I referenced this paper by Dambricourt
Malassé, et al.,: Anthropic activities in the fossiliferous Quranwala Zone,
2.6Ma, Siwaliks of Northwest India, historical context of the discovery and
scientific investigations (1) some time ago when writing about the stone tools
from Lomekwi (see Here), but didn’t have time to review the paper thoroughly at
the time, so here goes:
“The Siwaliks came to be known worldwide since the discovery in 1830 of
a great ape in the Miocene molasses of the Potwar. One century later, pebble
tools, flakes and handaxes attracted Prehistorians. A re-reading of the
Yale-Cambridge Expedition in India (1935), during which Ramapithecus
brevirostris was discovered, reveals that stone tools were discovered in the
Upper Pliocene gravels of the Soan Basin. Since 2003, the National Museum of
Natural History (France) and the Society for Archaeological and Anthropological
Research (India) have conducted fieldwork in the northwestern Indian Siwaliks.
The Quranwala Zone of Masol, the core of the Chandigarh anticline (Punjab), is
well known for its Late Pliocene fauna rich in Hexaprotodon, Cholossochelys,
Stegodon, bovids and Hipparion with the occurrence of Equus and Elephas. Fifty
hectares have been surveyed during eight field seasons (2008 to 2015) with the
discovery of choppers and marks on bones of the Quranwala
Zone faunal assemblage, all collected on recent outcrops of the Latest
Pliocene. This paper presents the historical context and the rigorous scientific
process, which has led to the acknowledgment that some bones, dating back to
the Latest Pliocene, present intentional and precise cut marks made by sharp
edges in quartzite and an intelligence, which knew the anatomy of the bovid
carcasses. Our pluridisciplinary works support anthropic activities 2.6 Ma ago
in the sub-Himalayan floodplain and the probability of finding hominin fossils
in the Quranwala Zone. This discovery is of immense importance to maintain the efforts
of numerous generations in order to develop the prehistory of the Siwaliks and
its contribution to the understanding of the hominization process between the
Indus Basin, High and East Asia.”
First of all what are the Siwaliks?
I won’t try to reinvent the wheel
so I’ll give you the best delineation of the area I found on the interweb (2):
“Siwalik Range, also called Siwalik Hills or Outer Himalayas, [is
a], sub-Himalayan range of the northern
Indian subcontinent. It extends west-northwestward for more than 1,000 miles
(1,600 km) from the Tista River in Sikkim state, northeastern India, through
Nepal, across northwestern India, and into northern Pakistan. Though only 10
miles (16 km) wide in places, the range has an average elevation of 3,000 to
4,000 feet (900 to 1,200 metres). It rises abruptly from the plain of the Indus
and Ganges (Ganga) rivers (south) and parallels the main range of the Himalayas
(north), from which it is separated by valleys. The Siwaliks are sometimes
considered to include the southern foothills of the Assam Himalayas, which
extend eastward for 400 miles (640 km) across southern Bhutan to the bend of
the Brahmaputra River. The range proper, to which the name Siwalik (from
Sanskrit, meaning “Belonging to [the God] Shiva”) was formerly restricted, is
the 200 miles (320 km) of foothills in India extending from the Ganges River at
Haridwar, Uttarakhand state, northwestward to the Beas River.”
Location of the site:
As the authors’ point out this
area is a key one in the human story of dispersion across the globe. If we
presume that a primary route of migration Out of Africa was via the Arabian
Peninsula and subsequently along the coast of the Indian Ocean, then humanity
of whatever species must have, at some time reached the Indus delta. Here, one
must assume, the migrants turned inland successively occupying the productive
riparian habitats. Eventually the savannah grassland and open temperate forests
along the face of the Himalayas were reached. When this was is the focus of
this paper.
The authors’ explore detail signs
of human presence in the region. These include:
·
The 1837, discovery by Falconer and, Cautley of
the first fossilized ape (Sivapithecidae) ever seen in Mainland Asia and indeed
outside Africa (4)
·
1929–1930 Lieutenant Todd, stone tools from the
Potwar region including a core of the plateau at Pindi Gheb and in the
Southeast at Chitta
·
1931 Helmut de Terra, Jaketta and Christopher
Hawkes, and Edward Lewis new tools from Chitta and Pindi Gheb (see Hawkes et
al. (5))
·
1932-1937 Lewis (6) collected a right upper jaw
of an ape in the Nagri Formation (Late Miocene). He created the taxon
Ramapithecus brevirostris to distinguish it from the Sivapithecus because of
its facial morphology and proposed to make it an ancestor of the human lineage.
