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 �ash-mound� features were comprised of a myriad of variegated strata of ash, vitrified dung, and other culturally modified sed-

iments, 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.

� 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ashmounds; South Indian Neolithic; Landscape; Monumentality; Ritual; Social memory

The Indian �ashmound problem� 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 decompos-

ing, burned and vitrified cow dung and other culturally

modified soils bearing a variety of artifacts. Constructed

primarily during the South Indian Neolithic Period (cir-

ca 3000–1200 BC), these features vary greatly in size

with recorded surface areas ranging from 28m2 to as

much as 4951m2 and heights from 1.5 to 10m. To date,

more than 100 ashmound sites have been documented

0278-4165/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserve

doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2004.05.003

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: p-johansen@uchicago.edu.

within the South Deccan/North Dharwar region of

southern India (Paddayya, 2001), yet only a small num-

ber have been subjected to systematic archaeological

investigation (Fig. 1).

The �ashmound problem� refers to the longstanding

and dynamic debate surrounding the temporal and cau-

sal origins of these archaeological features. Since their

�rediscovery� in the early 19th century, most analyses

have been directed primarily towards understanding

the function and formation of this unique class of mate-

rial remains. Explanations have ranged from local ac-

counts such as those attributing specific ashmounds to

the remains of the monkey-king Vali, demon rakshasas

or mass human immolation, to functional interpreta-

tions such as refuse dumps, cattle pens or the location

d.

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

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

of iron smelting activities (Allchin, 1963; Paddayya,

1991; Rami Reddy, 1990). Much recent controversy ap-

pears 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 �ashmound

problem� employing an interpretive strategy that ex-

plores ashmounds as both monumental forms of

architecture and the location of ritual and ceremonial

activity within a Neolithic agro-pastoral landscape. Cul-

tural landscapes are spatial and temporal fields of action

in which material and conceptual contexts are

constructed and negotiated through the processual artic-

ulation of social action, structure and the physical envi-

ronment (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, tem-

poral, 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 In-

dian �ashmound problem� followed by an examination of

the depositional structure, form and location of ash-

mound features. Ashmounds are then considered within

a Neolithic agro-pastoral landscape by examining regio-

nal archaeological data from which inferences on past

land-use, economy, and lifeway can be made. This is fol-

lowed by an analysis of ashmounds employing several

visual variables of perception to demonstrate their mon-

umentality and potential as socio-symbolic media in a

Neolithic South Indian cultural landscape. Ashmounds

are then examined using a number of variables of rit-

ual architecture to explore the behavioral implications

P.G. Johansen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330 311

involved in their construction, use and maintenance.

Finally, an examination of the continued use of ashmo-

unds 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 aban-

doned, reoccupied, reused, reinterpreted, and recon-

structed with vestiges of prior meanings surviving yet

often in greatly altered ways.

The ashmound problem

The �ashmound problem� has deep roots in the his-

tory of South Asian archaeology extending from the

early 19th century to the present day. The main dimen-

sions of the �ashmound problem,� 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 administra-

tors 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 inter-

pretations, 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 Foote�s 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, �mealing stones,� �rubbing stones,� and pot-

tery 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

the construction of ashmounds took place during the

Neolithic period and that many ashmounds were sur-

rounded by significant scatters of occupational debris.

Despite these findings, both the age and formation

postulates of the Bruce Foote hypothesis were chal-

lenged in the 20th century. Speculative conclusions, la-

ter 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 work-

ing 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 Neo-

lithic 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 1950�s, 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 ex-

panded both the archaeological database and the param-

eters 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. Allchin�s (1961, 1963) survey and exca-vations 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. Allchin�s (1963) conclu-sions were based on the presence of regular lines of post-

