New rock art discoveries in the Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, India.

New rock art discoveries in the Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, India. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Introduction India has a vast amount of rock art of global significance(Bednarik & Chakravarty 1997), consisting mainly of paintings andpetroglyphs. Initial investigations began in the late 1800s (e.g.Cockburn 1899; Franke 1902) but most research has focused on north andcentral India (e.g. Brooks & Wakankar 1976; Neumayer 1983, 1992,1993; Chakravarty 1984; Mathpal 1984; Pandey 1992; Ghosh 1998; Pradhan2001; Bednarik 2002; Chakraverty 2003). However, earlier finds from thesouth (e.g. Gordon 1951; Allchin 1963) have more recently been followedup by investigations which demonstrate that south India also possesses awide range of rock art (e.g. Allchin & Allchin 1994-95; Mathpal1998; Chandramouli 2002, 2003; Sridhar 2005). [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] For several years Boivin and colleagues have conducted rock artresearch in various parts of south India, beginning on the DeccanPlateau (Boivin 2004; Boivin et al. 2007) and more recently in theKurnool area (Boivin et al. 2009; Petraglia et al. 2009b). In this paperwe report on the significance of recently recorded paintings of animals,human-like figures and other designs from sites in the three valleys ofKatavani Kunta, Yaganti and Jurreru near the village-town ofBanganapalle, Andhra Pradesh (Figure 1). The rock art sites are located in an archaeologically rich areanoted for the highly significant Palaeolithic deposits at Jwalapuram(Clarkson et al. 2009; Petraglia et al. 2007, 2009a & b) as well asan abundance of varied Holocene sites, including those ofhunter-gatherer, Neolithic and Megalithic peoples (Allchin 1963; Murty1985, 1992, 2003b; Blinkhorn 2008; Petraglia et al. 2009b). Field surveysince 2003 has located 63 rock art sites in the three valleys of theKurnool area sampled, but there are many valleys and hilltops that haveyet to be studied (see also Boivin et al. 2009). Several differentstyles of rock art associated with various time periods have beenidentified and are outlined below. The Kurnool valleys Chandramouli (2002: 92-141, 2003) documented a number of pictographsites within 30km of Kurnool, especially near Kethavaram. The 2007survey was focused on the three adjacent valleys of Jurreru, KatavantiKunta and Yaganti (Figure 1), and was aimed at better understanding thedistribution of sites within the landscape, and their correlation tosurface archaeology. Detailed recording at a number of key sites tookplace in early 2009. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] The Jurreru Valley (Figure 2) is steep-sided but relatively wide,and runs along an approximate east-west axis. Five rock art sites havebeen identified on its northern slopes. Most of the paintings, in red orwhite, are found on the southern overhangs of the variously sizedquartzite boulders that litter the limestone slopes. These boulders arederived from the quartzite escarpment some 300m above the valley floor.All but one of the shelters bearing rock art is on the lower slopes ofthe hill. This valley contains the excavated site of Jwalapuram Locality9, which dates to 35 000 years ago, and also has paintings that wereexamined in our survey (see below). Katavani Kunta (Figure 3) is an upland valley that cuts into thequartzite plateau; it runs on a north-west to south-east axis and liesabove the Jurreru Valley. It is significantly smaller in size thanJurreru, but contains many more quartzite boulders and painted sites,most of which are found on the lower slopes of the valley, often closeto the long-travelled dirt road that winds along the valley floor. Atotal of 50 sites were found here. Today, the valley lies on apilgrimage route between two Hindu temples, one of which stands at thesouth-east entrance to the valley, and some 13 sites in the valleyappear to relate to contemporary or recent Hindu religious activities.These sites are located on both the western and eastern sides of thevalley, close to (and facing) the road. Another 37 sites contain adistinctive corpus of predominantly red images, and these sites face thevalley floor, mostly from