Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 1434e1440 http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

Is the Soanian techno-complex a Mode 1 or Mode 3 phenomenon? A morphometric assessment Stephen J. Lycett* Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, University of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Street, Cambridge, CB2 1QH, United Kingdom Received 5 October 2006; accepted 13 November 2006

Abstract The Soanian is traditionally seen as one of the major (non-Acheulean) Palaeolithic techno-complexes of the Indian subcontinent. Over several decades comparisons of Soanian assemblages have been made with the non-bifacial industries of East Asia and north-west Europe. The chronological status and typo-technological relationship(s) of the Soanian to other Palaeolithic industries have been the subject of much debate. When first named and described the Soanian was considered to contain evidence of Mode 3 Levallois-style core reduction. However, in recent years, the potential Mode 3 component of the Soanian has largely been ignored, and the techno-complex is described under various guises as a core/flake or ‘Mode 1’ techno-complex. Here, a comparative morphometric assessment of selected Soanian cores and other Palaeolithic nuclei is undertaken, to test the hypothesis that this industry contains a definite Mode 3 Levallois element. Discriminant Function Analyses (DFA) of morphometric variables provide robust evidence that at least part of the Soanian techno-complex contains Mode 3 Levallois cores. The implications of these analyses for the relationship between the Soanian and the Acheulean, and the relevance of the Soanian in considerations of the Movius Line are also discussed. Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Lithics; Soan Valley; Soanian; Levallois; Morphometrics; Movius Line

1. Introduction The Soanian (sometimes also spelt Sohanian) is traditionally seen as one of the major Palaeolithic techno-complexes from the Indian subcontinent (Kennedy, 2000; Movius, 1948, 1969; Sankalia, 1974), and yet has seen only limited empirical research in recent decades, further plagued by a dearth of primary context sites (Chauhan, 2003, 2004, 2005). Comparison with the Mode 1 industries of East Asia and non-bifacial industries of north-west Europe (such as the Clactonian) are common (Chauhan, 2003; Dennell and Hurcombe, 1989; Kennedy, 2000; Movius, 1948). The chronological status and typo-technological relationship(s) of the Soanian to other Palaeolithic industries has been the subject of much debate.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 779 11 33 593. E-mail address: [email protected] 0305-4403/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2006.11.001

When first named and described (de Terra and Paterson, 1939), the Soanian was considered to contain evidence of Mode 3 Levallois-style core reduction. However, in recent years, the potential Mode 3 component to the Soanian has largely been ignored, and this techno-complex is variously described as a chopper tool industry, a pebble tool and flake industry, a cobble tool industry, a core/flake industry, or simply as ‘Mode 1’ (e.g. Chauhan, 2003, 2005; Davis, 1987; Gaillard, 1995; Ghosh, 1974; Misra, 2001; Petraglia, 1998, 2001, 2007). Here, a comparative morphometric assessment of the presence of a Mode 3 Levallois component to the Soanian type material is undertaken. 2. The Soanian and the Siwaliks The Palaeolithic sites in the Soan Valley, Pakistan, form the type-sites of the Soanian lithic techno-complex (de Terra and Paterson, 1939; Movius, 1948; Paterson and Drummond,

