a reconsideration of the South Indian ashmounds

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330 www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Landscape, monumental architecture, and ritual: a reconsideration of the South Indian ashmounds Peter G. Johansen* Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, 1126 East 59th Street, Chicago, IL 60637 Received 1 March 2004; revised 30 April 2004

Abstract During the South Indian Neolithic period (3000–1200 BC), the agro-pastoral inhabitants of the South Deccan/North Dharwar region constructed large mounded features by heaping and burning accumulations of cattle dung. These ÔashmoundÕ features were comprised of a myriad of variegated strata of ash, vitrified dung, and other culturally modified sediments, many of which reached monumental proportions. Ashmounds have been the subject of considerable debate since coming to the attention of scholars in the early 19th century. Current debate has centered largely on the function and spatial context of these features in relation to Neolithic settlement. This article examines the South Indian ashmounds as monumental forms of architecture and the loci of ritual and ceremonial activity within the context of Neolithic agro-pastoral landscape production. By situating ashmound construction within the social rhythm of cattle pastoralism and carefully examining the emplotment, depositional histories, and post-Neolithic afterlives of these unique features this paper argues that social practices likely originating in quotidian activities were gradually transformed into regular, public ceremonial activities producing monumental forms, relating and reinforcing socio-symbolically charged information. Ó 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ashmounds; South Indian Neolithic; Landscape; Monumentality; Ritual; Social memory

The Indian Ôashmound problemÕ has been the subject of discussion and debate in South Asian archaeology for more than 150 years. Ashmounds are large mounded features comprised of stratified deposits of decomposing, burned and vitrified cow dung and other culturally modified soils bearing a variety of artifacts. Constructed primarily during the South Indian Neolithic Period (circa 3000–1200 BC), these features vary greatly in size with recorded surface areas ranging from 28 m2 to as much as 4951 m2 and heights from 1.5 to 10 m. To date, more than 100 ashmound sites have been documented

*

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected].

within the South Deccan/North Dharwar region of southern India (Paddayya, 2001), yet only a small number have been subjected to systematic archaeological investigation (Fig. 1). The Ôashmound problemÕ refers to the longstanding and dynamic debate surrounding the temporal and causal origins of these archaeological features. Since their ÔrediscoveryÕ in the early 19th century, most analyses have been directed primarily towards understanding the function and formation of this unique class of material remains. Explanations have ranged from local accounts such as those attributing specific ashmounds to the remains of the monkey-king Vali, demon rakshasas or mass human immolation, to functional interpretations such as refuse dumps, cattle pens or the location

0278-4165/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2004.05.003

310

P.G. Johansen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330

Fig. 1. Locations of South Indian Ashmound Sites for which published data are available.

of iron smelting activities (Allchin, 1963; Paddayya, 1991; Rami Reddy, 1990). Much recent controversy appears to originate from debates over cultural formation processes and the relation of ashmounds to Neolithic domestic settlements and sedentism (Allchin, 1963; Korisettar et al., 2002; Paddayya, 2001). This article posits a re-evaluation of the Ôashmound problemÕ employing an interpretive strategy that explores ashmounds as both monumental forms of architecture and the location of ritual and ceremonial activity within a Neolithic agro-pastoral landscape. Cultural landscapes are spatial and temporal fields of action in which material and conceptual contexts are constructed and negotiated through the processual articulation of social action, structure and the physical environment (Lycett, 2001; Morrison, n.d.; Smith, 2003). As unique and important places within a Neolithic South Indian landscape, ashmounds are examined, within the context of available data, from a range of spatial, temporal, and behavioral scales and contexts. While the

argument presented here is focused on enabling a clearer understanding of ashmound features during the South Indian Neolithic period, it is intended to contribute to a broader anthropological discussion of archaeological approaches to past historical processes involving the production of cultural landscapes, monumentality, and ritual architecture. This article begins with a discussion of the South Indian Ôashmound problemÕ followed by an examination of the depositional structure, form and location of ashmound features. Ashmounds are then considered within a Neolithic agro-pastoral landscape by examining regional archaeological data from which inferences on past land-use, economy, and lifeway can be made. This is followed by an analysis of ashmounds employing several visual variables of perception to demonstrate their monumentality and potential as socio-symbolic media in a Neolithic South Indian cultural landscape. Ashmounds are then examined using a number of variables of ritual architecture to explore the behavioral implications


involved in their construction, use and maintenance. Finally, an examination of the continued use of ashmounds as monumental and ritual places in the production of cultural landscapes during the subsequent Iron Age (1200–400 BC) demonstrates both subtle and dramatic shifts of practice and meaning as ashmounds were abandoned, reoccupied, reused, reinterpreted, and reconstructed with vestiges of prior meanings surviving yet often in greatly altered ways.

The ashmound problem The Ôashmound problemÕ has deep roots in the history of South Asian archaeology extending from the early 19th century to the present day. The main dimensions of the Ôashmound problem,Õ as it is referred in South Indian archaeological literature, center on debate over the reasons for and dating of their construction and use. A detailed treatment of its history is beyond the scope of this discussion but excellent summaries are found in Allchin (1963) and Paddayya (1991). In brief, 19th century exploration of ashmounds in the region of present-day northeastern Karnataka and western Andhra Pradesh by colonial surveyors and administrators may be characterized as a debate on the historical origins and cultural formation processes of ashmound features. Early hypotheses attributing their formation to natural geological processes were soon dispelled when stratified cultural materials (ceramics, lithics, and fauna) were found in early excavations (Newbold, 1843, pp. 129–131). The debate then centered on functional interpretations, such as that ashmound deposits were ancient or medieval funeral pyres (Newbold, 1843; Sewell, 1899), the result of industrial activities (lime, brick, glass or gold working) or accidentally burned accumulations of cattle dung (Bruce Foote, 1979). Bruce FooteÕs extensive work on the geology and archaeology of the region during the late 19th century led to the discovery and documentation of numerous new ashmound sites and to two crucial observations on their form and location. His first observation was the siliceous content of ashmound matrixes including distinct traces of straw in the deposits (Bruce Foote, 1916; 1979, pp. 92–95). This led Bruce Foote to conclude that ashmound matrixes were composed primarily of fired cattle dung. This was later substantiated by two independent chemical analyses confirming the high silica content of specimens taken from the Wandali ashmound (53.1–66.2%) (Bruce Foote, 1979, p. 95; Munn, 1921, p. 7). The second observation was the discovery and identification of many Neolithic objects, such as ground stone celts, Ômealing stones,Õ Ôrubbing stones,Õ and pottery during the course of surface survey and excavations at many ashmound sites (Bruce Foote, 1979, pp. 79–91). These observations led to two related conclusions; that

311

the construction of ashmounds took place during the Neolithic period and that many ashmounds were surrounded by significant scatters of occupational debris. Despite these findings, both the age and formation postulates of the Bruce Foote hypothesis were challenged in the 20th century. Speculative conclusions, later largely rejected on practical and empirical grounds, were made by both Woolley (1940) and Yazdani (1936) who sought to explain the accumulation of such large quantities of dung as fuel for gold or iron working activities. Despite the repeated rejection of these hypotheses by chemical and technical analyses (e.g., Zeuner, 1960), this type of explanation has continued to resurface periodically throughout the remainder of the century (e.g., Rami Reddy, 1976, 1990; Sundara, 1971). Rami Reddy (1976) has also challenged the Neolithic dating of the ashmounds based on the presence of two small iron objects and significant deposits of Iron Age ceramics from the upper levels of his excavations at the site of Palavoy. Since the 1950Õs, survey and excavation by a number of scholars (e.g., Allchin, 1961, 1963; Korisettar et al., 2002; Mujumdar and Rajaguru, 1966; Paddayya, 1973, 1991, 1998; Rami Reddy, 1976; Sundara, 1971) have expanded both the archaeological database and the parameters of the ashmound debate. However, with few exceptions (e.g., Rami Reddy, 1976; Sundara, 1971), the basic tenets of the Bruce Foote hypothesis remain firmly established. AllchinÕs (1961, 1963) survey and excavations at the site of Utnur has led him to conclude that ashmounds were the remains of cattle pens which had been regularly and perhaps ritually burned over the course of their many years of use. AllchinÕs (1963) conclusions were based on the presence of regular lines of postholes in the earliest layers followed by a berm of dung built around the periphery of the Utnur ashmound. Paddayya (1991) posited that these accumulations of dung and subsequent burning were likely the result of the efforts of the Neolithic inhabitants of adjacent settlements to keep their communities clean of the vermin associated with animal fecal matter. Following the large horizontal excavations at Budihal-S, Paddayya (1998, 2001) argues that ashmounds were Neolithic dung refuse piles appended to cattle pens located within pastoral village sites. He agrees with AllchinÕs assignment of a possible ritual function for the ashmounds although specific details beyond his consideration of the cyclical and episodic burning of the dung are not offered (Paddayya, 1973, 1991). Based on the result of decades of survey and excavation Paddayya (1998, 2001) argues that ashmounds are central features located within sedentary Neolithic settlements. Recent field reconnaissance, surface and subsurface sampling of a number of Neolithic sites by Korisettar et al. (2002) has led this group of scholars to argue that ashmounds are found within a range of sites related to

312


Neolithic pastoral activities, yet none of which should be considered permanent, year-round settlements. They base these conclusions (1) on the low densities or absence of occupational debris surrounding many ashmounds, (2) environmental and topographical similarities of non-ashmound settlement sites vs. variety in ashmound site locales, and (3) the contrast of thicker and more extensive archaeological deposits in non-ashmound settlements with the thinner occupational deposits at ashmound sites.