the west of the road. The valley has numerousrockshelters formed by low escarpment edges, quartzite boulders piled onscree slopes and eroded boulders sitting on parts of the valley floor.Geologically, the valley is within the Cuddapah Supergroup, acrescent-shaped basin of Proterozoic age (Gupta et al. 2003).Rockshelter KK1 (below) has provided the best rock art sequence in thearea to date. [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] Yaganti Valley is a subsidiary valley to Katavani Kunta, and alsoruns along a north-west to south-east axis. All but one of the eightrock art sites in the valley are on quartzite boulders relatively highup the valleys eastern limestone slopes, not far from the Yaganti Hindutemple to the west. Most of the paintings are in red, but some are alsoin white and black. Paintings examined: KK1 and JWP 9 The KK1 rockshelter (Figure 4) is formed by a large sloping boulderresting on a second rounded boulder just up from the valley floor. Theshelter measures 14m in length, is up to 6.9m deep and reaches a heightof 7m. The painted panel is 11. lm long and rises to 3.85m in themiddle, tapering to less than 1m at either end. The site faces roughlynorth at 20[degrees] and little sunlight reaches the paintings, one ofthe reasons that this site is better preserved than others. With 92identifiable rock paintings (and one indeterminate) it is the secondlargest collection of the 63 sites of the Jwalapuram-KatavaniKunta-Yaganti complex. Its diverse subject matter and superimpositionshelp establish a chronological sequence for the area. There were three main phases of painting at KK1 : a naturalisticphase, mostly with figures in outline but some with a light wash of redinfill, a larger solid red more abstract phase and a final phase whenlarge outline animal and human-like figures were produced. There are nostencils or engravings at the site but there is a group of three(possibly accidently produced) red fingertip prints on a horizontalpiece of the wall facing the floor and below some of the paintings. [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] Altogether there are 20 early naturalistic drawings of animals andhumans in Phase I, four semi-naturalistic animals from a possible latersub-phase, two with patterned infill; one set of fingertip prints; 63red solid and geometric figures in Phase II, and two large outlineanimals (boar or bear) and two outline human-like figures, one of whichis upside down in Phase III, with one indeterminate design. Phase Iimages were found only at the west end of the rockshelter, while thoseof other phases were widely distributed. The Phase I red outline and wash paintings consist of small groupsof wild animals, mostly deer (Figure 5) and gazelle, and small groups ofprofile human-like figures facing the same direction (Figure 6). Alldepictions of animals are also in profile and when in small groups theseface the same direction. At the far west end of the shelter the threered outline deer appear to have been made at the same time and areplaced as if the two males are following the female. The red wash deerand gazelle are on one side of a large natural hollow while the outlinedeer and human-like figures are on the other side. As with many of thedeer, the human figures appear to have been purposely arranged ingroups. The solid figures (Figure 7) from Phase II, on the other hand, aremuch larger and are arranged quite differently. They also are usuallysomewhat lighter in colour. Sometimes there are groups of threehuman-like figures or back-to-back human-like solid infill paintings.There are also groups of solid human-like figures facing differentdirections and human figures associated with diamond designs, one ofwhich has this pattern painted on either side of it (Figure 8). Thesolid phase is also associated with lots of other geometric designs,such as circles and ovals, painted in various parts of the shelter.Animals include some domesticated species, such as a dog associated witha line of four goats. Wild animals are mostly lizards (includingmonitor) and fish, with a few depictions of boars that could be eitherwild or domesticated. At the western end of KK1 a solid red human-likefigure is clearly superimposed over a naturalistic outline stag (Figure9), one of the site's most