1.5.

PRIMATE TAXONOMY / LIVING MAJOR

PRIMATES / EVOLUTIONARY TRENDS

INDU
M A B
HI
 INDU
M A B
HI
TERTIARY AND QUATERNARY
FOSSIL PRIMATES:

1) Archaeozoic era
2) Proterozoic era
INDU
A
3) Palaeozoic era
M B
HI
4) Mesozoic era
5) Cenozoic era
A) Tertiary period: Tertiary period is divided into the
following epochs.
• Paleocene
• Eocene
• Oligocene.
• Miocene (23 -5.3 MYA)
INDU
A
• Pliocene (5.3 – 1.8 MYA)
M B
HI
B) Quaternary period: Quaternary period is divided into
the following epochs.
Pleistocene (1.8M – 11000 YA)
Holocene. (11000 YA till present)
Paleocene primates:
• Carpolestidae, Phenocolemuridae, Plesiadapidae families
were found in north America, France and Europe.
• No stereoscopic vision.

N
• Can be put under prosimians.
I DU
M A B
HI
Eocene Primates:
• Adapidae, Anaptomorphidae , Microsyopidae, Omomyidae,
Tarsiidae, families were found
• Larger brain, bigger eyes.

• Reduced snout.
IN U
• More frontation of eyes, stereoscopic vision.
D
M A B
• Foramen magnum shifted towards the center of the base of the
skull.
HI
• Erect while sitting and hopping.
• Hindlimbs longer then forelimbs.
• Can be put under prosimians.
Oligocene Primates:
Most of the remains were found in Africa, especially
Egypt. The Egyptian verities includes,
• Parapithecus (between prosimian and Anthropoidea)
• Propliopithecus
• Micropithecus
INDU
• Oligopithecus
M A B
H
• Aelopithecu
I
• Aegyptopithecus
Can be put under Anthropoidea
Miocene-pliocene:
The fossil primates of Miocene and Pliocene are
considered together because there seems to be a continuity
of certain lineages of Anthropoidea during these epochs.
• Can be considered as Hominoids

INDU
• Remains were found in various parts of Asia, Europe
and Africa.
M A B
HI
• Pliopithecus, Dryopithecus, Sivapithecus,
Ramapithecus, Kenyapithecus, Gigantopithecus,
Oreopithecus,
Dryopithecus:
Found in Europe, Africa, Asia (India and
China)
• Dryopithecus pattern of dentition:

DU
Five cusps, three on cheek side, and two
IN
M A B
on tongue side. They are well separated

HI
and look like Y. They are ape like and
larger the modern man.
Plio-pleistocene hominids:
1.Australopithecines, Gracile and robust forms.
2.Homo erectus: Africa (Paranthropus), Europe (Homo
erectus heidelbergensis), Asia (Homo erectus javanicus &
Homo erectus pekinensis.
INDU
M A B
3.Neanderthal Man- La-Chapelle-auxsaints (Classical

HI
type), Mt. Carmel (Progressive type).
4.Rhodesian man.
5.Homo sapiens - Cromagnon, Grimaldi and Chancelede.
Holocene:

Officially, the current epoch is called the Holocene, which began

11,700 years ago after the last major ice age. However,
the Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time,

IN U
used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when
D
human activity started to have a significant impact on the

A B
planet’s climate and ecosystems. The word Anthropocene is
M
HI
derived from the Greek words anthropo, for “man,” and cene for
“new,” coined and made popular by biologist Eugene Stormer and
chemist Paul Crutzen in 2000.
1.5 Characteristics of Primates; Evolutionary Trend and
Primate Taxonomy; Primate Adaptations; (Arboreal and

DU
Terrestrial) Primate Taxonomy; Primate Behaviour; Tertiary
IN
M A B
and Quaternary fossil primates; Living Major Primates;
Comparative Anatomy of Man and Apes; Skeletal changes
HI
due to erect posture and its implications.
1.2 PALAEO - ANTHROPOLOGICAL EVIDENCES
FROM INDIA WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO

INDU
SIWALIKS AND NARMADA BASIN

M A B
(RAMAPITHECUS, SIVAPITHECUS AND NARMADA

I
MAN).
H
RAMA PITHECUS
There are at least two dozen fossils specimens that have
been identified as belong to Ramapithecus. Most of these

NDU
specimens consist of teeth and jaws and they principally
I
M A B
come from two areas – the Siwalik Hills in India and

I
Fort Ternan in Kenya.
H
• The first discovery of Ramapithecus fossils was made by
G.E. Lewis in 1932 in the Siwalik hills regions of India. He
assigned one of the fossils, an upper jaw, to a new genus and

INDU
species he named Ramapithecus brevirostris.

