented gravel deposit. The site of NBG-B produced scrapers,points, flakes and cores of chert, without pebble tools, and exceptfor the chert artefacts, other materials are found in stratifiedcontext. Some of their significant observations are:

(i) The handaxe-cleaver tradition is not present at the site ofNangwalbibra, from which it differs with other sites of theCentral Garo Hills.

(ii) The possibilities of typological and technological similaritiesbetween Nangwalbibra pebble tools and those of Soanian ofNorthwestern India cannot be denied.

Sharma (1986) proposed the Nangwalbibra (NBG-A) pebblechoppers to be identical with Soanian of Northwestern India. Someflake tools made on chert at NBG-B show characteristics of the LateSoan and Middle Palaeolithic flake tool industry.

Typo-technological study of stone tool industries by Sonowal(1987) established the presence of a blade flake tool tradition inthe Garo Hills. The site of Michimagiri (III) (Sharma, 1985; Sonowaland Sharma, 1986) at 25�300- 25�450 N; 90�150- 90�300 E at anelevation of w800 m has yielded a “huge quantity of finished tool,waste flakes and cores indicating characters of an extensive factorysite.” A small trench at the site reveals one cultural layer of 1 mthickness. The artefacts are mainly made on flakes and bladesrepresenting Mousterian, Levalloisian and blade techniques.Acheulian types of tools are smaller in size. Cleavers are made onflakes. They divided the industry into (a) flake industry and (b)blade industry comparable to the Middle and Upper Palaeolithicindustries of India.

Sonowal and Sharma (1988) presented the discovery of bluntedback flake knives of the Central Garo Hills collected from elevensites of Rongram and Ganol river valleys at different elevationsranging from 500 to 800 m. The sites are Michimagiri III,

M. Hazarika / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 48e5850


Thebranggiri, Selbalgiri, Mokbol Giri, Chitra Abri, Cibra Giri,Mechingrenchap, Watri Abri, Ganol Abri, Muksak Abri, and Dida-migiri. The collected artefacts show that, ‘one of its longer sides isblunted and the other side is made sharp for cutting by removingflakes’. These artefacts are made on side or end flakes. Two types onthe basis of forms have been identified, (i) in the Type I, the edgealong the longer axis is perpendicular to the bulbar end, and (ii) inthe type II, the transverse cutting edge is along the shorter axis. Theblunted back of these artefacts is made by either retouching alongone of the long axes of the flakes or blunted naturally with anoriginal thick core surface. These artefacts are comparable with theflake knives found in the Acheulian contexts of Europe and India.

The Department of Anthropology, Gauhati University (IAR,1986e87) located some sites in the Ganol River valley, namely,Mechingrenchap II, Didamigiri II, Didamigiri III, Michimagiri IV, andSambalakong located within 2200 m and 2400 m. The sites yieldedmixed assemblages of Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic tools inaddition to microliths and Neolithic artefacts. The artefactscomprise choppers, handaxes, cleavers, awls, knives, blunted bladeknives, scrapers, and points. Some more artefacts were collectedfrom different sites, such as Misimagiri III, Didami III, Meching-renchap containing Middle and Upper Palaeolithic artefacts. Somesmall axes with lanceolate-tips and butts, similar to SoutheastAsian artefacts were also collected (IAR, 1995e96). Mahanta (1995)analysed the stone artefacts from Selbalgiri, West Garo Hills andidentified evolutionary stages belonging to Palaeolithic, Mesolithicand Neolithic cultures.

In 1969, Sankalia (1974) visited the Garo Hills and observed thatthe Palaeolithic elements might be present in the area. Medhi(1980) interprets the Garo Hills situation on the basis of his fieldwork in the context of palaeoecology of the area. The artefactswhich are not typical Neoliths have been grouped by him “under‘pre-Neolithic’ with a clarification that the term is provisional andmay be accepted for the time being as equivalent to ‘Palaeolithic’elsewhere in India”. Further, he prefers to assign “the pebblechoppers and microliths (?) found at Nangalbibra of Garo Hills toNeolithic origin”. Medhi (1990) in surveying the state of research inprehistory mentions his study undertaken during 1982 and 1984 inthe Garo Hills and states that the tools are not found in a stratifiedcontext and the ground and chipped tools are found together.Further, he comments on the ‘Neolithic debitage’ problem initiatedby Ghosh (1978) that the chipped stone tools are not simply deb-itage, but purposefully knapped artefacts. Recent observations onthe stratigraphy of the sites occurring in the Ganol and Rongramvalleys of the Garo Hills makes it clear that the flake-bladeassemblage, the bifaces and the pebble tools are of Pleistoceneperiod, whereas the celts occurring in the yellowish brown allu-vium are Holocene (Sharma, 2002a).

5. Evidence from Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh

Singh (1972, 1983) in his excavation at the limestone cave site ofKhangkhui near Ukhrul, Manipur, recorded interesting stone andbone tool assemblages. The cave contained handaxes and cleaversin its lower level and scrapers, points, borers, blades, burins, andbone points in the upper level. The bone industry comprises points,scrapers, chisels, perforated and blunted back knives. Badam ofDeccan College, Pune, identified the faunal assemblage asbelonging to Cervus, Sus, Bovide and wild fowl, and not older thanLate Pleistocene in age, comparable to the faunal remains of Kur-nool cave of South India (Singh, 1991). Other paleontologicalmaterials found in NEI are of Elephas maximus and Elephas hysu-dricus (Badam, 1979) without much chronological data. Chopperswere also recorded at other localities such as in layer VI at Napachikand Machi in Tengnoupal District of Manipur. Singh and Ranjit

Singh (1990) reported their findings of a few artefacts comprisingof handaxes, worked flake pebble with round edge, flaked pebble,blade, flake, pebble striker, split pebble, waste flakes etc. at the siteof Singtom (24�170N, 93�540E) in the Chandel district of Manipur.

Similarly, Bopardikar (1972) of the Archaeological Survey ofIndia with a multidisciplinary team explored the Daphabhum areaof the Lohit district of Arunachal Pradesh and reported evidence ofPalaeolithic (?) material. However, the artefacts are unconvincingand doubtful (Chakrabarti, 1998). Ashraf (1990) also finds somePalaeolithic stone tools consisting of choppers, cleavers and han-daxes from Kamla and Dikrong valley of the Papumpare district ofArunachal Pradesh. These claims failed so far in establishing anundisputed chronology for the prehistoric cultures prior to theNeolithic. These are the reasons why the evidence of Palaeolithicmaterial are always neglected and generally not considered in thediscussions on Indian Palaeolithic (Misra, 2001). Recently, Medhiet al. (2006) has claimed some Palaeolithic artefacts fromMizoram.

6. Stratigraphic contexts

Most of the chrono-stratigraphy, provided by the earlierscholars (Sharma, 1972, 1979; Sonowal, 1987; Mahanta, 1995) arebased on artefact typology and technology and hardly interpretedon the basis of numerical dates, whereas the context of the sites ismostly neglected. Most of the artefacts occur on erosional surfaces.Chronologies have been proposed on the basis of typologicalcomparison with the sites of India and Southeast Asia. However,these studies failed so far to establish awell stratified chronologicalsequence, corroborated with numerical dates and associatedarchaeological data. So, the story of cultural evolution from Lower,Middle to Upper Palaeolithic is not substantiated. Study by Medhi(1980) on the Quaternary history of the Garo Hills shows that thesurfaces are definitely not older than the Pliocene. He proposeda relative chronology of the various geomorphic events in GaroHills. His observation on the geomorphology of the area does notsupport a high antiquity for stone artefacts. These artefacts arefound in the youngest terrace (Terrace III) and on the weatheredrock surface, both geo-chronologically dated to the Late Quaternary(Medhi, 1980, 1988). Considered to be Lower and Middle Palae-olithic (based on typo-technology), these artefacts do not show anystratigraphical differences with microlithic/Upper Palaeolithic,Hoabinhian and Neolithic bearing horizons. The handaxes,scrapers, flakes etc. can be of any period, and are found even in laterperiods. The artefacts identified as cleavers may be handadzes(Medhi, 1988). The large cutting tools lack any significance inchronological sequences. Selbalgiri II yielded a clear microlithichorizon below the Neolithic level, although without a strati-graphical break. Microliths are also found at the Neolithic level(Sharma, 1986). Sections at Rongram (Sharma, 2002b) show thatpebble choppers and short axes lay in the strong brown colouredalluvium of 31 cm below the dark yellowish brown alluvium at33 cm containing Neolithic ground tools. Artefacts of flake andblade tradition are well known in Late Pleistocene contexts ofSoutheast Asia. However, considering the erosional situation of thegeological strata where the artefacts of different phases (at leasttypologically) occur as mixed assemblages, as palimpsests, time-transgressive, should be scrutinised more carefully and if neces-sary, should be re-excavated, to build up the actual story of the ageof the industries indicating ‘archaic’ elements.

