Saturday, 26 March 2016

Being Human 4: Stone tools and cut-marked bones 2.6 years old from the Siwaliks of Northwest India


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:

 Here’s the abstract:

“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.
 
 
 
Other human modified bones collected
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.
2. 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.
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.
 21. Mohapatra, G.C., Singh, M., 1979a. Prehistoric Investigations in a Sub-
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