M A B
• The generic name simply means Rama’s ape’ Rama being

HI
the mythical prince who is the hero of Indian epic poem.
The species name that Lewis chose was more meaningful
for it is the Latin word for ‘short snouted’.
ANATOMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
RAMAPITHECUS
ØIncisors and canine are inserted vertically and no
prognathism as in apes.
INDU
A B
ØLittle or no canine diastema.
M
HI
ØThe canines of the Ramapithecus are not projected.
ØThe dental arcade is rounded.
ØThe palate of the Ramapithecus is arched as in man.
ØFlattened and thick enameled premolars and molars that
appear to be adapted for heavy chewing and processing of
hard food stuffs.
INDU
M A B
ØThe molars possess the Dryopithecus Y-5 cusps pattern. (

HI
5 cusps, 3 on buccal side, 2 on lingual side, they are well
separated and the teeth look like Y )
Ø Slightly divergent tooth rows. The tooth rows have been
identified as parabolic by some and V-shape by some others.
Ø Reduction of size of third molar as compared to first and
second molar.
INDU
A B
Ø The ratio between the sizes of front tooth (incisors and
M
HI
canine) and those of cheek teeth (premolars and molars) is
roughly the same as humans.
ØLarge inferior torus on mandible.
ØShort maxilla that would indicate a placement of the

DU
chewing muscles that increase the chewing pressure
IN
M A B
brought to bear on the food being eaten.

HI
Ø Facial profile is orthognathous, indicating that it did not
use teeth as weapons and therefore must have used hands
for hunting and defense, suggesting that it is an erect

NDU
biped and therefore assumed earlier as an ancestor of
I
M A B
Australopithecus and thus humans.

HI
DEBATES ON PHYLOGENETIC POSITION OF
RAMAPITHECUS
• Ramapithecus, fossil primate dating from the Middle and

ago).
IN U
Late Miocene epochs (about 16.6 million to 5.3 million years
D
A B
• For a time in the 1960s and ’70s, Ramapithecus was thought
M
HI
to be a distinct genus that was the first direct ancestor of
modern humans (Homo sapiens) before it became regarded as
that of the orangutan ancestor, Sivapithecus.
• The first Ramapithecus fossils (fragments of an upper jaw
and some teeth) were discovered in 1932 in fossil deposits in
the Siwālik hills of northern India.

INDU
• No significance was attached to those fossils until 1960,

M A B
when American anthropologist Elwyn Simons of Yale

together. HI
University began studying them and fit the jaw fragments
• On the basis of his observations of the shape of the jaw and
of the morphology of the teeth—which he thought were
transitional between those of apes and humans—

DU
• Simons advanced the theory that Ramapithecus
IN
M A B
represented the first step in the evolutionary divergence

HI
of humans from the common hominoid stock that
produced modern apes and humans.
• Simons’s theory was strongly supported by his student
English-born American anthropologist David Pilbeam
and soon gained wide acceptance among anthropologists.

DU
• The age of the fossils (about 14 million years) fit well with
IN
M A B
the then-prevailing notion that the ape-human split had

I
occurred at least 15 million years ago.
H
• The first challenge to the theory came in the late 1960s
from American biochemist Allan Wilson and American
anthropologist Vincent Sarich, who, at the University of

IN U
California, Berkeley, had been comparing the molecular
D
chemistry of albumins (blood proteins) among various
animal species.
M A B
HI
• They concluded that the ape-human divergence must have
occurred much later than Ramapithecus. (It is now thought
that the final split took place some 6 million to 8 million
years ago.)
INDU
M A B
• Wilson and Sarich’s argument was initially dismissed by

HI
anthropologists, but biochemical and fossil evidence
mounted in favour of it.
• Finally, in 1976, Pilbeam discovered a complete
Ramapithecus jaw, not far from the initial fossil find, that
had a distinctive V shape and thus differed markedly from

DU
the parabolic shape of the jaws of members of the human
IN
M A B
lineage. He soon repudiated his belief in Ramapithecus as a