Late Quaternary sediments are recorded in different localities ofNEI (Ramesh and Rajagopalan,1999) and are dated to 38,020� 2230B.P. at Tipang (Southeast Assam), 32,540 � 130 B.P. at Singra(Lakhimpur, Assam), 40,000 B.P. at North Cachar hills (Assam),40,000 B.P. at Ziro valley (Arunachal Pradesh) and 35,690� 3050B.P.at Khowai and Hoara valley (Tripura). Interestingly, the stone



artefacts (of late Middle Palaeolithic/Upper Palaeolithic) of Tripuraoccur in Late Pleistocene deposits (Ramesh, 1989). Similarly, strati-graphically, theflake-blade assemblage, bifaces and the pebble toolsare placed in the Pleistocene (Sharma, 2002a). The faunal assem-blage at Khangkhui cave occurring with stone artefacts indicatesLate Pleistocene (Singh, 1991). Archaeological record prior toTerminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene is very scanty in mainlandSoutheast Asia (Schepartz et al., 2000), which is also valid in caseof NEI.

7. Fossil wood assemblages of Myanmar, Tripuraand Bangladesh

Movius (1944, 1948) on the basis of his work in the Irrawaddyvalley of southern Myanmar, suggested that a technological line,commonly known as the ‘Movius Line’, separates the unifacial‘chopper-chopping tool’ tradition of Eastern Asia from the bifacial‘handaxe’ tradition of Western Asia, Africa and Europe. TheAcheulian-like industries do not occur east or north of ‘Movius Line’which arcs from the India-Bangladesh border to Northern England.In an Indian context, the Movius line separates the Sub-Himalayanregions where ‘chopper-chopping’ assemblages occur from theAcheulian assemblage region of Peninsular India. However, onthe basis of the distribution of Acheulian artefacts in thesub-Himalayan region and relatively late age of the Soanianindustries, Gaillard and Mishra (2001) and Mishra et al. (2010)questioned the validity of the arguments made by Movius whoconsidered the Soanian as contemporary to the Acheulian. Mishra(2010) in a recent paper suggests revision of the original formula-tion of the ‘Movius line’ at least in relation to the Indian sub-continent. Convincingly, the Late Pleistocene of the Indian sub-continent shows two separate technological traditions, Soanian inthe Sub-Himalayan region with close resemblance to othercontemporary Palaeolithic industries in Southeast Asia, and on theother hand, microlithic blade industries in other parts of Indiadated to more than 40 ka, hence contemporary to the Soanian.Mishra (2010) proposed that the “Movius Line does track animportant ecological and cultural boundary as originally envi-sioned, but in Late Pleistocene time rather than Middle and LowerPleistocene time and probably with modern humans on both sidesof the line”. The archaeology of Late Pleistocene NEI can be evalu-ated in connection to the newly interpreted time framework of the‘Movius line’ by Mishra (2010).

Movius (1944, 1948) suggested a Palaeolithic tool culture basedon large core tools made on fossil wood and named the assemblageas Anyathian, meaning ‘man of upper Myanmar’. However, theexact chronology of Anyathian culture is not well determined.

Fossil wood is siliceous in nature and has good flaking qualityand occurs in abundance in the region covering Bangladesh,southern NEI, Myanmar, and Arunachal Pradesh (Mehrotra et al.,1999). These fine quality rocks were exploited as a raw materialfor making artefacts in this region. The Quaternary deposits ofTripura are known to have yielded stone tools comprising scrapers,points, chopping tools, hammer stones, blades, and fluted cores(Poddar and Ramesh, 1983). These artefacts made of silicified fossilwood are found at Teliamura, Sonai Bazar area, Mohanpur, Sonaramareas in West Tripura. A chronological scheme for prehistoriccultures of Tripura was proposed on the basis of available strati-graphic data and typo-technological evidence, corroborated byradiocarbon dates as:

Holocene-Evolved Tripurian ¼ Upper Palaeolithic-EarlyNeolithic 3450 � 110 B.P.Late Pleistocene- Late Tripurian ¼ Late Middle Palaeolithic35690 � 3050 B.P.

Artefacts made of fossil woodwere also reported from the site ofIgara Mile in Birbhum and in cemented gravel deposits of the Tar-afeni River section in Midnapur in West Bengal (Chakrabarti, 1992),Rangamati of Chittagong and Chhagalnaiya (Chakrabarti, 1988,1992). Explorations carried out by Chakrabarti (1992) in theMainamati-Lalmai Hills during 1989 revealed several localitiesyielding Palaeolithic artefacts. This upland area has an average of12 m height and a maximum of 30e50 m. The artefacts were foundin close proximity to the distribution of raw material, fossil wood.The artefacts comprised retouched core, scrapers, fragments ofhandaxes, points, burins, blades, cleavers, split pebbles, etc., indi-cating a mixed industry comprising both Acheulian(?) and UpperPalaeolithic elements. Chakrabarti (2006) revised his earlier clas-sification of the ‘cleavers’ and the ‘retouched cores’ as handadzes.Singh Roy and Ahsan (2002) have discovered several artefacts inthe bordering areas of Hobigunj sector of Sylhet and Tripura. SinghRoy and Ahsan (2007) further report several fossil wood artefacts inLalmai hills and Chaklapunji area. The Anyathian and Neolithictools from the Irrawaddy valley of Myanmar indicate close resem-blances to the materials of Lalmai hills and Chaklapunji ofBangladesh. Fossil wood was extensively used in Myanmar (deTerra and Movius, 1943) as a raw material for making artefactsfrom the Early Anyathian to the Neolithic culture (Aung-Thwin,2001). The site of Sung Noen in Nakhorn Ratchasima province ofnortheastern Thailand has also yielded similar fossil wood assem-blages resembling the Anyathian of Myanmar (cited in Reynolds,1990). Chakrabarti (2006) opines that the artefacts in all thelocalities found in the Lalmai Hills of Bangladesh and Tripura Hillsare identical with the Late Anyathian 2 industry of Mandalayregion of Northern Myanmar. The abundance of blades, backedknives, burins in the assemblage indicates an Upper Palaeolithicphenomenon over a geographically extended area fromBangladesh, NEI and Myanmar.

8. The Hoabinhian connection

Hoabinhian is a cultural techno-complex of Southeast Asia, bothmainland and island. The term is used to refer to the lithicassemblages from the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene ofSoutheast Asia characterised by unifacial, centripetal and circum-ferential cobble reduction and resulting flakes and debitage (seeMarwick, 2008). However, the term Hoabinhian has been underdebate (Shoocongdej, 2000). The Hoabinhian techno-complex(Bellwood, 1978) is defined purely on the basis of tool categoriescomprising pebble tools, utilised flakes, and a small proportion ofedge-ground tools and bone tools, and in the later period potteryand fully ground axes and adzes also occur. The Hoabinhian sitesare spread over a broad region from Southern China, North Viet-nam, Malaya, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Sumatra, and Taiwan. Theimportance of Hoabinhian in the Indian context (Gaillard andDambricourt-Malassé, 2008; Gaillard et al., 2011) is not wellunderstood yet.

In the Garo Hills, a group of artefacts was found made ‘eitherwholly by flaking or by flaking all over and grinding at the cuttingedge’ (IAR, 1965e66; Sharma, 1972, 1988). Excavations during1977-78 at the Rongram terrace sitewith an altitude of about 490myielded Hoabinhian artefacts to a depth of 75 cm, below 10 cm ofa Neolithic layer at the top and without any stratigraphic gap(Sharma, 1986). The Hoabinhian artefacts are made on flattish ovalriver pebbles by flaking the pebble either partly or wholly, showingpatches of unworked pebbly surface. On the basis of the strati-graphic position and typology of the stone artefacts, Sharma (1988)assigned these cultural materials to Late Pleistocene and EarlyHolocene. Typo-technologically, these chipped pebble tools can becompared with the Hoabinhian culture of Southeast Asia. Short



axes, the most frequently occurring pebble tool in the Garo Hills,are classical Hoabinhian artefacts (Sharma, 2002a, 2007). Sharma(2002b) observed that the short axes of Rongram match typicallywith the materials from Xam Trai cave of Vietnam and fall withinthe third division of classification of Hoabinhian artefacts by Bell-wood. The sites yielding Hoabinhian artefacts and found associatedwith ground stone axes and/or grindstones are chronologicallyyounger than the sites yielding only Hoabinhian artefacts inSoutheast Asia (Bowdler, 2008). Hoabinhian artefacts are initiallyassociated with hunter-gatherers, but some of these early humanscontinued making these artefacts after they have adopted agricul-tural practices (Bowdler, 2008). So, can the Hoabinhian artefactsfound associated (actually without proper chronological differ-ences) with ground stone tools of Neolithic origin in the Garo Hillsbe considered as an indication of its contemporaneous situationwith the Neolithic or only as a contextual problem of mixedassemblage occurring as palimpsest? The effects of human agency,such as continuous practise of shifting cultivation by the localinhabitants, in disturbing the topography and stratigraphy cannotbe ruled out. Moreover, weathering of raw material as well aslocation of sites in river sections and eroded hill slopes (see Table 1)also limit understanding in this regard. At this stage, consideringthe problems of chronology of Neolithic culture of this region(Hazarika, 2006a, 2006b), it will be indeed risky to make anyconcrete inferences about the relationship of the Hoabinhianartefacts with the Neolithic. Recently, Ashraf (2010), taking a freshapproach, attempted to explain the adaptive patterns and subsis-tence variables among the bands, particularly the Hoabinhians asan outcome of interactions of behavioral traits relating to tech-nology, economy, etc. in Meghalaya rather than populationexpansion or sudden exposure to a new technology.

