Echoes from the Ashmounds: Reinterpreting Early South Indian Settlements

Image Credits-Vajiram&Ravi

Towering in the granite hills of the decan plateau from the Neolithic period, the colossal ashmounds of South India once a constant phenomenon now possess various mysteries to the archeologists. Lifestyle, ancient rituals, subsistence methods or social norms lay in these mounds the answers to these intriguing aspects but are yet to be fully understood. What these heaps of cattle dung ash represent still sparks ambiguity. The southern Neolithic sites fall in the time bracket of c. 2900-1000 BC, earliest dates ranging between c. 2900-2400 BC and come from Utnur, Pallavoy, Kodekal, and Watgal. The geography here comprising of granite hills with black soil meant early Neolithic villages were generally located on hills and plateau and occasionally along banks of major rivers. A feature which distinguished sites in this region from others is that they were marked by ashmounds. Dominating research by discussion of these mounds with the traditional view of their occurrence being gradual accumulation over centuries. But recent archaeological work (Fuller et al., 2007)  through advanced dating techniques have drastically reshaped our thinking of these sites, suggesting a much shorter and more intensive period of activity. This essay attempts to examine how new radiometric evidence needs a re-evaluation of their formation, their social and ritual role, and what relationship they possessed with early village settlements.

First reported in the 1830s and 1840s initially called ‘cinder mounds’ or ‘cinder camps’ were thought by some to be of volcanic or limestone origin. These sites are large accumulations of ash and vitrified material, created by repeated burning of heaps of cow dung marking Neolithic cattle pens which were surrounded by heavy enclosures made of tree trunks.They offer insights into the life of Neolithic people - the early farmers and herders, their tools, their diet, their subsistence strategies, their craft and production skills and their lifestyle via examining the archaeological remains found in these mounds as evidence to interpret and try to unravel the mysteries of this period.Yet the question prevailed whether these mounds represent in situ burning of cattle dung which accumulated naturally over time or whether the dung was deliberately heaped up and burnt.

The first excavation was carried out by J. Newbold at Kupgal ashmound site where he found remains of animal bones, pottery and a rubbing stone.These findings convinced him that these mounds were creation of humans and not geographical formations. Robert Bruce Foote in the late 19th century conducted excavations at Budikanama (Kudatini) and via chemical analysis of the material became the first professional to link ashmounds with Neolithic culture. He argued that Neolithic cattle herders excessively burnt heaps of cow dung resulting in the formation of these ashmounds.Few agreed with his explanation, some challenged it and put forward alternate ones like Rober Sewell who argued that some mounds may belong to the medieval period. While G Yazdani proposed that these mounds might have been made by metal workers in gold or iron. Another thought that prevailed argued that ancient iron smelters may have had a hand in the creation of these mounds.But the 1950s work of Raymond Allchin and F.E. Zeuner solidified Foote’s claims and made important contributions that changed our understanding of these ashmounds.

Zeuner took assistance of chemical and microscopic study to analyze the ash remains at Kudatini to establish beyond doubt that these mounds were made out of cattle dung. While Allchin conducted a survey of Raichur Doab (between Krishna and Tungabhadra) and excavated the habitation site of Piklihal and ashmound of Utnur. The Utnur excavation linked this site with a rectangular enclosure surrounded by post-holes, interpreted by Allchin as a cattle pen. Based on their findings and work it appears that the accumulation of cattle dung that had been burnt occurred many times and not once and seemed to be deliberate and not accidental. But few answers still remained not concretely answered such as - why was it burnt at regular intervals? Was it done to clean the cattle pen or had some symbolic significance? Allchin did suggest that they may have represented seasonal rituals of purification. K. Paddayya with his excavation work at Budihal tried to provide satisfactory reasons for the cow dung accumulation and burning in particular - to keep the settlement clean, to protect people and animals from health hazards posed by vermin-infected dung heaps, and to scare wild animals away. It is also believed to be part of rituals aimed at promoting fertility of cattle. Thus the purpose of these ashmounds likely lay in a blend of ritual sacrifice and practical needs in the life the neolithic community who lived here.

Another interesting question that arose was the relationship between ashmounds and the settlements. Allchin suggested two kinds of mounds- (i) Those in or near permanent settlements eg. Kupgal (ii) Others associated with any settlements eg. Utnur. But K. Paddayya suggested that habitation areas and ashmounds were two separate, different types of sites but partly contemporaneous and related to each other. He further stated these mounds were not in situ accumulation of dung but that dung and garbage from pens and house areas was piled up here and then burnt.Hinting these sites are part of a sedentary Neolithic village culture.This leads us to our next important question- what was the subsistence strategies of these southern  Neolithic sites based on the evidence found in these ashmounds?