Ashmound deposit formation Ashmounds are large mounded features comprised of stratified deposits of vitrified, carbonized, and decomposing cow dung mixed with layers and lenses of other culturally modified soils. Most layers contain a variety of Neolithic artifact types, primarily lithic material, pottery sherds, and faunal remains. Paddayya (1991, 1993a,b), Rami Reddy (1990, 1976) and to a limited degree Allchin (1963) all point to the fact that in virtually every case in which the areas surrounding ashmound sites have been subjected to even the most cursory attempts at surface survey, these mounded features are generally at the center of dense scatters of occupational debris (cf., Korisettar et al., 2002). At Budihal-S, the only large scale horizontal excavation of an occupational zone surrounding ashmound features, Paddayya (1993b) uncovered the remains of 10 circular house floors, a large butchering floor, hearths, and other domestic features. Based on this evidence it may be concluded that ashmound deposits are generally situated within the archaeological remains of Neolithic settlements. The size, duration, and periodicity of occupation at many of the under explored sites remains an open question awaiting more systematic research. Ashmounds vary considerably in terms of vertical and horizontal dimensions, the result of both Neolithic construction and post-Neolithic impacts. Bruce Foote (1916) and later Allchin (1963) noted two categories of ashmound remains; large mounded features with vertically extensive dimensions and lower, flatter mounds often characterized by a ÔvallumÕ or berm of ashmound material surrounding their perimeter.1 Many of the former category of ashmounds consist of upper and lower sections.2 Two of the most extensively excavated ashmound sites; Budihal-S (Paddayya, 1998) and Utnur3 1 Bruce FooteÕs (1916, p. 91) cinder mounds and cinder camps. 2 e.g., Budihal-S, Gadiganuru, Kupgal, and Utnur. 3 Despite the presence of 2 m of recently deposited sediments on the upper mound at Utnur, examination of the sections and map from AllchinÕs (1961) report documents differences in deposit depths and paleo-surface topography of more than 1 m between the upper and lower sections of the mound.

(Allchin, 1961) have demonstrated the existence of upper and lower ashmounds sections. At both sites the lower sections consist of large flat open areas with layers of burned and decomposing dung and constructed barriers along their perimeters. Allchin (1961, 1963) and Paddayya (1998) each conclude that these are the remains of Neolithic cattle pen enclosures. A stock enclosure has also been inferred from the excavated remains of one of the Halikallu ashmounds originally designated a Ôcinder campÕ by Bruce Foote (1979; Krishna Sastry, 1979). Paddayya (1991, p. 590) posits that the regular presence of occupational debris (i.e., lithics, pottery, and faunal remains) throughout all of the dung ash deposits in the upper sections of ashmounds indicates that dung was deposited as secondary refuse with cultural material adhering to it as it was removed from its initial point of deposition by the cattle. In the profiles of the ashy and vitrified deposits at Budihal-S, he has observed the outlines of individual piling episodes (Paddayya, 1991, p. 587). Stratigraphic profiles from Budihal-S, Thanmandi Thanda, Wandali, Kudatini, and Kupgal all demonstrate the vertical and horizontal heterogeneity of the ashmound deposits (Fig. 2). There are layers comprised entirely of small lenses of soft dung ash intermixed with deposits of grey culturally modified soils, as well as large layers of vitrified and decomposed dung that are horizontally and vertically discontinuous (Paddayya, 1993a, p. 79). The powdered ash layers at many ashmound sites indicate multiple burning episodes, while the analysis of the vitrified layers (Mujumdar and Rajaguru, 1966; Zeuner, 1960) demonstrates the occurrence of large single episodes of burning at temperatures in excess of 1200 °C. Archaeologists also report thin and horizontally extensive lenses comprised of almost culturally sterile soils from several ashmounds (Table 1). Another structural feature reported from systematic ashmound excavations and otherwise exposed sections is that of rammed earth or clay platforms at the foundation of certain ashmounds (Table 1). At sites with two or more excavated ashmounds, the basal rammed earth platform is present only in a single mound. This may indicate that the construction of these platforms was a temporally restricted practice that previous or subsequent mounds lacked. From a consideration of these depositional strata it is possible to discern several distinct formation patterns. The first entails periods of small-scale dumping of dung and dirt that were burned frequently at low temperatures. Second, there are periods of larger scale accumulation punctuated by less frequent high temperature burning (vitrification). Third, there is evidence for periods marked by the capping of ash layers with very thin culturally sterile soil or clay in the upper mounded sections of ashmounds. In addition, the depositional histories of the lower sections of the mounds at excavated sites appear to be the result of cattle pen construction and maintenance (cf., Allchin, 1961, 1963; Paddayya, 1998).


313

Fig. 2. Profile illustrating ashmound stratigraphy from the site of Kupgal (photo courtesy of Carla Sinopoli).

These observations seem to indicate that ashmound construction activities were carried out regularly and repeatedly yet with differential building rhythm and tempo throughout much of the South Indian Neolithic. By tempo (Binford, 1982), I am referring largely to the frequency of deposition whereas rhythm indicates attributes of depositional activities such as their duration, sequencing, and repetition. The C14 dates from excavated ashmound contexts indicate that the activities involved in their construction occurred throughout much of the Neolithic period (see Fig. 3). Unfortunately, very

few C14 dates exist from excavated ashmound contexts and only in a single case, Budihal-S, is there a stratigraphic sequence for a single ashmound. If the anomalously late date from layer 3 is discarded (as suggested by Paddayya, 1999), then these data taken together with the depositional nature of the strata (at BudihalS and all other profiled ashmounds) are strongly suggestive of upper mound construction activities (i.e., accumulation and burning) that were temporally slow, punctuated by other more dramatic and rapid processes.

314


Table 1 Summary of frequently discussed ashmound sites and their characteristics (based on data from Allchin, 1963; Korisettar et al., 2001; Krishna Sastry, 1979; Mujumdar and Rajaguru, 1966; Paddayya, 1991; Possehl, 1989; Rami Reddy, 1976; Shah, 1973) Ashmound site

Available C14 dates (Calibrated)

Number of ashmounds at site

Basal rammed-earth feature present

Thin sterile lenses present

Flora

Fauna

Budihal-S

1400–2500 BC

3–4

Not reported

Yes

Antelope, black buck, buffalo, cattle, fowl, nilgai, sheep/goat, tortoise

Hulikallu Kakkera Kodekal

Not reported Not reported 2893 BC

2 2 1

Not reported Yes Yes

Not reported Not reported Yes

Horse gram, hyacinth, barley, jubejube, cherry, emblic myrobalam Not reported Not reported Jubejube

Kudatini Kupgal Mallur Palavoy

Not reported Not reported Not reported 1680–2278 BC

1 3 2 4

Possible Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Not reported Not reported

Not reported Not reported Not reported Jubejube

Thanmandi Thanda Utnur Wandalli

Not reported

1

Yes

Not reported

Not reported

Cattle Not reported Buffalo, cattle, dog, fowl, sheep/goat Cattle, sheep/goat Not reported Cattle Cattle, deer, pig, sheep/goat Not reported

2333–2850 BC Not reported

1 1

Not reported Not reported

Yes Not reported

Not reported Not reported

Cattle, deer, goat, tortoise Not reported

Fig. 3. Radio-carbon dates from the South Indian Neolithic Period.

The production of a South Indian Neolithic landscape: economy and human ecology This paper examines ashmound features as important monumental places, integral parts of a Neolithic South Indian cultural landscape. The landscape of the South Indian Neolithic was something both

inhabited and conceptualized by its prehistoric occupants; a multitude of interconnected places in which specific economic practices were conducted and social and ideological relations mediated, maintained, modified, and reinvented. Landscape production involves social and spatial practice, perception, and conception as critical moments within historically and culturally


unique fields of social action (Harvey, 1989; Lefebvre, 1991; Soja, 1985). It does not simply entail the ÔconstructionÕ or ÔfabricationÕ of things in space but rather the active configuration of social relations and forms through dynamic and historically contingent processes. These processes are both material and ideological and articulate the natural environment with human knowledge, technology, and labour. Networks of meaning, involved in the social relations of spatial production, inhere to multi-scalar spatial forms (e.g., landscapes, buildings, fields, villages, and monuments) differentially enabling and constraining activities and ideational and ideological understandings of the cultural landscape. One means of beginning to examine the production of a past cultural landscape is through an exploration of the economic and ecological attributes involved with land use inferred from an archaeological landscape. As ashmound construction was inextricably bound to pastoralist elements of the Neolithic economy and subsistence system, an examination of the tempo of land-use (Binford, 1982; Wandsnider, 1992) and its connection with the rhythm of activities involved in ashmound formation is a useful point of embarkation. The tempo of land or locale-use refers to the frequency with which a place is utilized (Binford, 1982; Wandsnider, 1992) as well as the nature of that usage, while rhythm refers to the nature of a use activityÕs temporality; its duration, repetition, sequencing, and cycling. The following discussion examines archaeological and paleo-environmental data through the application and integration of the spatial concepts of lifespace (Binford, 1983) and landscape element (Wandsnider, 1998). Landscape element denotes an area of space ‘‘that is homogenous and can be uniquely characterized’’ (Wandsnider, 1998, p. 22). These are spatial locations with physical and conceptual attributes which may be chosen for a variety of human uses or avoidance. A lifespace refers to the space within a landscape element that is brought into use by its human occupants (Binford, 1983; Wandsnider, 1998, p. 22). The selection and location of lifespaces are subject to the spatial and temporal requirements associated with the human activities conducted within them. Thus the nature, character, and temporal duration of lifespaces are contingent upon a variety of factors such as environmental, ecological, social or cosmological constraints and allowances that a landscape element, or configuration thereof, hold for the technological, economic, social, and even religious needs of the groups of people occupying and embodying a larger regional landscape over time. The human integration of landscape element configuration with lifespaces result in structures of occupation and use which, over time, leave patterned archaeological remains such as artifact and feature distributions (Wandsnider, 1998, p. 23). This structure can be empirically observed

