An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c10.s1: 5.1 Archaeological
An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c10.s1
- Language
- English
5.1 Archaeological
v1.c10.s1.1
Archaeological dating is based on the correlation of archaeological material to stratigraphy by the building up of a sequence, followed by a construction of time-scale on the basis of chronologically identifiable material either available at the same site in defined horizons or in relation to the ‘co-existing literate and historical communities with a time-scale of their own’ (Piggott, 1959, p. 51). For prehistoric remains ‘the occurrence of archaeological material in naturally stratified deposits . . . can be used to arrange them in a relative sequence based on geology and palaeobotany’ (*ibid.*, p. 63). Archaeological dating is thus basically relative chronology which ‘establishes sequence but not absolute date’ (Renfrew, 1976, p. 25) and is ‘concerned with the chronological position of specific sites and site level assemblages in relation to various cultures over time within defined geographical areas’ (Brunswig, 1975, p. 111). Determination of the chronology of archaeological sites is possible by invoking the principles of stratigraphy and typology and without reference to literary history (Childe, 1956, pp. 34-5). It also implies technological and evolutionary model and diffusion and direct or indirect connections and/or similarities between cultures.
v1.c10.s1.2
While numismatic [5.4] and epigraphic [5.5] evidence and other datable antiquities recovered in stratified levels from excavations have been used in the dating of historical sites, for cultures of the late prehistoric period the presence of ‘type-fossils’ in other geographical areas have been used in establishing their relative chronology.
v1.c10.s1.3
In the study and dating of the Stone Age cultures of India the primary basis and method have been ‘to relate the remains of early man to the succession of events in the geological record’ (Allchin and Allchin, 1968, p. 56). Thus while typological classification of the material helped in arriving at a sequence of development of Stone Age material, it became possible to place it within some chronological parameters on the basis of a study of the material *inter alia* the geological sequence.
v1.c10.s1.4
In 1930 M. Burkitt, working on the collection of L.A. Cammiade and F.J. Richards, ‘discovered an apparent chronological sequence among the industries involved, on lines similar to those recognized in Africa and correlatable to similar climatic cycles’ (Krishnaswami, 1947, pp. 13-14).
v1.c10.s1.5
Working on the surmise that ‘the pluvial cycles in s. India postulated by Burkitt might be related with the northerly glaciations already noticed in the Himalayan region’, the Yale-Cambridge Expedition led by H. de Terra in association with Teilhard de Chardin and T.T. Paterson undertook in 1935 ‘intensive research by the concerted methods of geology, palaeontology and prehistoric archaeology into the Late Cainozoic period in India as it bore on the Stone Age problem’ (Krishnaswami, 1947, p. 14). The investigations, after careful stratigraphical examination of the Pleistocene evidence, led to ‘working out a standard sequence of geological events’ based on the Quaternary Glacial Cycle in Kashmir and correlating ‘the glacial and interglacial deposits . . . with the Late- and Post-Siwalik formations of the adjoining foothills and plains lower down, for dating the artefact-bearing horizons in them’ (Krishnaswami, 1947, p. 14). The stratigraphical results thus obtained were checked against the palaeontological records which had been the basis of stratigraphy of Siwalik formations. While the study of terminal moraines and terraces provided evidence about the Pleistocene geology [9.8.2] and the glacial cycle in Kashmir, ‘the system of terraces discernible even in non-glaciated regions’ in Punjab, c. and s. India could be correlated with the glacial cycle in the glaciated regions. These terraces being the ‘successive habitats of man and his contemporary fauna’ provided chronological parameters as well. De Terra thus gave us a Pleistocene Ice Age chronometer through the Alpine glacial cycle in Kashmir and the periglacial Quaternary sequence in Punjab as found in the Siwalik series of the Himalayan foothills (Krishnaswami, 1953, p. 57). He also compared the facts of the Pleistocene stratigraphy and prehistory obtained in the Potwar terraces with the peninsular Pleistocene in the Narmada region which had already yielded rich Pleistocene mammal fauna and palaeoliths. He was able to demonstrate in this area ‘the association of early palaeolithic handaxe [4.2] and flake industries with a Mid-Pleistocene type of fauna (*Elephas namadicus*) thereby supplementing its data for Potwar, where such correlation had to be based on evidence other than palaeontological’ (Krishnaswami, 1953, p. 57). The Stone Age material in the NARMADA region also was found, *per se*, to show three stages: in the lower group are found large flakes reminiscent of the pre-Sohan industry of the boulder-conglomerate zone of the Potwar ‘in addition to the Abbevillio-Acheulian axes and cleavers of the Madras type, heavily rolled cores and flakes of early Sohan type, making it contemporaneous with terraces 1 and 2 in Punjab. However in the upper group here the Acheulian is very much rolled, while the fresh one consists of flakes, discoidal and pebble cores of quartzite and trap, showing evolution from the early Sohan of the Narmada, similar to the Late Sohan industry of the north’ (Krishnaswami, 1953, p. 57). The results obtained from Madras, the Narmada and the Potwar were compared with the Stone Age material found in implementiferous horizons in other parts of India with a view to seeing if a typological succession could be observed and correlating the climatic succession with that of the other areas like Kashmir and n. Punjab (Subbarao, 1952, 1958; Zeuner, 1950; Sankalia, 1952; Joshi, 1955; Krishnaswami, 1953, pp. 60-1).
