An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9.s1.13

v1.c9.s1.13

The warning of Thapar (*IAR 1975-6*, preface) is worth repeating: ‘It is not intended that prehistoric cultures of India present a similar succession of technological and chronological stages of Europe. There are obvious pitfalls in the wide application of the cultural terms, especially in view of the environmental diversity and the size of the country, which may show different “culture cycles”, and phases of regional specialization. For example, the blade-and-burin industry, grouped under the Upper Palaeolithic of India, is not necessarily to be correlated to the Würm glaciation as its counterpart in Europe. A standardized sequence for Indian prehistoric cultures can only be built through intensive stratigraphic studies in various regions, including those relating to the fluctuations of the sea-level. Till then the terminology of European prehistory, which indeed has wormed its way deeply in the literature, a fivefold division, Lower Palaeolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic, is being adopted [in the publications of the ASI]. ‘Caution has to be exercised even in its application, for all microlith-using communities need not be Mesolithic.’ This warning forebodes yet another or more revisions of terminology, adding to the confusion in a situation which lacks clarity, particularly in the Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic-Microlithic phases.