315

in the archaeological record of the South Indian Neolithic at several scales of analysis such as the region, site, feature, and assemblage. Physical setting Ashmound sites of the South Indian Neolithic are located in north-eastern Karnataka state and western Andhra Pradesh—the South Deccan/North Dharwar region (Fig. 1). This region is cross-cut by the upper courses of the Bhima, Krishna, and Tungabhadra, three major, shallow, wide, and slow moving rivers which flow in a generally south-easterly direction towards the Bay of Bengal. The physical landscape and geology of the region is characterized by a relatively flat to undulating terrain that is regularly traversed by granite-gneiss hills and hill chains (Paddayya, 1991, p. 573). Between the basalt deposits in the dolerite dykes and the Deccan Trap-topped ingersols, the quartz available in the Dharwar deposits and the chert, chalcedony, and quartzite available in nodule form in the rivers, there was abundant lithic raw material for the typical Neolithic ground and pecked stone industries (Allchin, 1963; Paddayya, 1973). Within this geological region the two primary types of rock formations—Dharwar schists and quartzes and Archaean granites and gneiss—generally produce two distinct types of soils as they erode. The Dharwar produce arable Ôblack cottonÕ soils and the Archaean granites produce a red sandy to loamy soil (Allchin, 1963, p. 8). The latter predominates in the hilly tracts selected by the Neolithic builders of ashmounds for site location, while the former are found primarily in lower lying areas, especially around the major rivers and generally away from most Neolithic sites. This focus on settlements away from the regionÕs most arable land is consistent with the emphasis on pastoralism and the practice of low-risk, rain-fed agriculture present in the Neolithic economy of the region. The South Deccan/North Dharwar region is characterized today by a semi-arid climate with an annual rainfall that generally does not exceed 50–60 cm and falls between June and August during the southwest monsoon (Paddayya, 1973, p. 4). The regionÕs semi-arid climate and seasonal rainfall patterns have created a floral cover characterized by thorn and scrub bush forests dominated by species such as Acacia, Zysiphus, and Dalbergia, which are interspersed with large tracts of savanna grasslands (Rami Reddy, 1976, p. 114). Paleoenvironmental reconstructions of the South Indian Neolithic based primarily on paleosol analysis at the ashmound site of Kupgal by Mujumdar and Rajaguru (1966), palynological analysis of a marine core (SK 27 B/8) extracted from the inner continental shelf in coastal Karnataka (Caratini et al., 1991), and the recovery of botanical material from the excavated sites in the region (Mittre and Ravi, 1990), indicate that the environment

316


during the Neolithic was slightly wetter and more humid than that of the region today. Dimensions of agro-pastoral land-use and the South Indian Neolithic landscape Archaeological and environmental data demonstrate that the inhabitants of Neolithic settlements in the South Deccan/North Dharwar region were engaged in a mixed subsistence economy comprised of livestock herding, agriculture, and the exploitation of wild flora and fauna. Bioarchaeological analyses of subsistence remains at a wide variety of Neolithic sites have demonstrated the presence of an assortment of domesticated and wild plant and animal resources (Tables 2 and 3).4 At the site of Budihal-S, the most extensively excavated Neolithic site, two large ashmounds, a large animal butchering surface (Paddayya, 1993a, p. 285) and at least one large cattle pen associated with Ashmound I have been exposed (Paddayya, 1998; Paddayya et al., 1995). These features, together with the presence of large amounts of Bos indicus bone and open-mouthed jar sherds of red/grey coarse ware—interpreted by Allchin (1963) as milking jars—attest to a production emphasis on pastoral products such as milk and meat. Specimens of domestic and wild plant species (see Tables 1 and 2) were also recovered from excavations (Paddayya, 1993a, pp. 284-285, 2001, p. 213). The site is also peppered with the remains of broken saddle querns and rubbing stones, ethnographically, and archaeologically associated with domestic grain processing. These data are suggestive of a subsistence system with generalized production units. The argument for a production emphasis on cattle pastoralism for ashmound settlements is substantiated by multiple lines of archaeological evidence. Documented faunal remains from excavated Neolithic sites presented in Table 3 demonstrate that bones of the domesticated species Bos indicus5 clearly dominate all of the faunal assemblages of both ashmound and nonashmound sites. Faunal remains excavated from the Budihal-S butchering surface were 95% Bos indicus while the remaining 5% were comprised of sheep/goat and wild animal species (Paddayya et al., 1995, p. 29). The butchering function of this feature is indicated by the taphonomy of the bones, the presence of large roasting pits filled with charcoal, burned bone and ash, and 4

Based on their recent sampling of several South Indian Neolithic sites Korisettar et al. (2002) argue that domesticated plant species are largely absent from ashmound sites. 5 Recent sampling of many Neolithic sites by Korisettar et al. (2001) demonstrates difficulties in differentiating between the bone remains of the species Bos indicus and domesticated water buffalo, Bubalis bubalis. This may indicate that earlier identifications of large domesticated ruminants are likewise obscured such as those presented in Table 3.

numerous heavy chopping tools and large ‘‘knife-like’’ chert blades (Paddayya et al., 1995, p. 28). The bones were deposited in clusters, possessed abundant cut marks and were larger than those present in the surrounding houses. Skulls and epiphyses of Bos indicus long bones were frequent elements deposited in this feature, suggesting the preliminary butchering of whole carcasses. If the presence of wide necked ceramic jars which are ubiquitous at ashmound sites are considered functionally related to milking activities then a productive emphasis on the dung, meat, and milk products of cattle can be inferred from the available archaeological evidence. Ashmounds themselves are strong indicators of a production emphasis on pastoral production. If the massive volume of many of these features and their location at more than 100 separate sites in the region are considered together with other serious structural investments such as the cattle pens excavated at Budihal-S, Hulikallu, and Utnur and the large butchering floor at the former site an emphasis on pastoral production at many Neolithic settlements appears empirically substantiated (Table 4). The partially excavated (873 m2) cattle pen adjacent to Ashmound I at Budihal-S covers an area of approximately 3000 m2 (Paddayya, 2001) while the total size of the butchering floor which consisted of a prepared surface of ash, calcium carbonate, and gravel 2– 5 cm thick, is estimated at 250 m2 (129 m2 of which has been excavated). Given the spatial investment detailed above for the three features associated with pastoral production, the investment in houses of wattle-and-daub (approximately 3–4 m diameter) pale in comparison. The high degree of investment in these features is further suggestive of at least a semi-sedentary form of pastoralism, one more consistent with an agro-pastoral lifeway. The surveys of Allchin (1963), Paddayya (1973, 1991), and Rami Reddy (1976, 1990) display a number of patterns in the selection of landscape elements for settlement activity which may be used to suggest a larger notion of lifespace beyond the traditional confines of the Ôarchaeological site,Õ unfolding the terrain surrounding a settlement into a regional-scale Neolithic landscape. While prehistoric grazing does not produce archaeologically visible indicators beyond the features that humans build to facilitate this activity, Paddayya (1991) suggests that large, flat open areas surrounding ashmound sites were regularly engaged by pastoralists to graze their herds during the period of an adjacent siteÕs occupation. Occupation of the region subsequent to the Neolithic, and especially that associated with the intensive development over the last 50 years has likely erased most traces of ephemeral pastoral features beyond ashmound sites (Paddayya, 1996). Another interpretation is that the selection and occupation of ashmound settlements (many of which were at least of a seasonally sedentary nature) were made towards the


317

Table 2 Archaeobotanical remains of domesticated and wild plant species from South Deccan/North Dharwar Neolithic sites (based on data from Devaraj et al., 1995; Fuller, 2003; Kajale, 1989; Korisettar et al., 2002; Murty, 1989; Paddayya, 2001; Venkatasubbaiah and Kajale, 1991) Common name Domestic species Millets Finger milleta Kodo millet Foxtail millet

Pulses

Large cereals

Wild species Fruits

Species

Site

Eleusine coracana Paspalum scrobiculatum Setaria verticillata

Hallur, Paiyampalli, Watgal Hallur Hallur, Hanumantaraopeta, Hattibelagallu, Hiregudda, Kurugodu, Sanganakallu, Tekkalakota, Velpumandugu Hallur, Hanumantaraopeta, Hattibelagallu, Hiregudda, Kurugodu, Sanganakallu, Tekkalakota, Velpumandugu

Browntop millet

Brachiaria ramosa

Horse gram

Macrotyloma uniflorum

Green gram (mung)

Vigna radiata

Black gram Pigeon Pea Hyacinth bean

Vigna mungo Cajanus cajan Lablab purpureus

Wheats Barley

Triticum sp. Horduem vulgare

Hallur, Hanumantaraopeta, Hiregudda, Sanganakallu Budihal-S, Hanumantaraopeta, Hattibelagallu, Hiregudda, Kurugodu, Sanganakallu, Tekkalakota

Indian Jubejube

Zizyphus jubea

Indian Cherry/Sebestem Plum Emblic myrobalam Betel Nut

Cordia sp. Phyllanthus sp. Areca catechu

Budihal-S, Hallur, Kodekal, Palavoy, Sanganakallu, Tekkalakota, Hiregudda Budihal-S Budihal-S Watgal

Budihal-S, Hallur, Paiyampalli, Sangankallu, Tekkalakota, Watgal Hallur, Hanumantaraopeta, Hattibelagallu, Hiregudda, Sanganakallu, Tekkalakota, Paiyampalli Hallur, Hanumantaraopeta Peddamudiyam, Sanganakallu Budihal-S, Hallur, Sanganakallu

a Fuller (1999, 2003; Korisettar et al., 2002) considers all identifications of finger millet, save a single specimen from Hallur, to be misidentifications by previous research based on morphological attributes.