v1.c10.s1.6
In this way prehistoric studies in India, particularly the Stone Ages, had as their basis Pleistocene geology and geochronological investigations for dating the material. Thus Zeuner dated the Sabarmati industry by ‘assuming that the penultimate glaciation of the Himalayas is contemporary with that of Europe (and there is reason to believe that this is so), the age in years of the Sabarmati industry may be estimated in a very tentative way by applying either Penck’s geological dating method or the Astronomical Theory. According to either it would be of the order of 150–200,000 years’ (Zeuner, 1950, p. 44).
v1.c10.s1.7
The entire approach to the prehistoric material in India was thus the typological classification of objects based on morphology of the tool types and formulating an evolutionary model, followed by examining the material in relation to the stratigraphical sequence and arriving at a relative date. The same applies to the dating of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic cultures [4.3, 4] which are placed in the Late Pleistocene.
v1.c10.s1.8
In the case of stone industries of the Holocene [9.8.4], which include the Mesolithic [4.5], stratification and association of the materials *vis-à-vis* other detable cultures help in arriving at relative dates (Gordon, 1958, pp. 16-35; 1950, pp. 64-69). The basis for dating of the Mesolithic industries or cultures has been stratigraphy, eustatic changes and their relative occurrence at sites where datable cultural remains have been found (Misra, 1965, pp. 67-70). ‘The Mesolithic culture does not show any evidence of contact with either the Harappa culture or protohistoric cultures’ and ‘favours a fairly high dating’ such as lack of evidence of domestication, association on the basis of deposits bearing the material with a climate that changed ‘at the close of the Last Glaciation’; occurrence ‘in a gravel lens below the Harappan deposit,’ the Gujarat microlithic industry was dated to pre-2000 B.C. (Misra, 1965, p. 68). The microlithic industry at BIRBHANPUR has been placed in the early Holocene on the basis of the study of environmental conditions (Lal, 1958, pp. 39-48) and ‘placed at least in the 3rd millennium B.C., if not earlier’ (Lal, 1958, p. 36) on comparison of its typological and other features with those of other microlithic industries and its position *vis-à-vis* the Chalcolithic sites (Lal, 1958, pp. 34-9).
v1.c10.s1.9
By the eustatic changes in the sea level and its relation to the *teri* sites [9.5] and by the correlation of the phase with the post-glacial climatic optimum of Europe Zeuner and Allchin have tentatively suggested about 4000 B.C. to be the date of the microlithic sites (Misra, 1965, pp. 69-70) ‘with the proviso that further geological research may push them back into the Pleistocene’ (Zeuner and Allchin, 1956, p. 8). The evidence from SANGANAKALLU and KUCHAI shows the microlithic industry to be pre-Neolithic and based on UTNUR dating the microlithic at the former sites was considered earlier than 2000 B.C. (Misra, 1965, p. 69). The cultural evidence from s. Rajasthan, where some 50 microlithic sites were located in the Banas basin, some of them in close proximity to the settlements of the Ahar culture [4.14.1], the absence of blade tools at AHAR², and ‘no evidence at all of the use of crested-guiding ridge technique at any of the microlithic sites’ shows that these microliths belonged to ‘Mesolithic hunter-food-gatherers who occupied the area before the establishment of early peasant settlements there’ (Misra, 1965, p. 70).