Association of pottery with large size cleaver-like flakes andHoabinhian artefacts in northwestern sub-Himalaya (Soni and Soni,2010), similar to the Garo Hills situation, points towards a slightlylater date for the Hoabinhian there than in Southeast Asia. Does itsignify a dispersal route of the Hoabinhian traits from SoutheastAsia to the north-western sub-Himalayan region through NortheastIndian uplands?

Singh (1993) at the site of Nongpok Keithelmanbi of Manipur,close to Myanmar observed a Hoabinhian stratum below the Cord-impressed ware layer. The Tharon cave of Manipur yielded oneflake tool and five pebble tools of Hoabinhian character (Singh,1991). Some of the early assemblages found at the Padah-lin caveof Myanmar can also be related to the Hoabinhian (Myint Aung,2000). The lithic industries of Late Pleistocene to Early Holoceneoccurring in the western sector of the Siwalik Range the southernfringes of the Himalaya compare well with the industries occurringfurther east in Nepal and northern Southeast Asia related to theHoabinhian industries (Gaillard et al., 2011). Several sites of north-western sub-Himalayan region dated to terminal Pleistocene tomid-Holocene epoch have yielded large size “cleaver-like flakes”and Hoabinhian artefacts (Soni and Soni, 2010). Moreover, Corvinus(1994, 2007) recorded cobble tool assemblages occurring in theLate Pleistocene deposits from Nepal in the central sub-Himalayanregion. Her work at the site of Patu in eastern Nepal shows that thePatu ‘Mesolithic’ assemblage is comparable to the Hoabinhian. TheTL chronology for the Hoabinhian bearing layers in Nepal is olderthan the 14C minimum age of ca. 7000 years. The Hoabinhian of theArjun site of Nepal is proposed as Late Glacial (Zoller, 2000). Hoa-binhian in Vietnam and other parts of Southeast Asia was placedwithin the time bracket between 18,000 and 7000 BP (Chinh et al.,1988). Recent investigations at the cave site of Hang Cho in Vietnamrevealed a new timeframe ranging between ca. 19,500 and 8400 BP,indicating that Hoabinhian in northern Vietnam was already inexistence about 20,000 years ago (Yi et al., 2008). The new dates

have considerably changed the earlier views of ‘post-Pleistocene’chronology of the Hoabinhian culture (Mathews, 1968). This Hoa-binhian situation suggests a technological link and migrations orconnections between Southeast Asia and eastern Himalayan foot-hills during Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene (Corvinus,1987, 2007) which is also supported by recent genetic data.

9. Recent genetic data

Prehistoric migrations across the Himalayas have been a matterof discussion among genetic scientists (Su et al., 2000; Gaydenet al., 2007) and linguists (van Driem, 2002, 2005, 2008), besidesarchaeologists. In recent years, an increasing number of publica-tions devoted to molecular genetics have substantially discussedthe peopling and migrations in the Himalayas, which have greatarchaeological significance. Nevertheless, more archaeological datais needed, with concrete chronology, to corroborate these genetichypotheses. Genetic scientists, on the basic of genome sequencingof mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) build demographic histories, pop-ulation movements and coalescent time of different groups ofa particular geographical region. This section considers some ofthese recent studies which support population dispersal andmultidirectional movements of cultural traits through the north-east Indian corridor in the Himalayas and its adjoining regions.

As against the hypothesis that the Himalayas acted as a barrierfor human movements in the past (Cordaux et al., 2004), recentstudies show that it acted as a pivotal passagewayallowingmultiplepopulation interactions in different times (Fornarino et al., 2009).Analysis of Y-chromosome variations among the Tharus, one of theoldest and the largest indigenous people of Terai region of Nepal,and the Indians shows three principal components, i.e., East Asian,West Eurasian and Indian, indicating gene pool retaining traces ofancient complex interactions within a large area (Fornarino et al.,2009). NEI served as a major passage into India (Basu et al., 2003,;Sahoo et al., 2006,; Kumar et al., 2006, and; Reddy et al., 2007).

Keeping aside for a moment the controversies of original home-land of the Austro-Asiatic linguistic family, the oldest linguistic groupof India (Kumar and Reddy, 2003), there seems to have agreementamong the scholars regarding the genetic links between the linguisticsub-families of the Indian subcontinent and their Southeast Asiancounterparts. The Austro-Asiatic Khasi tribes of NEI representa genetic continuity between the populations of South and SoutheastAsia (Reddy et al., 2007). The analysis of Y-chromosome SNP and STRdata of 1222 individuals from 25 different Indian Austro-Asiaticpopulations, along with 214 relevant populations from Asia andOceania suggest that the haplogroup O-M95 originated in the IndianAustro-Asiatic populationsw65,000 BP, and their ancestors carried itfurther to Southeast Asia via the Northeast Indian corridor (Kumaret al., 2007). However, a very recent analysis (Chaubey et al., 2011)of genetic data from uniparentally and biparentally inherited lociprovides estimation of gene flow across geographic and linguisticborders and suggests that the present day Austro-Asiatic speakers inIndia are derived from the dispersal from Southeast Asia, followed byextensive sex-specific admixture with local Indian populations.Whichever may be the original homeland of the Austro-Asiaticlinguistic family, NEI, nonetheless, played a crucial role for thedispersal(s) from India to Southeast Asia or vice-versa.

Research on a diverse subset of 641 complete mtDNA genomesbelonging to macrohaplogroup M sampled from 26 select tribalpopulations of India suggests modern human presence in NEIduring Palaeolithic time. Moreover, strong genetic continuitybetween Indian and East/Southeast Asian population has also beenfound. The haplogroups D4b2b, D4j, D5a2, C4a, C7, M9a, M10a,M11a, M12 and G2a1a in NEI resulted due to population migrationsfrom southern China and admixture rather than replacement



Table 1List of important sites bearing artefacts with elements of Palaeolithic culture.

Site Geological Position Artefacts Reference Comments/Observations

Rongdu, Garo hills Artefacts collected from riverterraces (610 m. AMSL)

Chopping tool made of sandstone,heavily patinated and rolled.Scraper made of quartzite

IAR, 1966e67 Earliest discovered artefactresembling Palaeolithic chopper

Selbalgiri 2 (Surfacecollection), Garo hills

Artefacts recovered fromeroded gravelly surface

Handaxes, picks, discs, scrapers,borers, blades, microliths etc,besides neolithic stone artefacts

IAR, 1967e68 Existence of handaxes,flake/blades, microliths

Selbalgiri 2 (Excavation),Garo hills

Layer 1: Redish earth mixed withsmall quantity of quartz gravel,Layer 2: Redish brown earth withlarge quantity of quartz gravel,Layer 3: Yellowish earth withless gravel

Layer 1: Ground and Chipped axes,scrapers, potsherds, Layer 2: core,hammers, flakes, pottery, Layer 3:Microliths with pottery

IAR, 1967e68 Microliths occur in lowerlevels with pottery

Thebronggiri, Garo hills e Crudely flaked axes, knife-blades,microliths, arrowheads, points,cores, hammers etc.

IAR, 1968e69 Not well understoodstratigraphy

Selbalgiri Locality 3(Mokbol Chiring),Garo hills

e Early and Late Stone Age (?) IAR, 1969e70 Interpretation on the basisof typological analysis

Michimagiri, Garo hills Eroded surface of slopeof hillock

Early, Middle and Late Stone Age (?) IAR, 1969e70 Heavily eroded and rolledartefacts

Michimagiri Locality1 (Watri Abri), Garo hills

Hillock Early, Middle and Late Stone Age (?),Large roughly flaked heavy tools,small tools of flakes, microliths,neolithic tools and pottery

IAR, 1969e70 Typological analysis withoutstratigraphic differences

Michimagiri(Excavation), Garo hills

Eroded surface, 76 cm thickdeposits of single layer ofreddish silt with artefacts

Flakes, cores, blades, scrapers,points, burins etc. made ofdolerite, heavily patinated

IAR, 1975e76 Single layer of artefacts withUpper Palaeolithic elements

Michimagiri III factorysite, Garo hills

Heavily eroded hill slope Blades and burins of UpperPalaeolithic period

IAR, 1978e79, fordetails see Sonowaland Sharma, 1986

Typical flake and blade industryand indication ofcomplete assemblage

Rambhagiri, Garo hills River banks Early and Middle Stone Age IAR, 1970e71 Surface collectionWaribokgiri Hill ridges Palaeolithic and Neolithic tools IAR, 1974e75 Surface collectionsChibragiri, Garo hills Badly eroded coarse gravel Handaxes, cleavers, choppers

and chopping toolIAR, 1971e72 Badly weathered section

containing artefactsSiju area, Garo hills Hill slopes Handaxes, flakes, cleavers,

choppers etc.IAR, 1976e77 Sporadic finds

Ganol Abri Top Terrace Choppers, cleavers, handaxes,flake cores, prepared Levalloisiancore, blade cores etc.