important superimpositions (see alsoPetraglia et al. 2009b). [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] [FIGURE 6 OMITTED] [FIGURE 7 OMITTED] KK1 imagery can be found at a number of other sites in the area,although the small early naturalistic outline paintings are so farunique to this site. The deer depicted in the early naturalistic outlinestyle are most likely Sambar (Cervus unicolor), India's largestdeer, and/or Chital (Axis axis). They have the greatest range acrossIndia and frequented environments similar to those that once existed inthe Kurnool area (Mathpal 1993: 6; Murty 2003a: 22). In 1993 over 80sites in India were found to have deer depicted in them, with Sambarfound in half and Chital in even more (Mathpal 1993: 12). Jwalapuram Locality 9, in the Jurreru Valley, consists of a largequartzite boulder with a sloping exposed wall that provides some shelter(Figure 10). The boulder is about 20m long by 10m wide and 10m high andis situated about 5m above the road to Patha Padu village. The site wasexcavated between 2003 and 2009 (see Clarkson et al. 2009). It dates to35 000 years ago and is considered one of the oldest sites in southIndia with microliths. Human remains, limestone and bone beads andfaunal remains were found in the excavation. Many ochre fragments wererecovered from Stratum C, dated to between c. 15 000 and 11 000 BE [FIGURE 8 OMITTED] [FIGURE 9 OMITTED] [FIGURE 10 OMITTED] The painted panel, with excavated deposit below, facessouth-south-west at 203[degrees]. Fourteen faded figures have beendiscerned, including a red outline elephant (the largest approximately1.7m long and 1.2m high), a large light red outline animal (probably ahump back cow, with a stick figure and other infill added later; 1.0mlong and 0.6m high), two red outline and line infill unidentifiedquadrupeds, two solid red human-like figures, a partial solid red humanfigure and a solid red back-to-back human figure motif. There are alsosix geometric designs consisting of three solid red geometrics (2 ovals,spade), two outline geometric figures (purple rectilinear; purple-redcrescent) and a complex red line design. No early naturalistic paintings have been found at Jwalapuram, butgiven the amount of ochre recovered from various levels of theexcavation, including Pleistocene layers (Clarkson et al. 2009), it isprobable many more paintings once adorned the wall. Their survival mayhave been affected by the high degree of exposure to sun and rain. Sequence Most rock art of the Kurnool area consists of paintings but thereare also a few sites with engravings of differing styles and ages, a fewhand stencils and hand prints, rare drawings, and very recentre-outlining of older art. Attempts to date the Kurnool rock art corpushave primarily focused on relative dating and dating using associatedarchaeological remains. A detailed analysis of KK1 and JWP9 imagery and that recorded atthe other 61 sites suggests there were at least five main phases of artactivity associated with varying time periods and groups of people asfollows: In Phase I we see small red wild animals such as deer and gazelle,mostly in outline but occasionally with a light wash of solid infill,and small outline human figures in profile (Figures 5 & 6). Thesefigures are very naturalistic and found only at one site, KK1. There isa sub or transitional phase with patterned infill added to some figures.This phase has art typical of hunter-gatherers. [FIGURE 11 OMITTED] Phase II is characterised by solid red human-like figures, animalsand geometric designs (Figures 7 & 8). The humans are sometimesarranged together in repeated themes. When single, there are a fewrepeated poses, in obverse or profile, usually with both arms upraised.Sometimes these types of figures overlap. A red drawn cart seen with asmall cow near it may be a diagnostic indicator. Note that Phase IIfigures are distributed right across panels while earlier and laterfigures are both fewer in number and concentrated in certain parts ofpanels. Animals in this phase are mostly domesticated, including goats,cattle and dogs. These properties, together with the abundant Iron Agepottery and burial structures discovered through recent systematicsurvey in the valley, suggest that this phase is likely associated withthe Iron Age. The