Table 3 Percentages of NISP results from South Deccan/North Dharwar Neolithic sites. (Based on data from Allchin, 1961; Monahan, In press; Nagaraja Rao, 1971; Rami Reddy, 1976; Sastri et al., 1984; Shah, 1973) Species %

Hallur

Domestic Cattle Sheep/goat Dog Piga Buffaloa

94.0 3.2 1.6 0.3 0

59.9 6.5 2.6 0 3.2

95.8 2.7 0 0.3 0

74.6 18.3 0.6 0 4.4

94.5 1.0 0.5 0 0

70.29 6.27 1.6 0.8 0

51.06 34.04 0 2.13 0

0.8 0 0 0

21.1 0 2.6 3.9

1.2 0 0 0

0 1.8 0 0

1.6 0 2.1 0

20.9 0 0.8 0

8.52 0 0 04.26

Wild Antelope/deer Tortoise Rodent Other Total a

100

Kodekal

100

Palavoy

100

Piklihal

100

Sangankallu

100

Veerapuram

100

VMS-110

100

Korisettar et al., 2002, p. 190 point to the difficulty in determining wild from domestic specimens of buffalo (Bubalus bubalus) and pig (Sus scrofa) found in Neolithic sites.

318


Table 4 Surface area and volume estimates from a selection of ashmounds and other Neolithic features (compiled from data in Allchin, 1963; Paddayya, 1998, 2001) Site

Feature

Surface area estimate (m2)

Volume estimate (m3)

Budihal-S

Neolithic circular house Butchering floor Ashmound I: upper mound Ashmound I: stock enclosure Ashmound I Ashsmound Ashmound Ashmound

12.5 250 2000 3000 2449 871 1295 2590

22 N/A 4019 N/A 9797 2323 8635 12,089

Hulikallu Kodekal Kudatini Wandalli

provisioning of pasturage adequate to the needs of community herds without entailing a mobility strategy that would require long distance ephemeral facilities. Agricultural practices are another aspect of the Neolithic land-use system for which direct evidence exists in the form of artifacts (querns, rubber stones) and more limitedly from macrobotanical remains (Table 2). The location of Neolithic settlements; ashmound and other, are generally on or adjacent to large topographical features. These micro-regional landscape elements provide some of the lowest risk locations for rain-fed agricultural practices. Many of the most frequently documented Neolithic domestic plant species6 were drought-resistant crops that grow well in the red sandy loam of the Archaean deposits (Fuller, 2003; Mittre and Ravi, 1990, p. 102) and are well suited to the monsoon drainage patterns of the outcrop topography. It is likely that at least some of the area surrounding ashmound sites was used for pulse and millet cultivation. As the difference in physical characteristics between archaeologically visible Neolithic settlements with and without ashmounds differ only slightly (some non-ashmound sites are located in better soil regimes), the selection of landscape element for ashmound sites by Neolithic agro-pastoralists appears to be based primarily on the availability first, of abundant pasture (Paddayya, 1991) and second, on topographical features conducive to rain-fed agricultural practices. The interpretation of these communities as engaged in a mixed agro-pastoral lifeway in which production units were jointly involved in pastoral and agricultural activities suggests a lack of conflict regarding land-use between these two subsistence pursuits. This suggests a tempo of Neolithic site and land-use in which the organization of settlement and subsistence practices were based on a sedentary or at least semi-sedentary pattern of site occupation.

6

Especially FullerÕs, 2003 Ôbasic Neolithic packageÕ of pulses and millets—i.e., Brachia ramose, Setaria verticillata, Macrotyloma uniflorum, and Vigna radiate.

A survey of the available archaeological data on the landscape elements selected for ashmound sites (and most non-ashmound settlements) demonstrates a number of interesting similarities regarding their location. These include locations that are within 1–2 km of secondary and tertiary tributaries of the regionÕs major drainages, locations on or beneath large granitic outcrops and, in many cases, near the 500 m contour level (Morrison, n.d.; Paddayya, 1973; Venkatasubbaiah et al., 1992). Paddayya (1991, p. 586) reports three general observations from his sample of eight ashmounds in the Shorapur doab: (1) all are close to perennial sources of water, i.e., springs or streams, (2) all have substantial occupational debris surrounding them, and (3) all are located proximal to large open spaces suitable for extensive cattle grazing activities. Paddayya (1991) takes these observations as an indication that ashmounds formed a central part of Neolithic habitation sites and not simply sites in and of themselves. This conclusion is generally corroborated (i.e., observations 1 and 2) by the findings of both Rami Reddy (1976) and Allchin (1963) although in the case of the latter researcher, ashmound sites are interpreted as representing temporary camps either for the nocturnal penning or domestication of cattle (Allchin and Allchin, 1974). Korisettar et al. (2002) dispute the year-round occupation of ashmound sites based on their own observations of low density distributions of occupational debris surrounding many of the sites they have revisited. They argue that occupational debris surrounding ashmounds vary in density and spread from clearly evident (i.e., at Budihal-S, Kupgal, and Palavoy) to sparse (i.e., Kudatini and Utnur) reflecting extended-stay and short term encampments (Korisettar et al., 2002, pp. 212–213). Their observations are compelling as is the argument for a stronger analytic focus on site formation processes, yet such a conclusion in light of the findings from Budihal-S would require further serious systematic research on seasonality, (see Fuller et al., 2001) site structure and punctuated site abandonment (Graham, 1993).


Further systematic surface collection and horizontal excavations at a variety of ashmound sites such as those conducted at Budihal-S would do much to resolve this issue.7

Ashmounds, monumentality, and ritual in Neolithic South Indian agro-pastoral communities Monumentality Previous research on the Ôashmound problemÕ has largely produced functional explanations for the construction of these features based on economic activities (i.e., refuse dumps, stock enclosures, and smelting facilities). In general, researchers agree that ashmounds were formed as the result of pastoral activities. They diverge on the issue of how, why, and when these features were formed. While Paddayya (1991, 1998, 2001) suggests a possible interpretation of ashmounds as monuments and locations of ceremonial activity, and Allchin (1963) considers some of the ritual implications that are ethnographically associated with cattle dung and fire in India, neither has approached these questions by exploring the socio-symbolic structure of built forms. Many ashmound features were important, monumental places within the cultural landscape of South IndiaÕs Neolithic agro-pastoralist inhabitants. They were built with the intent of expressing a specific range of meaning and engendering specific sets of actions and reactions. Monuments are public structures designed and built, in scale and detail, to be both non-prosaic and clearly recognizable forms of the built environment (Moore, 1996, p. 92). Their character is at once ordered, communicative and symbolic, with powerful affectual qualities. Monuments are saturated with a ‘‘horizon of meaning,’’ in which any one of several meanings may enable or constrain the thought and action of interacting subjects based on a range of spatial, temporal, and social circumstances (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 222). The production of monumental space is a transformative process in which material, symbols and signs are exchanged, symbolically grounding a given perceptual order (e.g., possible combinations of the cosmological, political, and social) to a set of material practices within a conceptually

7 At present, Korisettar et al.Õs (2002) argument is based primarily on field reconnaissance and paleo-botanical sampling at a small group of sites and the depth of cultural deposits at ashmound and non-ashmound Neolithic sites. It should be noted that little systematic work (i.e., surface collection and documentation) on determining the expanse of many Neolithic sites in the region has been undertaken (see Sinopoli and Morrison, 1992 for a notable exception).