IAR, 1981e82 Large quantities of cores,flakes and unfinished tools,indication of factory site,surface collection

Muksak Abri Terrace Choppers, handaxes, cleavers,scrapers, points, blade flakes, and cores

IAR, 1981e82 Surface collection

Nangalbibra A, Garo hills Well cemented gravel depositsof pebbles and boulders of dolerite

Choppers, chopping tools, and flakes Sharma andRoy, 1985

Artefact shows chopper-chopping core tool elements

Nangalbibra B, Garo hills Surface of river banks Scrapers of various types, points,arrowheads, flakes and cores

Sharma andRoy, 1985

Upper Palaeolithic/microlithicelements

Waramgiri, Garo hills Erosional surface of a terraceof hilly stream

Handaxes, points, scrapers ofMousterian character, small flaketools, blades, microliths etc.

Sharma, 1974 Site seems to be a factory siteand without elements ofNeolithic stone artefactsand pottery

Rongram Terrace site(Excavation), Garo hills

Silt layer overlying on a highlycemented gravel

Edge ground types of artefacts in theupper levels within a depth of 7 cmand Chipped pebble axes of Hoabinhiantradition up to 60 cm of singleimplementiferous silt layer. In addition,a large pounding stone ina subsequent excavation

Sharma, 1988 No stratigraphical distinctionof the artefacts

Didami, Garo hills Bank of streams Bifacially flaked artefacts, blade flakesand probably utilised flakes

Sharma, 2007 Elements of Palaeolithicculture

Daphabum area,Arunachal Pradesh

High terraces Choppers, proto-handaxes, cleavers,scrapers, flakes and cores etc.

IAR, 1969e70 Sporadic finds of heavilyweathered and rolled artefacts

Kamla and Dikrong valley,Arunachal Pradesh

e Palaeolithic stone tools consistingchopper, cleavers and handaxes

Ashraf, 1990 Sporadic finds

Khangkhui, Manipur Rock shelter Handaxes and cleavers at the lowerdeposit, points, borers, scrapers,blade, burins, cores and few bonepoints from the upper deposit

IAR, 1968e69 Excavation shows stratigraphicaldifferences of artefacts withinthe upper and lower level

Somgbu, Manipur Cave site Scrapers, borer-cum-hollow scraper,knifes, flake blades, flakes, cores etc.

IAR, 1982e83,83e84

Artefacts occur in thedisturbed cave floor

Singtom, Manipur e Handaxes, worked flake pebble withround edge, flaked pebble, blade, flake,pebble striker, split pebble,waste flake etc.

Singh and RanjitSingh, 1990

Typical elements ofPalaeolithic culture

Teliamura, Sonai Bazar area,Mohanpur, Sonaram,West Tripura

Late Quaternary deposits stone tools comprising scrapers, points,chopping tools, hammer stones, blades,and cores from which blade scars,or flutes

Poddar andRamesh 1983;Ramesh, 1989

Silicified fossil wood industrysimilar to Lalmai-Mainamatiindustry of Bangaladesh andLate Anyathian of Myanmar


with local initial settlers during the Last Glacial Maximum(Chandrasekar et al., 2009). The Last Glacial Maximum has beenplaced within 26.5 to 19 ka BP (Clark et al., 2009).

.In a very recent study to understand the original homeland ofaboriginal Andamanese,Wang et al. (2011) reported the results of theanalysis of the haplogroups M31 (from which Andaman-specificlineage M31a1 branched off) and M32 among 846 mtDNA sampledacross Myanmar. The time estimation results indicate that modernhumans from NEI settled in the Andaman archipelago via the land-bridge connecting the archipelago with Myanmar around the LastGlacial Maximum. This leaves ample scope for examining thearchaeological signature of this dispersal. The mtDNA from twonortheast IndianRajbanshi individuals share three specificmutationswith the M31a lineage observed in the Great Andamanese(Palanichamy et al., 2006).

Reconstruction of dispersal events correlating genetic andarchaeological record indicates a complex population history inAsia. The expansion of Hoabinhian from South China/Vietnam intothe Malay Peninsula has been correlated with the arrival of the R9band N9a mtDNA haplogroups (Hill et al., 2006). There is a closerelationship between the geographic extent of post-Last GlacialMaximum flake-blade industries and the haplogroup E lineages inSoutheast Asia (Soares et al., 2008). A study on a similar line hasalso been conducted in Japan (Tanaka et al., 2004). Analysis of 837M9a’b mtDNAs from over 28,000 subjects residing across EastEurasia suggests that southern China and/or Southeast Asia servedas the source of some post-Last Glacial Maximum dispersal(s).These include population dispersal(s) to western China and to NEIand to the south Himalayan region in associationwith the spread ofthe Mesolithic culture originating in South China and northernVietnam (Peng et al., 2011). Such dispersal(s) seem to havea correlation with the occurrences of Hoabinhian artefacts acrossNEI, Nepal and western Himalaya in late Pleistocene contexts.

The complex population dynamics in the past seems to becontroversial, and the models are subjected to change with newdiscoveries and studies. However, NEI acted as a corridor for severalmultidirectional dispersal events in the late Pleistocene/earlyHolocene, particularly the dispersal of Hoabinhian traits fromSoutheast Asia to the north-western sub-Himalayan region throughthe Northeast Indian corridor. These events, reflected in archaeo-logical record and molecular genetic evidence, have contributed ina large scale to establishing the mosaic nature of present dayNortheast Indian population representing diverse linguistic,genetic and cultural affinities. Examining the archaeological recordof this regionwill definitely shed more light on human movementsfrom Africa to Australia, as the NEI is strategically situated on theproposed corridor for Out of Africa II migration of anatomicallymodern Homo sapiens during the late Pleistocene.

10. Discussions and the emerging pattern

Several early Palaeolithic sites with artefacts and hominidremains in Bose localities (Hou et al., 2000), Panxian Dadong (Huanget al., 1995) in South China, Irrawaddy basin of Myanmar (Movius,1944, 1948) and in Nepal (Corvinus, 2006) authenticate earlyhumanpresence duringMiddle Pleistocene at close proximity to NEI.The archaeological and paleoanthropological records have shownthat East Asia and Island Southeast Asia was inhabited between 1.6and 1.8 Ma. Schepartz et al. (2000) argue that the south-westernChinese provinces and neighbouring upland areas in Myanmar,Thailand, Laos and Vietnam were a gateway for the dispersal ofpopulations into East Asia and Island Southeast Asia. They moreoversuggest that the ability of hominids to exploit upland environmentswas important for their expansion into Southeast and East Asiawhere they encountered subtropical forested slopes, montane

plateaux and cooler northern zones. Corvinus (2006) has alsorecorded Acheulian artefacts in similar upland ecological settings inNepal. Most of the lithic industries of Late Pleistocene/Early Holo-cene age in NEI occur in upland areas, especially in hilly contexts. Forexample, Rongram IB at 484 m, Gawak Abri at 550 m, Didami at916 m, Khangkhui cave at 1767 m, and most of the sites of theRongram valley of the Garo Hills are located in an undulating areahaving altitudes varying between 457 m and 761 m (Sharma, 1974).Occupation in rock shelters and caves by the Hoabinhian people iswell known in Thailand, Myanmar, and Vietnam. The characteristicHoabinhian site is a small rock shelter with access to both uplandsand the resources of tributaries stream valleys (Higham, 1989).Hence, there is ample scope to search for more Hoabinhian sites insimilar contexts in the geographical settings of NEI.

The region of NEI, Central and Western Himalaya, andBangladesh might have been an ideal/suitable place for early pop-ulations who relied heavily on bamboo and wood as raw materialfor making artefacts. Considering the archaeological record(Solheim, 1970; Ronquillo, 1981; Pope, 1989) it can be postulatedthat the early populations, i.e. the authors of the Hoabinhiantechno-complex, might have exploited perishable materials such aswood and bamboo, found extensively in all these areas for makingartefacts. Possibly the Hoabinhian stone artefacts were used formanufacturing tools made of wood and bamboo (Anderson, 1988;Bannanurag, 1988). Some typical flakes with a concave edgeoccurring frequently in the Garo Hills assemblage might have beenused in smoothening wood and bamboo, as is also supported byethnographic parallels (Sharma, 2007). Advances in archaeologicalscience may help in distinguishing the use of bamboo in the nearfuture. Experimental microscopic study on the cut-marks bybamboo knives on the possible utilisation of bamboo revealsmorphological differences in the characteristic features of the cutmarks made by stone and bamboo knives (West and Louys, 2007).There is evidence on the use of bamboo in the Holocene archaeo-logical sites in Papua New Guinea (Spennemann, 1990).