succession discerned in Figure 9, serves to placePhase II after Phase I. To Phase III belong large outline animals and human-like figures,in varying shades of red and orange. Some have infill such as spots, ason a leopard depiction. Most human-like figures have upraised arms(Figure 11) but are different in posture, style and form from the solidfigures of Phase II. Some figures have a cartoon-like quality. A mix ofwild and domesticated animals is depicted. This phase is likely from thehistoric period. Phase IV is signalled by white hand-prints, tridents and othergeometric designs owed to pilgrims visiting and marking sites (Figure12). This art may have begun in the past couple of centuries and isstill made today. In Phase V we have placed white rough human-like figures on rockwalls that line fields (Figure 13) that may have a 'scarecrow'function. Dry pigment re-outlining of older figures, both red and white,also occurs, along with some initials/graffiti. These forms of rockmarking are extremely recent and continue to be made. [FIGURE 12 OMITTED] Kurnool pictographs in context The outline animal rock paintings that the early Kurnool area art(Phase I) most closely resemble are from Settavaray (see Figures 287,295 and 305 in Neumayer 1993: 125-8), while some human figures fromBenekal Forest--Hire Benakal are also similar (Figure 292 in Neumayer1993: 126). Settavaray lies about 500km to the south-east, betweenTiruvannamalai and Pondicherry, while Benekal Forest--Hire Benakal isabout 150km west, upstream and near the Tungabhadra River. There also isa resemblance to some early animal paintings of the Bhimbetka area, farto the north (see Mathpal 1984, 1993: 15, Figure 19, 1993: Plate VI).However, these seem to be the only places where this form of art hassurvived. Some solid red wash infill Phase I animals are almostidentical to a few paintings at Kethavaram, about 35km north, with oneso similar it could have been made by the same artist (Chandramouli2003: 160, fig. 11.3). The more recent Kurnool phases of rock art appear quite differentto those of neighbouring states, or any other part of India, althoughsome of the Phase II paintings are similar to those at nearby Kurnoolarea sites documented by Chandramouli (2002: 92-141) and Phase IIIpaintings resemble some from other parts of Andhra Pradesh (seeChandramouli 2002). There is little similarity between Kurnool area rockart and that of Kerala (as in Mathpal 1998), although some similarchanges in pictograph styles over time can be detected. Kurnool rock artalso appears very different to that of Tamil Nadu (see Sridhar 2005) andOrissa (see Pradhan 2001). [FIGURE 13 OMITTED] A few sites in the Katavani Kunta and Yaganti valleys havedepictions of stylised cattle forms more typical of DeccanPlateau/Karnataka rock art to the west (see Boivin 2004) and some sitesin between (e.g. Budagavi rockshelter 4 and Dupadugattu rockshelter 2,in Chandramouli 2003: 164), suggesting some connections between peopleof these areas during the Iron Age. Stick-like linked human figuresarranged in rows, which occur at Deccan Plateau sites and elsewhere(Malaiya 1992), are also found at a few sites in Kurnool (Figure 14).The diamond or lozenge pattern design found at KK1 appears to bewidespread across India, either as a separate motif or as infill withinfigures (see Chandramouli 2002: Figures 35 and 37c; Neumayer 1992:Figures 2, 5, 7, 10, 1993: Figures 34-37; Pandey 1992: Figures 1-4;Tyagi 1992), as well as an engraved motif on portable objects such as astone core (Sonawane 1984, 1992; see also Brumm et al. 2006). Early Kurnool rock art (Phase I) is dissimilar to most of the knownrock art of India, other than that noted above. However, its style andform has strong similarities to Magdalenian rock art of Western Europe(see Clottes 1990, 2008; Sacchi 2003) and to the naturalistic outlinepaintings of the Jinsha River region of north-west Yunnan province,China (as in Tagon et al. 2010). A key feature of both of these artbodies is an elegance and ease imparted to outlines, which distinguishesthis art from the heavy outlined animals of other periods (Giedion 1969:186). This also is true of Kurnool Phase I art. However, all three artbodies also have differences and are likely unrelated. Instead, aspectsof human