319

established social order (Lefebvre, 1991, pp. 216–217; Moore, 1996, p. 97). Monuments are symbolically charged communicative media that condense complex and dynamic networks of meaning critical to the mediation of social relations in human communities (Lawrence and Low, 1990, p. 466; Lefebvre, 1991, p. 227). If ashmounds are understood as monumental forms of architecture it must be recognized that much of the specificities of meaning involved with their construction and use are well beyond the reach of contemporary analysis. This analysis is concerned with an understanding of monumentality centered on how meaning is conveyed through monumental architecture rather than identifying the precise nature and range of past meanings. In other words, it is the goal of this analysis to identify ashmounds as symbolically charged monuments, devices through which social relations were mediated, at least in part, within a ritual forum of community action. The focus is therefore on cultural formation processes involved in the production of ashmounds as features and places within a Neolithic cultural landscape; especially their socio-economic and socio-symbolic contexts. Before exploring specific behavioral implications involved with the construction of ashmounds, it is necessary to demonstrate that ashmounds are in fact examples of monumental architecture, capable of conveying a range of socio-symbolic meaning in a clear and legible manner. This will be accomplished using four visual dimensions of perception (taken from Higuchi, 1983, p. 183,8 and first applied to the study of monumentality in archaeology by Moore, 1996): clarity of form, contrast with background, prominence, and sufficiency of mass to emphasize presence. Moore (1996, p. 97) explores these dimensions to qualitatively assess how monumental architecture is used to communicate legible meanings regarding social relationships ‘‘not only because of their scale but because of their functional unity and visual prominence.’’ It is crucial to note that the analysis of these qualities serves only to identify monumental architecture from the quotidian. The production, mediation, and contestation of the range of meanings a monumental space may embody is historically contingent upon unique circumstances through which individual and group subjectivities are created (Smith, 2003). Past meaning cannot be read or perceived from a monument without access to the social context of its production. Ashmounds are clearly recognizable architectural forms. Even today, more than 3000 years after their final period of construction, ashmounds are recognized (where site destruction has not erased or obscured their form) as a class of cultural features by residents and

8

Originally designed by Lynch (1960).

320


researchers of the region alike. Excavations at Budihal-S (Paddayya, 1998), Utnur (Allchin, 1961), and Hulikallu (Krishna Sastry, 1979) display features such as low perimeter embankments of rubble, earth, and vitrified dung, rows of post-holes, trenching, and prepared surfaces of earth and dung which suggest that the remains of the lower elevation ashmound areas were once stock enclosures. The higher elevation sections of ashmounds are large mounds that can still be clearly observed today without the aid of excavation or careful scrutiny (Figs. 4A and B). The clarity of these forms across the Neolithic landscape of South India would have ensured the legibility of the range of meaning these structures were intended to convey. This does not imply that these meanings were universally understood and accepted and may well have been sites of contestation and resistance. Ashmound features also contrast with their natural background. In many recorded instances ashmounds and their surrounding settlements are situated in locally prominent points on the landscape. These include on the top of promontories or natural platforms, at the foot of granite inselburgs or clusters of small rocky outcrops, or in small valley passes between hills. The massive ashmound at Kudatini is one case of the latter, in which the feature stands prominently in the middle of a small pass between two hills (Fig. 5). The prominence of a built form can also be examined by measuring the visual angle of incidence with which an observer encounters a structure (Moore, 1996, p. 98). An angle of incidence is a measurement of the slope between the top of a structure and the eyes of a person standing at the closest point of viewing (Moore, 1996, p. 105). Fig. 6 illustrates the calculated angles of incidence of four of the ashmounds discussed in this text for a human observer with a height of approximately 1.75 m. Moore (1996, p. 105) calculates that the closest viewing point for disturbed Andean mounds is half of the distance of the moundÕs width. The normal angle of incidence involved in walking on flat to undulating terrain is between 10° and 15° below the horizon or 0° (Higuchi, 1983, p. 46) and a normal line of sight is approximately 10° when standing still (Moore, 1996, p. 98). The visually prominent nature from a vertical perspective of the Kudatini, Wandalli, Utnur, and Budihal-S ashmounds is detailed in Fig. 6. Given the normal line of site when standing still, an individual would have to tilt his/her neck upwards between approximately 14° and 27° to fully view these ashmounds from viewpoints approximately half their width away from the mound. Given their truly massive dimensions in comparison with those of other Neolithic structures (i.e., Neolithic houses) (Table 4) it is almost certain that when approaching a settlement a prehistoric observer would have viewed the ashmound prior to other cultural features. The monumentality of

ashmounds would have served to identify specific places in the landscape conveying information regarding the social identity of communities. Within a settlement, ashmounds would have served as a constant reminder of community social relations. Ashmounds vary greatly in size, due in part to millennia of destruction from human activity such as ash mining for building material and agricultural development (Paddayya, 1996) (Fig. 7), but also from the duration and intensity of activities involved in their construction. Fig. 8 displays a sample of surface areas from 22 sites for which adequate data are available. Fig. 9 displays rough volumetric estimates for 20 of the same ashmounds.9 Given that the construction material for these mounds are at their source individual patties of dung, even lower end volume estimates such as the ashmound at Kodekal (2323 m3) are strong indicators of the substantial mass of these mounds. Given that the (empty) volume of the next largest known Neolithic structure in the region; a large Neolithic house10 is approximately 22 m3, the mass of most ashmounds were more than sufficient to emphasize their presence in the settlements and landscape within which they were situated (Table 4). Previous researchers have not considered the possibility that ashmounds were used for manuring activities during the Neolithic and that the stronger productive emphasis on pastoralism during these times simply created an excess of dung. Perhaps due to its association both as a by-product of cattle (the most significant focus of the Neolithic economy) and the fertility of land, the collection, piling, and burning of dung was transformed from a prosaic maintenance activity into a cyclical ceremonial practice based on the ritualized destruction of a highly valued and sacrilized substance. While it is clear that at many sites ashmound construction achieved monumental dimensions, and likely that the rhythm of repetitive ritual behavior led to these results, ashmound construction almost certainly originated in quotidian behavior associated with stock enclosure maintenance. The early and in some cases mid use-lives of many of these features would not necessarily have had permanent monumental dimensions. In fact, ashmound dimensions may have expanded and contracted on a regular basis as dung deposits of variable sizes were differentially deposited and later burned throughout the course of their construction. It was through the differential rhythm and tempo of dung collection, piling, small scale burning, larger-scale, higher temperature vitrification, and

9

Surface area estimates were calculated using the following formula: pr1r2. For volume estimates the formula (4/3) pr1r2h/2 was employed. 10 i.e., estimated to have a 3.5 m diameter, 2 m high walls, and a 0.5 m conical roof.


321

Fig. 4. (A) Kupgal Ashmound (photo courtesy of Carla Sinopoli). (B) Gadiganuru Ashmound (photo by author).

capping with sterile sediments that these monuments were produced. By virtue of their visually conspicuous and functionally integrated nature, these features

marked agro-pastoral settlements and locales in the Neolithic landscape and served to commemorate and memorialize communal ritual.

322


Fig. 5. Kudatini Ashmound (photo courtesy of Carla Sinopoli).

Ritual architecture Given an understanding of the socio-symbolic, communicative structure of monumental architecture and its potential to convey condensed and complex networks of social and/or cosmological meaning (Moore, 1996, pp. 95–97), what sort of behavioral implications can be associated with the construction of ashmounds by the Neolithic agro-pastoralists of the South Deccan/North Dharwar region of South India? I argue that ritual behavior directly correlated with the importance of cattle pastoralism in the economic lifeway of these communities was responsible for the construction and maintenance of ashmound features. Ritual is a processual and strategic mode of human behavior. In a general sense ritual behavior is a means of engagement with some form of authoritative order or reality that is seen to both profoundly affect yet transcend present circumstances (Bell, 1997, p. 169). This engagement is accomplished through ‘‘deliberate and meaningful’’ practices and activities sanctioned and naturalized through a degree of social consensus granting the ritual act ‘‘special privilege’’ from other more mundane and prosaic activities (Bell, 1997, pp. 166, 167). High degrees of formalism, performance, adherence to tradition and rules, and socio-symbolic content are attributes common to much ethnographically and historically observed ritual practice (Bell, 1997, pp. 93–169).

Ritual action is often a highly formalized mode of communication through which social and cosmological orders are conveyed and social relationships reproduced and altered (Turner, 1967, p. 95). As a formalized and redundant form of behavior, ritual action is often ÔobjectifiedÕ in the form of material culture and constructed space (Moore, 1996, pp. 136–139). The latter serves as the loci for regular, repeated, and often ceremonial expressions of socio-symbolically charged information such as those associated with community integration. These built forms (structures and spaces) are themselves intentionally formalized to avoid ambiguities in the meanings they convey and as such can often be discerned from other (profane) spaces and structures (Moore, 1996, p. 137). However, as ritual behavior is temporally discontinuous, ritual spaces, and structures are sometimes shared with those of more profane activities (Moore, 1996, p. 13) and as such can be difficult to identify archaeologically. Yet specific kinds of ritual action, i.e., that which is public, ceremonial, and repetitive—often leave structured archaeological remains that are unique with respect to other spatial forms (Moore, 1996, p. 139). These differences are often recognizable by physical qualities such as size, design, construction, and location (Moore, 1996, p. 139), and are all measurable attributes by which monumental architecture is distinguished from other structural forms and uses of space within the structured remains of past cultural landscapes.


323

Fig. 6. Profiles with angles of incidence for four ashmounds.