S.J. Lycett / Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 1434e1440

1962), an industry found in several regions of the Siwalik Hills (Fig. 1). The Siwaliks run from Bhutan and Bangladesh in the east through southern Nepal, northern India and northern Pakistan at their western extremities, roughly parallel to the Himalayan range. Sediments forming the Siwaliks were laid down as fluvial deposits by rivers flowing south of the Himalayas during a time range spanning the Middle Miocene to Middle Pleistocene (Gill, 1951, 1983; Rendell et al., 1989). Fluvial sedimentation ceased during the late Middle Pleistocene when tectonic uplift raised the hills to their current elevation (Gill, 1983; Rendell et al., 1989). A formation known as the Boulder Conglomerate Formation (BCF) comprises some of the youngest fluvial sediments (ca. 1.7e0.7 Myr) in the Siwaliks and contains the quartzite boulders, cobbles and pebbles that subsequently became the primary source of raw material for lithic artefacts (Chauhan, 2003; Rendell et al., 1989; Sangode and Kumar, 2003). Subsequent aeolian and fluvial sedimentation (the latter associated with monsoon rains) and further tectonic activity has led to the formation of ‘post-Siwalik’ deposits in some regions (Stiles, 1978). Recent fieldwork (Allchin, 1995; Dennell and Rendell, 1991; Rendell et al., 1989) has overturned the geological interpretations of de Terra and Paterson (1939), who mistakenly identified a series of fluvial terraces in the Siwaliks. This more recent work has demonstrated that the supposed ‘terraces’ are actually erosional features (Rendell et al., 1989) and, hence that existing chronological divisions and scenarios of technological evolution within the Soanian were inaccurate (Dennell and Hurcombe, 1989). Although Mode 1 assemblages have been claimed from early (i.e. 0.7 Myr) Siwalik sediments in Pakistan (Dennell, 2004; Rendell et al., 1989), the Soanian lithic techno-complex (sensu stricto) derives from the post-Siwalk sediments, and there is no evidence of a cultural continuum between the claimed early Mode 1 artefacts and Soanian industries from later sediments (Chauhan, 2004, 2005, p. 319).

1435

Traditionally the Soanian has been seen as distinct from Mode 2 (Acheulean) traditions, and there is a long history of contrasting Soanian technology with the Acheulean of the Indian subcontinent (Chauhan, 2003; Gaillard, 1995; Misra, 2001; Mohapatra, 1990; Movius, 1969; Paterson and Drummond, 1962; Sankalia, 1967, 1974). Some, however, have suggested that the SoanianeAcheulean distinction may simply represent the ends of a technological continuum or highly variable lithic facies (e.g. Gaillard, 1995; Petraglia, 1998, 2007). Although Soanian material has frequently been seen as contemporary with or preceding the Acheulean in India and Pakistan (e.g. de Terra and Paterson, 1939; Graziosi, 1964; Mohapatra, 1990), it has also been argued that the Soanian may actually post-date the Acheulean (Chauhan, 2003). Indeed, Suresh et al. (2002) have recently dated (via optically stimulated luminescence) the deposition of an alluvial surface fan in the Pinjore-Nalagarh Dun, India to as young as 20 Kyrs. This implies that Soanian material associated with this feature should be seen as Late Pleistocene in age rather than Middle Pleistocene or older (Chauhan, 2003; Singh Soni and Singh Soni, 2005). Although isolated occurrences of Acheulean technology are known in the Siwaliks (e.g. Corvinus, 2007; de Terra and Paterson, 1939; Graziosi, 1964; Mohapatra, 1981), the Soanian techno-complex is more frequently compared with biface-free or Mode 1 Palaeolithic industries. It is particularly interesting to note that Movius (1948, p.376) saw the Soan material as ‘‘one manifestation of a great complex of chopper-chopping tool found in Southern and Eastern Asia’’. Hence, the chronological and techno-typological status of the Soanian is potentially of great importance in understanding the nature and significance of the so-called ‘Movius Line’, which is traditionally held to represent a geographic demarcation between the Mode 1 industries of East Asia and the Mode 2 (Acheulean) industries of western Eurasia and Africa (Keates, 2002; Petraglia, 2001; Schick, 1994). The Soanian has also drawn

Nepal

Pakistan

N India

Siwalik sediments Soan Valley

t

is

k Pa

an 0

India

Ne

300 km

pa

l Bhutan

Fig. 1. Location map showing distribution of Siwalik sediments and position of Soan Valley, Pakistan.

S.J. Lycett / Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 1434e1440

1436

comparison with non-bifacial industries such as the Clactonian of north-west Europe, and is thus embroiled in global debates concerning the nature and significance of Lower Palaeolithic biface-free industries (e.g. Kennedy, 2000; Petraglia, 2001; White, 2000). If it could more confidently be established that at least some of the Soanian techno-complex contains a Mode 3 Levallois element, this would be consistent with interpretations of this industry as a Late Pleistocene phenomenon, with attendant implications regarding the relationship between the Soanian and the Acheulean, and the relevance of the Soanian in discussions of the Movius Line. 3. Materials, methods and predictions 3.1. Materials In order to test the hypothesis that the Soanian techno-complex contains a Mode 3 Levallois core element, data were collected from a series of LowereMiddle Palaeolithic Old World nuclei (n ¼ 564 nuclei) representing 27 taxonomic units (Table 1). The taxonomic units were composed of Mode 1 nuclei (i.e. polyhedrons, choppers, discoids) (n ¼ 157), Mode 2 handaxes (n ¼ 255) and Mode 3 Levallois cores (n ¼ 141). The latter had either previously been assigned in the literature to Levallois industries and/or conformed to commonly used qualitative morphological definitions of Levallois cores (e.g. Boe¨da, 1995; Chazan, 1997; Van Peer, 1992). Boe¨da’s (1995) six criteria for the identification of Levallois cores were given particular emphasis here.