There were 3 main views put out to answer this question, the first one being that people here were fully sedentary farmers who cleared forests to carry out agriculture. The second view is that while people here may have practised some amount of agriculture, they were nomadic pastoralists in general. The third view states them as sedentary pastoralists who did not practice agriculture whatsoever. Raymond Allchin and his wife, Bridge Allchin put forward the view that ashmound sites at Utnur and Kudatini represent seasonal cattle camps in their 1997 work Origins of a Civilization: The Prehistory and Early Archaeology of South Asia. They also suggest that the evidence found here reflects a gradual transition from cattle pastoralism (in early sites) towards agriculture (in later sites). But the radio carbon dating of Watgal site highlights its early date and  not possessing any ashmounds , shows that these mound sites were not necessarily earliest. Another question which arises is whether ashmounds were  found across all Neolithic sites.

No, there were some Neolithic sites where no ashmounds were found like the Pennar Basin in Cuddapah district of Andhra Pradesh and in sites in upper Tungabhadra valley and south Karnataka. Absence of ashmounds was suggested by P.C. Venkatasubbbaiah in the Cuddapah region stating it may be because of difference in subsistence strategies as discussed above. He elaborated by stating people here practised animal breeding but also relied on millets and pulses so farming was also an important aspect of subsistence. So due this importance of agriculture here cow dung might have been used as manure so, no burning or ceremonial or other purposes. Another explanation to non-existence of mounds was that even if agriculture was practised, manuring was not necessarily needed. So here the dung and mound ash could have been used to plaster houses. It is argued that differences in cultural tradition than subsistence strategies had more role in the presence or absence of mounds.The different models proposed were not fully supported by dating evidence and there is a strong need to determine more accurately whether different sites, including ashmounds, existed at the same time and how long they took to form. But Dorian Q Fuller work-Dating the Neolithic of south india: New Radiometric evidence for key economic, social and ritual transformations in 2007 played a crucial role in offering a new chronological model for southern Neolithic age helping to resolve various problems. This work of Fuller will be referred to for the rest of the essay and for discussing a case study on Utnur site. With the help of radiocarbon dating applied with Bayesian statistical models, his work provided not only new 35 AMS dates to the existing 61 radiocarbon dates previously published but also a reassessment of all existing ones also. Based on the chronological data four phases were determined  for this region: three phases of Neolithic followed by a transitional phase of Neolithic to megalithic. Phase I was marked by seasonal ashmound sites restricted to Raipur and Shorapur Doabs.In Phase II, many village sites appeared, expanding south of the Tungabhadra River and into areas like the Upper Krishna, Upper Tungabhadra, and Southern Karnataka. By Phase III, ashmound formation had mostly ended, and Neolithic settlements spread further east and south into present-day Kurnool and Cuddapah districts.Bayesian statistics was therefore applied to calibrate the radio carbon dates and numerous case studies now demonstrated their utility in achieving  a better understanding of these dates.

Image Credits-ResearchGate

CASE STUDY ON UTNUR

This essay will now glance upon a classic ashmound site of Utnur located in the  Adilabad district of Telangana,  known for its significant neolithic excavations, particularly the discovery of large ashmounds. It is an important site for understanding the Southern Neolithic culture of India and the development of settled life during that period. A site  which was revisited  by Fuller and his team again in 2007 after Allchin’s 1963 excavation. Allchin’s research here unearthed the presence of cattle hoof prints, a sequence of post-hole defined pens, and evidence of episode of dung burning within these pens.Three radiocarbon dates are available for Utnur but their interpretation was marked by an important question whether the occupation here marks  a long span or brief period. The old view established Utnur as a 600-year old ashmound site and when calibration probabilities were added the focus on centuries was from 2800 to 2200 BC aligning with this view. But three dates have wide error margins in line with their place early in the history of C-14 dating. A much shorter span of period makes better sense when the dates and stratigraphy are considered together. The date BM-54 comes near the base of the Utnur sequence from Layer 11A (Allchin 1963; 46, 144) suggesting the site was founded in the first half of the third millennium.The occupational debris in this deposit predates any post-holes or clear ashmound accumulation here.Based on these findings it is possible that starting at around first half of third millennium BC, this site served as an occupational site perhaps seasonally. Allchin regarded this phase as a long duration occupation.