holes 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 settle-

ments 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 vil-

lage sites. He agrees with Allchin�s assignment of a pos-

sible ritual function for the ashmounds although specific

details beyond his consideration of the cyclical and epi-

sodic 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 ash-

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

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-ash-

mound settlement sites vs. variety in ashmound site lo-

cales, 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 decom-

posing cow dung mixed with layers and lenses of other

culturally modified soils. Most layers contain a variety

of Neolithic artifact types, primarily lithic material, pot-

tery sherds, and faunal remains. Paddayya (1991,

1993a,b), Rami Reddy (1990, 1976) and to a limited de-

gree 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 at-

tempts 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 occupa-

tional 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 con-

cluded that ashmound deposits are generally situated

within the archaeological remains of Neolithic settle-

ments. 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 con-

struction and post-Neolithic impacts. Bruce Foote

(1916) and later Allchin (1963) noted two categories of

ashmound remains; large mounded features with verti-

cally extensive dimensions and lower, flatter mounds of-

ten characterized by a �vallum� or berm of ashmound

material surrounding their perimeter.1 Many of the for-

mer category of ashmounds consist of upper and lower

sections.2 Two of the most extensively excavated ash-

mound sites; Budihal-S (Paddayya, 1998) and Utnur3

1 Bruce Foote�s (1916, p. 91) cinder mounds and cinder

camps.2 e.g., Budihal-S, Gadiganuru, Kupgal, and Utnur.3 Despite the presence of 2m of recently deposited sediments

on the upper mound at Utnur, examination of the sections and

map from Allchin�s (1961) report documents differences in

deposit depths and paleo-surface topography of more than 1m

between the upper and lower sections of the mound.

(Allchin, 1961) have demonstrated the existence of upper

and lower ashmounds sections.Atboth sites the lower sec-

tions 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 Neo-

lithic cattle pen enclosures. A stock enclosure has also

been inferred from the excavated remains of one of the

Halikallu ashmounds originally designated a �cindercamp� by Bruce Foote (1979; Krishna Sastry, 1979).

Paddayya (1991, p. 590) posits that the regular pres-

ence of occupational debris (i.e., lithics, pottery, and fau-

nal 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 vit-

rified deposits at Budihal-S, he has observed the outlines

of individual piling episodes (Paddayya, 1991, p. 587).

Stratigraphic profiles from Budihal-S, Thanmandi Than-

da, 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 indi-

cate multiple burning episodes, while the analysis of the

vitrified layers (Mujumdar and Rajaguru, 1966; Zeuner,

1960) demonstrates the occurrence of large single epi-

sodes of burning at temperatures in excess of 1200 �C.Archaeologists also report thin and horizontally exten-

sive 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 ashmo-

unds, the basal rammed earth platform is present only

in a single mound. This may indicate that the construc-

tion of these platforms was a temporally restricted prac-

tice 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).

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

P.G. Johansen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330 313

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 attri-

butes of depositional activities such as their duration,

sequencing, and repetition. The C14 dates from exca-

vated ashmound contexts indicate that the activities in-

volved 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 strati-

graphic sequence for a single ashmound. If the anoma-

lously 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 Budihal-

S 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.

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 Horse gram,

hyacinth, barley,

jubejube, cherry,

emblic myrobalam

Antelope, black buck,

buffalo, cattle, fowl, nilgai,

sheep/goat, tortoise

Hulikallu Not reported 2 Not reported Not reported Not reported Cattle

Kakkera Not reported 2 Yes Not reported Not reported Not reported

Kodekal 2893 BC 1 Yes Yes Jubejube Buffalo, cattle, dog,

fowl, sheep/goat

Kudatini Not reported 1 Possible Yes Not reported Cattle, sheep/goat

Kupgal Not reported 3 Yes Yes Not reported Not reported

Mallur Not reported 2 Yes Not reported Not reported Cattle

Palavoy 1680–2278 BC 4 Yes Not reported Jubejube Cattle, deer, pig,

sheep/goat

Thanmandi Not reported 1 Yes Not reported Not reported Not reported

Thanda

Utnur 2333–2850 BC 1 Not reported Yes Not reported Cattle, deer, goat, tortoise

Wandalli Not reported 1 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported

