This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Quaternary International 223-224 (2010) 260–264

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Reply to Comment

Reply to: ‘‘Comment on ‘lower and early Middle Pleistocene Acheulian in the Indian sub-continent’’’ by P. Chauhan Claire Gaillard a, *, Sheila Mishra b, Mukesh Singh c, Sushama Deo b, Riza Abbas d a

´histoire du Muse´um national d’histoire naturelle, 1 rue Rene´ Panhard, 75013 Paris, France Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, De´partement de Pre Department of Archaeology, Deccan College, Pune 411 006, India c Society for Archaeological and Anthropological Research, Chandigarh, India d Rock Art Research Center (IRARC), a division of Indian Institute of Research in Numismatic Studies (IIRNS), Nashik, India b

a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Available online 6 February 2010

1. Reply to general criticisms The lengthy comments on our paper by Chauhan is another of his review articles, focusing this time on the problems related to the dating of Indian Palaeolithic sites. The aim of our paper was not to discuss the question of chronology: it was to present the characters of some technologically early Acheulian assemblages for which chronological indication was available. We confined ourselves to assemblages that we had analysed (Atbarapur, Bori, Morgaon, Singi Talav) or for which we had sufficient technotypological data (Chirki, Isampur): we are not reviewing the entire early Acheulian of South Asia already done by Chauhan (2004, 2006, 2009), Gaillard (2006) and Mishra (2006/7). Of course the chronological indications referred to in our article ‘‘require further confirmation’’ as is usual when the dates are not cross-checked by several methods. The ESR (electron spin resonance) dating method is the main method that can be applied to sites older than 500 ka (Falgue`res, 2003). In India the fauna is rarely preserved in association with Pleistocene archaeological remains, limiting the application of ESR dating to the calcretes (assuming that they are nearly contemporaneous to the deposits). A large part of peninsular India is covered with basalt bedrock (Deccan Trap) which lacks quartz grains limiting the application of this method. The cosmogenic method is promising but has still not been applied to Indian sites. Palaeomagnetism provides some indication, but is very inaccurate beyond the fact that a negative signal indicates at least one reverse event. DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.quaint.2010.01.021. * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ33 155432737; fax: 33 143312279. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Gaillard), [email protected] (S. Mishra), [email protected] (M. Singh), [email protected] (S. Deo), [email protected] (R. Abbas). 1040-6182/$ – see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.01.022

Chauhan asserts that the published dates are ‘‘based entirely on circumstantial and inconclusive evidence’’, that the data is ‘‘ambiguous, controversial or only preliminary’’ and that ‘‘better stratigraphic and geochronological control’’ is needed. We never claimed that the dates are conclusive. In the abstract we clearly mention that modern geochronological techniques have ‘‘barely been applied’’ and that only the sites from which ‘‘some’’ chronological data is available are discussed. Similarly, his accusation that the article has biased citations is unjustified as the scope of the article was limited to the discussion of sites with some dating results older than 600 ka. Our major disagreement appears to be that while we feel it is highly significant, given the shortcomings of the dating attempts, that most of them indicate a Lower to early Middle Pleistocene age, he, although admitting that further dating is likely to confirm these results, feels we are unjustified in our ‘‘acquiescence of Acheulian occupation in the Indian Sub-continent as being older than the late Middle Pleistocene’’. A number of dates are cited as being the ‘‘youngest’’ for the Indian Acheulian. Except Kaldevanhalli, all these dates are minimum dates and therefore they cannot invalidate an old age for the beginning of the probably long-lasting Acheulian tradition in the Indian sub-continent. The dates cited are Umrethi with a minimum date of >190 ka and Bhimbetka with a minimum date of >106 ka. At Adi Chadi Wao, the date of 69 ka comes from a miliolite overlying the Acheulian yielding gravel. So it is also a minimum date, which just means the true age is older than the dating result. There is no way of knowing how close the true age is to the minimum age. Mishra (1992) has suggested that the artefacts in Kaldevanhalli rubble are earlier than the rubble accumulation. Only Dina and Jalapur in Pakistan definitely post date the Bruhnes/ Matuyama boundary (Rendell and Dennell, 1985). The ‘‘Movius Line’’ issue was not felt to be relevant to the aims of this paper and so was not discussed. We do have our own views on the Movius Line and they are more fully (but still briefly) discussed in another paper submitted to this issue (Mishra et al., 2010). We did not therefore feel the need to refer to all the recent reviews or to publications concerned with other sites. The Riwat site is only marginally relevant to the discussion of the Indian Acheulian, but it was felt that, as it is the site with the claim for the earliest evidence for hominins in South Asia it should