HI
human ancestor, and the theory was largely abandoned
by the early 1980s.
• Ramapithecus fossils subsequently were found to resemble
those of the fossil primate genus Sivapithecus, which is
now regarded as ancestral to the orangutan; the belief also

INDU
grew that Ramapithecus probably should be included in the

A B
Sivapithecus genus. – Encyclopaedia Britannica.
M
HI
SIVAPITHECUS (SHIVA'S APE)
Name: Sivapithecus.
Named By: Pilgrim - 1910.
Synonyms: Ramapithecus.
INDU
A B
Classification: Chordata, Mammalia, Primates, Anthropodea,
M
HI
hominoidea, Hominidae, Ponginae.
Diet: Herbivore.
Size: 1.5 meters tall when bipedal.
Known locations: China, India, Nepal, Pakistan & Turkey.

DU
Time period: Serravallian to Messinian of the Miocene.

IN
M
numerous individuals.
A B
Fossil representation: Partial, fragmented remains of

HI
 INDU
M A B
HI
• Although best known from the Sivalik
Hills, Sivapithecus seems to have had a much broader
geographical distribution.

INDU
• One genus in particular called Ramapithecus was

M A B
previously heralded as an ancestor of humans, but as more

HI
and more fossils were found it became clear to
palaeontologists, anthropologists and primatologists that it
was almost identical to Sivapithecus.
• Then geneticists (Sarich and Wilson) came along, and
declared that the genetic divergence between chimps and
humans is so low that the split had to be way later
than Ramapithecus.
INDU
M A B
• There was a lot of fuss over this. Paleoanthropologists

I
didn’t like geneticists telling them their job.
H
• Paleoanthropologists found some new fossils. These
showed in particular that the line of Ramapithecus‘s jaw
was not arch-shaped, like a human’s, but more U-shaped,
like a non-human ape’s.
INDU
M A B
• So later paleoanthropologists decided that Ramapithecus

relative. HI
(now part of Sivapithecus) looked more like an orangutan
 Arch shaped jaw in man

Earlier fossil of
fragmented jaw
appeared to be
similar to that of
man

INDU
M A B
U shaped jaw in
Rama pithecus
similar to apes
HI
 INDU
M A B
HI
• The only real difference between the remains is that
fossils originally assigned as Ramapithecus are smaller,
possibly because of sexual dimorphism with

DU
Ramapithecus being females, although ideas that it
IN
M A B
being a smaller species of Sivapithecus have also been
considered.
HI
• Despite the history associated with Ramapithecus that is
now widely considered a synonym to this
genus, Sivapithecus was not an ancestor of modern

DU
humans. Instead it’s more likely that Sivapithecus was an
IN
M A B
ancestor to the orangutan, although some parts of the body
appear to be more chimpanzee-like.
HI
• The body proportions and particularly the form of the wrists
supports the idea that Sivapithecus spent a greater amount of
time on the ground than in the trees.

NDU
• Despite this, skull remains and subsequent reconstructions
I
M A B
based upon these have revealed that Sivapithecus was much

I
more orangutan-like in its facial appearance.
H
• There is also a real possibility that aside from being an
ancestor to modern orangutans, Sivapithecus was also
related to the giant ape Gigantopithecus, the larger species

U
of which were easily double the size of Sivapithecus.

IND
• In 1982, David Pilbeam published a description of a
B
IM A
significant fossil find, formed by a large part of the face and

H
jaw of a Sivapithecus. The specimen bore many similarities
to the orangutan skull and strengthened the theory
that Sivapithecus was closely related to orangutans.
Description
Sivapithecus was about 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) in body length, similar
in size to a modern orangutan. In most respects, it would have
resembled a chimpanzee, but its face was closer to that of an

DU
orangutan. The shape of its wrists and general body proportions
IN
M A B
suggest that it spent a significant amount of its time on the ground,

I
as well as in trees. It had large canine teeth, and heavy molars,
H
suggesting a diet of relatively tough food, such as seeds and
savannah grasses.
Species
Currently three species are generally recognized:
•

IN U
Sivapithecus indicus fossils date from about 12.5 million
D
B
to 10.5 million years ago.

