Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-28jzs Total loading time: 0.282 Render date: 2021-02-26T19:54:58.042Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }
EnglishFrançais
Antiquity Antiquity

Article contents

Situating megalithic burials in the Iron Age-Early Historic landscape of southern India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Smriti Haricharan ,
Hema Achyuthan  and
N. Suresh
Smriti Haricharan
Affiliation:
1National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science campus, Bangalore 550 012, India (Author for correspondence, email: smriti.haricharan@gmail.com)
Hema Achyuthan
Affiliation:
2Department of Geology, Anna University, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 025, India (Email: hachyuthan@gmail.com)
N. Suresh
Affiliation:
3Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, 33 General Mahadeo Singh Road, Dehra Dun 248 001, India (Email: suresh_n@wihg.res.in)
Corresponding
E-mail address:
hachyuthan@gmail.com
smriti.haricharan@gmail.com
suresh_n@wihg.res.in
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The megalithic burials of southern India—a wonderfully varied set of monuments—have long needed a chronology and a context. Broadly contemporary with the Roman and Sasanian empires, these dolmens, cairns and cists have continually raised contradictions with their material contents. The authors attack the problem using luminescence applied to pottery at the site of Siruthavoor in north-east Tamilnadu. Although sharing material culture, this first pilot project gave dates ranging from 300 BC to AD 600, so exposing the problem and perhaps, in OSL, its long-term solution.

Keywords

southern India Tamilnadu Siruthavoor Iron Age-Early Historic first millennium BC first millennium AD dolmens stone circles cairns cists urn burial OSL
Type
Research article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 87 , Issue 336 , 1 June 2013 , pp. 488 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

