Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T19:18:25.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prehistoric Mortuary Practices and the Constitution of Social Relationships: Implications of the First Radiocarbon Dates from Maski on the Occupational History of a South India “Type Site”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2016

Andrew M Bauer  and
Peter G Johansen
Andrew M Bauer*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Building 50, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Peter G Johansen
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, 6303 NW Marine Drive, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z1, Canada
*
Corresponding author. Email: ambauer@stanford.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1954, B K Thapar excavated the multicomponent site of Maski (Raichur District, Karnataka) to establish an archaeological sequence for the southern Deccan region of India. Thapar identified four major periods of occupation, now known as the Neolithic (3000–1200 BC), Iron Age (1200–300 BC), Early Historic (300 BC to AD 500), and the Medieval periods (AD 500–1600). Renewed research at the site by the Maski Archaeological Research Project (F.1/8/2009-EE) has investigated the development of social differences and inequalities in south Indian prehistory. This article reports the first ever radiocarbon assays from habitation and megalithic burial contexts in the vicinity of Maski. Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dates of charcoal sampled from exposed occupational strata on Maski's Durgada Gudda hill and subsequent Bayesian analyses indicate that the site was extensively occupied during the 14th century AD, corroborating interpretations of numismatic and inscriptional materials. Associated artifacts with these 14C samples have significant implications for recognizing late Medieval period ceramics and occupation in the region. AMS assays of four charcoal samples from exposed megalithic burials just south of the Durgada Gudda hill, similar to those recognized by Thapar, indicate that burial practices commonly attributed to the Iron Age predate the period, and thus are not precise chronological markers. However, the results also suggest that megalithic burial practices became more labor intensive during the Iron Age, creating a cultural context for the generation of new forms of social affiliations and distinctions through differential participation in the production of commemorative places.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 57 , Issue 5 , 2015 , pp. 795 - 806
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 The Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allchin, FR. 1954. The development of early cultures in the Raichur District of Hyderabad [unpublished PhD dissertation]. University of London.Google Scholar
Allchin, FR. 1960. Andhra Pradesh Government Archaeological Series No. 1: Piklihal Excavations. Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pradesh.Google Scholar
Bauer, AM. 2011. Producing the political landscape: monuments, labor, water, and place in Iron Age central Karnataka. In: Johansen, PG, Bauer, AM, editors. The Archaeology of Politics: The Materiality of Political Practice and Action in the Past. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. p 83–113.Google Scholar
Bauer, AM. 2015. Before Vijayanagara: Prehistoric Landscapes and Politics in the Tungabhadra Basin. Vijayanagara Research Project Monograph Series. New Delhi: American Institute of Indian Studies and Manohar.Google Scholar
Bauer, AM, Johansen, PG. 2013. Politics and landscapes in early South India: the Maski Archaeological Research Project. Society for American Archaeology Current Research 127:1–6.Google Scholar
Bauer, AM, Trivedi, M. 2013. Contextualizing megalithic places: survey, mapping, and surface documentation in the environs of Hire Benakal (Koppal District, Karnataka). Man and Environment 38(2):46–61.Google Scholar
Bauer, AM, Johansen, PG, Bauer, RL. 2007. Toward a political ecology in early South India: preliminary considerations of the sociopolitics of land and animal use in the southern Deccan, Neolithic through Early Historic periods. Asian Perspectives 46(1):1–38.Google Scholar
Bauer, AM, Johansen, PG, Ramakrisna, KR, Gopal, R, Gangadhar, TS. 2012. The Maski Archaeological Research Project (MARP): interim report for the 2012 field season. Report submitted to the Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Lee, S. 2013. Recent and planned developments of the program OxCal. Radiocarbon 55(2–3):720–30.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Deo, SB, Jamkhedkar, AP. 1982. Excavations at Naikund 1978–80. Bombay: Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Maharashtra.Google Scholar
Devaraj, DV, Shaffer, GJ, Patil, CS. 1995. The Watgal excavations: an interim report. Man and Environment 20:57–74.Google Scholar