M A
Sivapithecus parvada described in 1988, this species is
I
H
•

significantly larger and dated to about 10 million years

ago.
Sivapithecus sivalensis lived from 9.5 million to 8.5 million
years ago. It was found at the Pathovar plateau in Pakistan as
well as in parts of India. The animal was about the size of a

DU
chimpanzee but had the facial morphology of an orangutan; it
IN
M A B
ate soft fruit (detected in the tooth wear pattern) and was

I
probably mainly arboreal.
H
 INDU
M A B
HI
 INDU
M A B
HI
NARMADA MAN
Phylogenetic position:
Phylum- Chordata,
Class- Mammalia,
Order- Primates,

INDU
B
Suborder-Anthropoidea,

M
Infra order- Catarrhini,

I A
H
Superfamily- Hominoidea,
Family-Hominidae,
Subfamily- homininae,
Genus- Homoerectus
Species- narmadensis
• December 5, 1982. On the banks of the Narmada at Madhya Pradesh’s
Hathnora village, geologist Arun Sonakia discovered Narmada man.
• The discovery proved the presence of early humans in the subcontinent.
• “Unlike Africa, where stone tools were found along with human skeletons, all

NDU
over India we were finding prehistoric stone tools, but there was no fossil

I
evidence.”

M A B
• Narmada fossil was a skull cap with a little bit of orbital roof,”

HI
• Narmada Human, initially named Narmada Man, belongs to the category of
Homo erectus, preceding Homo sapiens sapiens.
• Handaxes and cleavers, typical of the prehistoric Acheulian technological
tradition that was dominant in Middle Pleistocene times in India were found
in association with the fossil.
• Associated fossils like cattle, buffalo, elephant—include some species that are
now extinct, but they are reliable “index fossils” of the late Middle
Pleistocene.
• Narmada fossil could be 500,000 to 600,000 years old,” says Sonakia.

DU
• The French investigator, Dr. de Lumley, recognized that the cranial capacity

IN
B
of these Early and Middle Pleistocene specimens averages 1,000 cm3, but

M A
estimates for the Narmada cranial vault fell between 1,155 and 1,421 cm3,

I
H
indicating that it is an “evolved Homo erectus.”
• The fossil could be of an individual aged between 25 and 30 years.
• Many believe the fossil could be of a female.
• Homo erectus had successfully adapted to savannah grasslands, domesticated
fire, did group hunting and used stone tools.
 Why we did not get more fossils from India?
• Developmental projects such as dams on the Narmada, mining and oil drilling
activities, intensive agriculture and population pressure have taken a toll on
fossil study. “Hundreds of palaeoanthropological and stone age sites are getting

DU
destroyed across the subcontinent,” says Chauhan.

IN
M A B
• The country does not even have a national palaeontology institute. Guidance,

I
experience and trained expertise are also lacking.

H
• Soil conditions like high salinity and warm and humid climate could be a
reason for quick disintegration of fossils
2b. What are the arguments for excluding Narmada man from Homo erectus
category? (2022,15M)
• In Sonakia’s description, published in 1984 in the Records of the Geological
Survey of India, he assigned “Narmada Man” to the hominid taxon Homo
erectus narmadensis.

IN U
• Its antiquity is based upon the direct association of the calvaria with stone tools,

D
mainly handaxes and cleavers, typical of the prehistoric Acheulian technological

M A B
tradition that was dominant in Middle Pleistocene times in India. The fossilized

I
animal remains in the deposit—cattle, buffalo, elephant—include some species that

H
are now extinct, but they are reliable “index fossils” of the late Middle Pleistocene.
Radiometric dating methods are not feasible, so the age of the specimen is a
relative dating estimate based upon its lithic and faunal associations.
• By 1988, The French investigator, Dr. Marie-Antoinette de Lumley, recognized
that some physical features of the calvaria were not typically those found in Homo
erectus fossils from southeast Asia, China, and Africa.
• For example, the cranial capacity of these Early and Middle Pleistocene
specimens averages 1,000 cm3 but estimates for the Narmada cranial vault fell
between 1,155 and 1,421 cm3, values within the range of anatomically archaic
Homo sapiens. Dr. de Lumley christened Narmada Man as an “evolved
Homo erectus.”