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

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

The production of a South Indian Neolithic landscape:

economy and human ecology

This paper examines ashmound features as impor-

tant monumental places, integral parts of a Neo-

lithic South Indian cultural landscape. The landscape

of the South Indian Neolithic was something both

inhabited and conceptualized by its prehistoric occu-

pants; a multitude of interconnected places in which

specific economic practices were conducted and social

and ideological relations mediated, maintained, modi-

fied, and reinvented. Landscape production involves

social and spatial practice, perception, and conception

as critical moments within historically and culturally

P.G. Johansen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330 315

unique fields of social action (Harvey, 1989; Lefebvre,

1991; Soja, 1985). It does not simply entail the �con-struction� or �fabrication� 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 knowl-

edge, 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) differen-

tially enabling and constraining activities and idea-

tional 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 pas-

toralist elements of the Neolithic economy and subsis-

tence system, an examination of the tempo of land-use

(Binford, 1982; Wandsnider, 1992) and its connection

with the rhythm of activities involved in ashmound for-

mation 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 activity�s temporality; its duration,

repetition, sequencing, and cycling. The following dis-

cussion examines archaeological and paleo-environmen-

tal data through the application and integration of the

spatial concepts of lifespace (Binford, 1983) and land-

scape 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 life-

space 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 loca-

tion of lifespaces are subject to the spatial and temporal

requirements associated with the human activities con-

ducted within them. Thus the nature, character, and

temporal duration of lifespaces are contingent upon a

variety of factors such as environmental, ecological, so-

cial 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 inte-

gration of landscape element configuration with life-

spaces 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

in the archaeological record of the South Indian Neo-

lithic at several scales of analysis such as the region, site,

feature, and assemblage.

Physical setting

Ashmound sites of the South Indian Neolithic are lo-

cated in north-eastern Karnataka state and western

Andhra Pradesh—the South Deccan/North Dharwar re-

gion (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 re-

gion 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 Dhar-

war deposits and the chert, chalcedony, and quartzite

available in nodule form in the rivers, there was abun-

dant 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 �black cotton� soils and the Archaean

granites produce a red sandy to loamy soil (Allchin,

1963, p. 8). The latter predominates in the hilly tracts se-

lected 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 gen-

erally away from most Neolithic sites. This focus on set-

tlements away from the region�s 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 charac-

terized today by a semi-arid climate with an annual rain-

fall that generally does not exceed 50–60cm and falls

between June and August during the southwest mon-

soon (Paddayya, 1973, p. 4). The region�s semi-arid cli-

mate and seasonal rainfall patterns have created a

floral cover characterized by thorn and scrub bush for-

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

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 ex-

posed (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 pasto-

ral 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. Docu-

mented 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 non-

ashmound 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 sur-

rounding houses. Skulls and epiphyses of Bos indicus

long bones were frequent elements deposited in this fea-

ture, suggesting the preliminary butchering of whole car-

casses. If the presence of wide necked ceramic jars which

are ubiquitous at ashmound sites are considered func-

tionally 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 mas-

sive volume of many of these features and their location

at more than 100 separate sites in the region are consid-

ered together with other serious structural investments

such as the cattle pens excavated at Budihal-S, Hulik-

allu, and Utnur and the large butchering floor at the for-

mer site an emphasis on pastoral production at many

Neolithic settlements appears empirically substantiated

(Table 4). The partially excavated (873m2) cattle pen

adjacent to Ashmound I at Budihal-S covers an area

of approximately 3000m2 (Paddayya, 2001) while the

total size of the butchering floor which consisted of a pre-

pared surface of ash, calcium carbonate, and gravel 2–

5cm thick, is estimated at 250m2 (129m2 of which has

been excavated). Given the spatial investment detailed

above for the three features associated with pastoral pro-

duction, the investment in houses of wattle-and-daub

(approximately 3–4m diameter) pale in comparison.

