Comment on ‘Lower and Early Middle Pleistocene Acheulian in the Indian sub-continent’ by Gaillard et al. (2009) (Quaternary International)

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 ∼400 ka, due primarily to the limitations of the 230Th–234U 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.