Author's personal copy

C. Gaillard et al. / Quaternary International 223-224 (2010) 260–264

be cited. This site is also discussed in more detail by some of us in another paper in this issue (Mishra et al, 2010a). Chauhan refers to Dennell et al.’s (2010) hypothesis of the Levant as an alternative to Africa as a source of the Indian Acheulian. This is irrelevant to the paper being commented on, but we would like to state that we strongly disagree with this hypothesis and our views are more fully discussed in another paper in this issue (Mishra et al., 2010b). We don’t claim that the evidence for Lower Pleistocene age of Acheulian in India is ‘‘conclusive’’ and in fact one motivation in writing this paper was to interest geochronologists to make more dating efforts. In this paper we merely report what is available. There is always scope for more work and there is always the possibility that new work will show the older work to be wrong. Evidence is rarely ‘‘conclusive’’ and is often ‘‘circumstantial’’. We really fail to see why we should apologize or simply keep silent because the current state of knowledge is not the final one. In our judgment, all the evidence available points to an older age for the Indian Acheulian. A commonly held fallacy is that when there is no chronological data, assuming a young age is ‘‘professional’’ and assuming an older date is not. It is important to remember that when there is no way of judging the age a young age is as unsupported as an older one. 2. Reply to specific criticisms

261

This is not just ‘‘assumed’’ as asserted by Chauhan but is based on the field studies and observed relationships between the artefact yielding gravel and the tephra throughout the entire 10 km stretch of the Kukdi river where the tephra occurs. This fact and the total dominance of trihedral picks in the Bori assemblage, which does not occur in any other Acheulian assemblage of which we have knowledge, are the basis for Mishra’s hypothesis that the two facts are related. Chauhan is correct in terming this a speculation but wrong to suppose it is based on nothing. A methodology to further test this idea eludes us at the moment. 2.3. Morgaon The main thrust of Chauhan’s comments on Morgaon is the lack of publication of the stratigraphic relationships between the tephra and the artefacts. Our first publication (Mishra et al., 2009) reports only on the context of the assemblages collected from the site (two from excavations and one systematic surface collection). The palaeomagnetic sampling was done before we began to work on the Acheulian horizons and the site was selected for comparison with other sites where tephra occurred. From the recent field work, especially the trench dug in 2009, we now know that the tephra and Acheulian horizons are indeed different, with the tephra post dating the Acheulian, probably by a considerable time span. The results of our work, since the palaeomagnetic studies cited, only strengthen the case for the antiquity of the Morgaon Acheulian.

2.1. Isampur 2.4. Chirki Our purpose in discussing the ‘‘unexpectness’’ of the Isampur date was precisely to point out that it is irrelevant to the reasoning on the reliability of the date. Dennell (2009), in his recent book and in the conference in which this paper was presented, categorically stated that the date was ‘‘wrong’’ and the only argument he presented in support of it being ‘‘wrong’’ was that Paddayya reported that it was ‘‘unexpected’’. We feel strongly the ridiculousness of this argument and were perhaps carried away in repeating it. Noll and Petraglia (2003) have compared the Hungsi assemblages with those from Olorgesailie and found considerable similarity between them. Sharon (2007) also included some of the Hunsgi assemblages, although not Isampur, in his comparative study of ‘‘Large Flake Acheulian’’ assemblages and also concluded there was a close similarity. The close similarity of all LFA assemblages has been further elaborated by him in his later papers (Sharon and Beaumont, 2006; Goren-Inbar et al., 2008; Sharon, 2008). The similarity of Indian and African Acheulian has been noticed from the beginning of Palaeolithic research in India and so we did not feel the need to justify this statement. 2.2. Bori Chauhan presents a lengthy discussion supporting the correlation of the Bori tephra with the YTT (Youngest Toba Tephra). It surprises us that this correlation continues to be asserted when, except for the chemical similarity of the Bori tephra to YTT, nothing supports the YTT age of the tephra. We would have loved to agree with the ‘‘authorities’’ but it is impossible to ignore the overwhelming evidence against the YTT age of Bori tephra. The Bori tephra has been dated by K/Ar, Ar/Ar and Th/U and palaeomagnetic dating methods. None of these gives an age compatible to the YTT (75 ka). We consider the archaeological evidence as very robust. An unabraded basalt Acheulian assemblage is found in the gravel overlying the tephra, and it is certainly younger than the tephra. Mishra et al. (1995) argue that the gravel is a rapid event in response to the tephra and the artefacts incorporated into this gravel were made in the immediate aftermath of the tephra fall.