v1.c10.s1.10
The excavations at BRAHMAGIRI (Wheeler, 1947-8, pp. 200-2) provided for the first time evidence based on stratigraphical overlaps for dating the Neolithic [4.6] and the Megalithic [4.17] cultures, where these were followed by the so-called Andhra culture which could be dated to the 1st century A.D. on the evidence of the known denarii along with Sātavāhana coins and the Rouletted Ware [11.21] which provided the *terminus ad quem* for this culture. Taking into consideration the stratified accumulation of occupation deposits and the number of Megalithic tombs in the area and historical evidence, it was conjectured that the megaliths at BRAHMAGIRI represented ‘some two centuries’, thereby covering the period of *c.* 200 B.C. (or a little later) to A.D. 50. It was in the 3rd or 2nd century B.C. that ‘there was a sudden extension northwards into the Deccan of a formidable iron-using, Megalithic building folk from peninsular India’ (Wheeler, 1947-8, p. 201). In view of the fact that at BRAHMAGIRI the cultures were ‘interlocked by significant overlaps’ and on the basis of thickness of the deposits, the Brahmagiri Stone Axe culture was dated between the 1st millennium B.C. and 2nd century B.C. (Wheeler, 1947, p. 202). The evidence from Dts Bellary and Anantapur suggest ‘that the Neolithic culture lasted for a considerable time, preceding the introduction of metals into the c. Deccan at the beginning of the 1st millennium b.c.’ (Subbarao, 1958, p. 81).
v1.c10.s1.11
The tenuous links of the e. Neolithic culture [4.6.6] characterized by the shouldered axe, bar-chisel or adze with that of the S.-E. Asia, the presence of barcelt, shouldered hoe, splayed axe and rectangular chisel in stone which could be considered as prototypes in stone of the Copper Hoard [4.11] objects and the association of the shouldered type of hoe in NBPW [4.16] levels at Kauśāmbī and Rajgir and ‘the seeming association of e. Neolithic of axes with black-and-red ware at Jaugada’ and confirmed at Sonpur in Bihar (Krishnaswami, 1960, pp. 62-3) would place the dates of the middle Ganga [4.6.4] and n. Deccan [4.6.7] Neolithic culture between the middle of the 2nd millennium b.c. and middle of the 1st millennium b.c.
v1.c10.s1.12
The beginning of the n.-w. Neolithic culture [4.6.1] represented at Burzahom, on the basis of the thickness of deposits and of pottery datable to the early historical period, was taken to be as early as 1200 b.c. and ending some time in the late 3rd-2nd century b.c. by Gordon, 1950, p. 82, while Krishnaswami, on the analogy of the Neolithic phase of Kile Gul Muhammad in Baluchistan and tool types regarded it as much earlier than the Karnataka and not influenced by the e. Neolithic culture (Krishnaswami, 1960, p. 63).
v1.c10.s1.13
For dating of painted rock-shelters in India [13] evidence of superimposition of paintings is used in building up a relative sequence, while the subject matter and comparison of paintings with other dated cultures and discovery in association with the cultural material of the material used for or with fragments of paintings establishes the position in terms of the artefactual material. The paintings on the rock-shelters at Bhimbetka which have been studied on these bases have been divided into nine phases on the evidence of superimpositions. The paintings of phase VII to IX, on the basis of the subject and mode of depiction, have been placed in the 1st millennium a.d. or even later, while the paintings of phase VI have been noticed to show influence of Chalcolithic [4.14] pottery and are therefore perhaps considered to be of the 2nd millennium and early 1st millennium b.c. The paintings of phases I to V antedate the 2nd millennium b.c. and the earliest among them are dated 10000 years before present. The subject matter also shows a hunting-gathering way of life and does not provide any evidence of agriculture, settled life or domestication of animals. Pieces of haematite, used in the paintings, found in Mesolithic levels also indicate that painting activity was carried out in this phase to which the oldest paintings can be assigned (Misra *et. al.*, 1977, p. 22; Wakankar and Brooks, 1976, pp. 22-8).