The high degree of investment in these features is further

suggestive of at least a semi-sedentary form of pastoral-

ism, 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 set-

tlement activity which may be used to suggest a larger

notion of lifespace beyond the traditional confines of

the �archaeological site,� unfolding the terrain surround-

ing a settlement into a regional-scale Neolithic land-

scape. 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

site�s 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

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 Species Site

Domestic species

Millets Finger milleta Eleusine coracana Hallur, Paiyampalli, Watgal

Kodo millet Paspalum scrobiculatum Hallur

Foxtail millet Setaria verticillata Hallur, Hanumantaraopeta, Hattibelagallu,

Hiregudda, Kurugodu, Sanganakallu, Tekkalakota,

Velpumandugu

Browntop millet Brachiaria ramosa Hallur, Hanumantaraopeta, Hattibelagallu, Hiregudda,

Kurugodu, Sanganakallu, Tekkalakota, Velpumandugu

Pulses Horse gram Macrotyloma uniflorum Budihal-S, Hallur, Paiyampalli, Sangankallu,

Tekkalakota, Watgal

Green gram (mung) Vigna radiata Hallur, Hanumantaraopeta, Hattibelagallu,

Hiregudda, Sanganakallu, Tekkalakota, Paiyampalli

Black gram Vigna mungo Hallur, Hanumantaraopeta

Pigeon Pea Cajanus cajan Peddamudiyam, Sanganakallu

Hyacinth bean Lablab purpureus Budihal-S, Hallur, Sanganakallu

Large cereals Wheats Triticum sp. Hallur, Hanumantaraopeta, Hiregudda, Sanganakallu

Barley Horduem vulgare Budihal-S, Hanumantaraopeta, Hattibelagallu,

Hiregudda, Kurugodu, Sanganakallu, Tekkalakota

Wild species

Fruits Indian Jubejube Zizyphus jubea Budihal-S, Hallur, Kodekal, Palavoy, Sanganakallu,

Tekkalakota, Hiregudda

Indian Cherry/Sebestem Plum Cordia sp. Budihal-S

Emblic myrobalam Phyllanthus sp. Budihal-S

Betel Nut Areca catechu Watgal

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 Kodekal Palavoy Piklihal Sangankallu Veerapuram VMS-110

Domestic

Cattle 94.0 59.9 95.8 74.6 94.5 70.29 51.06

Sheep/goat 3.2 6.5 2.7 18.3 1.0 6.27 34.04

Dog 1.6 2.6 0 0.6 0.5 1.6 0

Piga 0.3 0 0.3 0 0 0.8 2.13

Buffaloa 0 3.2 0 4.4 0 0 0

Wild

Antelope/deer 0.8 21.1 1.2 0 1.6 20.9 8.52

Tortoise 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0

Rodent 0 2.6 0 0 2.1 0.8 0

Other 0 3.9 0 0 0 0 04.26

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

a 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.

P.G. Johansen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330 317

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 12.5 22

Butchering floor 250 N/A

Ashmound I: upper mound 2000 4019

Ashmound I: stock enclosure 3000 N/A

Hulikallu Ashmound I 2449 9797

Kodekal Ashsmound 871 2323

Kudatini Ashmound 1295 8635

Wandalli Ashmound 2590 12,089

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

provisioning of pasturage adequate to the needs of com-

munity herds without entailing a mobility strategy that

would require long distance ephemeral facilities.

Agricultural practices are another aspect of the Neo-

lithic 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 fea-

tures. These micro-regional landscape elements provide

some of the lowest risk locations for rain-fed agricul-

tural practices. Many of the most frequently docu-

mented 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 archaeo-

logically 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 subsis-

tence 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 Fuller�s, 2003 �basic Neolithic package� of pulsesand millets—i.e., Brachia ramose, Setaria verticillata, Macroty-

loma 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 num-

ber of interesting similarities regarding their location.

