30 Deccan Neolithic

D. K. Bhattacharya

 

Table of contents:

 

Introduction

 

1. Housing

2. Production and gathering

3. Habitation and dwelling

4. Art and painting

 

Learning outcomes

  1. To know about the Neolithic period of southern India
  2. To know about the housing pattern of that time
  3. To know about the production and gathering practices related that period
  4. To know about the habitation and dwelling during that time
  5. To know the Art and painting of Neolithic times

 

Introduction

 

When in 1959 V.D. Krishnaswami attempted a zonal classification of Neolithic in India he had identified four zones. In brief this zonal analysis attempted to show that the northern zone (i) was characterised by pit-dwellings and pointed butt celts; the eastern zone (ii) by varieties of shouldered celts; the central and western zone (iii) by microliths and potsherds more often than celts and finally the southern zone (iv) by celts which often have broad butt-ends.

 

Most of the Neolithic evidences from south of Narmada show a similarity of sequence although Krishnaswami identified two separate zones within this area- the central and western zone and the southern zone. There are stronger similarities in the whole area than differences within. Prehistoric sites spread over the whole area show a Chalcolithic culture which lies immediately above a Mesolithic layer. In most cases there is a layer or two of pre-metal industry found sandwiched between the Mesolithic and the Chalcolithic. Many specialists do not find it very logical to isolate these few layers to develop a picture of Neolithic for the area. Furthermore, the date of emergence of these pre-metal layers lie between 2000 BC and 900 BC. Well developed Chalcolithic cultures are known to have developed much earlier to this date. Because of these two reasons Sankalia felt Deccan Neolithic should be treated as a separate development from the usual chrono-cultural sequence. So far nearly two dozen major sites have been excavated from the whole region. Of the plant remains evidence of millet, horsegram, legumes, date palm and bajra are the common varieties known from these sites.

 

Experts generally agree that probably village farming began in the peninsular region at a time when early Indus state was consolidating in the north-west. The sites indicating these early settlers are the so-called ash mounds discovered from Andhra and Karnataka. Such excavated sites as Utnur, Kupgal, Kodakal and Pallavoy show distinct evidence of a pastoral base in their economy and society. These sites not only yield profusion of celts but rich microlithic blades and also bone tools. The accompanying ceramics is rather crude and handmade with a gray to buff or brown fabric. Animal bones found indicate that not only cattle were domesticated but goat and sheep were also maintained.

 

1. Housing

 

At Tekkalkota (Karnataka) 19 remains of small circular huts with 3 meters to 5 meters were recorded. These ranged from 1780 BC to 1540 BC in date. Small and big wooden posts were erected in some cases while in others no such post holes are seen. Natural boulders scattered on the surface have been taken advantage of to hold the structure. Burials are found under the floor of the house. Sometimes bodies have been interned within urns. The granitic boulders near the site show some art execution by pecking and bruising and also at times painting with red colour. A bull, deer, gazelle and stylised human figures are some of the usual depictions recorded at many of these Andhra and Karnataka sites. That these arts are of Neolithic period is supported by a gray ware ceramic lid found at Tekkalkota excavation. A bull, a cobra and two antelopes are executed on this lid by puncturing the clay when it was leather hard. Animal bones recovered indicate domestication of cattle, mainly, buffalo, goat, sheep and dog. Experts have even opined that anchylosis of the hock joints noted in the cattle bones might indicate their use as draft animals. Brahmagiri, Sangankallu and Hallur in Karnataka, Piklihal in Andhra and Paiyampalli in Tamil Nadu are some of the well known sites from southern Neolithic zone which show similar features. All these sites show rather scattered habitation with a fairly interesting ceramic content. Neolithic axes, bolas, saddle and quern and microliths are the usual stone tools found in these sites. The ceramic is dull gray in colour and are as a rule hand made. The shapes seem fairly exotic and do not match the personality of the culture. There are a variety of spouted vessels. Some of these have hollow stand and low down external carination. Decoration as a rule is either missing or very insignificant. Most of the sites besides yielding the cultural material show large areas covered by cow dung ash. At one site (Utnur) even the hoof impression from the cattle pen ash mound has been recorded. These evidences led scholars to name Deccan Neolithic as Neolithic Ash Mound sites. Evidently, such evidences come handy to interpret a cattle keeping pastoral economy for majority of Deccan Neolithic evidences. Interestingly, the character of the sites shows no change either in habitation or the total material culture even after the arrival of metal. In one of these sites (Tekkalkota) a gold toe ring appears with the usual microliths and celts. Infact, if there is a change noted during the Chalcolithic culture it is noted more in the decline of variability of ceramic types. A true change indicating a more complex social organisation is indicative only after the arrival of iron.

 

2. Production and gathering

 

Deccan Neolithic, therefore, shows no evidence of intensification of produce. One can divide the Neolithic in this region into two types. The ones settled on rocky beds along hill slopes like Tekkalkota were late hunter-gatherers using microliths but also having contact with plain dwellers. The plain dwellers, on the other hand, were essentially pastoralists and because of their livestock they had to periodically move in search of grazing land. The second group domesticated some millets and created celts for clearing bushes and also created rubbing stones to process their millets. Both the groups show ill fired handmade pottery made with gritty soil. Plough agriculture is a feature of intensive agriculture, the archaeological evidences does not show that any such intensification was attempted. The anchylosis of the hock joints noted in some cattle bones might be taken to indicate carrying of loads by the animals rather than ploughing.

 

3. Habitation and dwelling

 

The habitation units also show a dispersed dwelling structure. One can draw upon these evidences to interpret clusters of small bands spread over the Deccan region for almost 500 to 600 years from 1800 B.C. to 1200 B.C. Even if there are evidences of metal or terracotta objects found one cannot accept them as congruous to the general character of these cultures. Consequently contact in either formal form of symbiotic relationship or mere informal contact with higher culture can be only explanation of such objects as gold or copper in Deccan Neolithic sites. The uniform practice of burying their dead within the dwelling structure can be taken to indicate that they used to vacate the hut after it has been used to bury a dead. Thus, it is possible that they used to abandon their huts quite frequently. In other words, several dispersed structures might as well be taken to belong to the same band. It is argued that these cow dung heaps were deliberately set aflame as a part of some festivity which marked the completion of a seasonal cycle of migration. That is, shortly after harvesting the population will move out with their animals to graze them. With change of season they would return to the site for a short period of cultivation. The cow dung heaps are set on fire at the time of moving out with the animals.

  1. Art and painting

 

The practice of engraving animal figures on the rock faces can be taken as another specific feature of Deccan Neolithic. The animals engraved shows humped zebu cow in Tekkalkota and this can be taken to indicate cattle having played a pivotal role in the life and culture of Deccan Neolithic. This is specially significant because no such art is known from any of the Neolithic sites of Vindhyan or middle Ganga Neolithic sites. Profusion of date palm seeds in Deccan Neolithic directly indicates their having sought adaptation in areas of less rainfall. Collection of wild fruits must have remained a seasonal activity among them. Village like development must not have emerged in Deccan Neolithic until a much later date. Being a mobile culture Deccan Neolithic had more chance of coming across widely separated cultures. This is unlike northern Neolithic where sedentism begins with adoption of farming. It is argued by some that cattle domesticates arrived in the south from south Gujarat Harappan sites. From south Gujarat to Maharashtra and then to northern Karnataka might have been the route of cattle migration. Buffalo might have been a local domesticate but zebu cow representation on rock surfaces shows that humped bull must have prized high among them. This is also possibly because zebu cow was exogenous to the region.