Ashmounds were ritual lifespaces constructed by the gradual and formalized performance of ritual activity. Through the accumulation, burning, and periodic capping of dung with culturally sterile soils ashmounds acquired monumental architectural form at many sites. While the origin of these features was likely quotidian activities (i.e., cattle penning and dung disposal/storage) at some point these practices became secured to a symbolic system embedded in a uniquely Neolithic, South Indian conception of the world expressed as formalized and repetitive communal ritual. In the following discussion I employ five architectural variables (after Moore, 1996, pp. 139–167) to examine ritual behavior through the available archaeological evidence of ashmound remains, arguing that ashmounds were sites of public, repetitive, and ceremonial expressions of ritual action. These variables are: permanence, scale, centrality, ubiquity, and visibility. Each are employed to examine a range of social behavior in an effort to implicate ritual

practices involved with the construction and use of ashmounds and should not be taken to represent universal criteria for designating a ritual type or form of architecture. Ashmounds as structures are juxtaposed with other built forms in this archaeological landscape and examined within the communities in which they were an integral part. This demonstrates that ashmounds were monumental architectural forms designed to mediate social and perhaps cosmological meaning in a ritually communicative space. As Budihal-S is the only ashmound site which has been subjected to multi-season, large scale horizontal excavations, much of the focus of the following discussion is on this site. Permanence and scale Moore (1996, p. 139) considers the variable of permanence as an archaeological measure of the expected temporal length of a ritual structureÕs intended use-life by its

324


Fig. 7. Southern side of the Gadiganuru Ashmound illustrating destructive impact to the site from sediment mining (photo by author).

Fig. 8. Frequencies of surface area estimates for a sample of ashmounds.

Fig. 9. Frequencies of volume estimates for a sample of ashmounds.

architects. Attributes of importance for consideration within this variable are (1) quality of building material, (2) construction method, and (3) duration of use. Ashmounds were constructed primarily of cattle dung and culturally modified soils. The lower sections of excavated ashmounds consist of prepared surfaces with enclosure walls constructed of dung, soil, wood, and unshaped sandstone blocks (Allchin, 1961; Paddayya, 1998). The upper portions of ash mounds, with vertically

monumental proportions, were constructed of piled and burned dung. As such, construction of these mounds would have consisted of at least two tempos. The lower section of the mound would have been constructed and maintained expediently, largely in keeping with the needs of enclosing cattle and presumably renovated as needed. This would have entailed the construction of perimeter enclosures and embankments and their periodic maintenance. Maintenance to the interior surface would have required the regular removal of


excess dung and periodic resurfacing. Within the lower section of Ashmound I at Budihal-S there is a circular platform of sandstone blocks nine meters in diameter. This platform is located in the center of the enclosure amidst a small cluster of three child and a single cattle burial as well as a concentration of beads, chert blades, and knives and cattle and sheep/goat bone (Paddayya, 1998, p. 150). The presence of the platform, burials, and artifacts, in addition to this area being the location of intensive burning activity is strongly suggestive of community ceremonial activity. The upper sections of the mounds were constructed of incrementally deposited loads of dung which were episodically burned, gradually increasing the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the mounds over an extended period of time. The use of a building material so closely associated with a communityÕs lifeway and survival to construct structures of such massive dimensions is also suggestive of a high cultural value. As discussed above, the profiles of all excavated ashmounds indicated that there were at least two differential tempos to the burnings; frequent low temperature burnings of thin lenses or layers of dung and less frequent high temperature burnings of thick layers resulting in large deposits (as much as 1 m thick) of vitrified strata (Fig. 2). These depositional activities were interspersed with episodes in which many of the mounds were capped by culturally sterile soils (see Table 1). Both the high temperature burnings and the capping episodes served to strengthen and preserve the structural integrity of the mounds enhancing their permanence as monumental places. What exactly the differences in depositional tempo had to do with the rhythm of ritual activities involved in the production of ashmounds is uncertain. However, it does demonstrate that there were a variety of activities involved in ashmound construction, use and maintenance and that these activities were structured, repetitive, cyclical, and public. Ashmounds are clearly in a size class of their own in comparison to other structures in Neolithic settlements. Compare the surface area of the largest house at Budihal-S at 12.5 m2 with that of Ashmound I (upper mounded section) at 2000 m2 and Ashmound II at 1256 m2 (see Table 4). Given the size of many of these features and their accretional construction it is clear that the builders of these mounds intended them to be permanent structures. The C14 date sequence from Ashmound-I at Budihal-S suggests that its construction use and maintenance continued for as much as 300– 400 years, however, such a conclusion is tentative. Further comments on the temporal duration of construction on a particular ashmound is difficult as so few C14 dates are available (Fig. 3). The tempo of this construction was clearly episodic taking place on intra-seasonal, seasonal, generational or inter-generational scales. The cyclical burning of the dung and the capping of layers with soils extracted presumably from beyond the zone

325

of human habitation also suggests the systematic practice of ritual activity that was public, repetitive, and ceremonial. Centrality and ubiquity Revisiting dozens of previously recorded sites, Paddayya (1991) established that ashmounds are almost always at the center of intensive scatters of Neolithic and in some cases post-Neolithic occupational debris (cf., Korisettar et al., 2002). His horizontal excavation at Budihal-S documented the centrality of these features in relation to the surrounding settlement area. Budihal-S is a large Neolithic site consisting of four ÔlocalitiesÕ of intensive occupational debris spread out over an area approximately 12 ha (Paddayya, 1998). At the center of at least two of these localities are ashmounds (a third locality has a large central deposit of ash that has been largely destroyed, a fourth locality appears less certain). Excavations in three of the localities exposed stratified Neolithic occupational remains adjacent to the ashmounds and ash deposits. At locality I, the remains of 10 circular houses were excavated in the area directly south of the ashmound and on either side of the large animal butchering floor (Paddayya et al., 1995, p. 25). Limited excavations at Hulikallu (Krishna Sastry, 1979, p. 49) also exposed the remains of a sizable habitation area proximal to the ashmounds including at least one circular house floor. At many other ashmound sites surface remains of occupational debris are scattered over adjacent areas (e.g., Gadiganuru, Kurekuppa; see Allchin, 1963 and Paddayya, 1991 for lists of sites). The central position of ashmounds within many Neolithic settlements is a further indication of their importance in the social regimes of these communities. There are also cases where ashmounds or large deposits of ashmound materials are found on landforms adjacent to settlement sites such as at Sanganakallu (Korisettar et al., 2002) and VMS-110. While many ashmound settlements contain only a single mound, at several sites there are as many as four (Table 1). Whether these mounds were constructed and used simultaneously is uncertain, but if they were this may indicate that the ritual activity associated with their maintenance was oriented towards specific community groups such kin-group affiliations; however, this remains speculative. The absence of ashmounds at many Neolithic sites—e.g., Hallur, Maski, Tekkalakota, Veerapuram, Watgal—may indicate that ritual activity associated with cattle production was restricted to particular communities or that ashmounds at theses sites have subsequently been destroyed. It should be noted that during the excavation of Neolithic Watgal a rammed earth feature surrounded (but not mounded) by a large and dense concentration ash lensing was exposed (Devaraj et al., 1995).

326


Visibility The consideration of the visual accessibility of ritual performance at ashmound features contributes to a better understanding of the public nature of ceremonial life at these places (see Fogelin, 200311). The scale of ashmounds and their central location proximal to otherwise vertically undifferentiated settlements suggests an equality of visual access to ceremonial activity within the ashmound precinct. At least one activity, the burning of the mound, would have been visible to all in the community. However, there is the possibility that ceremonial activity within the enclosed lower mound sections, such as postulated earlier for the circular sandstone platform at Budihal-S, may have been visually obscured to those on the exterior of the enclosure by perishable materials used in wall construction. Lines of post-holes around the perimeter of the lower mound at Utnur suggest the presence of such a vision restricting wall (Allchin, 1961, pp. 66–68)). Large patches of burned surfaces at Budihal-S in isolated areas (such as that surrounding the platform) indicate that pyrotechnic activity was not restricted to the upper ashmound. However, the large surface area within the enclosure could have held hundreds of people at a time. And while it may be concluded that the enclosure walls functioned to keep cattle in, it cannot be determined that they also functioned to restrict access to ceremonial activities within its confines. Ritual forms of communication that are public, formalized, and repetitive require the structured organization of space. The structured remains of ashmounds, which are monumental, permanent, highly visible, and central to areas populated during the South Indian Neolithic suggest that these structural spaces were the location of public, formalized, and repetitive communal ritual. Ashmounds were monumental forms of architecture built in part through ritual processes intended to transmit socio-symbolically charged information likely concerning group integration and social reproduction.

The ritual and monumental afterlives of ashmounds in post-Neolithic South India The activities involved with ashmound construction appear to have begun at some point during the mid centuries of the third millennium BC and endured for several hundred years at many sites across South India (Fig. 1). Following a shift in economic emphasis from 11 Fogelin (2003) employs horizontal sight line angles to examine visibility between circumambulatory and assembly areas in Early Historic period Indian rock-cut chaitya and open air stupa complexes. This analysis has effectively demonstrated visual barriers between two spatially segregated areas of ritual practice in Early Historic Buddhist architecture.