These include locations that are within 1–2km of sec-

ondary and tertiary tributaries of the region�s major

drainages, locations on or beneath large granitic out-

crops and, in many cases, near the 500m contour level

(Morrison, n.d.; Paddayya, 1973; Venkatasubbaiah

et al., 1992). Paddayya (1991, p. 586) reports three gen-

eral 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 suit-

able for extensive cattle grazing activities. Paddayya

(1991) takes these observations as an indication that

ashmounds formed a central part of Neolithic habita-

tion sites and not simply sites in and of themselves.

This conclusion is generally corroborated (i.e., observa-

tions 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 rep-

resenting temporary camps either for the nocturnal

penning or domestication of cattle (Allchin and All-

chin, 1974).

Korisettar et al. (2002) dispute the year-round

occupation of ashmound sites based on their own

observations of low density distributions of occupa-

tional debris surrounding many of the sites they have

revisited. They argue that occupational debris sur-

rounding ashmounds vary in density and spread from

clearly evident (i.e., at Budihal-S, Kupgal, and Pala-

voy) to sparse (i.e., Kudatini and Utnur) reflecting

extended-stay and short term encampments (Koriset-

tar et al., 2002, pp. 212–213). Their observations

are compelling as is the argument for a stronger ana-

lytic 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).

P.G. Johansen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330 319

Further systematic surface collection and horizontal

excavations at a variety of ashmound sites such as

those conducted at Budihal-S would do much to re-

solve this issue.7

Ashmounds, monumentality, and ritual in Neolithic South

Indian agro-pastoral communities

Monumentality

Previous research on the �ashmound problem� haslargely produced functional explanations for the con-

struction of these features based on economic activities

(i.e., refuse dumps, stock enclosures, and smelting facil-

ities). 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 fea-

tures 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 ques-

tions by exploring the socio-symbolic structure of built

forms. Many ashmound features were important, mon-

umental places within the cultural landscape of South

India�s 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, commu-

nicative and symbolic, with powerful affectual qualities.

Monuments are saturated with a ‘‘horizon of meaning,’’

in which any one of several meanings may enable or con-

strain the thought and action of interacting subjects

based on a range of spatial, temporal, and social circum-

stances (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 222). The production of mon-

umental space is a transformative process in which

material, symbols and signs are exchanged, symbolically

grounding a given perceptual order (e.g., possible com-

binations of the cosmological, political, and social) to

a set of material practices within a conceptually

7 At present, Korisettar et al.�s (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).

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 recog-

nized 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 cen-

tered 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 rela-

tions were mediated, at least in part, within a ritual for-

um 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 in-

volved with the construction of ashmounds, it is neces-

sary to demonstrate that ashmounds are in fact

examples of monumental architecture, capable of con-

veying 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 monu-

mentality in archaeology by Moore, 1996): clarity of

form, contrast with background, prominence, and suffi-

ciency 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 pro-

duction, mediation, and contestation of the range of

meanings a monumental space may embody is histori-

cally 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).

9 Surface area estimates were calculated using the following

formula: pr1r2. For volume estimates the formula (4/3) pr1r2h/2was employed.

10 i.e., estimated to have a 3.5m diameter, 2m high walls,

and a 0.5m conical roof.

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

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 sur-

faces 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 Neo-

lithic 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 ash-

mound 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 exam-

ined 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 1.75m. Moore (1996, p. 105) calculates

that the closest viewing point for disturbed Andean

mounds is half of the distance of the mound�s width.

The normal angle of incidence involved in walking on

flat to undulating terrain is between 10� and 15� belowthe 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 prehis-

toric 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 regard-

ing the social identity of communities. Within a settle-

ment, ashmounds would have served as a constant

reminder of community social relations.

Ashmounds vary greatly in size, due in part to mil-

lennia of destruction from human activity such as ash

mining for building material and agricultural develop-

ment (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 (2323m3) are strong indi-

cators of the substantial mass of these mounds. Given

that the (empty) volume of the next largest known Neo-

lithic structure in the region; a large Neolithic house10

is approximately 22m3, 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 possi-

bility that ashmounds were used for manuring activities

during the Neolithic and that the stronger productive

emphasis on pastoralism during these times simply cre-

ated 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 cere-

monial 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 depos-

ited and later burned throughout the course of their con-

struction. It was through the differential rhythm and

tempo of dung collection, piling, small scale burning,

larger-scale, higher temperature vitrification, and

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

P.G. Johansen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330 321

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.