It should be noted that 25 Mode 1 nuclei from the Soan Valley, Pakistan were included as part of the general comparative sample (Table 1). This material represents part of the Soanian type material collected as surface finds by de Terra and Paterson (1939) from the Soan Valley during April of 1935 as part of the Yale-Cambridge expedition to India, of which modern Pakistan was then part. de Terra and Paterson (1939) identified several Palaeolithic artefact localities in the Soan Valley including Malakpur, Adiala, Dhok Pathan, Hassan Khan Dhok, Milestone 163 (Grand Trunk Road), ‘Section 11’, Gila Kalan, Chak Singhu, Balawal and Milestone 23 (Chakri-Sihal Road) Paterson and Drummond, 1962; Rendell et al., 1989). Unfortunately, it was not possible to confidently assign the material in the (Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge) collection to specific localities. However, collectively the material can be seen as representative of the Soanian type material as originally defined by de Terra and Paterson (1939). Mode 2 handaxe nuclei were also included (again from the de Terra and Paterson collections) that represented one of the few Mode 2 Acheulean localities from the Soan Valley at Morgah (Table 1). In addition, a sample of 11 cores was included in the analysis from de Terra and Paterson’s Soan Valley collections, which also appear to display many of the characteristics commonly used to identify Mode 3 Levallois cores (e.g. Boe¨da, 1995; Chazan, 1997; Van Peer, 1992). This latter group of nuclei was termed ‘Soan?’ for the purposes of analysis (Table 1; taxonomic unit number 27).

Table 1 Taxonomic units employed in analyses (total n ¼ 564 nuclei) Taxonomic unit number

Locality

n

Raw material

Technological mode

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Barnfield Pit, Kent, UK Barnham St Gregory, Suffolk, UK Lion Point, Clacton, Essex, UK Olduvai Gorge (Lower Bed II), Tanzania Olduvai Gorge (Middle/Upper Bed II), Tanzania Soan Valley, Pakistan Zhoukoudian, Locality 1, China Zhoukoudian, Locality 15, China Attirampakkam, India Bezez Cave (Level C), Adlun, Lebanon Elveden, Suffolk, UK Kariandusi, Kenya Kharga Oasis (KO10c), Egypt Lewa, Kenya Olduvai Gorge (Middle/Upper Bed II), Tanzania Morgah, Pakistan St. Acheul, France Tabun Cave (Layer Ed) Baker’s Hole, Kent, UK Bezez Cave (Level B), Adlun, Lebanon El Arabah, Abydos, Egypt El Wad (Level F), Israel Fitz James, Oise, France Kamagambo, Kenya Kharga Oasis (KO6e), Egypt Muguruk, Kenya Soan Valley, Pakistan

22 30 18 11 26 25 14 11 30 30 24 30 17 30 13 21 30 30 23 28 16 27 11 13 11 12 11

Chert Chert Chert Lava, chert, quartz Lava, chert, quartz Quartzite Sandstone, quartz, limestone Sandstone, quartz Quartzite Chert Chert Lava Chert Lava Quartz, lava Quartzite Chert Chert Chert Chert Chert Chert Chert Quartzite, chert Chert Lava Quartzite

M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M2 M2 M2 M2 M2 M2 M2 M2 M2 M2 M3 M3 M3 M3 M3 M3 M3 M3 ?