a strong productive concentration on pastoralism in Neolithic times to either a more balanced mix of agriculture and animal husbandry or a stronger reliance on the former during the subsequent Iron-Age (1200–400 BC), the practicality of creating monuments employing a material with such valuable economic utility as cow dung gradually became obsolete. Monuments continued to be erected on the regional landscape, however, constructed instead primarily of stone and earth (i.e., megaliths). Despite significant changes in social organization, economy, and landscape production with the transition from the Neolithic period to the Iron-Age (see Brubaker, 2001; Moorti, 1994), many ashmounds continued to be important monumental places involved in ritual activities central to Iron-Age landscape production. Yet with this transition, the social lives of ashmounds were significantly transformed, often in form and almost certainly in terms of meaning. Despite this transformation, there are clear indications that the ritual and monumental nature of ashmounds as significant places in the cultural landscape of the Neolithic were embedded in the social memory of Iron-Age societies. Memory is a spatially contextualized mode of retaining and reproducing sensory and mental impressions (Alcock, 2001; Bachelard, 1964). Social memory involves the transmitted memories of groups of people; memory which serves in part to construct group and individual identities and subjectivities tying the present to the past (Alcock, 1993, 2001; Bradley, 1987; Connerton, 1989). The performance of socio-symbolic action through formalized repetitive ritual practice is an important mode of transmission for group traditions (Bell, 1997, pp. 167–169). During the Iron-Age there are a number of different archaeologically visible ritual practices that involve ashmounds in the production of monumental places within the cultural landscape. These include (1) the continuation of ashmound formation in a manner consistent with the Neolithic period, (2) the occupation, reoccupation or re-use of locales with ashmounds, including, (a) occupations not including the construction of megalithic monuments, (b) the construction of megalithic monuments adjacent to existent ashmounds, and (c) the incorporation of ashmounds into expansive megalithic complexes, and (3) the recycling of ashmound material in megalithic memorials. Abundant deposits of Iron-Age pottery from early in the stratigraphic sequence at the site of Palavoy, as well as an especially late C14 date from layer 7 in Ashmound I, indicate that the practice of building ashmounds continued into the Iron-Age (Rami Reddy, 1976). The abundant presence of Iron-Age pottery in the surface scatters of occupational debris surrounding many ashmounds, as well as the occurrence of megaliths (e.g., distributions of stone circles, dolmens, and menhirs of variable size and extent with or without interred human


remains) at or around many of these sites suggest a continuity of occupation or at least re-occupation and reuse of these places for monumental building activities (Allchin, 1963; Rami Reddy, 1976; Sundara, 1971). During the course of the Vijayanagara Metropolitan Survey every ashmound or ashmound-like deposit observed was directly proximal to either surface scatters of IronAge and Early Historic cultural material or standing megaliths (Morrison, n.d.). Surface collections from one such site, VMS-634 has yielded a ceramic assemblage dominated by Iron Age/Early Historic types (Johansen, 2003). Perhaps the most interesting continuity of ritual practice is the erection of a massive megalithic monument on top of and around an ashmound in the Shorapur doab just north of the town of Shahpur (Fig. 1). Meadows Taylor (1853, pp. 393-396; 1862) reported that the 20 m diameter mound at this site was encircled by eight perimeters of large standing stones (some as tall as 3 m) and that the mound itself was faced with flat stones and capped with a layer of soil with a circle of standing stones on its summit (Fig. 10). Ashmound deposits (up to 3 m thick) were discovered when he excavated the mound looking for tomb cysts. Meadows Taylor (1853, 1862, p. 396) believed, according to one of the

327

competing theories of his day, that the powdered and vitrified ash in these deposits were the result of largescale human cremation. In the same general area where Meadows Taylor made his observations, Paddayya (1973) reports the remains of a large stone circle megalith on top of the Shakapur ashmound. Allchin (1963, p. 68) also reports a large stone circle of basalt and gneiss boulders on the top of a large ashmound on the Hanamsagar–Kodekap road. To these cases must also be added the Iron-Age Ôash circle gravesÕ; a megalithic construction found at a few sites close to ashmound locations in which circular surface deposits of dung ash enclose both stone circle and dolmen megaliths. This unique category of megalith has been observed in subtly different forms at the sites of Rajankolur, Dimanhal (Paddayya, 1973), Chikka Benekal, Piklihal, and Lingsugar (Allchin, 1960, 1963) and Billamrayan Gudda (Munn, 1935) (see Fig. 1). At each of these locations it appears that deposits of powdered and vitrified dung from nearby ashmounds were incorporated into the construction of the later IronAge monuments, although this dung ash may have been processed during the Iron-Age. Finally, the recent excavation of an Iron-Age four-legged terracotta sarcophagus burial from occupational deposits north-east of the

Fig. 10. Plan and Section of the Shapur Ashmound-Megalith (after Meadows Taylor, 1862).

328


massive ashmound at Kudatini (Boivin et al., 2002) is another dramatic example of ritual and memorial continuity of place bridging the Neolithic and Iron-Age periods. Clearly there exists in this regional transition of monumental practice and communal ritual a transmutation of social memory from Neolithic to Iron Age cultural landscape production. Ashmounds have formed an integral part of the experience and perception of those inhabiting the cultural landscapes of the South Deccan/North Dharwar region from the Neolithic and Iron-Age through to the present day. The archaeological evidence for Iron-Age incorporation of the space and material of Neolithic ashmound monuments into similar and very different forms of landscape production demonstrates a spatial and temporal continuity of social importance associated with very special places in very differently constituted social orders. The continuity of ritual and monumental emphasis on special points on the cultural landscape demonstrates the fluid nature of cultural change in this dynamic regional landscape.

Conclusion Neolithic ashmounds were embedded in an agro-pastoral landscape in which small village communities emphasized the production of pastoral products. Sites and settlements marked by ashmounds were located in similar landscape elements ecologically favorable to pastoralism and small-scale agriculture. Ashmounds were constructed incrementally, synchronized with the social and ritual rhythm of cattle keeping. Within years or generations many of these mounds had acquired the dimensional attributes of monumental form. The recognition of ashmounds as monumental architecture entails an understanding of the socio-symbolic potential of built form. Based upon a number of visual dimensions of perception, this examination of ashmounds demonstrates their monumentality and the communicative structure of their form as a unique class of features. The proportions of many ashmounds ensured that these were the most prominent structures on the Neolithic landscape. Within settlements or more ephemeral encampments, ashmounds were visually unavoidable and served to constantly reinforce complex networks of socio-symbolic meaning. While no attempt to understand the specificities of this possible range of meanings is made, certain behavioral implications involved in ashmound construction inferred from the archaeological record suggest an origin in ritual action. A close examination of ashmound deposits illustrates the cyclical and repetitive rhythm of activities involved in their construction. In the upper sections of excavated ashmounds this included the collection of cow dung, its deposition in a central location within agro-pastoral

settlements and locales, its subsequent burning and the capping of some of these episodes with culturally sterile soils. The regular and formalized nature of these depositional episodes suggests an interpretation that is consistent with the objectification of ritual action in the production of these places. Examining ashmounds using a set of dimensions designed to infer specific kinds of ritual activity in built form, demonstrates the possibility that these features were the location of regular public ceremonial activity associated with cycles of pastoral production. The accretional tempo of ashmound construction and use and their monumental form likely served to continually reinforce socio-symbolically charged information conveyed during regular episodes of ritual practice. A closer analysis of the activities involved in ashmound construction, use and maintenance poses a variety of new questions about Neolithic ecology, environment, society, economy, and ritual. An attempt has been made to explain their uniqueness and ubiquity in the prehistoric South Indian landscape as intersections for a complex of dynamic cultural interactions rather than single sphere use facilities like cattle pens or refuse dumps. Crucially, this re-visitation of the Ôashmound problemÕ has demonstrated the certainty that much more work needs to be undertaken in the directions of data collection, analysis, and theory building before the full explanatory potential of the ashmounds is even close to being broached.

Acknowledgments This work was originally a MasterÕs thesis completed by the author in the spring of 2000 for the University of ChicagoÕs Department of Anthropology. The argument presented here is built on archaeological data carefully collected by many researchers but especially by F.R. Allchin and K. Paddayya. A great debt is owed to them for their exhaustive and challenging research. Discussions with Professor K. Paddayya while he was a visiting Fulbright scholar at the University of Michigan in 1999 were also an invaluable resource in formulating and researching this paper. Comments from Andrew Bauer, Radhika Bauer, Kathleen Morrison (thesis supervisor), Sandra Morrison, Carla Sinopoli, and Adam T. Smith were very helpful and greatly appreciated. I thank John OÕShea and an anonymous reviewer for their very valuable comments during the review process. All responsibility for errors and opinions are my own.

References Alcock, S., 2001. The reconfiguration of memory in the Roman Empire. In: Alcock, S., DÕAltroy, T., Morrison, K., Carla

P.G. Johansen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330 Sinopoli (Eds.), Imperial Designs: Comparative Dynamics of Early Empires. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge. Alcock, S., 1993. Graecia Capta: The landscapes of Roman Greece. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Allchin, F.R., 1963. Neolithic Cattle-Keepers of South India. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Allchin, F.R., 1961. Utnur Excavations. Andhra Pradesh Government Archaeological Series No. 5. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Allchin, F.R., 1960. Piklihal Excavations. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Allchin, F.R., Allchin, B., 1974. Some new thoughts on Indian cattle. In: van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, J.E., Ubaghs, J.M. (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1973. E.J. Brill, Lieden, pp. 71–77. Bachelard, G., 1964. The Poetics of Space. Beacon Press, Boston. Bell, C., 1997. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. Binford, L., 1982. The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 5–31. Binford, L., 1983. In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, New York. Boivin, N., Korisettar, R., Venkatasubbaiah, P.C., Lewis, H., Havanur, D., Malagyannavar, K., Chincholi, S., 2002. Exploring Neolithic and Megalithic south India: the Bellary District archaeological project. Antiquity 76 (4), 937–938. Bradley, R., 1987. Time regained: the creation of continuity. Journal of the British Archaeological Association 140, 1–17. Brubaker, R., 2001. Aspects of Mortuary Variability in the South Indian Iron Age. Bulletin of the Deccan College PostGraduate and Research Institute 60–61, 253–302. Bruce Foote, R., 1979[1916]. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities of India. Leeladevi, Delhi. Caratini, C., Fontugne, M., Pascal, J.P., Tissot, C., Bentaleb, I., 1991. A major change at ca. 3500 years BP in the vegetation of the Western Ghats in North Kanara, Karnataka. Current Science 61 (9 and 10), 669–672. Connerton, P., 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Devaraj, D.V., Shaffer, J.C.S., Patil, Balasubramanya, 1995. The Watgal Excavations: an Interim Report. Man and Environment 20 (2), 57–74. Fogelin, L., 2003. Ritual and presentation in early buddhist religious architecture. Asian Perspectives 42 (1), 129–154. Fuller, D.Q., Korisettar, R., Venkatasubbaiah, P.C., 2001. Southern neolithic cultivation systems: a reconstruction based on Archaeo-botanical evidence. South Asian Studies 17, 171–187. Fuller, D.Q., 2003. Indus and non-indus agricultural traditions: local developments and crop adoptions on the Indian Peninsula. In: Weber, S., Belcher, W. (Eds.), Indus Ethnobiology: New Perspectives from the Field. Lexington Books, Maryland (Chapter 10). Graham, M., 1993. Settlement organization and residential variability among the Raramuri. In: Cameron, C.M., Tomka, S.A. (Eds.), Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 138–153.