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

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

Ritual architecture

Given an understanding of the socio-symbolic, com-

municative 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 asso-

ciated with the construction of ashmounds by the Neo-

lithic 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 com-

munities was responsible for the construction and main-

tenance 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 tran-

scend present circumstances (Bell, 1997, p. 169). This

engagement is accomplished through ‘‘deliberate and

meaningful’’ practices and activities sanctioned and nat-

uralized through a degree of social consensus granting

the ritual act ‘‘special privilege’’ from other more mun-

dane and prosaic activities (Bell, 1997, pp. 166, 167).

High degrees of formalism, performance, adherence to

tradition and rules, and socio-symbolic content are attri-

butes common to much ethnographically and histori-

cally 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 �objec-tified� 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 some-

times shared with those of more profane activities

(Moore, 1996, p. 13) and as such can be difficult to iden-

tify archaeologically. Yet specific kinds of ritual action,

i.e., that which is public, ceremonial, and repetitive—of-

ten leave structured archaeological remains that are un-

ique with respect to other spatial forms (Moore, 1996,

p. 139). These differences are often recognizable by phys-

ical qualities such as size, design, construction, and loca-

tion (Moore, 1996, p. 139), and are all measurable

attributes by which monumental architecture is distin-

guished from other structural forms and uses of space

within the structured remains of past cultural landscapes.

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

P.G. Johansen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330 323

Ashmounds were ritual lifespaces constructed by the

gradual and formalized performance of ritual activity.

Through the accumulation, burning, and periodic cap-

ping of dung with culturally sterile soils ashmounds ac-

quired 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 sym-

bolic system embedded in a uniquely Neolithic, South

Indian conception of the world expressed as formalized

and repetitive communal ritual. In the following discus-

sion I employ five architectural variables (after Moore,

1996, pp. 139–167) to examine ritual behavior through

the available archaeological evidence of ashmound re-

mains, arguing that ashmounds were sites of public,

repetitive, and ceremonial expressions of ritual action.

These variables are: permanence, scale, centrality, ubiq-

uity, 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 ash-

mounds and should not be taken to represent universal

criteria for designating a ritual type or form of architec-

ture. Ashmounds as structures are juxtaposed with other

built forms in this archaeological landscape and exam-

ined within the communities in which they were an inte-

gral part. This demonstrates that ashmounds were

monumental architectural forms designed to mediate so-

cial and perhaps cosmological meaning in a ritually

communicative space. As Budihal-S is the only ash-

mound 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 perma-

nence as an archaeological measure of the expected tem-

poral length of a ritual structure�s intended use-life by its

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.

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

architects. Attributes of importance for consideration

within this variable are (1) quality of building material,

(2) construction method, and (3) duration of use. Ash-

mounds were constructed primarily of cattle dung and

culturally modified soils. The lower sections of exca-

vated ashmounds consist of prepared surfaces with

enclosure walls constructed of dung, soil, wood, and un-

shaped 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 keep-

ing with the needs of enclosing cattle and presumably

renovated as needed. This would have entailed the con-

struction of perimeter enclosures and embankments and

their periodic maintenance. Maintenance to the interior

surface would have required the regular removal of

P.G. Johansen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330 325

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 dungwhich were episod-

ically burned, gradually increasing the horizontal and

vertical dimensions of the mounds over an extended per-

iod of time. The use of a building material so closely asso-

ciated with a community�s 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 1m

thick) of vitrified strata (Fig. 2). These depositional activ-

ities 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 struc-

tured, 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 Budi-

hal-S at 12.5m2 with that of Ashmound I (upper

mounded section) at 2000m2 and Ashmound II at

1256m2 (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 per-

manent structures. The C14 date sequence from Ash-

mound-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. Fur-

ther 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, sea-

sonal, generational or inter-generational scales. The

cyclical burning of the dung and the capping of layers

with soils extracted presumably from beyond the zone

of human habitation also suggests the systematic prac-

tice of ritual activity that was public, repetitive, and

ceremonial.