v1.c10.s1.14
For the dating of the Harappa culture [4.9] ‘evidence of Indus-Mesopotamian contact or “artefact-associations” constituted the main basis of Indus chronology’ (Brunswig, 1975, p. 112), and ‘the chronology of the Indus civilization became generally synchronized with that of Sumer, Akkad, and Old Babylonia’ (*ibid.*, p. 114). The material that helped in fixing the chronology includes nearly 30 Indus seals discovered at various sites in Iraq and certain objects of probable w. origin found at the Harappa sites (Lal, 1953, p. 87). Marshall assigned 500 years ‘to cover the whole rise and fall of the Indus civilization’ on the basis of thickness of deposits and proposed the date between *c.* 3250 and 2750 b.c. on the basis of proof of intercourse between the Indus valley, Mesopotamia and Elam as afforded by seals and other objects and motifs which indicate connections between the Indus valley civilization and contemporary Mesopotamia (Marshall, 1931, pp. 103-6). These objects include Harappa seals, sealings and seal imitations found at Ur, Umma Tell Asmar and Kish from pre-Sargonid, Sargonid, Kassite and Larsa levels and etched carnelian beads from Akkadian deposits at Tell Asmar; besides, gold disc beads with axial tube used at Mohenjo-daro and found at Mesopotamian sites of Early Dynastic III-Akkadian date and in Troy II G, about 2300 b.c., also supplement the evidence of seals (Wheeler, 1968, pp. 99 and 113). The evidence of the ‘Persian Gulf’ seal at Lothal, a ‘Persian Gulf’ seal with Indus script at the Barbar culture site on the Island of Failaka and the Harappa weights, as also carnelian beads unearthed at Barbar also suggest ‘that the Harappans from the Indus region maintained some form of contact with the Barbar culture sometime between 2400 and 1900 b.c.’ (Brunswig, 1975, p. 119). In fact the ‘Persian Gulf’ seals in general can be used ‘as a chronological anchor to pin down Indus-Mesopotamian-Persian Gulf contact to a time span between 2400 and 1900 b.c.’ (*ibid.*, p. 118).
v1.c10.s1.15
Reference may be made here to the localized rural cultures in Baluchistan which, on the basis of detailed analysis of ceramic types, stratigraphical position and similarity or painted pottery designs with those in certain w. Asian sites, were assigned approximate chrono-cultural framework (Piggott, 1950; Lal, 1953, pp. 82-3, and references cited therein). Among them are: Kile Gul Mohammed culture which has been placed early in the 4th millennium b.c.; Rana Ghundai where the pottery of Phase II on the basis of its similarity with Hissar I pottery ‘represents an infiltration from the Iranian uplands in the second half of the 4th millennium b.c.’ and the presence of RG III type of pottery below the defences at Harappa’ indicates an earlier date; the ceramic industry from Quetta which is ‘comparable to that represented by the Tal-i-Bakun site itself, Susa I, Giyan V and Sialk III, and may be equally early in date' (Piggott, 1950, p. 75); and the Kulli-Mehi culture with its buff ware bearing animal and landscape motifs 'reminiscent of the Scarlet Ware of the Early Dynastic times in Iraq' and thus placed 'in its early stages, in the quarter of the 3rd millennium B.C.' Among other remains of the Kulli-Mehi culture, which like the Nal culture survived into the Harappa times are the small compartmented pots of stone with incised patterns which attest to the synchronism with Early Dynastic Iraq (Lal, 1953, p. 83; Piggott, 1950, pp. 110-11).
v1.c10.s1.16
It would be pertinent to quote here the methods by which Stuart Piggott, who took up a detailed study of the early cultures of the n.-w. subcontinent built up the chronology of these cultures:
v1.c10.s1.17
'The first stage consists in determining the relative position of one culture to another by stratigraphy which can be ascertained by scientific excavation and sometimes legitimately inferred from the reports of excavation which was not so scientific. We shall see that it is possible to observe or "rescue" the stratification from half-a-dozen or so sites, and even if this only establishes relationships between a few of the cultures it must be remembered that this method is basic, and any discrepancies in the stylistic system must be rigorously checked against the stratigraphic evidence. This stylistic method, the comparison of significant types and styles of ornament between the cultures, is the second stage and one which is of considerable importance in this particular enquiry owing to the scanty evidence from excavation, and the correlation of the evidence from these two methods should give a working sequence within the Indian culture-province. This sequence can then be checked by the third method, comparison and equation between the Indian cultures and those of Iran and Iraq, where a mass of detailed stratigraphical and chronological evidence exists. The final summing-up from all the three lines of enquiry should give us the best picture available of the Indian culture sequence in the present imperfect state of knowledge.