329

Harvey, D., 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Ch.12–14. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Higuchi, T., 1983. The visual and spatial structure of landscapes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Johansen, P., 2003. Variability in surface distributions of ceramics from three iron age -early historic sites in the Tungabhadra Corridor, Northern Karnataka. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting on South Asia, October 18th, 2004, Madison, Wisconsin. Kajale, M.D., 1989. Ancient Grains from Excavations at Hallur (1976) Season, District Dharwar, Karnataka. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 47–48, 123–128. Korisettar, R., Venkatasubbaiah, P.C., Fuller, D.Q., 2002. Brahmagiri and Beyond: the Archaeology of the Southern Neolithic. In: Settar, S., Korisettar, R. (Eds.), In Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Volume I. Prehistory, Publications of the Indian Council for Historical Research, Manohar, New Dehli, pp. 151–238. Korisettar, R., Joglekar, P.P., Fuller, D.Q., Venkatasubbaiah, P.C., 2001. Archaeological Re-investigation and Archaeozoology of Seven Southern Neolithic Sites in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Man and Environment 26 (2), 47–66. Krishna Sastry, V.V., 1979. The ashmound excavations at Hulikallu. The Andhra Pradesh Journal of Archaeology 1 (2), 47–55. Lynch, K., 1960. The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Lawrence, D., Low, S., 1990. The built environment and spatial form. Annual Reviews in Anthropology 19, 453–505. Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Lycett, M., 2001. Transformation of place: occupational history and differential persistence in seventeenth century New Mexico. In: Preucell, R.W. (Ed.), Archaeologies of the Pueblo Revolt: Identity, Meaning, and Renewal in the Pueblo World. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 61–74. Meadows Taylor, Captain 1862. Description of Cairns, Cromlechs, Kristavaens and Other Celto-Druidical or Scythian Monuments in the Dekhan. Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy 24(3), 329–362. Meadows Taylor, Captain 1853. Notices of Cromlechs, Cairns, and other Ancient Scytho-Druidical Remains in the Principality of Shorapur. Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society vol. XVII (IV), 380–429. Mittre, V., Ravi, S., 1990. The environment and economy of the neolithic cultures of South India: paleobotanical evidence. In: Sundara, A., Bhatsoori, K.G. (Eds.), Archaeology in Karnataka. Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Mysore, pp. 100–112. Monahan, B., (in press). South Indian Animal Use: Subsistence Patterns and Exchange Practices. To appear in Recent Research on the Archaeology and Paleoanthropology of South India, edited by V.V. Rami Reddy and Kathleen Morrison. Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi. Moore, J., 1996. Architecture and Power in the Ancient Andes: The Archaeology of Public Buildings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Moorti, U., 1994. Megalithic Culture of South India: Socioevolutionary Perspectives. Ganga Kaveri Publishing House, Varanasi.

330


Morrison, K. n.d. Oceans of Dharma: The Political Ecology of Place. Manuscript in preparation. Mujumdar, G.G., Rajaguru, S.N., 1966. Ashmound Excavations at Kupgal. Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Poona. Munn, L., 1921. Ancient mines and megaliths in Hyderabad. Memoirs of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society 69 (5), 1–11. Munn, L., 1935. Prehistoric and protohistoric finds in the Raichur district. Man in India 15, 225–250. Murty, M.L.K., 1989. Pre-iron age agricultural settlements in South India: an ecological perspective. Man and Environment XIV (1), 65–81. Nagaraja Rao, M.S., 1971. Protohistoric Cultures of the Tungabhadra Valley. Nagaraja Rao, Dharwar. Newbold, T.J., 1843. On some Ancient Mounds of Scorious Ashes in Southern India. The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 7, 129–136. Paddayya, K., 2001. The Problem of Ashmounds of Southern Deccan in the Light of Budihal Excavations, Karnataka. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-graduate Institute (Diamond Jubilee Volume), Volume 60–61, 189–225. Paddayya, K., 1999. Excavations at The Neolithic Ashmound Site Of Budihal, Gulbarga District, Karnataka. Article on the web @ www.digindia.com. Paddayya, K., 1998. Evidence of Neolithic Cattle-Penning at Budihal, Gulbarga District, Karnataka. South Asian Studies 14, 141–153. Paddayya, K., 1996. Modern impacts on archaeological sites in India: a case study from the Shorapur Doab, Karnataka. Man and Environment XXI (2), 75–88. Paddayya, K., 1993a. Ashmound Investigations at Budihal, Gulbarga District, Karnataka. Man and Environment 18 (1), 57–88. Paddayya, K., 1993b. Further Field Investigations at Budihal, Gulbarga District, Karnataka. In Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate Research Institute 53, 277–322. Paddayya, K., 1991. The Ashmounds of South India: Fresh Evidence and Possible Explanation. In Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate Research Institute 51-52, 573–626. Paddayya, K., 1973. Investigations into the neolithic culture of the shorapur doab. E.J. Brill, Leiden. Paddayya, K., Thomas, P.K., Joglekar, P.P., 1995. A Neolithic animal butchering floor from Budihal, Gulbarga District, Karnataka. Man and Environment 20 (2), 23–31. Possehl, G., 1989. Radiocarbon Dates from South Asian Archaeology. The University of Pennsylvania Museum Occasional Publication of the South Asian Section, Philadelphia. Rami Reddy, V.R., 1990. Ashmounds in South India: A Review. In: Sundara, A., Bhatsoori, K.G. (Eds.), Archaeology in Karnataka. Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Mysore, pp. 85–99.

Rami Reddy, V.R., 1976. The Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cultures of Palavoy, South India: With Special Reference to the Ashmound Problem. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Sastri, T.V.G., Kasturi Bai, M., Vara Prasada Rao, J., 1984. Veerapuram: A type site for cultural study in the Krishna Valley. Archaeological and Cultural Research Institute, Hyderabad. Sewell, R., 1899. The Cinder-Mounds of Bellary. The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 51, 1–16. Sinopoli, C., Morrison, K., 1992. Archaeological Survey at Vijayanagara. Research and Exploration 8 (2), 237–239. Shah, D.R., 1973. Animal Remains from Kodekal Excavation. In: Paddayya, K. (Ed.), Investigations Into The Neolithic Culture Of The Shorapur Doab. E.J. Brill, Leiden, pp. 92– 95. Smith, A.T., 2003. The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Societies. University of California Press. Soja, E.W., 1985. The Spatiality of Social Life: Towards a Transformative Retheorization. In: Gregory, D., Urry, J. (Eds.), Social Relations and Spatial Structures. St. MartinÕs Press, New York, pp. 90–127. Sundara, A., 1971. New discoveries of ashmounds in North Karnataka and their implications. In: Ganesan, S., Rajan, S., Ramaswami, N.S., Sampath, D.S. (Eds.), Professor K.A. Nilakanta Shastri Felicitation Volume. K.A. Nilakanta Shastri Felicitation Committee, Madras, pp. 308–314. Turner, V., 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Cornell University Press, London and Ithica. Venkatasubbaiah, P.C., Kajale, M., 1991. Biological remains from neolithic and early historic sites in Cuddapah district, Andhra Pradesh. Man and Environment 15, 85–97. Venkatasubbaiah, P.C., Pavankar, S.J., Joglekar, P.P., 1992. Neolithic faunal remains from the central Pennar Basin, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh. Man and Environment XII (1), 55–59. Wandsnider, L., 1998. Landscape element configuration, lifespace, and occupation history. In: Sullivan, A.P. (Ed.), Time and Archaeological Landscapes. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 21–42. Wandsnider, L., 1992. The spatial dimension of time. In: Rossignol, J., Wandsnider, L. (Eds.), Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York and London, pp. 257–284. Woolley, L., 1940. Some aspects of problems in Indian archaeology. Journal of the Royal Society of the Arts, 87. Yazdani, G.L., 1936. Notes on a survey of Neolithic sites. Annual Report of the Hyderabad Archaeological Department, 1935–1936. Zeuner, F.E., 1960. On the origin of the cinder mounds of the Bellary district, India. Bulletin of the London Institute of Archaeology 2, 37–44.