Agrawal, P., Kusumgar, S., Lal, D. & Saran, R.P.. 1964. Tata Institute radiocarbon date list II. Radiocarbon 6: 226–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allchin, F.R. 1974. Pottery from graves in the Perumal hills near Kodaikanal, in Ghosh, A.K. (ed.) Perspectives in paleoanthropology: Professor B.Sen Festschrift: 299-308. Calcutta: Firmak. L.Mukhopadhyay.Google Scholar
Allchin, B. & Allchin, F.R.. 1983. The rise of civilization in India and Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Banerjee, N.R. 1956. The megalithic problem of Chingleput in the light of recent exploration. Ancient India 12: 21–34.Google Scholar
Begley, V. 1986. From Iron Age to Early Historical south Indian archaeology, in Jacobson, J. (ed.) Studies in the archaeology of India and Pakistan: 297–317. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH.Google Scholar
Bluszcz, A. 2004. OSL dating in archaeology, in Scott, E.M., Alekseev, A.Y. & Zaitseva, G. (ed.) Impact of the environment on human migration in Eurasia: 137-49. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Brubaker, R. 2001. Aspects of mortuary variability in the south Indian Iron Age. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-graduate & Research Institute 60-61: 253–302.Google Scholar
Cammiade, L.A. 1930. Tangal, Chingleput District, Madras. Man 30: 186–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childe, G.V. 1946. The distribution of Megalithic cultures, and their influence on ancient and modern civilizations. Man 46: 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deshpande, M.N. (ed.) 1974. Indian archaeology 70-71: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Deshpande, M.N. 1975. Indian archaeology 71-72: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Dorje, H.C. & Banerji, A. (ed.). 2000. Indian archaeology 94-95: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Ghosh, A. (ed.). 1969. Indian archaeology 64-65: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Ghosh, A. 1973. Indian archaeology 65-66: a review. NewDelhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Ghosh, A. (ed.). 1989. An encyclopedia of Indian archaeology, volume 2: a gazetteer of explored and excavated sites in India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.Google Scholar
Gururaja Rao, B.K. 1972. Megalithic culture in south India. Mysore: University of Mysore.Google Scholar
Haricharan, S. & Achyuthan, H.. 2012. The megalithic burial potteries of Siruthavoor: micromorphology, in Pisipaty, S.R. (ed.) Multifaceted studies in south Asian archaeology. Arpitam. Festschrift for Professor Vidula Jayaswal (British Archaeological Reports international series 2361): 107-12. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Joshi, M.C. (ed.). 1993a. Indian archaeology 87-88: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Joshi, M.C. 1993b. Indian archaeology 88-89: a review New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Krishnaswami, V.D. 1949. Megalithic types of south India. Ancient India 5: 35–45.Google Scholar
Lal, B.B. (ed.). 1971. Indian archaeology 68-69: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Lal, B.B. 1973. Indian archaeology 69-70: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Leshnik, L.S. 1972. Pastoral nomadism in India and Pakistan. World Archaeology 4: 150–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leshnik, L.S. 1974. South Indian ‘megalithic’ burials: the Pandukal complex. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Lipo, C.P., Feathers, J.K. & Dunnell, R.C.. 2005. Temporal data requirements, luminescence dates, and the resolution of chronological structure of late prehistoric deposits in the central Mississippi river valley. American Antiquity 70: 527–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menon, K.G. (ed.). 2002. Indian archaeology 96-97: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
McIntosh, J. R.. 1985. Dating the south Indian megaliths, in Schotsmanns, J. & Taddei, M. (ed.) South Asian archaeology: 467-94. Naples: Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici.Google Scholar
Misra, V.N. 2001. Prehistory of human colonization of India. Journal of Bioscience 26: 491–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitra, D. (ed.). 1983a. Indian archaeology 79-80: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Mitra, D. (ed.). 1983b. Indian archaeology 80-81: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Mitra, D. (ed.). 1984. Indian archaeology 81-82: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Mohanty, R.K. & Selvakumar, V. 2002. The archaeology of the megaliths in India: 1947-1997, in Settar, S. & Korisettar, R. (ed.) Indian archaeology in retrospect, volume 1: prehistory, archaeology of South Asia: 313-481. New Delhi: Manohar.Google Scholar
Moorti, U.S. 1994. Megalithic culture of south India: socio economic perspectives. Varanasi: Ganga Kaveri.Google Scholar
Morrison, K.D. 2005. Brahmagiri revisited: a re-analysis of the south Indian sequence, in Jarrige, C. & Lefevre, V. (ed.) South Asian archaeology 2001: 257-62. Paris: Recherche sur les Vivilisations-ADPF.Google Scholar
Narasimhaiah, B. 1980. Neolithic and megalithic cultures of Tamilnadu. New Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan.Google Scholar
Possehl, G.L. 1994. Radiometric dates for South Asian archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Rajan, K. 2000. South Indian memorial stones. Thanjavur: Manoo Pathippagam.Google Scholar
Rajan, K. 2008. Situating the beginning of Early Historic times in Tamilnadu: some issues and reflections. Social Scientist 36: 40–78.Google Scholar
Rajmohan, N. & Elango, L.. 2005. Nutrient chemistry of ground water in an intensely irrigated region of southern India. Environmental Geology 47: 820–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, V.R. 1991. Neolithic and post-Neolithic cultures. New Delhi: N.D. Mittal.Google Scholar
Shanmugam, P. 2000. The Black and Red Ware habitations in Tamil country: a study, in Kamalakar, G. (ed.) South Indian archaeology: 35–39. New Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan.Google Scholar
Sherratt, A. 1990. The genesis of megaliths: monumentality, ethnicity and social complexity in Neolithic north-west Europe. World Archaeology 22: 147–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. 1915. A note on megalithic monuments. Man 47: 92–93.Google Scholar
Sundara, A. 1979. Typology of megaliths in south India, in Agrawal, D.P. & Chakrabarti, D.K. (ed.) Essays in Indian protohistory: 331-40. New Delhi: BR.Google Scholar
Thapar, B.K. (ed.). 1979. Indian archaeology 74-75: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Thapar, B.K. 1980. Indian archaeology 76-77: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Thomas, P.J., Nagabhushanam, P. & REDDY, D.V.. 2008. Optically stimulated luminescence dating of heated materials using single-aliquot regenerative-dose procedure: a feasibility study using archaeological artefacts from India. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 781–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomber, R. 2007. Rome and Mesopotamia— importers into India in the first millennium AD. Antiquity 81: 972–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripathi, R.C. (ed.). 1987. Indian archaeology 84-85: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Wheeler, R.E.M. 1947. Brahmagiri and Chandravalli 1947: megalithic and other cultures in Mysore state. Ancient India 4: 180–310.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 71 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

3 Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Situating megalithic burials in the Iron Age-Early Historic landscape of southern India
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Situating megalithic burials in the Iron Age-Early Historic landscape of southern India
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Situating megalithic burials in the Iron Age-Early Historic landscape of southern India
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *