干旱区生态环境知识资源中心

This paper addresses the recent publication in this journal by Gaillard et al. (2010) who discuss several Early Acheulean occurrences from the Indian subcontinent in relation to their age, context and lithic assemblages. A critique of the associated data shows that their acquiescence of Acheulean occupation in the Indian Subcontinent as being older than the late Middle Pleistocene is based entirely on circumstantial and inconclusive evidence. Each of the sites discussed by them (Isampur, Bori, Morgaon, Chirki-Nevasa, Singi Talav, Atbarapur) have variably yielded limited contextual and chronometric data that is ambiguous, controversial or only preliminary at this stage. Although one or two occurrences may be as old as they claim, a more rigorous scientific approach is required to first address the problematic issues of stratigraphic interpretation, precise context and absolute age. The current temporal framework of the South Asian Paleolithic renders the earliest Acheulean assemblages simply as being older than similar to 400 ka, due primarily to the limitations of the Th-230-U-234 dating method used earlier. Whilst it is probable that future dating attempts will extend the earliest South Asian Acheulean occupation up to the Brunhes-Matuyama boundary or even beyond, convincing geochronological support for such a scenario is currently lacking at all of the ’typologically-earliest’ sites. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.