·
1933 de Terra, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and
Thomas T. Paterson. Found stone tools in the Soan basin, at the locality of
Kund. These De Terra and Teilhard observed in pockets of gravel in a Boulder
Conglomerate, these were of the form of rolled chopping tools described as
“pre-Chellean” (7). These were regarded as quite problematic in that they
appeared to be of extreme age and stratigraphic position.
In the month the
three spent surveying more results of puzzlingly old tools were to follow: One
other site in the Soan basin, Chauntra, south of Kund, Two sites:
Chauntra 15: stone
tools in quartzite with polished removal surfaces. Paterson described them: ‘the oldest is very worn and one or two
handaxes very primitive, probably Abbevillian; cores which mostly take the form
of large pebbles crudely struck at random, one or two massive flakes with large
plain platforms, resembling those of Boulder Conglomerate and few smaller
flakes’.
Chakri, section
16
This site shows
that in all probability that stone tools of the Indus Upper Basin dated back to
the Latest Pliocene. Chipped pieces of quartzite were collected in the gravel
at the bottom of the ravine. Also flakes and cores were collected among
patinated cobbles under the loess. Also fossils of “Mastodon, Merycopotamus and
Hipparion, clearly indicate their Pliocene age” (Ref 7 p291). Also noted were
older artefacts such as wide and massive fragments of quartzite, with small retouch
obtained by brutal fractures on cobbles. They were sometimes related to Elephas
namadicus whose occurrence follows closely the Plio/Pleistocene transition. De
Terra named these very old industries ‘Pre-Sohan’. Two other later lithic
typologies were reported, one to the Acheulean tradition and the second to the
‘Soanian’ rich in chopping tools. De Terra and Paterson considered having
highlighted different evolutionary stages of this new industry, the Early, the
Middle and the Late Soanian.
·
1951 Prüfer and Sen collect first tools were on
the terraces of the Sirsa near Nalagarh
·
1953, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)
and the new Panjab University in Chandigarh collected flakes and chopping tools
on the Sohan and Sirsa terraces.
·
1960, a geologist of the Punjab University
(Lahore, Pakistan) discovered a locality in the Salt Range at Jalalpur, with
nine tools in a conglomerate containing quartzite cobbles attributed to the
Early Soanian (8).
·
1960, Sahni and Khan mapped the Chandigarh
anticline, and identify successively Boulder Conglomerate, a narrow fringe
along the dun, and also in a geological ‘buttonhole’ at Masol. One sector turns
out to be particularly fossiliferous; they call this formation “Quranwala
Zone”, the name of a local village (16-17)
·
1970-1975 R.V. Joshi, Director of the Prehistory
Branch of ASI, intensifies research in the Siwalik Front range of northern
India. A total of ten sites including Haripur and Dehra Gopipur are discovered,
with choppers, discoid, scrapers, cores, numerous flakes and localities with
handaxes (15).
·
1976 Rishi and Bhardwaj explored the southern
fringes of the SFR and discovered Acheulean tools in the bed of a choe, at Atbarapur (18).
·
1978 Indian workers publish the first syntheses
of the Lithic Industries of the Siwaliks (19): the oldest industries were
discovered on the terraces of the Beas and the Sutlej. The Indian prehistorians
found again the gradation of Terra and Paterson: the Early Soanian composed of
large rolled choppers, Late Soanian and Evolved Soanian (20-23). In Sirsa, the
Late Soanian is clearly linked to the Middle Palaeolithic: “The Pinjore-Nalagarh dun lithic industry belongs to the pebble tool
tradition like that from the Soan Valley in the Potwar, Beas Valley in Kangra
and the Jammu region. The character of this industry is seen in its peculiar
typology and technique which are quite distinct from those of the
Chelles-Acheulean tradition” (24).
·
1981-1985. Work by Rendell and Dennell
completely discounts De Terra’s stratigraphic sequences (9 and 10). Commentary:
“The evidence put forward by De Terra and
Paterson fails to sustain the evidence of any link whatsoever between
Pleistocene river terraces and Palaeolithic sites. Terrace sequences in the
middle Soan valley appear to be highly fragmented, and for the most part,
erosional features” (9). Also: “Terra
mistook uplifted exposures of Middle and Upper Siwalik (Pliocene to Early
Pleistocene) conglomerates for terraces. In places, he constructed an idealised
composite sequence of what he thought had happened but which had little
correspondence with what was observed at that locality”.