S.J. Lycett / Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 1434e1440

1437

3.2. Morphometric variables Morphometric data were collected for all 564 nuclei via use of the Crossbeam Co-ordinate Caliper (hereafter CCC) (Lycett et al., 2006). A modified version of the orientation protocol for artefacts was employed to take account of the wider range of morphological variability encountered here (see online Supplementary information). This initially provided a series of 55 variables (Table 2), previously described in detail elsewhere (Lycett et al., 2006). Variables 1e48 (Euclidean distance variables) were size-adjusted by the geometric mean method (Jungers et al., 1995; Lycett et al., 2006) in order to remove the confounding effects of isometric differences in scale between various finished artefacts and initial blank form sizes. The geometric mean method of size-adjustment equalizes the volumes of the specimens while maintaining overall shape information (Falsetti et al., 1993; Jungers et al., 1995). In addition, a further five morphometric variables were defined as follows. 3.2.1. Maximum length divided by length at orientation Maximum length of nucleus (as recorded via CCC) expressed as a ratio relative to the dimension of nucleus at the length axis (i.e. 0e180 ) of the CCC base. The maximum length of a nucleus is taken parallel to the measurement of the length along the 0e180 line. 3.2.2. Nuclei outline length The ‘outline’ is defined as the line following the maximum extremity of a nucleus that can be drawn around its mass, when viewed from directly above, as in a two-dimensional photograph or drawing. Note, however, that because the nucleus is (unlike a photograph) a three-dimensional object, the outline measurement may move through all three planes (i.e. length, width, height). The measurement is obtained by tracing a piece of string around this outline and measuring the length of the string (as one might use a piece of string on a map to trace a route and obtain a measure of the route’s total distance). The zero line of the CCC base helps in identifying an appropriate start point for the measurement, and taking the measurement while the nucleus is still secured to the base with plasticine, assists with overall control. It is important to note that only a small portion of the string is required to be in contact with the nucleus at any one time, if the measurement is started from the very end of the string, or a mark is made upon the string as a start point. Braun (2005, pp. 112e113) has recently used a similar technique for measuring the outline length of flakes, although his method uses a thin malleable wire rather than string in order to obtain the measurement. The measurement is rounded up to the nearest whole millimetre. In order to scale this variable to the size of the nucleus, the outline length is divided by the geometric mean of the Euclidean distance outline variables (see Characters 1 to 48) for the nucleus concerned. 3.2.3. Area of largest flake scar An indication of the area of the largest complete negative flake scar on a nucleus is obtained by multiplying the length

Table 2 The 60 morphometric variables employed in the analyses (see Lycett et al., 2006, text and online Supplementary information for details) 1. Core left width at 10% of length 2. Core left width at 20% of length 3. Core left width at 25% of length 4. Core left width at 30% of length 5. Core left width at 35% of length 6. Core left width at 40% of length 7. Core left width at 50% of length 8. Core left width at 60% of length 9. Core left width at 65% of length 10. Core left width at 70% of length 11. Core left width at 75% of length 12. Core left width at 80% of length 13. Core left width at 90% of length 14. Core right width at 10% of length 15. Core right width at 20% of length 16. Core right width at 25% of length 17. Core right width at 30% of length 18. Core right width at 35% of length 19. Core right width at 40% of length 20. Core right width at 50% of length 21. Core right width at 60% of length 22. Core right width at 65% of length 23. Core right width at 70% of length 24. Core right width at 75% of length 25. Core right width at 80% of length 26. Core right width at 90% of length 27. Core length distal at 10% of width 28. Core length distal at 20% of width 29. Core length distal at 25% of width 30. Core length distal at 30% of width 31. Core length distal at 40% of width 32. Core length distal at 50% of width 33. Core length distal at 60% of width 34. Core length distal at 70% of width 35. Core length distal at 75% of width 36. Core length distal at 80% of width 37. Core length distal at 90% of width 38. Core right proximal at 10% of width 39. Core right proximal at 20% of width 40. Core right proximal at 25% of width 41. Core right proximal at 30% of width 42. Core right proximal at 40% of width 43. Core right proximal at 50% of width 44. Core right proximal at 60% of width 45. Core right proximal at 70% of width 46. Core right proximal at 75% of width 47. Core right proximal at 80% of width 48. Core right proximal at 90% of width 49. Coefficient of surface curvature 0e180 50. Coefficient of surface curvature 90e270 51. Coefficient of surface curvature 45e225 52. Coefficient of surface curvature 135e315 53. Coefficient of Edge-point undulation 54. Index of symmetry 55. Max width/width at orientation 56. Maximum length divided by length at orientation 57. Nuclei outline length 58. Area of largest flake scar 59. CV of complete flake scar lengths 60. CV complete scar widths