v1.c10.s1.18
'Although we may be able to construct a reasonable sequence into which the Indian cultures may be fitted in their mutual relationship, it is essential to remember the peripheral position of western India with regard to the more ancient settlements of Iraq and Iran from which its cultures are derived, and to realize that correlations with these cultures to the west may only show the earliest date at which a given feature could have appeared in India. The time-lag may be considerable before a specific Iranian or Sumerian pottery style was manifested in Baluchistan or on the Indus, and we must constantly bear in mind the "zoning" of cultures beyond the primary centres, as Childe has emphasized in his discussion of the application of oriental chronology to the European prehistoric sequence. (*Amer. Jour. Arch.* 44, 1939, pp. 12-26). In this connection the peasant cultures of Baluchistan may be subject to the same scaling-down in chronology as for instance the similar communities on the Lower Danube.' (Piggott, 1946, p. 9).
v1.c10.s1.19
Apart from the stratigraphical position and changes in the cultural outfit, the presence of certain objects, pottery types and designs helped in dating the post-Harappa cultures in the Indus valley and Baluchistan in the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C. Thus, while the Cemetery H, Rana Ghundai IV, the Jhukar and Jhangar cultures were categorized as post-Harappa in view of stratigraphy and change in the cultural repertoire, the shaft-hole axe and 'compartmented' seals from Shahi Tump were respectively compared with similar ones found at Maikop and Tsarkaya in s. Russia and Hissar II and Anau III. Some of the material recovered from the burial cairns at Moghul Ghundai and its comparison with Sialk Cemetery B led to their dating in the last quarter of the 2nd millennium B.C., and to this period were also 'assigned the cemeteries at Zangian and Jiwanri, and also the Londo ware' (Lal, 1953, p. 91). In view of the fact that 'quite a few of the artefacts in these cultures have their counterparts in Iran' it was considered 'reasonable to suppose that they were brought along by people coming from the area . . . . In w. Asia there is evidence of a great upheaval and folk-movement about this time (first half of the 2nd millennium B.C.), resulting largely from the inroads of barbaric tribes from the north. Perhaps the influx of people of Shahi Tump, Jhukar, RG IV, etc., has also to be viewed in that context' (Lal, 1953, p. 90). It may be added here that in the dating of these post-Harappa cultures literary evidence about Vedic Aryans—with whom some of these cultures were identified—was also linked (Wheeler, 1968, pp. 131-3).
v1.c10.s1.20
On the basis of the circumstantial association of the OCW [11.5] which has been found in pre-PGW [11.14] levels and 'may well antedate 1200 B.C.' the Copper Hoards [4.11] have been dated before the middle of the 2nd millennium B.C. (Lal, 1951, pp. 20-31; 1953, p. 93). At the same time some of the items from among the Copper Hoards were connected with examples from the Caucasus region and Iran (Allchin and Allchin, 1968, pp. 152-3). In fact analogies were noticed with Iranian types in some of pottery and designs of the Chalcolithic cultures of c. India and the Deccan [4.14.5, 6] which was also used as evidence corroborating the chronology as inferred from stratigraphical position of the Chalcolithic deposits in relation to datable historical period deposits.
v1.c10.s1.21
The archaeological dating of the Harappa culture and the cultures preceding and following it has thus been mainly based either on interconnections or analogies with datable sites or objects outside India. However, from the middle of the 1st millennium B.C., which marks the beginning of the historical period, 'history and archaeology at last become fully effective partners in the matter of timing, without the intervention of physical science' (Wheeler, 1959, p. 24). The cultural sequence based on stratigraphy of large number of early historical sites (Sharma, 1953, pp. 116-69) has not only given a chrono-cultural framework but has also provided chronological aids for archaeological dating. As a sequel we now have a ceramic sequence based on stratigraphy and associated datable finds. Evidence of pottery and coin types of AHICCHATRĀ was studied in relation to the remains found in various strata which afforded 'a stratigraphical basis for dating objects found elsewhere in the city and particularly for studying the evolution of pottery types' (Ghosh in Ghosh and Panigrahi, 1946, p. 39). The distinctive NBPW [11.16] was dated between the 5th and 2nd centuries B.C. (Krishna Deva and Wheeler in *ibid.*, pp. 55-6) on the basis of its occurrence in stratified levels at Bhir Mound, Taxila, lower than two coin-hoards of *c.* 300 B.C. (Sharma, 1953, p. 119). The date of the NBPW and is stratigraphical position *vis-à-vis* other remains at sites has been helpful in dating a number of sites, as for instance HASTINĀPURA where the PGW [11.14] was dated between 1100 and 800 B.C. on the evidence of its stratified position below the NBPW and thickness of deposits.