Paddayya (2002e2003) suggests that this region offers anexcellent scope for investing diversity in human adaptations, as thegeographical location of this area probably enabled early societies todevelop individual identities of their own. These identities musthave been developed on the basis of local environmental andecological conditions. The ethnographic situation here signifiesa subsistence economy based on hunting small and big games,fishing in the rivers, streams, swamps etc., collecting wild plant foodavailable widely in the area. The Hoabinhian sites of Southeast Asia,as recorded in the Spirit Cave I (Gorman, 1971) reflect the nature ofsubsistence based on hunting-gathering and fishing. Anotherimportant factor related to the settlement pattern of the Hoabinhiansites is that they occur mostly near water sources. Availability ofperennial water resources across NEI both in uplands and lowlandswould have served as suitable habitat for early humans of the LatePleistocene and Early Holocene. Analysis of the Late Pleistocenemorpho-sedimentary records indicate terminations of last glacia-tions, lesser vegetation, episodic rainfall, increased meltwater andincrease of the SW Indian monsoon (Srivastava et al., 2009) whichshows a suitable ecology for Late Pleistocene humans.

11. Concluding remarks

The recent discoveries and research on paleoanthropology andPleistocene archaeology at the peripheries of NEI in South Asia,Southeast Asia and East Asia, makes it clear that the region of NEI,Bangladesh and Myanmar holds great possibilities of Late Pliocene/Early Pleistocene sites, as Homo erectus of Java might have migratedfrom South Asia (Mishra et al., 2010). Dennell and Roebroeks (2005)have suggested the “lack of evidence” in Asia leaves room for



alternative models for early human dispersals, including Australo-pithecine migrations to Asia, the evolution of Homo ergaster withinAsia, and dispersals back into Africa. Mishra (2006/2007) alsosuggests possibilities of early hominid dispersals from Africa priorto the emergence of stone tool making and development of theAcheulian within the Indian subcontinent. In this regard, it will bemore important to locate the geological deposits of that time periodand search for early human presence, which has not beenattempted to date in NEI. Although handaxes have been reported atnumerous sites of the Garo Hills and at Singtom, Manipur, they arenot found in Lower/Middle Pleistocene deposits. The “cleavers”identified by the early workers in the Garo Hills are not identical tothe ‘Lower Palaeolithic Cleavers’ of Peninsular India, but to bifa-cially flaked large cutting tools such as handazes (Medhi, 1988;Chakrabarti, 2006). These are found extensively in many LatePleistocene/Holocene sites of Southeast Asia.

One of the possible routes of the dispersals from South Asia toSoutheast Asia could be the coastal route covering Bangladesh,Southern parts of NEI and Myanmar. If the lower reaches of theGangeseBrahmaputra River were difficult to cross as Dennell (2009)suggests (without having any strong evidence for such inaccessi-bility), then the uplands along the Himalayan foothills of NEI mighthave served for human movements. The Himalayan foothills mayhave been a crucial ecological zone for human movements. TheBrahmaputra River traverses a total distance of 2880 km, originatingin the Chema Yundung glacier of Tibet, flowing through Assam andBangladesh along a valley comprising of its own recent alluviumresulted fromdeposition of sediments (Sarma, 2005). The sub-recentalluvium deposits of the Brahmaputra valley may not give fruitfulresults. Vigorous sedimentation might have covered earlier depositsbearing artefacts, if there were any.

There are no strong grounds to deny the presence of Palaeolithictradition in the Late Pleistocene in this region. These Palaeolithicindustries are contemporaneous to Microlithic/Upper Palaeolithictraditions of the rest of India and Hoabinhian type industries ofSoutheast Asia of Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene. Recent geneticdata and discoveries of identical Late Pleistocene/Early Holoceneartefacts across NEI, Nepal, and Myanmar make visualisingcommon cultural traditions clear, based on exploitation of similarenvironmental settings and to postulate several dispersal events.Archaeology of this period in this region shows more connectionswith Southeast Asia than with the rest of the Indian subcontinent.

Acknowledgments

This paper is a review of the research carried out by earlierinvestigators and I take the opportunity to thank all of them whomade pioneering contributions in the field of prehistoric archae-ology in NEI, a lesser known area in archaeological literature. I wouldlike to thank Dr. Parth R. Chauhan and Dr. Rajeev Patnaik for invitingme to participate and contribute a paper in the workshop on ‘Plio-Pleistocene Environments and Hominin Adaptations in India’ atBhopal. I am grateful to Drs. George van Driem (my Ph. D supervisor,Bern), Sheila Mishra (Pune), and Claire Gaillard (Paris) for theirunconditional guidance and constant support in my research career.I am thankful to two anonymous reviewers for providing manyuseful and critical suggestions which helped in modifying andimproving the paper. Thanks are due to Dr. Pranab Jyoti Sarma andMs. Neetu Agarwal for critical comments and fruitful discussions.

References

Anderson, D.D., 1988. Excavations of a Pleistocene rockshelter in Krabi and theprehistory of Southern Thailand. In: Charoenwongsa, P., Bronson, B. (Eds.),

Prehistoric Studies: The Stone and Metal Ages in Thailand. Thai AntiquityWorking Group, Bangkok, pp. 43e59.

Arzarello, M., Marcolini, F., Pavia, G., Pavia, M., Petronio, C., Petrucci, M., Rook, L.,Sardella, R., 2007. Evidence of earliest human occurrence in Europe: the site ofPirro Nord (Southern Italy). Naturwissenschaften 94 (2), 107e112.

Ashraf, A.A., 1990. Prehistoric Arunachal. Directorate of Research, Itanagar.Ashraf, A.A., 2010. Stone Age Traditions of Meghalaya- A study of variation and

continuity. In: Kanungo, A.K. (Ed.), South Asian Archaeology Series No. 12. BARInternational Series, England.

Aung, Myint, 2000. A review of Padah-lin culture. Myanmar Historical ResearchJournal 6, 1e16.

Aung-Thwin, M.A., 2001. Origins and development of the field of Prehistory inMyanmar. Asian Perspective 40 (1), 6e34.

Badam, G.L., 1979. Pleistocene Fauna of India. Deccan College Post- graduate andResearch Institute, Pune.

Bannanurag, R., 1988. Evidence for ancient woodworking: a microwear study ofHoabinhian stone tools. In: Charoenwongsa, P., Bronson, B. (Eds.), PrehistoricStudies: The Stone and Metal Ages in Thailand. Thai Antiquity Working Group,Bangkok, pp. 61e79.

Basu, A., Mukherjee, N., Roy, S., Sengupta, S., Banerjee, S., Chakraborty, M., Dey, B.,Roy, M., Roy, B., Bhattacharyya, N.P., Roychoudhury, S., Majumder, P.P., 2003.Ethnic India: A Genomic View, With Special Reference to Peopling and Struc-ture. Genome Research 13, 2277e2290.

Bellwood, P., 1978. Man’s Conquest in the Pacific: The Prehistory of Southeast Asiaand Oceania. William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland.

Bopardikar, B.P., 1972. Prehistoric Investigations e Daphabum, Scientific SurveysExpedition (N.E.F.A.). Archaeological Congress Seminar Papers. NagpurUniversity, Nagpur.

Bowdler, S., 2008. Hoabinhian and Non-Hoabinhian. In: Pautreau, J., Coupey, A.,Zeitoun, V., Rambault, E. (Eds.), Archaeology in Southeast Asia: from HomoErectus to the Living Traditions, Choice of Papers from the 11th InternationalConference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists,Bougon, 25e29th September, 2006, pp. 59e66.

Carbonell, E., Bermudez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., Allue, E., Bastir, M., Benito, A.,Caceres, I., Canals, T., Dıez, J.C., van der Made, J., Mosquera, M., Olle, A., Perez-Gonzalez, A., Rodrıguez, J., Rodrıguez, X.P., Rosas, A., Rosell, J., Sala, R.,Vallverdu, J., Verges, J.M., 2005. An Early Pleistocene Hominin mandible fromAtapuerca-TD6, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102,5674e5678.

Chakrabarti, D.K., 1988. Some aspects of Archaeological field research inBangladesh. The Jahangirnagar Review, Part C 2, 35e45.

Chakrabarti, D.K., 1992. Ancient Bangladesh: A Study of the Archaeological Sources.Oxford University Press, Delhi.

Chakrabarti, D.K., 1998. The Issues in East Indian Archaeology. Munshiram Man-oharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.

Chakrabarti, D.K., 2006. The Oxford Companion to Indian Archaeology: theArchaeological Foundation of Ancient India (Stone Age to AD 13th Century).Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Chandrasekar, A., Kumar, S., Sreenath, J., Sarkar, B.N., Urade, B.P., Mallick, S.,Bandopadhyay, S.S., Barua, P., Barik, S.S., Basu, D., Kiran, U., Gangopadhyay, P.,Sahani, R., Venkata, B., Prasad, R., Gangopadhyay, S., Lakshmi, G.R., Ravuri, R.R.,Padmaja, K., Venugopal, P.N., Sharma, M.B., Rao, V.R., 2009. Updating Phylogenyof Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup M in India: Dispersal of ModernHuman in South Asian Corridor. PLoS ONE 4 (10), e7447.