physiology, perception and shared forms of lifestyle (i.e.hunting/gathering) may account for the similarity (Halverson 1992;Watson 2009). [FIGURE 14 OMITTED] Most later Kurnool rock art (Phases II-V) reflects regionalconcerns and in situ development. Consequently, the more recent phasesare very different from the rock art of other parts of India and beyond,though linkages to the Deccan Plateau rock art may reflect the emergenceof more widely distributed cultural traditions, a phenomenon that mightbe linked to the spread of megalithic practices in the Iron Age. Conclusions Very little rock art has been directly dated in India but there aremany regional sequences with good relative dates for some designs,styles and subject matter. An examination of preservation, overlappingimagery, landscape location, style and subject matter at sites nearKurnool has allowed us to work out a regional sequence for this region.Comparison with similar figures from other parts of India and beyondsuggests the surviving Kurnool image sequence begins at least 10 000years ago. The earliest surviving pictographs of the Kurnool area consistmainly of naturalistic outline paintings of animals and human-likefigures. These paintings differ from most Indian rock art, and weconclude that they were made by hunter-gatherers. They were probablyinvented independently in India and are not directly related tosimilar-looking art in Europe or Yunnan, China. With the rise ofagriculture, and of the subsequent increasingly hierarchical societiesand political economies of the Iron Age (Boivin et al. 2008), new formsof rock art developed in situ. But influences from nearby parts of Indiacan also be detected. These were much more concerned with the human formthan previous art and may, in Kurnool, relate to the emergence of novelritual traditions in which individuals and elite groups were demarcatedand differentiated through new corporal and burial practices. By thisperiod, influences from nearby parts of India can also be detected, andthese may reflect in part the spread of new ideologies, and perhapsimportant changes to the hunting and gathering communities that occupiedthe area, as contacts with farmers expanded (see Petraglia et al.2009b). Rock art continued to be made through the historic period with newforms and styles emerging. In recent times, some sites have become focalpoints for pilgrims, who add their own marks to growing accumulations ofabstract white trident-like and related designs. Some local villagersalso re-outline older paintings and large, rough white human-likefigures are made on rocky outcrops that line cultivated fields, servinga scarecrow-like function. Further research will focus on better linking Kurnool'schanging rock art tradition to broader landscape use and the results ofnearby archaeological excavations, as well as radiometric dating. Theincidence of a diamond pattern found at some Kurnool sites and at manyother locations across India needs further exploration as it isassociated with various time periods and some engraved stone tools. Itappears to be a specifically Indian form of aesthetic expression withPleistocene roots that links many groups of people across the subcontinent together, a form of shared artistic heritage that is typically'Indian' in character. Acknowledgements This research was funded by a grant awarded to Boivin by theSociety for South Asian Studies and by grants awarded to Petraglia bythe British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust. Korisettar acknowledgesthe Archaeological Survey of India for permission to conduct this work,and Petraglia the American Institute for Indian Studies for assistance.Griffith University is thanked for support and additional funding. Wealso thank Somashekharayya Hiremath Balageri, Janardhana B., SreelathaDamodaran, Michael Haslam, Hannah James, Sacha Jones, Jinu Koshy,Preston Miracle, Saritha N., Ranimole S.J and Kevin White for assistancein the field. Christopher Chippindale, Chris Clarkson, Pete Ditchfield,Dorian Fuller, Michael Haslam, Sacha Jones, Jinu Koshy, Rebecca McClung,Preston Miracle, K. Rajan, Ceri Shipton and P.C. Venkatasubbaiah arethanked for various helpful discussions. Photographs are by P.S.C.Tacon. Received: 12 December 2007; Revised: 1 October 2009; Accepted: 31December 2009 References ALLCHIN, F.R. 1963. Neolithic cattle-keepers of south India: astudy of the Deccan ashmounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ALLCHIN, F.R. & B. ALLCHIN. 