The Th/U date on calcrete reported by Atkinson et al. (1990), is not, as suggested by Chauhan from the ‘‘cultural’’ levels at Chirki but from the base of the Laxmi nala section where our palaeomagnetic work was done. Laxmi nala and Chirki localities are shown in Fig. 1. Both Sankalia et al. (1960) and Corvinus (1981) report Acheulian artefacts from this section and our palaeomagnetically studied interval overlies all the Acheulian units. In the Chirki locality, where the richest Acheulian levels have been exposed by Corvinus (1983), there are no clays suitable for palaeomagnetic studies. 2.5. Singi Talav The date of the two Acheulian layers in Singi Talav excavation is assessed from the correlation with the ESR date processed on a sample from the Amarpura quarry, 3 km from Singi Talav. The sample was collected 1 m below the top of the calcrete formation in the Amarpura quarry (Kailath et al., 2000; Dhir pers. comm.). Dating a sample from the Amarpura quarry was part of a program on the chronology of the vast calcrete formations characterising this part of the Thar Desert. Most of these calcretes correspond to sheet wash aggraded plains (Dhir et al., 1998); these are widespread (200 km2) and well identifiable in the landscape due to their whitish colour. They correspond to different periods of formation (Kailath et al., 2000). Both Amarpura and Singi Talav belong to the same geomorphologic unit, the Didwana depression partly occupied nowadays by a salt lake, and filled with sandy to clayey loam severely transformed into a nodular whitish formation due to evapo-transpiration processes (Misra et al., 1982; Raghavan et al., 1991). Sedimentological studies and topographic measurements at the time of field work, in the early 1980s, led us to correlate the sequence of Singi Talav excavation with the middle part of the Amarpura Formation observed in the 7 m thick section of the Amarpura quarry (Misra et al., 1982; Gaillard et al., 1985). From this section, the artefacts were occasional but among them 4 handaxes were identified, originating from the upper 2 m of the calcrete formation (Gaillard et al., 1986). The date of 797 ka (Kailath et al.,

Author's personal copy

262

C. Gaillard et al. / Quaternary International 223-224 (2010) 260–264

Fig. 1. Location of Laxmi nala and Chirki nala near Nevasa, Maharahtra, India.

2000) having been processed on a sample coming from 1 m below the top of the same formation, it can be concluded that Acheulian material was produced before and after this date in the Didwana region, and thus the probable age of the Singi Talav assemblage should be older than the Amarpura date. 2.6. Atbarapur Chauhan starts his comment about our assessment of the chronology of Atbarapur with a discussion on the age of the Soanian (cobble tool industry). This is another problem! But we are convinced that there is a late Pleistocene cobble tool industry, known as Soanian, in the Siwalik Frontal Range (Gaillard et al., 2010; Gaillard et al., submitted for publication). Moreover, we do not agree with Chauhan’s statement that, ‘‘the various ecological contexts in the sub-Himalaya region are all shared by both Acheulian and Soanian’’. Our assessment of the age is based on the association of the Acheulian occurrences with the Pinjor Formation. The data presented by Mohapatra and Singh (1979) very clearly and accurately identified the context of the Acheulian in the Siwalik Frontal Range as outcrops of the Pinjor (except at Kot, where recent field work has shown that the industry is not Acheulian, and the sediment is not Boulder Conglomerate; Gaillard et al., submitted for publication). At that time they did consider a very young age of the Acheulian possible (artefacts lying on the surface since their abandonment). Later work has shown that the Acheulian tools actually occur on both sides of the Siwalik Frontal Range (more precisely the Janauri/ Hoshiarpur – Chandigarh Anticline), approximately along the faults limiting this structural unit on both sides (Powers et al., 1998; Delcaillau et al., 2006): the Punjab plain side and the Soan-Sirsa dun side (Singh, in press; Fig. 2). It may be the same geological situation in the opposite side of the dun, along the fault separating the dun from the Lesser Himalaya. The Pinjor sedimentation began at the Matuyama Gauss boundary at around 2.5 Ma. It became coarser in the upper part

(Gaur and Chopra, 1984) and in the Jammu region it passes gradually into the Boulder Conglomerate, the last formation of the Upper Siwaliks. In the Jammu-Nagrota section, a thick conglomerate bed occurs at around 1 Ma within the Pinjor Formation (Ranga Rao, 1993). The Boulder conglomerate represents thick alluvial fan aprons caused by sudden elevation of the adjacent mountains. The limit between Pinjor and Boulder Conglomerate is time transgressive, the latest dates being measured by palaeomagnetism at 0.6 Ma (Patiali Rao near Chandigarh and Paramandal near Jammu; Ranga Rao, 1993). Nanda (2002) discusses the Pinjor/Boulder Conglomerate boundary varying in age between 1.7 and 0.6 Ma and concludes that in most of the places the Pinjor fauna disappears around 1 Ma, but that the conglomerates are not favourable to the preservation of the bones (the fauna might have survived later but without record; human beings too). The presence of conglomeratic lenses in the upper part of the Pinjor Formation and the discontinuous nature of the conglomeratic alluvial fans forming the Boulder Conglomerate may not help in identifying the exact limit between Pinjor and Boulder Conglomerate. In the middle of the Middle Pleistocene and possibly till the early Holocene in the Janauri/Hoshiarpur–Chandiagrh Anticline (Delcaillau et al., 2006) all this sequence got uplifted into a frontal range, separated from the Lesser Himalayas by the longitudinal valley known as dun. In the Acheulian times, this entire region was the foothill plain of the Himalaya. The availability of cobbles and even boulders to the Acheulian people settled at Atbarapur suggests that the conglomeratic deposits had already started, indicating the final phase of the Pinjor sedimentation. However there is no Boulder Conglomerate proper in Atbarapur. It is obvious that locating the Acheulian findspots of the Siwalik Frontal Range in the magnetostratigraphic sequence would be of extreme interest, but nevertheless it has not been done to date. At Atbarapur, the assemblage comes from a secondary, Holocene deposit, but the stream which deposited the sediments during the Holocene has a catchment entirely within the Pinjor sediments.

Author's personal copy

C. Gaillard et al. / Quaternary International 223-224 (2010) 260–264

263

had not read the original papers cited might not realise the shortcomings of the results referred to. Our experience however is that there is very little knowledge of the work done on the Indian Palaeolithic and even less about the character of the Indian Acheulian. In the absence of this knowledge some cliche´s completely contrary to the available data are the norm. It seems a very perverse attitude to insist on a relatively young age for the Indian Acheulian, when the available dates, of course with limitations but with a significant consistency, all provide a contradictory picture.

References

Fig. 2. a: Map showing the Acheulian sites in the Siwaliks of north-western India; from North to South: Atbarapur (AVP), Rahmnapur (RHM), Takhni (TAK), Baber (BBR), Marwari (MRW), Tutewal (TTW), Suna (SUN), Lalwan (LLW), Polian (PLN), Brahmpur (BRP), Dabkera (DAB), Drauli (DRL), Taluh (TAL), Kahnpur Khui (KPK), Plata (PLA), Karura (KRA), Jatwar (JTW), Gochar (GCH), Bari Nagal (BRN). b: Structural cross-section following line A–B (after Powers et al., 1998; Delcaillau et al., 2006).