Centrality and ubiquity

Revisiting dozens of previously recorded sites, Pad-

dayya (1991) established that ashmounds are almost al-

ways 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. Budi-

hal-S is a large Neolithic site consisting of four �locali-ties� of intensive occupational debris spread out over

an area approximately 12ha (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 re-

mains 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 Neo-

lithic settlements is a further indication of their impor-

tance in the social regimes of these communities. There

are also cases where ashmounds or large deposits of ash-

mound 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, Vee-

rapuram, Watgal—may indicate that ritual activity asso-

ciated with cattle production was restricted to particular

communities or that ashmounds at theses sites have sub-

sequently been destroyed. It should be noted that during

the excavation of Neolithic Watgal a rammed earth fea-

ture surrounded (but not mounded) by a large and dense

concentration ash lensing was exposed (Devaraj et al.,

1995).

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

Visibility

The consideration of the visual accessibility of ritual

performance at ashmound features contributes to a bet-

ter understanding of the public nature of ceremonial life

at these places (see Fogelin, 200311). The scale of ashmo-

unds and their central location proximal to otherwise

vertically undifferentiated settlements suggests an equal-

ity of visual access to ceremonial activity within the ash-

mound 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 pos-

tulated 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 con-

cluded 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, for-

malized, and repetitive require the structured organiza-

tion of space. The structured remains of ashmounds,

which are monumental, permanent, highly visible, and

central to areas populated during the South Indian Neo-

lithic suggest that these structural spaces were the loca-

tion of public, formalized, and repetitive communal

ritual. Ashmounds were monumental forms of architec-

ture 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 cen-

turies of the third millennium BC and endured for sev-

eral 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 agricul-

ture 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, con-

structed 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 activi-

ties central to Iron-Age landscape production. Yet with

this transition, the social lives of ashmounds were signif-

icantly transformed, often in form and almost certainly

in terms of meaning. Despite this transformation, there

are clear indications that the ritual and monumental nat-

ure 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 sen-

sory 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 subjectivi-

ties tying the present to the past (Alcock, 1993, 2001;

Bradley, 1987; Connerton, 1989). The performance of

socio-symbolic action through formalized repetitive rit-

ual 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 ash-

mounds in the production of monumental places within

the cultural landscape. These include (1) the continua-

tion of ashmound formation in a manner consistent with

the Neolithic period, (2) the occupation, reoccupation or

re-use of locales with ashmounds, including, (a) occupa-

tions not including the construction of megalithic mon-

uments, (b) the construction of megalithic monuments

adjacent to existent ashmounds, and (c) the incorpora-

tion 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 con-

tinued into the Iron-Age (Rami Reddy, 1976). The

abundant presence of Iron-Age pottery in the surface

scatters of occupational debris surrounding many ash-

mounds, as well as the occurrence of megaliths (e.g., dis-

tributions of stone circles, dolmens, and menhirs of

variable size and extent with or without interred human

P.G. Johansen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330 327

remains) at or around many of these sites suggest a con-

tinuity of occupation or at least re-occupation and reuse

of these places for monumental building activities (All-

chin, 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 Iron-

Age and Early Historic cultural material or standing

megaliths (Morrison, n.d.). Surface collections from

one such site, VMS-634 has yielded a ceramic assem-

blage dominated by Iron Age/Early Historic types

(Johansen, 2003).

Perhaps the most interesting continuity of ritual

practice is the erection of a massive megalithic monu-

ment on top of and around an ashmound in the Shora-

pur doab just north of the town of Shahpur (Fig. 1).