Chaubey, G., Metspalu, M., Choi, Y., Mägi, R., Romero, I.G., .Soares, P., Oven, M.V.,Behar, D.M., Rootsi, S., Hudjashov, G., Mallick, C.B., Karmin, M., Nelis, M., Parik, J.,Reddy, A.G., Metspalu, E., van Driem, G., Xue, Y., Tyler-Smith, C., Thangaraj, K.,Singh, L., Remm, M., Richards, M.B., Lahr, M.M., Kayser, M., Villems, R.,Kivisild, T., 2011. show all authors Population genetic structure in IndianAustroasiatic speakers: the role of landscape barriers and sex-specific admix-ture. Molecular Biology and Evolution 28 (2), 1013e1024.

Chauhan, P.R., 2008. Large mammal fossil occurrences and associated Archaeolog-ical evidence in Pleistocene contexts of Peninsular India and Sri Lanka.Quaternary International 192, 20e42.

Chauhan, P.R., 2009. The Lower Paleolithic of the Indian Subcontinent. EvolutionaryAnthropology 18, 62e78.

Chauhan, P.R., 2010a. Metrical variability between South Asian Handaxe assem-blages: preliminary observations. In: Lycett, S.J., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), NewPerspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies.Springer Science þ Business Media, New York, pp. 119e166.

Chauhan, P.R., 2010b. The Indian Subcontinent and ‘Out of Africa I’. In: Fleagle, J.G.,Shea, J.J., Grine, F.E., Baden, A.L., Leakey, R.E. (Eds.), Out of Africa I: The FirstHominin Colonization of Eurasia. Springer Science þ Business Media B.V, NewYork, pp. 145e164.

Chinh, H.X., Thong, P.D., Viet, N.V., Gorsdorf, J., Hermann, J., Kohl, G., 1988. Newresearches into Prehistory of Vietnam. Archaeological Institute of the SocialSciences, Commission of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, and Central Insti-tute for Ancient History and Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of theGDR, Berlin-Hanoi.

Clark, P.U., Dyke, A.S., Shakun, J.D., Carlson, A.E., Clark, J., Wohlfarth, B.,Mitrovica, J.X., Hostetler, S.W., McCabe, A.M., 2009. The Last Glacial Maximum.Science 325, 710e714.

Cordaux, R., Weiss, G., Saha, N., Stoneking, M., 2004. The Northeast IndianPassageway: A Barrier or Corridor for Human Migrations? Molecular Biologyand Evolution 21 (8), 1525e1533.



Corvinus, G., 1987. Patu, a new Stone Age site of a jungle habitat in Nepal. Quartär37/38, 135e187.

Corvinus, G., 1994. Prehistoric occupation sites in the Dang-Deokhuri valleys ofWestern Nepal. Man and Environment XIX (1e2), 73e89.

Corvinus, G., 2006. Acheulian handaxes from the Upper Siwalik in Nepal. In: Goren-Ibnar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian Tool Making from Quarry toDiscard. Equinox, London, pp. 415e428.

Corvinus, G., 2007. Prehistoric Cultures in Nepal. Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden.de Terra, H., Movius, H.L., 1943. Research on early man in Myanmar. Transactions of

the American Philosophical Society 32, 271e393.Dennell, R.W., 2009. The Palaeolithic Settlements of Asia. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.Dennell, R.W., Roebroeks, W., 2005. An Asian perspective on early human dispersal

from Africa. Nature 438, 1099e1104.Dennell, R.W., Rendell, H., Hailwood, E., 1988. Early tool making in Asia: two million

year old artefacts in Pakistan. Antiquity 62, 98e106.Field, J.S., Lahr, M.M., 2006. Assessment of the southern dispersal: GIS-based

analyses of potential routes at Oxygen Isotopic Stage 4. Journal of WorldPrehistory 19 (1), 1e45.

Field, J.S., Petraglia, M.D., Lahr, M.M., 2007. The southern dispersal hypothesisand the South Asian archaeological record: examination of dispersalroutes through GIS analysis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26,88e108.

Fleagle, J.G., Shea, J.J., Grine, F.E., Baden, A.L., Leakey, R.E. (Eds.), 2010. Out of Africa I:The First Hominin Colonization of Eurasia. Springer Science þ Business MediaB.V., New York.

Fornarino, S., Pala, M., Battaglia, V., Maranta, R., Achilli, A., Modiano, G., Torroni, A.,Semino, O., Santachiara-Benerecetti, S.A., 2009. Mitochondrial and Y-chromo-some diversity of the Tharus (Nepal): a reservoir of genetic variation. BMCEvolutionary Biology 9 (154). doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-154.

Gaillard, C., Dambricourt-Malassé, A., 2008. Les principales étapes de l’occu-pation humaine en bordure de l’Himalaya occidentale. L’anthropologie 112,404e422.

Gaillard, C., Mishra, S., 2001. The Lower Palaeolithic in South Asia. In: Semah, F.,Falgueres, C., Grimaund-Herve, D., Semah, A.-M. (Eds.), Origin of Settlementsand Chronology of the Paleolithic Cultures in SE Asia, pp. 73e92. Semenanjuangand Paris.

Gaillard, C., Singh, M., Dambricourt-Malassé, A., 2011. Late Pleistocene to earlyHolocene lithic industries in the southern fringes of the Himalaya. QuaternaryInternational 229, 112e122.

Gao, S.L., Huang, W.W., Hao, X.H., Chen, B.L., 1997. Fission track dating ofancient man site in Baise (Bose), China, and its significances in spaceresearch, paleomagnetism and stratigraphy. Radiation Measurements 28,565e570.

Gayden, T., Cadenas, A.M., Regueiro, M., Singh, N.B., Zhivotovsky, L.A., Underhill, P.A.,Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Herrera, R.J., 2007. The Himalayas as a directional barrier toGene flow. The American Journal of Human Genetics 80.

Ghosh, A.K., 1978. What happens when cultural and biological adaptability of manfails etc. In: Cultural and Biological Adaptability of Man with Special Referenceof Northeast India. Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh.

Gorman, C.W., 1971. The Hoabinhian and after: subsistence patterns in SoutheastAsia during the Late Pleistocene and early recent periods. World Archaeology 2,300e320.

Hazarika, M., 2006a. Understanding the Process of Plants and Animal Domestica-tion in Northeast India: A Hypothetical Approach. Asian Agri-History 10,203e212.

Hazarika, M., 2006b. Neolithic Culture of Northeast India: A Recent Perspective onthe Origins of Pottery and Agriculture. Ancient Asia 1, 25e43.

Hazarika, M., 2008. Archaeological research in Northeast India: A critical review.Journal of Historical Research, Dibrugarh University 16, 1e14.

Hazarika, M., 2011. A Recent Perspective on the Prehistoric Cultures of NortheastIndia. In: Rajput, M., Rajput, Madhu (Eds.), Understanding North East India:Cultural Diversities, Insurgency and Identities. Manak Publications Pvt. Ltd,New Delhi, pp. 30e55.

Hazarika, M., Prehistoric Cultural Affinities between Southeast Asia, East Asia andNortheast India: An Exploration. In: Proceedings of the 12th Internationalconference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists,Leiden, The Netherlands, in press.

Higham, C., 1989. The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Hill, C., Soares, P., Mormina, M., Macaulay, V., Meehan, W., Blackburn, J., Clarke, D.,Raja, J.M., Ismail, P., Bulbeck, D., Oppenheimer, S., Richards, M., 2006. Phylo-geography and Ethnogenesis of Aboriginal Southeast Asians. Molecular Biologyand Evolution 23 (12), 2480e2491.

Hooijer, D.A., 1949. Mammalian evolution in the Quaternary of Southern andEastern Asia. Evolution 3, 125e128.

Hou, Y., Potts, R., Yuan, B., Guo, Z., Deino, A., Wang, W., Clark, J., Xie, G., Huang, W.,2000. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulian-like stone technology of the Bose basin, SouthChina. Science 287 (5458), 1622e1626.

Huang, W., Si, X., Hou, Y., Miller-Antonio, S., Schepartz, L.A., 1995. Excavations atPanxian Dadong, Guizhou province, Southern China. Current Anthropology 36(5), 844e846.

IAR: Indian Archaeology, A Review e 1965e66, 1966e67, 1967e68, 1986e87,1968e69, 1969e70, 1970e71, 1971e72, 1974e75, 1975e76, 1976e77, 1978e79,1982e83, 1983e84, 1995e96.

Kumar, V., Reddy, B.M., 2003. Status of Austro-Asiatic groups in the peopling ofIndia: An exploratory study based on the available prehistoric, Linguistic andBiological evidences. Journal of Bioscience 28, 507e522.

Kumar, V., Langsiteh, B.T., Biswas, S., Babu, J.P., Rao, T.N., Thangaraj, K., Reddy, A.G.,Singh, L., Reddy, B.M., 2006. Asian and Non-Asian Origins of Mon-Khmer andMundari-Speaking Austro-Asiatic Populations of India. American Journal ofHuman Biology 18, 461e469.