IN U
• American investigator, Dr. Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, broadened de Lumley’s

D
observations by an extensive examination of the calvaria using measurements,

A B
morphological analyses, and statistical procedures that support the thesis that

M
I
Narmada Man (actually a young adult female) merited reassignment as an

H
early Homo sapiens.
• The archaeological data do not rule out the possibility that Homo erectus had
inhabited the Indian subcontinent, but fossil remains of this species have not
been recovered. The importance of the Narmada calvaria is that it demonstrates
that the Acheulian tool tradition in Indian subcontinent was practiced by early
sapiens
1. Narmada man (2020,10M)
2. Phylogenetic position and morphological features of Ramapithecus.
(2019,10M)
3. Describe the salient features of sivapithecus. ( 2018, 15M )

U
4. Describe the salient features of Ramapithecus. ( 2017, 15M )

IND
5. Delineate the salient characteristics of 'Narmada Man' and examine its

B
A
phylogenetic significance (2016, 15M)

IM
6. Describe the palaeo-anthropological fossil finds from Siwalik hills. Examine the

H
contribution of Siwalik fossils to paleoanthropological knowledge (2015,15M)
7. Describe the evolutionary significance of the fossil finds of the Narmada Basin.
(2014,15 M)
8. Examine the debates related to Ramapithecus (2013,10M)
9. Narmada man (2012, 12 M)
1.3 ETHNO-ARCHAEOLOGY IN INDIA: THE
CONCEPT OF ETHNO-ARCHAEOLOGY;
SURVIVALS AND PARALLELS AMONG THE

NDU
HUNTING, FORAGING, FISHING, PASTORAL AND
I
A B
PEASANT COMMUNITIES INCLUDING ARTS AND
M
I
CRAFTS PRODUCING COMMUNITIES.
H
Ethno archaeology: It is the ethnographic study of the
peoples for archaeological reasons. Ethno archaeology aids
archaeologists in reconstructing ancient life ways by

DU
studying the material and nonmaterial traditions of modern
IN
M A B
societies. Ethno archaeology also aids in the understanding

I
of the way an object was made and what it is being used for.
H
Ethnographic insights are very useful in explaining
archaeological data. This idea gave rise to a new branch of
archaeology called Ethno archaeology. In 1970s the term

NDU
gained momentum. This field blends archaeology and
I
ethnographic insights.
M A B
HI
The major difficulty in Ethno archaeology is to
integrate the contemporary data and the archaeological

IN U
data of the past societies. Ethno archaeologists tried to
D
resolve it by developing two concepts, survivals and
parallels.
M A B
HI
• Carol Kramer conducted archaeologically oriented
ethnographic research on Hindu and Muslim traditional
earthenware potters located in two urban centers in the state of
Rajasthan, Northwest India.

INDU
• Ceramics similar to the contemporary products have been

M A B
made in the region since the emergence of Harappan culture in

HI
the third millennium BCE.
• Published in the book “Pottery in Rajasthan:
Ethnoarchaeology in two Indian cities”
Brian Hayden’s work on the manufacture of
Mesoamerican quern stones, providing valuable insights
into the manufacture of prehistoric quern stones. Many

DU
other studies have focused on the manufacture and use of
IN
M A B
ceramics, architecture, food, fiber and other types of

I
material culture. In the best cases these studies have
H
involves long term ethnographic field work.
Survivals, in anthropology, cultural phenomena that outlive
the set of conditions under which they developed. The term
was first employed by the British anthropologist Edward

DU
Burnett Tylor in his Primitive Culture (1871). Tylor believed
IN
M A B
that seemingly irrational customs and beliefs, such as

practices.
HI
peasant superstitions, were vestiges of earlier rational
He distinguished between continuing customs that
maintained their function or meaning as parallels and
those that had lost their utility and were poorly integrated

NDU
with the rest of culture as survivals. Tylor later expanded the
I
M A B
notion of survivals to include material culture.

HI
There is thin line of difference between survivals and parallels
because the principle of continuity and principle of similarity
are inter changeable depending on the strength of evidence.

IN U
The following examples attempt to explain the difference
D
between the two concepts of survivals and parallels. Some of
A B
the hunting and gathering, foraging communities reflects the
M
HI
idea of survivals.
Example 1:
Juang tribe of Keonjhar district of Odisha: Their
economy revolves around hunting and gathering and shifting

DU
cultivation. For hunting , they go in bands of kin members.
IN
M A B
The kin members generally constitute primary and

I
secondary cousins majorly youth. The animals which they
H
hunt are divided among the team members on the basis of
their relative contribution.
Individuals can belong to different categories on basis of
their knowledge of hunting. There is a Youth Dormitory or a
separate hut for boys locally known as “Majang” at the

INDU
entrance of the village. At the center of Majang , a huge

B
wooden log is kept burning. This is regarded as sacred fire.