Meadows Taylor (1853, pp. 393-396; 1862) reported that

the 20m diameter mound at this site was encircled by

eight perimeters of large standing stones (some as tall

as 3m) 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 3m thick) were discovered when he exca-

vated the mound looking for tomb cysts. Meadows Tay-

lor (1853, 1862, p. 396) believed, according to one of the

Fig. 10. Plan and Section of the Shapur Ashmou

competing theories of his day, that the powdered and

vitrified ash in these deposits were the result of large-

scale human cremation. In the same general area where

Meadows Taylor made his observations, Paddayya

(1973) reports the remains of a large stone circle mega-

lith 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 �ashcircle graves�; a megalithic construction found at a few

sites close to ashmound locations in which circular sur-

face 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 pow-

dered and vitrified dung from nearby ashmounds were

incorporated into the construction of the later Iron-

Age monuments, although this dung ash may have been

processed during the Iron-Age. Finally, the recent exca-

vation of an Iron-Age four-legged terracotta sarcopha-

gus burial from occupational deposits north-east of the

nd-Megalith (after Meadows Taylor, 1862).

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

massive ashmound at Kudatini (Boivin et al., 2002) is

another dramatic example of ritual and memorial conti-

nuity of place bridging the Neolithic and Iron-Age

periods.

Clearly there exists in this regional transition of mon-

umental practice and communal ritual a transmutation

of social memory from Neolithic to Iron Age cultural

landscape production. Ashmounds have formed an inte-

gral part of the experience and perception of those

inhabiting the cultural landscapes of the South Dec-

can/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 dem-

onstrates 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-pas-

toral 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 pas-

toralism and small-scale agriculture. Ashmounds were

constructed incrementally, synchronized with the social

and ritual rhythm of cattle keeping. Within years or gen-

erations many of these mounds had acquired the dimen-

sional attributes of monumental form.

The recognition of ashmounds as monumental archi-

tecture entails an understanding of the socio-symbolic

potential of built form. Based upon a number of visual

dimensions of perception, this examination of ashmo-

unds demonstrates their monumentality and the com-

municative 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 ephem-

eral encampments, ashmounds were visually unavoid-

able 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 in-

volved 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 deposi-

tional episodes suggests an interpretation that is consis-

tent 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 rit-

ual 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 con-

struction 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, envi-

ronment, 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 �ashmound

problem� 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 Master�s thesis completed

by the author in the spring of 2000 for the University of

Chicago�s Department of Anthropology. The argument

presented here is built on archaeological data carefully

collected by many researchers but especially by F.R. All-

chin 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 Ful-

bright 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

O�Shea and an anonymous reviewer for their very valu-

able comments during the review process. All responsi-

bility for errors and opinions are my own.

References

Alcock, S., 2001. The reconfiguration of memory in the Roman

Empire. In: Alcock, S., D�Altroy, T., Morrison, K., Carla

P.G. Johansen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 309–330 329

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 Post-

Graduate 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 Ethno-

biology: 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.

Harvey, D., 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Ch.12–14.

Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Higuchi, T., 1983. The visual and spatial structure of land-

scapes. 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 pre-

sented 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, Publica-

tions 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 Archae-

ozoology 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, Cam-

bridge, 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, Albuquer-

que, pp. 61–74.

Meadows Taylor, Captain 1862. Description of Cairns, Crom-

lechs, 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 Prin-

cipality 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 Univer-

sity Press, Cambridge.

Moorti, U., 1994. Megalithic Culture of South India: Socio-

evolutionary Perspectives. Ganga Kaveri Publishing House,

Varanasi.

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

Morrison, K. n.d. Oceans of Dharma: The Political Ecology of

Place. Manuscript in preparation.

Mujumdar, G.G., Rajaguru, S.N., 1966. Ashmound Excava-

tions 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 Environ-

ment 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 Stud-

ies 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.), Archae-

ology 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 Cali-

fornia 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. Martin�sPress, 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 Environ-

ment XII (1), 55–59.

Wandsnider, L., 1998. Landscape element configuration, life-

space, 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 Depart-

ment, 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.