·
1983. In 1983, the British Archaeological
Mission to Pakistan discovered the Riwat locality, a conglomerate below a
cliff, including fossils, a cobble with 8 or 9 flake removals in three
directions with good flake scars (R001), and about 50 m away, a flake in situ,
with a positive bulb of percussion on one side and a negative one on the other
(R88/1) (11-13). Paleomagnetic and structural geology contributed to situate the
conglomerate in the geochronology. The polarity indicated the negative Matuyama
Chron which begins at 2588 Ma ± 0.7 ka. The last one has two positive
sub-chrons, the first at 1.8 Ma (Olduvai) and the second at 2,14–2,15 Ma (Reunion).
However the synclinal structure of the Upper Siwalik dates back to between 2.1
and 1.9 Ma and the conglomerate is prior to folding. As no positive inversion
is observed in the series covering the conglomerate, tools are clearly under
the sub-chron 2,14–2,15 Ma (Dennell et al., 1988). The authors did not hesitate to conclude that some tools were extracted
from the fossiliferous strata over 2 Ma: “many of which are believed to be
derived from fossil-bearing deposits and may thus be up to two million years old”.
·
From 1986 to 1990 the ‘British Archaeological
Mission to Pakistan’ continued its investigations on the left bank of the
Jhelum, in the Pabbi Hills where the Upper Siwalik is exposed from 2.5 Ma to
500 ka: 40,000 fossils and 600 artefacts (cores and flakes) were collected on
the surface (14).
·
1991 Bhardwaj collected new Acheulean artefacts
in Himachal Pradesh (25).
The Indo-French
Missions in the Siwaliks 2003-2015
Between 2003 and 2006, Singh,
Dambricourt Malassé and Gaillard visited all the productive sites previously
identified with significant lithic assemblages. Although a few Acheulean tools
were collected again in Atbarapur no really significant finds were made. As the
authors’ state “The program of research
was therefore refocused on the initial paleoanthropological objectives. The
strategy consisted in finding fossils as close as possible to quartzite cobbles
in stratigraphy”. The area around Masol village was visited in November
2007 and the first significant find made on the first of February 2008.
First significant find of the
Indo-French Siwalik Mission, an in situ cobble tool. Dambricourt (1) original
caption: Fig. 8. The first chopper in the Quranwala Zone at Masol 1 collected
by Mukesh Singh in February 2008 on Tatrot silts below local dismantled Late
Pliocene
sediments (C3 and C4 of the
stratigraphic log).
In March 2009, Dambricourt, and
colleagues found numerous bones of Colossochelys
visible in the nearby small cliffs of the Qurawala Zone. Several fossils, a few
quartzite cobbles, choppers and flakes in quartzite were collected on the
surface in the perimeter of the butte. Thirty meters further, Manjil Hazarika
collected a fragment of diaphysis on the eroded outcrops of a small cliff from
the Quranwala Zone. This was identified as a bovid tibia, referenced R10084. The
highly mineralized bone presented various traces on the cortical surface; some
of them, by their size, morphology, spatial organization and trajectories
around a crest for aponeurosic attachment, evoked a fine butchery activity,
which needed a complete investigation to be rejected or confirmed.
Photos of the bovid tibia from Dambricourt (1) original
caption: Fig. 9. A. The palmar face of
the tibia R10084 with cut marks collected in the Quranwala Zone at Masol 1 in
March 2009 by Manjil Hazarika.
B and C. The two mineralized extremities and the
crystallization of the medullar canal, demonstration in Dambricourt Malassé et
al., 2016 (photo A. Dambricourt Malassé).
Geomorphology and
stratigraphic placement of the bones and tools
The authors explain the exact site of the initial find of
the bovid bone and associated quartzite cobbles thus:
“The fossil species correspond to the associations observed during the
Latest Pliocene and lie under the Gauss/Matuyama boundary, they come from fluvial,
swampy environments and semi-arboreal savannah. At Masol, the Latest Pliocene
appears in the form of an eroded dome, drawing a geological ‘buttonhole’ of 80
hectares, in which the lowest layers of the Quranwala Zone begins about 130 meters
below the Gauss/Matuyama.