1438

S.J. Lycett / Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 1434e1440

of the scar by its width. A scar’s length is defined as the maximum Euclidean distance across the negative surface of a scar, parallel to the plane of force/direction of flake removal, and the scar’s width is defined as the maximum Euclidean distance orthogonal to its length. Both length and width measurements are rounded up to the nearest whole millimetre. The ‘largest’ complete negative flake is defined as that which produces the largest value for the product of its length and width variables. In order to scale this variable to the size of the nucleus the variable is divided by the geometric mean of the Euclidean distance outline variables (see Characters 1 to 48) for the nucleus concerned. 3.2.4. CV of complete flake scar lengths The lengths of all complete negative flake scars (i.e. those that appear to not to be truncated by a later flake) measuring 10 mm  5 mm were recorded with digital sliding calipers. A scar’s length is defined as the maximum Euclidean distance across the negative surface of a scar, parallel to the plane of force/direction of flake removal away from the point of percussion. Measurements were rounded up to the nearest whole millimetre. Thereafter, a coefficient of variation (CV) was determined for these negative flake scars. Hence, this variable gives an indication of the regularity of flake invasiveness for the final few flakes removed from each lithic nucleus. 3.2.5. CV of complete flake scar widths The widths of all complete negative flake scars (i.e. those that appear to not to be truncated by a later flake) measuring 10 mm  5 mm were recorded with digital sliding calipers. Where, a scar’s width is defined as the maximum Euclidean distance orthogonal to its ‘length’, as defined in the previous variable. Measurements were rounded up to the nearest whole millimetre. Thereafter, a coefficient of variation (CV) was determined for these negative flake scars. Hence, this variable gives an indication of the regularity of flaking for the final few flakes removed from each nucleus.

should be closer to the Mode 3 group centroid than that of any other group, and (2) the individual specimens within the ‘Soan?’ assemblage should overlap with variation exhibited by specimens included in the Mode 3 Levallois group. If both of these predictions are not fulfilled, the results of the analysis can be interpreted as inconsistent with the hypothesis that there is a definite Mode 3 Levallois core component to the Soanian lithic techno-complex, at least as represented by the samples examined here. In order to determine whether the outcome of this initial analysis was influenced by the group assignation employed, a second DFA was performed whereby the taxonomic units were treated as 27 separate groups. If the group assignations employed in the previous analysis were not a confounding factor then clustering patterns returned by this second DFA should match closely with those returned by the initial analysis. 4. Results Fig. 2 shows the plot of the DFA scores (functions 1 and 2) for the 564 lithic nuclei used in the analysis. Cumulatively, functions 1 and 2 account for 92.5% of the variation exhibited by the specimens. The six variables most highly correlated with DF 1 were variables 49 (Coefficient of surface curvature 0e180 ), 52 (Coefficient of surface curvature 135e315 ), 51 (Coefficient of surface curvature 45e225 ), 53 (Coefficient of edge-point undulation), 50 (Coefficient of surface curvature 90e270 ) and 59 (CV of complete flake scar lengths). The plot clearly shows that the centroid of the ‘Soan?’ assemblage is closer to Mode 3 group centroid than that of any other group, and that the individual specimens within the ‘Soan?’ assemblage overlap closely with specimens included in the Mode 3 Levallois group, thus fulfilling the predictions of the

8

6

Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) is a multivariate technique that is used to provide a set of weightings (i.e. discriminant functions) that most effectively discriminate between groups that have been defined a priori; these weightings are linear combinations of the independent variables (Hair et al., 1998; Huberty, 1994; Quinn and Keough, 2002). It is possible, therefore, to treat the lithic taxonomic units as four separate groups for the purposes of the current analyses: a Mode 1 group, a Mode 2 group, a Mode 3 group and the ‘Soan?’ group comprised of the 11 lithic nuclei that also appear to conform to commonly employed Levallois core descriptions. Using DFA it is possible to make two specific predictions regarding how the ‘Soan?’ group should perform if the results of the analysis are to be consistent with the hypothesis that the Soanian techno-complex contains a Mode 3 Levallois core component. That is (1) the centroid of the ‘Soan?’ assemblage

4

Function 2

3.3. Predictions for Discriminant Function Analyses

Mode 1 Mode 2 Levallois Soan? Group Centroid

2

0

-2

-4 -4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

Function 1 Fig. 2. Discriminant functions plot for 564 nuclei used in analysis. Function 1 accounts for 54.6% of variance and function 2 accounts for 37.95% of variance. The top six variables most highly correlated with the discriminant functions were 49, 52, 51, 53, 50 and 59 (see Table 2).