Rendell and Dennell’s (1985) dating of the Acheulian at Dina and Jalapur is based on the presence of three handaxes in uplifted (at about 0.5 or 0.4 Ma) sediments belonging to the Brunhes chron; these would be equivalent to the upper Pinjor of India. The site of Satpati in eastern Nepal is also similar in that the Acheulian tools are found on the surface of uplifted Upper Siwalik sediments in the ‘‘frontal range’’. Corvinus realised that the artefacts were being derived from the erosion of the sediments and so, over repeated visits collected 9 handaxes, 2 bifacial tools and 1 pick, 5 flakes and 2 cores (Corvinus, 2007) – the second largest number of Acheulian tools after Atbarpur. 3. Conclusion Chauhan’s comments were necessitated by his ‘‘strong opinions’’ (personal communication). He felt that ‘‘international’’ scholars who

Atkinson, T.C., Rowe, P.J, Powar, N.J, Kale, V.S., 1990. Unpublished Report Submitted to the Natural Environmental Research Council (U.K.). Chauhan, P.R., 2004. A review of the Early Acheulian evidence from South Asia. Assemblage 8. Chauhan, P.R., 2006. Human origins studies in India: position, problems and prospects. Assemblage 9. Chauhan, P.R., 2009. The lower Paleolithic of the Indian subcontinent. Evolutionary Anthropology 18 (2), 62–78. Corvinus, G., 1981. The Stratigraphy and Geomorphology of the Pravara River System. In: A Survey of Pravara River System in Western Maharashtra, India, vol. 1. Institute for Urgeschichte, Tubingen. Corvinus, G., 1983. The Excavations of the Acheulian Site of Chirki-on-Pravara, India. In: A Survey of the Pravara River System in Western Maharashtra, India, vol. 2. Institute for Urgeschichte, Tubingen. Corvinus, G., 2007. Prehistoric Cultures in Nepal, vol. 1. Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden. 383 p., vol. 2, 263p. Delcaillau, B., Carozza, J.M., Laville, E., 2006. Recent fold growth and drainage development: the Janauri and Chandigarh anticlines in the Siwalik foothills, northwest India. Geomorphology 76, 241–256. Dennell, R.W., 2009. Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dennell, R.W., Martino´n-Torres, M., Bermu´dez de Castro, J.M., 2010. Out of Asia: The initial colonisation of Europe in the Early and Middle Pleistocene. Quaternary International, 223–224, 439. Dhir, R.P., Tandon, S.K., Rajaguru, S.N., Ramesh, R., 1998. Calcretes: their genesis and significance in paleoenvironmental reconstruction in arid Rajasthan, India. Paleoeco. Africa 25, 223–230. Falgue`res, C., 2003. ESR dating and the human evolution: contribution to the chronology of the earliest humans in Europe. Quaternary Science Reviews 22, 1345–1351. Gaillard, C., 2006. Les premiers peuplements d’Asie du Sud: vestiges culturels. Comptes Rendus Palevol 5, 359–369. Gaillard, C., Misra, V.N., Rajaguru, S.N., Raju, D.R., Raghavan, H., 1985. Acheulian occupation in the Singi Talav, Thar Desert: a preliminary report on 1981 excavation. Bulletin of the Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute 44, 141–152. Gaillard, C., Raju, D.R., Misra, V.N., Rajaguru, S.N., 1986. Handaxe assemblages from Didwana Region, Thar Desert, India: a metrical analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, 89–214. Gaillard, C., Singh, M., Dambricourt-Malasse´, A., Late Pleistocene to early Holocene lithic industries in the southern fringes of the Himalaya. Quaternary International, Proceeding of the 3rd LIMPACS conference, Chandigarh 2009, submitted for publication. Gaillard, C., Mishra, S., Singh, M., Deo, S., Abbas, R., 2010. Do not confuse large cutting tool types. Quaternary International 223–224, 245–247. Gaur, R., Chopra, S.R.K., 1984. Taphonomy, fauna, environment and ecology of upper Sivaliks (Plio-Pleistocene) near Chandigarh, India. Nature 308, 353–355. Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N., Laschiver, I., 2008. The Acheulian massive scrapers of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov: a product of the biface chaıˆne ope´ratoire. Journal of Human Evolution 55, 702–712. Kailath, A.J., Rao, T.K.G., Dhir, R.P., Nambi, K.S.V., Gogte, V.D., Singhvi, A.K., 2000. Electron spin resonance characterization of calcretes fromThar desert for dating applications. Radiation Measurements 32, 371–383. Mishra, S., 1992. The age of the Acheulian in India: new evidence. Current Anthropology 33, 325–328. Mishra, S., 2006/2007. The Indian lower palaeolithic. Bulletin of the Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute 66–67, 47–94. Mishra, S., Deo, S.G., Abbas, R., Naik, S., Shete, G., Agrawal, N., Rajaguru, S.N., 2009. Excavations at the early Acheulian site of Morgaon, Maharashtra (2000–2007). In: Paddayya, K., Joglekar, P.P., Basa, K.K., Sawant, R. (Eds.), Recent Research Trends in South Asian Archaeology. Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute, Pune, pp. 121–137. Mishra, S., Gaillard, C., Hertler, C., Moigne, A.-M., Simanjuntak, T., 2010a. India and Java: contrasting records, intimate connections. Quaternary International 223–224, 265–270. Mishra, S., Gaillard, C., Deo, S.G., Singh, M., Abbas, R., Agrawal, N., 2010b. Large flake Acheulian in India: implications for understanding lower Pleistocene human dispersals. Quaternary International, 223–224, 271–272. Mishra, S., Venkatesan, T.R., Rajaguru, S.N., Somayajulu, B.L.K.,1995. Earliest Acheulian industry from peninsular India. Current Anthropology 36 (5), 847–851.