The plateau on which the first chopper and the tibia with cut marks
have been collected corresponds to the summit of the anticline while the small
fossiliferous hills, which covered it, belong to the lowest layers of the
Quranwala Zone. The massif is isolated to the south by the Patiali Rao, to the
east by a deep ravine in the oldest Masol Formation poor in fossils, to the
west by the Pichhli choe basin in the youngest one, i.e. the complete sequence
of the Quranwala Zone, and, to the north by the lowest layers of the Quranwala
Zone. This geomorphology makes impossible any contribution of the Pinjor
Formation (Pleistocene). This first
paleonto-archeological locality was named Masol 1, stratigraphically situated
about 130 meters below the Gauss/Matuyama reversal, thus the fossils dated back
to more than 2.588 Ma.”
So the bone and tools pre-date 2.588 Million years old.
The site could not have Pleistocene tools or bones redeposited by
erosion due to the landform shape and their positioning at the top of an
ancient anticline.
To further confirm that the bovid
bone and cobble tools discovered on the surface of debris eroded from Quranwala
Zone sediments the authors searched for in-situ cobbles with associated
fossils. In the 8 field seasons between 2008 and 2016 they discovered the
following:
“..thirteen localities
have been identified, one because of its significant stratigraphic and geological
data (beds of cobbles in place) and twelve with fossils and stone tools, three providing new paleontological data with
Hipparion, (tooth, Masol 3), Merycopotamus dissimilis (Anthracotheriidae) (tooth,
Masol 5) and a felid (hemimandible, Masol 6).”
“In
2011, a bone splinter similar to the bovid diaphysis R10084 of Masol 1, was
collected in its very close perimeter, and then in 2013, a second splinter
collected in the same conditions, was reassembled with the diaphysis.”
Reassembling the bovid tibia from Masol 1 in Paris, after
excavation, cleaning and transport from Dambricourt (1). Original caption: Fig. 14. Reassembling of a splinter on the tibia R10084 by
Anne-Marie Moigne in 2013. Inset, the splinter of 2011.
“The mineralized
edges and the proximity of the three bones indicate that the tibia stayed in
the slopes after the bone broke naturally (Dambricourt Malassé et al., 2016,
this issue). Its stratigraphic origin has been identified by comparing the
fossilization with the lithostratigraphy of the small cliff, and, with the
fossils collected at the top the silt C3 (Fig. 11), and in the slopes on which the bovid diaphysis has been uncovered.”
Thus in situ position
of the bovid tibia was confirmed.
The authors also undertook an excavation
of two trenches in a stratigraphically linked area nearby: Surface finds
included choppers and flakes associated to Large Mammals fossils scattered over
20 meters all along a cliff being eroded. These included broken tusk,
Proboscidean scapula, long bones, fragmented skull of Hexaprotodon, splinters
of fossilized ivory. At the same stratigraphic level as the original tibia was
recorded, three cobble tools and one flake were recorded with fossil bones.
Therefore the authors have proved that fossils and stone cobble tools
appear in situ together in this area
In total 1469 fossils and 260
tools have been catalogued. The fossils included Hexaprotodon (the best
represented), numerous fossil of Stegodon insignis associated to Elephas, Equus
associated to Hipparion, and Merycopotamus.
Two other bovid bones showed similar marks, the splinter R10298 of Masol 13 and a metacarpal R10286 from the small terrace T2 of the Pichhli choe.
Another human cut-marked bone
from Dambricourt (1). Original caption:
Fig. 18. Cut marks made by a
sharp edge in quartzite on the bovid metapodial R10286 (Pichhli choe). The
negative surface of a bone flake (A and C) and two incurved and superposed
marks among other cut marks (B and D) (photo A. Dambricourt Malassé,
demonstration in Dambricourt Malassé et al., 2016).
Origin of the marks on bones
The paper states: “All the marks were made before
mineralization. We have made experimentations with quartzite cobbles collected at
Masol, in India on a recent skeleton of a wild cervid, and in France on a foot
of Sus scrofa, then compared the results with the fossils and the collection of
animal marks of the “Institut de paléontologie humaine”, Paris. Thirty years of
experience in major sites such as La Caune de l’Arago (France), Zafarraya
(Espagne), Sangiran dome and Song Terus (Indonesia), Yunxian (China) and South
Corea strengthen the conclusion (see the references of Moigne in Dambricourt
Malassé et al., 2016). Their shape and profile have been described in details,
they correspond exactly to the type of cut marks made by the sharp edge of a chopper,
or a flake in quartzite, and cannot be confused with natural scratches, teeth
of crocodile, hyena or felid.”
