[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Reference works](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference) › [An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989) › v1.c14.s8.t4.13 # An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c14.s8.t4.13 An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c14.s8.t4.13 - **Language:** English ### [v1.c14.s8.t4.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c14.s8.t4.13) Next to the Early Holocene industries there is a widespread distribution of an industry observed mainly as a surface find and rarely in stratified deposits. This industry shows a surprising similarity. The earliest date of this industry is somewhat late. This is what is called the point-based microlithic industry \[4.5\] in contrast to the blade-based ones of the Chalcolithic \[4.14\]. Almost all the Mesolithic industries of India and Africa and the Upper Palaeolithic ones of Europe had the potentiality to usher in the point-based and the blade-based microlithic industries. Parallel evolutions do not depend simply on potentialities. For the industry, when first ushered in, would spread at a pace too quick to give another potential industry time enough to give rise to be its successor before its arrival there. It is therefore a mute point whether the point-based microliths of a later date were autochthonous or immigrant. This issue gets complicated with the find of this type of industries with minor variations from Europe to Asia. - [Previous: v1.c14.s8.t4.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c14.s8.t4.12) - [Next: v1.c14.s8.t4.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c14.s8.t4.14) - [Up: v1.c14.s8.t4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c14.s8.t4) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c14.s8.t4.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c14.s8.t4.13) · Pramāṇa