2017
DOI: 10.1086/693462
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Environments and Cultural Change in the Indian Subcontinent

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 114 publications
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Blade technology, long considered one of the core components of the Upper Paleolithic in Asia, appeared in western Asia after 50 ka and arrived in South and North Asia sometime afterward. Microblades appeared during early MIS 3 in South Asia and late MIS 3 in North Asia, be-coming more prominent after 35 and 25 ka, respectively (31,33,34,94,95). Interestingly, early blade and microblade technologies have yet to be identified in Southeast Asia, including southern China.…”
Section: Cultural Diffusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Blade technology, long considered one of the core components of the Upper Paleolithic in Asia, appeared in western Asia after 50 ka and arrived in South and North Asia sometime afterward. Microblades appeared during early MIS 3 in South Asia and late MIS 3 in North Asia, be-coming more prominent after 35 and 25 ka, respectively (31,33,34,94,95). Interestingly, early blade and microblade technologies have yet to be identified in Southeast Asia, including southern China.…”
Section: Cultural Diffusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Data for such modeling can be collected, however, from large-scale archaeological survey and excavation projects. A number of archaeologyoriented papers in this volume provide the critical necessary footing to contribute to such models currently being debated: Bretzke and Conard (2017) cover Southwest Asia; Buzhilova, Derevianko, and Shunkov (2017) discuss Central Asia; Graf and Buvit (2017) review Siberia; Blinkhorn and Petraglia (2017) cover the Indian subcontinent; Wang (2017) reviews China; and Nakazawa (2017) discusses Japan. In addition, more general reviews of the East Asian record are provided by Bae (2017) and O'Connor and colleagues (2017) for island Southeast Asia.…”
Section: Laying the Foundation: Contributions From Archaeologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the Indian fossil hominin record is non-existent for this key time period, analysis of mitochondrial DNA of contemporary populations of India indicates that the region was an important geographic stepping stone in the colonisation of Australasia by Homo sapiens 1 . At the heart of this debate is the issue of whether Homo sapiens arrived in India prior to the YTT event (dated by 40 Ar/ 36 Ar to 73.88 ± 0.32 ka 1 and 75.0 ± 0.9 ka 2 ) 2-10 with a non-microlithic African MSA technology comprised of Levallois and point technology [10][11][12] , or entered the subcontinent around 50-60 ka with Howiesons Poort microlithic technology 13 . While this debate is pivotal to understanding the archaeological signature of modern humans throughout the region, the reality is that very few sites in India are dated to the crucial time period between 80 and 50 ka, hence reliable evidence with which to test competing hypotheses is scarce.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%