v1.c10.s1.22
The excavation at ARIKAMEDU (Wheeler, 1946b), achieved 'the distinction of being the first ancient Indian culture to be dated archaeologically in the Indian Peninsula' and provided 'a firm datum-line from which the classification of pre-medieval s. India can begin' (Wheeler, 1946a, p. 2). At this site certain wares of Roman origin, imported or imitated, provided a firm basis for dating remains there. Likewise the Rouletted Ware [11.21] at BRAHMAGIRI and CHANDRAVALLI helped in dating the underlying Megalithic ware [11.15] and the Russet-coated Painted Ware [11.22] which was found interlocked with it (Wheeler, 1947, pp. 200-2; Sharma, 1953, p. 121). The evidence of this ware, apart from the evidence of clay bullae [6.4], imitation Roman coins, Kushan coins and Puri-Kushan coins was utilized in archaeological dating of the remains at SISUPALGARH (Lal, 1949, pp. 70-2; Sharma, 1953, pp. 168-9).
v1.c10.s1.23
The principles underlying archaeological dating thus consist of the building up of a sequence of cultures on the basis of stratigraphy and cultural repertoire, typology, analysis of 'evolving structural or ornamental features' (Wheeler, 1954, p. 38) followed by interconnections or 'artefact-associations' and stratigraphical position of archaeological material or remains in relation to dated material to arrive at relative chronology. However the cumulative evidence, taking into consideration all these bases, is to be used for archaeological dating since 'taken alone . . . almost any one of these and comparable criteria may trap the unwary' (Wheeler, 1954, p. 38).
v1.c10.s1.24
Allchin, B. & R., 1968, *Birth of Indian Civilization*, Harmondsworth. Brunswig, R.H., 1975, in *East & West*, New Series, 1-2, March-June, pp. 111-45. Childe, V.G., 1956, *Short Introduction to Arch.*, London. Ghosh, A., & Panigrahi K.C., 1946, in *AI*, 1. Gordon, D.H., 1950, in *AI*, 6; 1958, *Prehistoric Background of Indian Culture*, Bombay. Joshi, R.V., 1955, *Pleistocene Studies in the Malaprabha Basin*, Poona-Dharwar. Krishnaswami, V.D., 1947, in *AI*, 3; 1953, in *ibid.*, 9; 1960, in *ibid.*, 16. Lal, B.B., 1949, in *AI*, 5; 1951, in *ibid.*, 7; 1953, in *ibid.*, 9; 1958, in *ibid.*, 14. Misra, V.N., 1964, in Misra, V.N., & Mate, M.S., ed., *Indian Prehistory: 1964*, Poona. Misra, V.N., Mathpal, Y., and Nagar, M., 1977, *Bhimbetka: Prehistoric Man & His Art in c. India*, Pune. Piggott, S., 1946, in *AI*, 1; 1950, *Prehistoric India to 1000 BC*, Harmondsworth; 1959, *Approach to Arch.*, London. Renfrew, C., 1976, *Before Civilization: the Radiocarbon Revolution & Prehistoric Europe*, Harmondsworth. Sankalia, H.D., 1952, *Godavari Palaeolithic Industry*, Poona. Sharma, Y.D., 1953, in *AI*, 9. Subbarao, B., 1952, in *Jour. Univ. Baroda*, 1; 1958, *Personality of India*, Baroda. Wakankar, V.S., & Brooks, R.R.R., 1976, *Stone Age Painting in India*, Bombay. Wheeler, R.E.M., 1946a, in *AI*, 2; 1946b, in *ibid.*, 2 pp. 17-124; 1947-8, in *ibid.*, 4; 1954, *Arch. from the Earth*, Oxford; 1959, *Early India & Pakistan to Asoka*, London; 1968, *Indus Civilization*, Cambridge. Zeuner, F.E., 1950, *Stone Age & Pleistocene Chronology in Gujarat*, Poona. Zeuner, F.E., & Allchin, B., 1956, in *AI*, 12.—B.M. PANDE