1994-95. Rock art of NorthKarnataka. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and ResearchInstitute 54-55:313-39. BEDNARIK, R.G. 2002. The development of Indian rock art studiessince Independence, in S. Settar & R. Korisettar (ed.) Indianarchaeology in retrospect. Volume 1: Prehistory, archaeology of SouthAsia: 353-75. Delhi: Manohar. BEDNARIK, R. & K.K. CHAKRAVARTY. 1997. Indian rock art and itsglobal context. New Delhi: Shri Jainendra Press. BLINKHORN, J. 2008. In which context does symbolic behavior firstmanifest in the archaeological record: a case study from KurnoolDistrict, India. Unpublished MPhil dissertation, University ofCambridge. BOIVIN, N. 2004. Rock art and rock music: petroglyphs of the southIndian Neolithic. Antiquity 78: 38-53. BOIVIN, N., A. BRUMM, H. LEWIS, D. ROBINSON & R. KORISETTAR.2007. Sensual, material, and technological understanding: exploringprehistoric soundscapes in south India. Journal of the RoyalAnthropological Institute 13: 267-94. BOIVIN, N., D. FULLER, R. KORISETTAR & M. PETRAGLIA. 2008.First farmers in south India: the role of internal processes andexternal influences in the emergence of the earliest settled societies.Pragdhara 18: 179-200 BOIVIN, N., J. HAMPSON, J. BLINKHORN, R. KORISETTAR & M.PETRAGLIA. 2009. Re-examining rock art studies in India: a case studyfrom Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, in K. Paddayya, P.P. Joglekar,K.K. Basa & R. Sewant (ed.) Recent research trends in South Asianarchaeology: 261-78. Pune: Deccan College. BROOKS, R. & V.S. WAKANKAR. 1976. Stone Age painting in India.New Haven (CT): Yale University Press. BRUMM, A., N. BOIVIN & R. FULLAGAR. 2006. Signs of life:engraved stone artefacts from Neolithic South India. CambridgeArchaeological Journal 16(2):165-90. CHAKRAVARTY, K.K. (ed.) 1984. Rock-art of India: paintings andengravings. New Delhi: Arnold-Heinemann. CHAKRAVERTY, S. 2003. Rock art studies in India: a historicalperspective. Kolkata: The Asiatic Society. CHANDRAMOULI, N. 2002. Rock art of south India: with specialreference to Andhra Pradesh. Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan. --2003. Rock art of Andhra Pradesh, in M.L.K. Murty (ed.) Pre- andProtohistoric Andhra Pradesh up to 500 BC: 148-73. Chennai: OrientLongman. CLARKSON, C., M. PETRAGLIA, R. KORISETTAR, M. HASLAM, N. BOIVIN, A.CROWTHER, P. DITCHFIELD, D. FULLER, P. MIRACLE, C. HARRIS, K. CONNELL,H. JAMES & J. KOSHY. 2009. The oldest and longest enduringmicrolithic sequence in India: 35 000 years of modern human occupationand change at the Jwalapuram Locality 9 rockshelter. Antiquity 83:326-48. CLOTTES, J. 1990. The parietal art of the late Magdalenian.Antiquity 64: 527-48. --2008. Cave art. London: Phaidon Press Limited. COCKBURN, J. 1899. Cave drawings in the Kaimur range, NorthwestProvinces. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1899: 89-97. FRANKE, A.H. 1902. Notes on rock carvings from Lower Ladakh. TheIndian Antiquary 31: 398-401. GHOSH, R.S.M. 1998. Rock-paintings and other antiquities ofprehistoric and later times. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. GIEDION, S. 1969. The outline in the early beginnings of art.Leonardo 2(2): 181-92. GORDON, D.H. 1951. The rock engravings of Kupgalla Hill, Bellary,Madras. Man 51: 117-19. GUPTA, S., S.S. RAI, K.S. PRAKASAM, D. SRINAGESH, B.K. BANSAL, R.K.CHADHA, K. PRIESTLEY, & V.K. GAUR. 2003. The nature of the crust insouthern India: implications for Precambrian crustal evolution.Geophysical Research Letters 30:141-49. HALVERSON, J. 1992. The first pictures: perceptual foundations ofPaleolithic art. Perceptions 21: 389-404. MALAIYA, S. 1992. Hand-in-hand dancing in Indian rock art and itscontinuities, in M.J. Morwood & D.R. Hobbs (ed.) Rock art andethnography: 60-66. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association. MATHPAL, Y. 1984. Prehistoric rock paintings of Bhimbetka CentralIndia. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications. --1993. Deer in rock art of India, in G. Camuri, A. Fossati &Y. Mathpal (ed.) Deer in rock art of India and Europe: 1-53. New Delhi:Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. --1998. Rock art in Kerala. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi NationalCentre for the Arts. MURTY, M.L.K. 1985. Ethnoarchaeology of the Kurnool Cave areas,South India. World Archaeology 17 (2):192-205. --1992. Hunter-gatherers, pastoralists and the state insouthwestern Andhra Pradesh, South India, in E Audouze (ed.)Ethnoarcheologie:justification, problemes, limites. Actes des rencontres17-18-19 octobre 1991, XIIe Rencontres Internationalesd'Archeologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes: 326-38.Juan-les-Pins: Editions APDCA. --2003a. Physiography and environment, in M.K.L. Murty (ed.) Pre-and Protohistoric Andhra Pradesh up to 500 BC: 9-28. Chennai: OrientLongman. --(ed.) 2003b. Pre- and Protohistoric Andhra Pradesh up to 500 BC.Chennai: Orient Longman. NEUMAYER, E. 1983. Prehistoric Indian rock paintings. Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press. --1992. Rock art in India, in M. Lorblanchet (ed.) Rock art in theOld World: 215-47. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for theArts. --1993. Lines on stone: the prehistoric rock art of India. NewDelhi: Manohar. PANDEY, S.K. 1992. Central Indian rock art, in M. Lorblanchet (ed.)Rock art in the Old World: 249-72. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi NationalCentre for the Arts. PETRAGLIA, M., R. KORISETTAR, N. BOIVIN, C. CLARKSON, K.CUNNINGHAM, P. DITCHFIELD, S. JONES, J. KOSHY, M.M. LAHR, C.OPPENHEIMER, D. PYLE, R. ROBERTS, J.-L. SCHWENNINGER, L. ARNOLD & K.WHITE. 2007. Middle Paleolithic assemblages from the Indian Subcontinentbefore and after the Toba super-eruption. Science 317: 114-16. PETRAGLIA, M., C. CLARKSON, N. BOIVIN, M. HASLAM, R. KORISETTAR, G.CHAUBEY, P. DITCHFIELD, D. FULLER, H. JAMES, S. JONES, T. KIVISILD, J.KOSHY, M.M. LAHR, M. METSPALU, R. ROBERTS & L. ARNOLD. 2009a.Population increase and environmental deterioration correspond withmicrolithic innovations in South Asia ca. 35,000 years ago. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences. 106(30): 12261-12266. PETRAGLIA, M., R. KORISETTAR, M.K. BAI, N. BOIVIN, B. JANARDHANA,C. CLARKSON, K. CUNNINGHAM, P. DITCHFIELD, D. FULLER, J. HAMPSON, M.HASLAM, S. JONES, J. KOSHY, P. MIRACLE, C. OPPENHEIMER, R. ROBERTS &K. WHITE. 2009b. Human occupation, adaptation and behavioral change inthe Pleistocene and Holocene of South India: recent investigations inthe Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. Eurasian Prehistory 6(1-2):119-66. PRADHAN, S. 2001. Rock art in Orissa. New Delhi: Aryan BooksInternational. SACCHI, D. 2003. LeMagdalenien. Paris: Maison des Roches. SONAWANE, V.H. 1984. An important evidence to date paintings ofMesolithic Period, in K.K. Chakravarty (ed.) Rock-art of India:paintings and engravings: 61-63. New Delhi: Arnold-Heinemann. --1992. Significance of the Chandravati engraved core in the lightof prehistoric art of India, in M. Lorblanchet (ed.) Rock art in the OldWorld: 273-83. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. SRIDHAR, T.S. 2005. Rock art of Tamil Nadu. Chennai: StateDepartment of Archaeology, Government of Tamil Nadu. TACON, P.S.C., G. LI, D. YANG, S.K. MAY, H. LIU, M. AUBERT, X. JI,D. CURNOE & A.I.R. HERRIES. 2010. Naturalism, nature and questionsof style in Jinsha River rock art, northwest Yunnan, China. CambridgeArchaeological Journal. 20(1): 67-86. TYAGI, G.S. 1992. Decorative intricate patterns in Indian rock art,in M. Lorblanchet (ed.) Rock art in the Old World: 303-17. New Delhi:Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. WATSON, B. 2009. Universal visions: Neuroscience and recurrentcharacteristics of world palaeoart. Unpublished PhD dissertation,University of Melbourne. Paul S.C. Tacon (1), Nicole Boivin (2), Jamie Hampson (3), JamesBlinkhorn (2), Ravi Korisettar (4) & Michael Petraglia (2) (1) School of Humanities, Gold Coast campus, Griffith University,Qld 4222, Australia (Email: p.tacon@griffith.edu.au) (2) School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, 36 BeaumontStreet, Oxford OX1 2PG, UK (3) Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, DowningStreet, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK (4) Department of History and Archaeology, Karnatak University,Dharwad 580 003, India