Gordon, DH, Gordon, ME. 1943. The cultures of Maski and Madhavpur. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal 9(3):83–98.Google Scholar
Gururaja Rao, BK. 1972. Megalithic Culture in South India. Prasanga: University of Mysore.Google Scholar
Haricharan, S, Achythan, H, Suresh, N. 2013. Situating megalithic burials in the Iron Age-Early Historic landscape of southern India. Antiquity 87(336):488–502.Google Scholar
Johansen, PG, Bauer, AM. 2013. The Maski Archaeological Research Project (MARP): investigating the long term dynamics of settlement, politics and environmental history in ancient South India. Antiquity 87:336.Google Scholar
Johansen, PG, Bauer, AM. 2015. Beyond culture history at Maski: land use, settlement and social differences in Neolithic through Medieval South India. Archaeological Research in Asia 1–2:6–16.Google Scholar
Johansen, PG, Gopal, R. 2011. The Maski Archaeology Research project (MARP): report for the 2010 field season. Report submitted to the Government of India, Janpath, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Johansen, PG, Bauer, AM, Gangadhar, TS, Gopal, R. 2014. The Maski Archaeological Research Project (MARP): interim report for the 2014 field season. Report submitted to the Government of India, Janpath, New Delhi.Google Scholar
McIntosh, J. 1985. Dating the South Indian megaliths. In: Schotsmans, J, Taddei, M, editors. South Asian Archaeology 1983. Naples: Universitario Orientale. p 467–93.Google Scholar
Moorti, US. 1994. Megalithic Culture of South India: Socio-evolutionary Perspectives. Varanasi: Ganga Kaveri Publishing.Google Scholar
Morrison, KD. 2005. Brahmagiri revisited: a re-analysis of the south Indian sequence. In: Jarrige, C, Lefevre, V, editors. South Asian Archaeology 2001. Paris: Recherche sur les Civilisations-ADPF. p 257–62.Google Scholar
Nagaraja Rao, MS. 1965. The Stone Age Dwellers of Tekkalakota. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.Google Scholar
Nagaraja Rao, MS. 1990. Graves of the early iron-using people at Komaranahalli – recent evidence. In: Sundara, A, Bhatsoori, KG, editors. Archaeology in Karnataka (Papers Presented at the National Seminar on Archaeology 1985). Mysore: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums. p 195–8.Google Scholar
Patil, CS, Patil, VC. 1998. Inscriptions of Karnataka Vol. IV: Inscriptions of Raichur District. Mysore: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums.Google Scholar
Rajan, K, Yathees Kumar, VP, Selvakumar, S, Ramesh, R, Balamurugan, P. 2013. Archaeological excavations at Porunthal, District Dindugul, Tamil Nadu. Man and Environment 37(2):62–85.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Buck, CE, Cheng, H, Edwards, RL, Friedrich, M, Grootes, PM, Guilderson, TP, Haflidason, H, Hajdas, I, Hatté, C, Heaton, TJ, Hoffmann, DL, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kaiser, KF, Kromer, B, Manning, SW, Niu, M, Reimer, RW, Richards, DA, Scott, EM, Southon, JR, Staff, RA, Turney, CSM, van der Plicht, J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–87.Google Scholar
Satyamurthy, T. 1992. The Iron Age in Kerela. Thiruvananthapuram: Department of Archaeology, Government of Kerala.Google Scholar
Sheshadri, M. 1971. Report on the Excavations at T. Narasipur. Bangalore: Government Press.Google Scholar
Shrinivasan, KR, Banerjee, NR. 1953. Survey of South Indian megaliths. Ancient India 9:103–15.Google Scholar
Sinopoli, C. 2009. Late prehistoric landscapes of the Tungabhadra corridor: recent excavations at Kadebakele (Koppal District, Karnataka). In: Paddayya, K, Joglekar, PP, Basa, KK, Sawant, R, editors. Recent Research Trends in South Asian Archaeology: Proceedings of the Professor H.D. Sankalia Birth Centenary Seminar. Pune: Deccan College Post Graduate Research Institute. p 279–94.Google Scholar
Sinopoli, C. 2013. Exploring ceramic variability in Iron Age South India. In: Frenez, D, Tosi, M, editors. South Asian Archaeology 2007, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeology, Volume I: Prehistoric Periods. BAR International Series. Oxford: Archaeopress. p 233–41.Google Scholar
Suresh, S. 2004. Symbols of Trade: Roman and Pseudo-Roman Objects found in India. Delhi: Manohar.Google Scholar
Thapar, BK. 1957. Maski 1954: a Chalcolithic site of the southern Deccan. Ancient India 13:4–142.Google Scholar
Thomas, PJ, Nagabhushanam, P, Reddy, DV. 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(3):781–90.Google Scholar
Tripathi, V. 2001. The Age of Iron in South Asia: Legacy and Tradition. New Delhi: Aryan Books.Google Scholar
Yazdani, G. 1938. Appendix B: note on the excavations at Maski. Annual Reports of the Archaeological Department of H.E.H. the Nizam's Domains. p 22–4.Google Scholar
Wheeler, REM. 1948. Brahmagiri and Chandravalli 1947: megalithic and other cultures in Mysore State. Ancient India 4:180–310.Google Scholar