Analysis of cut marks on bovid
tibia from Dambricourt (1). Original caption: Fig. 16. Cut marks on the tibia
R10084 which have been analysed at the micron scale, A and B, palmar face, C
and D, dorsal face. Scale: 1 cm, demonstration in Dambricourt Malassé et al.,
2016 (photo A. Dambricourt Malassé).
Experiments conducted on Pig foot
and a comparison with fossil Metapodial from the site, from Dambricourt (1).
Original caption: Fig. 20. Comparison between the fossilized cut marks on the
bovid diaphysis Masol 1 R10084 from the Late Pliocene Quranwala Zone, Upper
Siwalik, and the experimentation on a foot of
Sus scrofa. A and C. Some fossilized cut marks A4, A6 and A7. B. Experimental
butchery activity with a cobble quartzite of the Quranwala Zone: A’1, A’2, A’3
and A’4 (photo A. Dambricourt Malassé, see more in Dambricourt Malassé et al.,
2016).
While poorly written and badly
cross-reference to the supporting papers detailing the analysis of the cut
marks (25), the authors have clearly
demonstrated that the cut-marks were caused by the lithic tools at the site,
presumably wielded by some species of hominin.
On dating
Whilst the authors have confirmed
that the tools and cut-marked bones pre-date 2.588 Million years old, no definitive
dates are given even though ESR (Electron Spin Resonance) dating was allegedly
carried out on sediments from around the in situ fragments of the bovid tibia
from Masol 1. As far as I can ascertain, nowhere in the suite of published
papers is this information given. This is highly disappointing.
So who were these
hominids?
At the minimum age given by the
authors the only widespread hominids with presumed upright walking capability
were Australopithecines. Age ranges for the various species are given in Brown
et al. (27). Here is their figure 2.5:
Ages of various Australopithecine species from Brown (27),
original caption: Fig. 2.5 Temporal distribution of Australopithecus species.
The bar for A. bahrelghazali is shown in grey; it is based on biochronology and a 10Be/9Be age determination. The bottom part of the bar for
A. afarensis is shown with a dashed line for the time interval where no specimens
are known, with the record for Fejej filled in grey to emphasize the importance
of confirming the taxonomic attribution of those specimens.
Because of their widespread distribution, including in the past month a location East of the Rift Valley (28) and well understood
morphology including upright locomotion, therefore the most likely candidate is
Australopithecus afarensis.
Conclusions
1. The bone and tools pre-date 2.588 Million years old.
3. The authors have proved that fossils and stone cobble tools appear
in situ together at the site.
4. The authors have clearly demonstrated that the cut-marks were caused
by the lithic tools at the site, presumably wielded by some species of hominin.
5. No definitive dating was achieved
6. The most likely candidate is hominid using and making the tools and
butchering animals was Australopithecus afarensis.
References
1. Dambricourt Malassé, A., et al., Anthropic activities in
the fossiliferous Quranwala Zone, 2.6 Ma, Siwaliks of Northwest India,
historical context of the discovery and scientific investigations. C. R.
Palevol (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2015.06.004.
2. Britannica online retrieved from:
3. Falconer, H., and Cautley, P.
T., 1836. Sivatherium giganteum, a new fossil remnant genus from the valley of
the Markanda in the Sivalik Branch of the Sub-Himalayan Mountains. Journal of
the Asiatic Society of Bengal 5:38-50
4. Cautley, R T., and Falconer,
H., 1837. Notice of the remains of a fossil monkey from the Tertiary strata of
the Siwalik Hills in the North of Hindustan. Transactions of the Geological
Society of London 5:499-504.
5. Hawkes, J., Terra de, H.,
Hawkes, C.F.C., 1934. Yale North India Expedition:
Palaeolithic Human Industries in
the Northwest Punjab and Kashmir and their Geological Significance. Memoirs of
the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 8, Mouton, The Hague.
6. Lewis, G.E., 1937. Taxonomic
syllabus of Siwalik fossil anthropoids. Am. J. Sci. 234, 139–247.
7. Terra de, H., Paterson, T.T.,
1939. Studies on the Ice Age in India and associated
Human Cultures. Carnegie Institute
of Washington Publications.
8. Marks, P., 1961. Palaeolithic
artefacts from Jalalpur, Salt Range. Geol. Bull.