S.J. Lycett / Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 1434e1440

hypothesis that the Soanian techno-complex contains a Mode 3 Levallois core component. Fig. 3 shows the plot for the second DF analysis where each of the taxonomic units were treated as 27 separate groups. The centroids clearly form three discrete clusters comprised of the Mode 1 taxonomic units, the Mode 2 taxonomic units and the Mode 3 taxonomic units (including the ‘Soan?’ group). Hence, this analysis is entirely consistent with the results of the initial DFA. 5. Discussion and conclusions The discriminant function analyses provide robust evidence that the type material of the Soanian techno-complex contains specimens that should typologically be termed Mode 3 Levallois. However, it should also be noted that some cores from the Soan Valley (i.e. taxonomic unit 6) fit comfortably within the range of Mode 1 cores examined here. These morphometric analyses have important implications for current debates regarding the typological and chronological status of the Soanian techno-complex. The presence of Mode 3 Levallois industries has traditionally been seen as the diagnostic element of the Middle Palaeolithic (Gao and Norton, 2002; Mellars, 1996; Porat et al., 2002; Schick and Toth, 1993). While it is now generally understood that the LowereMiddle Palaeolithic transition was an extended chronological phase between Marine Isotope Stages 9e6 involving the gradual replacement of Acheulean bifaces with Levallois and Mousterian/MSA industries and frequently involving some technological overlap (Monnier, 2006; Tryon, 2006), the finding that at least some sites within the Soan Valley contain a clear Mode 3 Levallois core component is consistent with the hypothesis that the Soanian technocomplex is either late Acheulean or post-Acheulean in terms

1439

of technology, and probably Late Pleistocene in chronology. This renders scenarios suggesting that the Soanian is a precursor to the Acheulean in the Siwalik region or simply as part of a variable Mode 1e2 lithic facies as problematic, if not misleading. Indeed, our understanding of hominin exploitation of the Siwalik frontal range must take greater account of this under-discussed Middle Palaeolithic element to their technological repertoire. Likewise, comparisons of the Soanian with Mode 1 technologies such as the Oldowan or Clactonian are inaccurate, and as others have previously suggested (e.g. Stiles, 1978), a more appropriate comparison (at least for some Soanian localities) might be drawn with Middle Palaeolithic technologies such as the Mousterian or MSA. Similarly, the significance of the Soanian techno-complex in understanding the significance of the Movius Line and a Mode 1eAcheulean dichotomy may have been overstated. Future work should aim to identify more securely provenanced Soanian assemblages than those examined here, in order to more fully understand the chronology, content and evolution of this techno-complex. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, Parth Chauhan, Mark Collard, Chris Clarkson and Robert Foley for valuable conversations and assistance. I also gratefully acknowledge the constructive criticism of Felix Riede and the anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft. Thanks are due to Anne Taylor at Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, and to Nick Ashton at the British Museum for access to lithic material. This research was funded by Trinity College, University of Cambridge.

Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.jas.2006.11.001.

4

References Function 2

2

0

-2

-4 -2

0

2

4

6

Function 1 Fig. 3. Plot of discriminant functions (1 and 2) when each of the 27 taxonomic units (see Table 1) are treated as separate groups. Group centroids only are shown. Note that that the distribution of technological Modes and the position of the ‘Soan?’ assemblage matches closely with that shown in Fig. 2.