Kumar, V., Reddy, A.N.S., Babu, J.P., Rao, T.N., Langstieh, B.T., Thangaraj, K.,Reddy, A.G., Singh, L., Reddy, B.M., 2007. Y chromosome evidence suggestsa common paternal heritage of Austro-Asiatic populations. BMC EvolutionaryBiology 7, 47.

Lordkipanidze, D., Jashashvili, T., Vekua, A., de León, M.S.P., Zollikofer, C.P.E.,Rightmire, G.P., Pontzer, H., Ferring, R., Oms, O., Tappen, M., Bukhsianidze, M.,Agusti, J., Kahlke, R., Kiladze, G., Martinez-Navarro, B., Mouskhelishvili, A.,Nioradze, M., Rook, L., 2007. Postcranial evidence from early Homo fromDmanisi, Georgia. Nature 449, 305e310.

Mahanta, H.C., 1995. A study on the stone age cultures of Selbalgiri, West Garo Hills,Meghalaya. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Gauhati University, Guwahati.

Marwick, B., 2008. What attributes are important for the measurement of assem-blage reduction intensity? Results from an experimental stone artefactassemblage with relevance to the Hoabinhian of mainland Southeast Asia.Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1189e1200.

Marwick, B., 2009. Biogeography of Middle Pleistocene hominins in mainlandSoutheast Asia: A review of current evidence. Quaternary International 202,51e58.

Mathews, J.M., 1968. A review of the "Hoabinhian" in Indo-China. Asian Perspective9, 86e95.

Maw, Ba, 1995. The first discovery of Early Man’s fossilized maxillary bone fragmentin Myanmar. The East Asian Tertiary Quaternary Newsletter 16, 72e79.

Maw, Ba, Aung, T.T., Nyein, P., Nyein, T., 1998. Artefacts of Anyathian cultures foundin a single site. Myanmar Historical Research Journal 2, 7e15.

Medhi, D.K., 1980. Quaternary history of the Garo Hills, Meghalaya. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, University of Pune, Pune.

Medhi, D.K., 1988. Palaeolithic remains from the Garo Hills, Meghalaya. In:Chatterjee, B. (Ed.), History and Archaeology (Professor H. D. Sankalia Felicita-tion Volume). Ramanand and Vidya Bhawan, Delhi, pp. 346e350.

Medhi, D.K., 1990. Prehistory of Assam. Asian Perspective 29 (1), 37e44.Medhi, D.K., Boichhingpuii, Sarma, P., 2006. Palaeolithic cultural evidence in Miz-

oram, India. In: Paper Presented at the 18th Indo-Pacific Prehistory AssociationCongress, 20e26 March 2006.

Mehrotra, R.C., Awasthi, N., Dutta, S.K., 1999. Study of fossil wood from the UpperTertiary sediments (Siwalik) of Arunachal Pradesh, India and its implication inpalaeoecological and phytogeographical interpretations. Review of Palae-obotany and Palynology 107, 223e247.

Mishra, S., 2006/2007. The Indian Lower Palaeolithic. Bulletin of the Deccan CollegePost-Graduate and Research Institute 66-67, 47e94.

Mishra, S., 2010. The Movius line: A Late Pleistocene phenomenon. In: Paper Pre-sented at the 3rd Asian Palaeolithic Association International SymposiumGongju, Korea, During 10e15th October 2010.

Mishra, S., Gaillard, C., Hertler, C., Moigne, A.M., Simanjuntak, T., 2010. India andJava: constricting records, intimate connection. Quaternary International223e224, 265e270.

Misra, V.N., 2001. Prehistoric human colonization of India. Journal of Bioscience 26(4), 491e531.

Mithen, S., Reed, M., 2002. Stepping out: a computer simulation of hominiddispersal from Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 43, 433e462.

Movius, H.L., 1944. Early man and Pleistocene stratigraphy in Southern and EasternAsia. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University 19 (3).

Movius, H.L., 1948. The Lower Palaeolithic cultures of Southern and Eastern Asia.Transactions of the American Philosophical Society XXXVIII, 329e420.

Nanda, A.C., 2008. Comments on the Pinjor mammalian fauna of the Siwalik groupin relation to the post-Siwalik faunas of Peninsular India and Indo-GangeticPlain. Quaternary International 192, 6e13.

Norton, C.J., Braun, D.R., 2010. Asian Paleoanthropology: from Africa to China andbeyond. Springer Science þ Business Media B.V., Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York.

Paddayya, K., 2002e2003. The expanding horizons of Indian Archaeology.Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 62e63,291e309.

Paddayya, K., Blackwell, B.A.B., Jhaldiyal, R., Petraglia, M.D., Fevrier, S.,Chaderton II, D.A., Blickstein, J.I.B., Skinner, A.R., 2002. Recent findings on theAcheulian of the Hunsgi and Baichbal valleys, Karnataka, with special refer-ence to the Isampur excavation and its dating. Current Science 83 (5),641e647.

Palanichamy, M.G., Agrawal, S., Yao, Y.G., Kong, Q.P., Sun, C., Khan, F., Chaudhuri, T.K.,Zhang, Y.P., 2006. Comment on ‘‘Reconstructing the Origin of AndamanIslanders. Science 311 (5760), 470.

Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Akhilesh, K., Braucher, R., Taieb, M., Demory, F., Thouveny, N.,2011. Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian Hominins in South India. Science331, 1596e1600.

Peng, M.S., Palanichamy, M.G., Yao, Y.G., Mitra, B., Cheng, Y.T., Zhao, M., Liu, J.,Wang, H.W., Pan, H., Wang, W.Z., Zhang, A.M., Zhang, W., Wang, D., Zou, Y.,Yang, Y., Chaudhuri, T.K., Kong, Q.P., Zhang, Y.P., 2011. Inland post-glacialdispersal in East Asia revealed by mitochondrial haplogroup M9a’b. BMCBiology 9, 2.



Petraglia, M.D., 1998. The Lower Palaeolithic of India and its bearings on the Asianrecord. In: Petraglia, M.D., Korisettar, R. (Eds.), Early Human Behaviour in GlobalContext. Routledge, London, pp. 343e390.

Petraglia, M.D., 2006. The Indian Acheulean in global perspective. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian toolmaking from Quarry toDiscard. Equinox Publishing, London, pp. 389e414.

Poddar, B.C., Ramesh, N.R., 1983. Spotlight on Prehistory of Tripura. C.S.I. (NER)News Letter 2 (1), 1e4.

Pope, G.G., 1989. Bamboo and Human Evolution. Natural History 10, 49e56.Ramesh, N.R., 1989. A Study on geomorphology, Quaternary geology and associated

cultural remains of West Tripura district. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, GauhatiUniversity, Guwahati.

Ramesh, N.R., Rajagopalan, G., 1999. Late Quaternary sediments of North-EasternIndia: A review. Gondwana Geological Magazine 14 (1), 13e35.

Reddy, B.M., Langstieh, B.T., Kumar, V., Nagaraja, T., Reddy, A.N.S., Meka, A.,Reddy, A.G., Thangaraj, K., Singh, L., 2007. Austro-Asiatic Tribes of NortheastIndia Provide Hitherto Missing Genetic Link between South and Southeast Asia.PLoS ONE 11, e1141.

Reynolds, T.E.G., 1990. Problems in the Stone Age of Thailand. Journal of the SiamSociety 48, 109e114.

Rightmire, G.P., 2001. Patterns of hominid evolution and dispersal in the MiddlePleistocene. Quaternary International 75, 77e84.

Ronquillo, W.P., 1981. The Technological and Functional Analysis of the Lithic FlakeTools from Rabel Cave, Northern Luzon, Philippines. National Museum of thePhilippines, Manila.

Sémah, F., Saleki, H., Falguères, C., Féraud, G., Djubiantono, T., 2000. Did early manreach Java during the Late Pliocene? Journal of Archaeological Science 27,763e769.

Sahoo, S., Singh, A., Himabindu, G., Banerjee, J., Sitalaximi, T., Gaikwad, S., Trivedi, R.,Endicott, P., Kivisild, T., Metspalu, M., Villems, R., Kashyap, V.K., 2006.A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios.Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 103 (4), 843e848.

Sankalia, H.D., 1974. Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan. DeccanCollege, Pune.

Sarma, J.N., 2005. Fluvial process and morphology of the Brahmaputra river inAssam, India. Geomorphology 70, 226e256.

Schepartz, L.A., Miller-Antonio, S., Bakken, D.A., 2000. Upland resources and theearly Palaeolithic occupation of Southern China, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand andBurma. World Archaeology 32 (1), 1e13.

Sharma, H.C., 1972. Prehistoric Archaeology: Stone Age cultures of Garo Hills,Meghalaya. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Gauhati University, Guwahati.

Sharma, T.C., 1974. Recent archaeological discoveries in Northeastern India. Pur-atattva 7, 17e19.

Sharma, H.C., 1975. Archaeological findings in Meghalaya. Bulletin of Assam StateMuseum 1, 29e35.