The remaining two dates come from the subsequent Phases IIA (TF-167) and IIIA (TF-168) in the sequence of the site. Attempting to use these dates to model the probable date for the boundary between Phases I and II, we get a focus for the transition on 2600-2500 cal.BC. Similar model usage to obtain boundary between Phases II and III, we get a focus on 2400-2300 BC, perhaps with an end of the sequence at 2200 BC. This model assumes two phases for the creation of ashmound over a period of 300 years (approx). This inference aligns with the largely held assumption about ashmounds representing long-term, cyclically-used cattle camps and ritual sites in Neolithic culture of seasonal pastoralism and cultivation as put out by Allchin, Korisettar, Fuller, Boivin and Johansen yet the life span provided for this site is less than the normally quoted 600 years. It is important to bring to readers notice that the case of this particular site has no solid evidence to substantiate long term occupation, use or visits after the final ash layer. And so, after ashmound creating burnings stopped, Utnur ceased to be a site of occupation.

Despite these mysteries and not been  able to get a comprehensive answer based on the  finding discovered at Utnur it still remains as the earliest date ashmound, with its formation believed to be occurring at c. 2500 .The sequencing model could be suggested to be considerably shorter, if we take the boundaries to be 2500, 2400 and 2300 BC. But despite all the advancement made and data collected and analysed here the limitation of the radiocarbon dates precludes either confirmation or rejection of such a view. This latter, brief chronology for the Utnur ashmound might however be constructed on the basis of evidence found in other ashmound sites which have been excavated as research continues.

These ashmound sites were either abandoned like Utnur or became different kinds of sites as sedentary village occupation developed like Budihal. Overall, it is very clear that ashmound formation occurred over quite a long period though the possible existence of abandonment layers may indicate that any particular episode of ashmound formation was relatively limited. Yet a question that remains unanswered is why ashmound formation was re-initiated at some sites like Kudatini while others were abandoned or became village settlements prior to one or two centuries of dung burning activity.

To conclude, since their first encounter and recognition in the 1830s ashmound of South India have become unique subjects of attraction and importance to the archeologists trying to solve the mysteries of Neolithic south India. Marking a stark shift in the traditional view of their creation and reasoning to new models helped by new radiocarbon and other scientific advancements and statistical methods. These new methods have overturned the previous outlook of early scholars from long term occupation to short and more intense periods often distinct from preceding long term village occupations. Most models have agreed with this gradual accumulation over  an extended period and their status as ritual formations.Their creation thus takes on significance as an element of local ‘performers’ that set the stage for the establishment of village sites.What remains mystery is how Neolithic dung burning and ashmound settlement sites were abandoned as labour and ritual practices shifted towards megalithic burials of select individuals. Further study and research are crucial to crack the code and get more knowledge about the rise of agriculture and sedentism and later emergence of political economies marked by craft specialization, trade and social hierarchy. A fire that sparked the first dung burning might have been a normal phenomenon for that person but it ignited the flames to unravel the unknown of this period.

---

By Dhanajay

My name is Dhanajay Sharma and I am pursuing history honours from hindu college. My field of interest lies in ancient history of India , economic history of medieval Europe and military history of WW2.

---

References

1. Upinder Singh, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India. From Stone Age to the 12th Century , (Delhi, Pearson, 2009), 146-147 

2.  Wikipedia contributors. Neolithic ashmounds. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_ashmounds

3. Fuller, Dorian. (2001). Brahmagiri and Beyond: The Archaeology of the Southern Neolithic [2001]

4. Dales, G. F., & Allchin, F. R. (1964). Neolithic Cattle-Keepers of South India: A study of the Deccan ashmounds. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 84(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.2307/597078 

5.  PADDAYYA, K. (2000). THE PROBLEM OF ASHMOUNDS OF SOUTHERN DECCAN IN THE LIGHT OF BUDIHAL EXCAVATIONS, KARNATAKA. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, 60/61, 189–225. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42936616

6.  Venkatasubbaiah, P.C.. (2012). A Preliminary study on the Ashmound sites in the Lower Tungabhadra Region of Andhra Pradesh. Ancient Asia. 3. 36. 10.5334/aa.12304. 

7.  Fuller, D. Q., Boivin, N., & Korisettar, R. (2007). Dating the Neolithic of South India: new radiometric evidence for key economic, social and ritual transformations