Author's personal copy

264

C. Gaillard et al. / Quaternary International 223-224 (2010) 260–264

Misra, V.N., Rajaguru, S.N., Raju, D.R., Raghavan, H., Gaillard, C., 1982. Acheulian occupation and evolving landscape around Didwana in the Thar Desert. Man and Environment 6, 72–86. Mohapatra, G.C., Singh, M., 1979. Stratified occurrence of lithic artifacts in the Siwalik frontal range of western sub-Himalaya. Punjab University Research Bulletin 10 (1–2), 65–77. Nanda, A.C., 2002. Upper Siwalik mammalian faunas of India and associated events. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 21, 47–58. Noll, M.P., Petraglia, M.D., 2003. Acheulian bifaces and early human behaviour in East Africa and South India. In: Soressi, M., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 31–53. Powers, P.M., Lillie, R.J., Yeats, R.S., 1998. Structure and shortening of the Kangra and Dehra Dun reentrants, sub-Himalaya, India. GSA Bulletin 110 (8), 1010–1027. Raghavan, H., Gaillard, C., Rajaguru, S.N., 1991. Genesis of calcretes from the calc-pan site of Singi Talav near Didwana, Rajasthan, India – a micromorphological approach. Geoarchaeology 6 (2), 151–168.

RangaRao, 1993. Magnetic polarity stratigraphy of upper Siwalik of north-western Himalayan foothills. Current Science 64 (11–12), 863–873. Rendell, H., Dennell, R.W., 1985. Dated lower Palaeolithic artefacts from Northern Pakistan. Current Anthropology 26 (5), 393. Sankalia, H.D., Deo, S.B., Ansari, Z., Ehrhardt, S., 1960. From History to Prehistory at Nevasa (1954–56). Deccan College, Pune. Sharon, G., 2007. Acheulian Large Flake Industries:Technology, Chronology, and Significance British Archaeological Research International Series, Oxford. Sharon, G., 2008. The impact of raw material on Acheulian large flake production. Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (5), 1329–1344. Sharon, G., Beaumont, P., 2006. Victoria West: a highly standardized prepared core technology. In: InGoren Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. Equinox Publishing Ltd, London, pp. 181–199. Singh, M., Acheulian in the Siwaliks of North-Western India. Proceedings of the international conference on ‘‘Les cultures a` bifaces du Ple´istoce`ne infe´rieur et moyen dans le monde. E´mergence du sens de l’harmonie’’, Tautavel 25–30 juillet 2007, in press.