Allchin, B., 1995. Early human cultures and environments in the northern Punjab, Pakistan: an overview of the Potwar project of the British Archaeological Mission to Pakistan. In: Wadia, S., Korisettar, R., Kale, V.S. (Eds.), Quaternary Environments and Geoarchaeology of India. Geological Society of India, Bangalore, pp. 150e157. Boe¨da, E., 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 41e68. Braun, D.R., 2005. Examining flake production strategies: examples from the Middle Paleolithic of southwest Asia. Lithic Technology 30, 107e125. Chauhan, P.R., 2003. An overview of the Siwalik Acheulian and reconsidering its chronological relationship with the Soanian e a theoretical perspective. Assemblage 7. Available from: . Chauhan, P.R., 2004. A review of the early Acheulian evidence from south Asia. Assemblage 8. Available from: . Chauhan, P.R., 2005. The technological organization of the Soanian palaeolithic industry: a general ’typo-qualitative’ description of a large

1440

S.J. Lycett / Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 1434e1440

core-and-flake assemblage in surface context from the Siwalik hills of northern India. In: Srivastava, V.K., Singh, M.K. (Eds.), Issues and Themes in Anthropology: A Festschrift in Honour of Professor D.K. Bhattacharya. Palaka Prakashan, Delhi, pp. 287e336. Chazan, M., 1997. Redefining Levallois. Journal of Human Evolution 33, 719e735. Corvinus, G., 2007. Acheulian handaxes from the Upper Siwalik in Nepal. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London, pp. 415e428. Davis, R.S., 1987. The Soan in Central Asia? Problems in Lower Paleolithic culture history. In: Jacobson, J. (Ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of India and Pakistan. Aris & Phillips, Warminster, UK, pp. 1e17. Dennell, R.W., 2004. Early Hominin Landscapes in Northern Pakistan: Investigations in the Pabbi Hills. In: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, vol. 1265 (Oxford). Dennell, R.W., Hurcombe, L., 1989. Paterson, the British Clactonian and the Soan flake industry: a re-evaluation of the Early Palaeolithic of northern Pakistan. In: Jarrige, C. (Ed.), South Asian Archaeology, Part 1. Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 69e136. Dennell, R.W., Rendell, H.M., 1991. De Terra and Paterson and the Soan flake industry: a new perspective from the Soan Valley, northern Pakistan. Man and Environment 16, 91e99. Falsetti, A.B., Jungers, W.L., Cole III, T.M., 1993. Morphometrics of the Callitrichid forelimb: a case study in size and shape. International Journal of Primatology 14, 551e572. Gaillard, C., 1995. An early Soan assemblage from the Siwaliks: a comparison of processing sequences between this assemblage and of an Acheulian assemblage from Rajasthan. In: Wadia, S., Korisettar, R., Kale, V.S. (Eds.), Quaternary Environments and Geoarchaeology of India. Geological Society of India, Bangalore, pp. 231e245. Gao, X., Norton, C.J., 2002. A critique of the Chinese ‘Middle Palaeolithic’. Antiquity 76, 397e412. Ghosh, G.K., 1974. Concept of chopper/chopping tool complex in India. In: Ghosh, G.K. (Ed.), Perspectives in Palaeoanthropology: D. Sen Festschrift. Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, Calcutta, pp. 221e234. Gill, W.D., 1951. The stratigraphy of the Siwalik series in the northern Potwar, Pakistan. Quaternary Journal of the Geological Society 107, 375e394. Gill, G.S., 1983. Sedimentology of the Siwalik Group exposed between the rivers Ghaggar and Markanda, northwestern Himalaya. Publication of the Centre of Advanced Study in Geology, Punjab University 13, 274e312. Graziosi, P., 1964. Prehistoric Research in Northwestern Punjab: Italian Expeditions to the Karakorum (K2) and the Hindu Kush. E.J. Brill, Leiden. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis, fifth ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Huberty, C.J., 1994. Applied Discriminant Analysis. Wiley, New York. Jungers, W.L., Falsetti, A.B., Wall, C.E., 1995. Shape, relative size, and size adjustments in morphometrics. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 38, 137e161. Keates, S.G., 2002. The Movius Line: fact or fiction? Bulletin of the IndoPacific Prehistory Association 22, 17e24. Kennedy, K.A.R., 2000. God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology of South Asia. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Lycett, S.J., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., Foley, R.A., 2006. A crossbeam coordinate caliper for the morphometric analysis of lithic nuclei: a description, test and empirical examples of application. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 847e861. Mellars, P., 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy: An Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ. Misra, V.N., 2001. Prehistoric human colonization of India. Journal of Bioscience 26, 491e531. Mohapatra, G.C., 1981. Acheulian discoveries in the Siwalik frontal range. Current Anthropology 22, 433e435.