IM A
On important ritual occasions the members form every

H
household would take fire from the wooden log.
On the occasions of marriage, ancestor worship etc, taking
fire from this wooden log is a ritual practice. Juangs believed
that this fire is the important possession of the community.

INDU
Their folk tales, folk songs and myths revolve around this

B
fire. Archaeologists conclude that this practice of maintaining

IM A
fire at Majang is an example of cultural survival that

H
continued from the initial days of the discover of fire.
Example 2:
Among of tribes of Andaman: In the tribal communities in
Andaman Islands like Sentinelese of Sentinel Island and

DU
the neighboring communities like Shompen and Onges,

IN
B
there is a practice of decorating the body. Different forms of

IM A
body art are made by using very fine variety of stones which

H
are Microliths. The stone age moniker, so regularly applied
to the islanders ,
refers to the fact that the Sentinelese have lived in isolation
for 60,000 years. Thus there is a direct link between them and

U
their pre Neolithic ancestors . Thus the body art using

IND
microliths can be a parallel but the chance of this practice
B
IM A
being a survival that continued from pre Neolithic people

H
cannot be ruled out.
Example 3:
Some of the fishing communities from Andhra Pradesh and
Odisha like Nolia community studied by Surya Narayana. The

DU
Nolia are fishermen they carry out deep sea fishing. They
IN
M A B
worshipped the Bay of Bengal as mother. The popular term they

I
used to refer to the sea is Ganga Matha. Their huts are built in
H
circular manner with burnt bricks, Thatched roof and they used
to burn the floor to make it tough.
They use wooden boats or canoes. Interestingly no iron is
used to make the boat. They believe it to be inauspicious if

IN U
the boat or Teppa have at least some iron nails in it. It may
D
not give them a good catch of fish or may cause misfortune
like drowning.
M A B
HI
They use a fishing net made by the women in their
community but the day before fishing women are not
supposed touch the net or teppa (ritual prohibition).

IN U
Archaeologists conclude that Nolia lifestyle carries many
D
parallels with that of pre-Iron age culture. The circular huts

A B
with burnt floor also resemble continuity of some of the pre-
M
HI
historic practices.
Example 4:
In excavated groups of habitational centers, many artifacts
like Grinding mills and Bow and Arrow were found .

DU
Scientists have ananlysed how different kinds of Grinding

IN
B
mills and different varieties of bow and arrow were

M A
distributed in different Habitational sites. The Grinding mills
I
H
exhibited greater diversity and bow and arrow exhibited
relative uniformity.
This indicated that the women came from different
regions, but the men always stayed at the villages. This
observation indicates patrilocal residence. As the cultural

DU
survivals and parallels of contemporary indigenous

IN
M A B
societies indicate the culture, lifestyle and values of the
past societies, the archaeological excavations also indicate

HI
the culture of the past societies.
The Archaeological survey of India and Indira Gandhi
rashtriya manav sangrahalaya (Bhopal) formerly known
as Museum of man under took ethno archaeological studies

IN U
in and around the famous site of Bhimbetka. The dwellers of
D
Bhimbetka are known for their creativity. Their cave

A B
paintings depict symbolic motifs, collective activities and
M
HI
many beautiful pieces of arts and crafts.
This initiative was taken by K.K Basa, former director
(IGRMS) and continued by his successor K.K.Mishra. this
work collected art pieces, artifacts, crafts from the local tribal

IN U
communities and they also collected the information about the
D
associated rituals and taboos connected with craft making so as

A B
to understand the larger context of producing art. Many
M
HI
parallels are been discovered between the aesthetic practices of
the local tribal’s and Bhimbetka cave paintings.
1. Discuss the importance of Ethnoarchaeology in reconstructing the past
citing Indian examples. (2020,15M)
2. Ethno-archaeological analysis of hunting activities of contemporary

U
tribal communities. (2019,10M).

IND
3. Ethnoarchaeology as a research strategy. ( 2018, 10M )

B
A
4. Ethno archaeology. ( 2017, 10M )

HIM
5. Ethno-archaeological evidences for the survival of hunting-gathering
traditions in India (2016,10M)
6. Discuss the importance of the ethno-archaeological approach to the
study of indigenous craft in India. (2014,15M)