Sharma, T.C., 1979. Sources of the Prehistory of Meghalaya. In: Sen, S.P. (Ed.),Sources of the History of India, vol. II. Institute of Historical Studies, Calcutta,pp. 157e167.

Sharma, T.C., 1985. Problems of the Upper Palaeolithic in Northeast India. In:Misra, V.N., Bellwood, P. (Eds.), Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory.Oxford and IBH Publishing Co, New Delhi, pp. 171e173.

Sharma, T.C., 1986. Recent advances in Prehistory and Archaeology of NortheastIndia. Journal of the Assam Research Society 27.

Sharma, T.C., 1988. Discovery of Hoabinhian cultural relics in Northeast India. In:Ghosh,N.C., Chakrabarty, S. (Eds.), Adaptation andOther Essays, Proceedings of theArchaeological Conference. Research Publications, Vishwa Bharati, Shantiniketan.

Sharma, S., 2002a. Geomorphological contexts of the Stone Age record of the Ganoland Rongram valleys in the Garo Hills, Meghalaya. Man and Environment XXVII(2), 15e30.

Sharma, S., 2002b. The prehistoric sites of western Garo Hills. In: Sengupta, G.,Panja, S. (Eds.), Archaeology of Eastern India: New perspective. Centre forArchaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, Kolkata, pp. 93e107.

Sharma, S., 2007. Celts, flakes and bifaces e the Garo Hills story. In: Kanungo, A.K.(Ed.), South Asian Archaeology Series No. 7. BAR International Series, England.

Sharma, H.C., Roy, S.K., 1985. On the discovery of a pebble-tool industry in the GaroHills, Meghalaya. In: Misra, V.N., Bellwood, P. (Eds.), Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co, New Delhi.

Shoocongdej, R., 2000. Forager mobility organization in seasonal tropical environ-ments of Western Thailand. World Archaeology 32 (1), 14e40.

Simanjuntak, T., Sémah, F., Gaillard, C., 2010. The Palaeolithic in Indonesia: natureand chronology. Quaternary International 223e224, 418e442.

Singh, O.K., 1972. Antiquities of Manipur, vol. 1. Bulletin of Manipur State Museum.Singh, O.K., 1983. Archaeology in Manipur (Series 1), pp. 7e23. State Archaeology,

Manipur, Imphal.Singh, M.J., 1991. Prehistory of Manipur. In: Singh, J.P., Sengupta, G. (Eds.),

Archaeology of Northeastern India. Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi.Singh, O.K., 1993. Stone Age culture of Manipur. Unpublished Ph. D thesis, Univer-

sity of Manipur, Manipur.Singh, O.K., Ranjit Singh, R.K., 1990. A preliminary report on an archaeological

exploration at Singtom, Chandel district, Manipur. Man and Environment XV(1), 103e106.

Singh Roy, J., Ahsan, S.M.K., 2002. A Study of prehistoric tools on fossil wood fromChaklapunji, Hobiganj. Pratnatattva 6, 21e32.

Singh Roy, J., Ahsan, S.M.K., 2007. Raw material and technology of StoneAge artefacts from Lalmai hills and Chaklapunji area. Pratnatattva 13,49e56.

Soares, P., Trejaut, J.A., Loo, J.H., Hill, C., Mormina, M., Lee, C.L., Chen, Y.M.,Hudjashov, G., Forster, P., Macaulay, V., Bulbeck, D., Oppenheimer, S., Lin, M.,Richards, M.B., 2008. Climate Change and Postglacial Human Dispersals inSoutheast Asia. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25 (6), 1209e1218.

Solheim (II), W.G., 1970. Northern Thailand. Asian Perspective XIII, 149e153.Soni, V.S., Soni, A.N., 2010. Forum comment: large Size cleaver-like flakes and

Hoabinhoidal elements from Terminal Pleistocene to mid-Holocene epoch sites.Quaternary International 223e224, 242e244.

Sonowal, M., 1987. Studies on the flake and blade industries of the Garo Hills,Meghalaya. Unpublished Ph. D thesis, Gauhati University, Guwahati.

Sonowal, M., Sharma, T.C., 1986. On the evidence of flake and blade industries in theMichimagiri (III) area of the Central Garo Hills, Meghalaya. In: Singh, P.,Tandon, O.P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the ISPQS and IAS.Bharat Kala Bhavan, BHU, Baranasi.

Sonowal, M., Sharma, T.C., 1988. Studies on the blunted back flake-knives industriesof the Garo Hills, Meghalaya. In: Ghosh, N.C., Chakrabarty, S. (Eds.), Adaptationand Other Essays, Proceedings of the Archaeological Conference. ResearchPublications, Vishwa Bharati, Shantiniketan, pp. 131e135.

Spennemann, D.H.R., 1990. Don’t forget the bamboo- on recognising and inter-preting butchery marks in tropical faunal assemblages, some comments askingfor caution. In: Solomon, S., Davidson, I., Watson, D. (Eds.), Problem Solving inTaphonomy: Archaeological and Palaeontological Studies from Europe, Africaand Oceania. Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland, St Lucia,Queensland, pp. 108e134.

Srivastava, P., Bhakuni, S.S., Luirei, K., Misra, D.K., 2009. Morpho-sedimentaryrecords at the Brahmaputra river exit, NE Himalaya: climateetectonic interplayduring the Late PleistoceneeHolocene. Journal of Quaternary Science 24 (2),175e188.

Su, B., Xiao, C., Deka, R., Seielstad, M.T., Kangwanpong, D., Xiao, J., Lu, D.,Underhill, P., Cavalli-Sforza, L., Chakraborty, R., Jin, L., 2000. Y chromosomehaplotypes reveal prehistorical migrations to the Himalayas. Human Genetics107, 582e590.

Tanaka, M., Cabrera, V.M., González, A.M., Larruga, J.M., Takeyasu, T., Fuku, N.,Guo, L., Hirose, R., Fujita, Y., Kurata, M., Shinoda, K., Umetsu, K., Yamada, Y.,Oshida, Y., Sato, Y., Hattori, N., Mizuno, Y., Arai, Y., Hirose, N., Ohta, S., Ogawa, O.,Tanaka, Y., Kawamori, R., Shamoto-Nagai, M., Maruyama, W., Shimokata, H.,Suzuki, R., Shimodaira, H., 2004. Mitochondrial Genome variation in EasternAsia and the Peopling of Japan. Genome Research 14, 1832e1850.

Tchernov, E., 1995. The earliest hominids in the Southern Levant. In: Gibert, J.,Sanchez, F., Gibert, L., Ribot, F. (Eds.), The Hominids and their environmentduring the Lower and Middle Pleistocene of Eurasia: Proceedings of the Inter-national Conference of Human Palaeontology, Orce. Musee Prehistoria y Pale-ontologia, Orce.

Tougard, C., 2001. Biogeography and migration routes of large mammal faunas inSoutheEast Asia during the Late Middle Pleistocene: focus on the fossil andextant faunas from Thailand. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palae-oecology 168 (3e4), 337e358.

van Driem, G., 2002. Tibeto-Burman phylogeny and prehistory: languages, materialculture, and genes. In: Bellwood, P., Renfrew, C. (Eds.), Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 233e249.

van Driem, G., 2005. Tibeto-Burman vs. Indo-Chinese: implications for pop-ulation geneticists, archaeologists and prehistorians. In: Sagart, L.,Blench, R., Sanches-Mazas, A. (Eds.), The Peopling of East Asia: Puttingtogether Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. Routledge, Curzon, London,pp. 81e106.

van Driem, G., 2008. Reflections on the Ethnolinguistic Prehistory of the GreaterHimalayan Region. In: Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek, Festschrift furRoland Bielmeier, pp. 39e59.

Wang, H.W., Mitra, B., Chaudhuri, T.K., Palanichamy, M.G., Kong, Q.P., Zhang, Y.P.,2011. Mitochondrial DNA evidence supports northeast Indian origin of theaboriginal Andamanese in the Late Paleolithic. Journal of Genetics and Geno-mics 38, 117e122.

Wanpo, H., Ciochon, R., Yumin, G., Larick, R., Qiren, F., Schwarcz, H., Yonge, C., deVos, J., Rink, W., 1995. Early Homo and associated artefacts from China. Nature378, 275e278.

Weiwen, H., Pu, Z., 2007. Les plus anciennes occupations humaines en Chine.L’anthropologie 111, 166e181.

West, J.A., Louys, J., 2007. Differentiating bamboo from stone tool cutmarks in thezooarchaeological record, with a discussion on the use of bamboo knives.Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 512e518.

Yi, S., Lee, J.J., Kim, S., Yoo, Y., Kim, D., 2008. New data on the Hoabinhian: inves-tigations at Hang Cho cave, Northern Vietnam. Bulletin of the Indo-PacificPrehistory Association 28, 73e79.

Zoller, L., 2000. Chronology of Upper Pleistocene "red silts" in the Siwalik system andconstrains for the timing of the Upper Palaeolithic in Nepal. Catena 41, 229e235.


Author's personal copy - Himalayan Languages

Documents

Transcript of Author's personal copy - Himalayan Languages