Mohapatra, G.C., 1990. SoanianeAcheulian relationship. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 49, 251e259. Monnier, G.F., 2006. The Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization in western Europe. Current Anthropology 47, 709e744. Movius, H.L., 1948. The Lower Palaeolithic Cultures of Southern and Eastern Asia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 38, 329e426. Movius, H.L., 1969. Lower Paleolithic archaeology in southern Asia and the Far East. In: Howells, W.W. (Ed.), Early Man in the Far East, Studies in Physical Anthropology No.1. Humanities Press, New York, pp. 17e82. Paterson, T.T., Drummond, H.J.H., 1962. Soan the Palaeolithic of Pakistan. Government of Pakistan, Karachi. Petraglia, M.D., 1998. The Lower Palaeolithic of India and its bearing on the Asian record. In: Petraglia, M.D., Korisettar (Eds.), Early Human Behaviour in Global Context: The Rise and Diversity of the Lower Palaeolithic Record. Routledge, London, pp. 343e390. Petraglia, M.D., 2001. The Lower Palaeolithic of India and its behavioural significance. In: Barham, L., Robson-Brown, K. (Eds.), Human Roots: Africa and Asia in the Middle Pleistocene. Western Academic and Specialist Press, Bristol, pp. 217e233. Petraglia, M.D., 2007. The Indian Acheulian in global perspective. In: GorenInbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London, pp. 389e414. Porat, N., Chazan, M., Schwarcz, H., Horwitz, L.K., 2002. Timing of the Lower to Middle Paleolithic boundary: new dates from the Levant. Journal of Human Evolution 43, 107e122. Quinn, G.P., Keough, M.J., 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rendell, H., Dennell, R.W., Halim, M.A., 1989. Pleistocene and Palaeolithic Investigations in the Soan Valley, Northern Pakistan. In: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, vol. 544. Oxford. Sangode, S.J., Kumar, R., 2003. Magnetostratigraphic correlation of the Late Cenozoic fluvial sequences from NW Himalaya, India. Current Science 84, 1014e1024. Sankalia, H.D., 1967. A revised study of the Soan culture (A review article on the Soan and the Palaeolithic of Pakistan by T.T. Paterson and H.J.H. Drummond, Department of Archaeology, Government of Pakistan, Karachi, 1962). Anthropologist 14, 1e40. Sankalia, H.D., 1974. The handaxe industry in the Punjab. In: Ghosh, G.K. (Ed.), Perspectives in Palaeoanthropology: D. Sen Festschrift. Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, Calcutta, pp. 213e219. Schick, K.D., 1994. The Movius line reconsidered. In: Corruccini, R.S., Ciochon, R.L. (Eds.), Integrative Paths to the Past. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 569e596. Schick, K.D., Toth, N., 1993. Making Silent Stones Speak: Human Evolution and the Dawn of Human Technology. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. Singh Soni, A., Singh Soni, V., 2005. Palaeolithic tools from the surface of optically stimulated luminescence dated alluvial fan deposits of Pinjaur Dun in NW sub-Himalayas. Current Science 88, 867e871. Stiles, D., 1978. Paleolithic artefacts in Siwalik and post-Siwalik deposits of northern Pakistan. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 53-54, 129e148. Suresh, N., Bagati, T.N., Thakur, V.C., Kumar, R., Sangode, S.J., 2002. Optically stimulated luminescence dating of alluvial fan deposits of Pinjaur Dun, NW sub-Himalaya. Current Science 82, 1267e1274. de Terra, H., Paterson, T.T., 1939. Studies on the Ice Age in India and Associated Human Cultures. Carnegie Institute, Washington DC. Tryon, C.A., 2006. ‘Early’ Middle Stone Age lithic technology of the Kapthurin Formation (Kenya). Current Anthropology 47, 367e375. Van Peer, P., 1992. The Levallois Reduction Strategy. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. White, M.J., 2000. The Clactonian question: on the interpretation of coreand-flake assemblages in the British Lower Palaeolithic. Journal of World Prehistory 14, 1e63.