Punjab Univ., Lahore, Pakistan,
66–67.
9. Rendell, H.M., Dennell, R.W.,
Halim, M.A., 1989. Pleistocene and Palaeolithic
Investigations in the Soan
Valley, Northern Pakistan. B.A.R. International Series, Oxford.
10. Dennell, R.W., 2014. Hallam
Movius, Helmut de Terra, and the line that never was; Burma 1938. In: Boyle,
K., Rabbett, R.J., Hunt, C. (Eds.), Living in the landscape: Essays in Honour
of Graene Barker. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge,
pp. 11–34.
11. Dennell, R.W., Hurcombe,
L.M., 1992. Paterson, the British Clactonian and the Soan Flake Industry: a
re-evaluation of the Early Palaeolithic of northern Pakistan. In: Jarrige, C.
et al. (Eds.). In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of South
Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, Paris, July 1989. South Asian
Archaeology 1989, pp. 69–72.
12. Dennell, R.W., Rendell, H.,
Hailwood, E., 1988. Early tool-making in Asia:
two-million year-old artefacts in
Pakistan. Antiquity 62, 98–106.
13. Hurcombe, L., Dennell, R.,
1993. A Pre-Acheulean in the Pabbi Hills, northern Pakistan? In: Jarrige, C. (Ed.).
In: Proceedings of the International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists
in western Europe, Paris, July 1989, pp. 133–136.
14. Hurcombe, L., 2004. The
lithic evidence from the Pabbi Hills. In: Dennell, R.
(Ed.), Early Hominin landscapes
in northern Pakistan. Investigations in the Pabbi Hills. B.A.R. S1265, Oxford,
pp. 222–291.
15. Deshpande, M.N., 1975. Indian
Archaeology 1966–67, a Review. Archaeological
Survey of India, Government of
India, New Delhi.
16. Sahni, M.R., Khan, E.J.,
1964. Boundary between the Tatrots and Pinjaurs.
Res. Bull. Panjab Univ. 12,
263–264.
17. Sahni, M.R., Khan, E.J.,
1968. Stratigraphy, structure and correlation of the Upper Shiwaliks, East of
Chandigarh. J. Palaeontol. Soc. India 5–9, 61–74.
18. Kumar, M., Rishi, K.K., 1986.
Acheulian elements from Hoshiharpur region (Punjab). Man Environ. 10, 141–142.
19. Joshi, R.V., Rajaguru, S.N.,
Badam, G.L., Khanna, P.C., 1978. Environment and Culture of Early Man in
Northwest India – a reappraisal. J. Geol. Soc. India 19, 83–86.
20. Mohapatra, G.C., 1981.
Acheulian Discoveries in the Siwalik Frontal Range.
Curr. Anthropol. 22 (4), 433–435.
Himalayan Valley, Himachal
Pradesh, India. Curr. Anthropol. 20 (3), 600–602.
22. Mohapatra, G.C., Singh, M.,
1979b. Acheulian Discoveries in the Siwalik Frontal Range of western
Sub-Himalayas. Res. Bull. Panjab Univ. Chandigarh, India 10 (1–2), 65–77.
23. Mukherji, A.B., 1979. Choe
terraces of the Chandigarh Siwalik Hills; a morphogenetic analysis. Rev. Geomorph.
Dyn. 25, 1–7.
24. Karic, B.S., 1985.
Geomorphology and Stone Age Culture of southwestern
India. Sundeep Prakashan, Delhi.
25. Bhardwaj, V., 1991.
Dharmsala: an Acheulian site in Himachal Pradesh. Panjab Univ. Res. Bull.
(Arts) 22, 2.
26.Dambricourt Malassé, A., et al., Intentional cut marks on
bovid from the Quranwala zone, 2.6 Ma, Siwalik Frontal Range, northwestern
India. C. R. Palevol (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2015.09.019
Retrieved from:
27. Brown, F. H., Ian McDougall, I and P. N. Gathogo. 2013. Age
Ranges of Australopithecus Species, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Tanzania. in The Paleobiology
of Australopithecus, Reed K, Fleagle A and R. E. Leakey (Eds). Springer
28. Mbuaa E, 2016. Kantis: A new Australopithecus site on
the shoulders of the Rift Valley near Nairobi, Kenya Journal of Human Evolution
Volume 94, May 2016, Pages 28–44 Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248416000208
No comments:
Post a Comment