Adichchanallur Reconsidered A Typologica

Corinna Wessels-Mevissen
Adichchanallur Reconsidered-A Typological Study of South Indian

»Megalithic« Pottery*
The abundant ceramic finds of the South Indian Iron Age provide the rare chance of tracing the so far
little known structure and chronological sequence within the so-called Megalithic culture1.
Some of the regional variations, which are reflected in the multitude of shapes and decorative fea-
tures, have already been noticed, and typological analogues have been referred to by several authors.
That was, however, rarely done in a systematic and interpretative manner2. In the present study, some
indications of the regional and chronological distribution of vessel types will be exemplified by using
* This article contains an elaboration of the analytic part of my M. A. thesis. As regards the latter, I am particularly in-
debted to Dr.B.Hänsel and Dr. A.J. Gail of the Freie Universität Berlin and to Dr. H. Härtel, then director of the Museum
für Indische Kunst Berlin, who enabled me to work on a subject of Indian protohistory. In India, I received much help
and encouragement from so many scholars in the field. I am most grateful to Dr. S.B.Deo, Pune, Dr. B. K. Gururaja Rao,
Mysore, Dr. R. Nagaswamy, Dr. B.S. Raman and Dr. K.V. Raman at Madras, Thiru K. R. Srinivasan, Tiruchirappalli, Miss
M. Muthiah, Erode, Thiru Venkataraman, Kadattur, Dr. Y. Subbarayalu, Thanjavur, Dr. U. S. Moorti, Dharwad, and
Dr.R.H.de Silva, Colombo. Staff members of various institutions kindly assisted me. My heartfelt thanks to all of them.
On the figures, museum numbers are rendered in brackets. The numbers starting with »I« refer to the Museum für In-
dische Kunst Berlin, the other numbers belong to the Government Museum Madras. Drawings without reference are by
the author. I should like to express my gratitude to those who kindly permitted me to prepare the drawings during my
fieldwork in 1982-3. These were the former directors Prof. Dr. H. Härtel of the Museum für Indische Kunst Berlin,
Mr. N. Harinarayana of the Government Museum Madras and Dr. R. Nagaswamy of the Tamilnadu State Department of
Archaeology, Madras. Some of the items from the Perumal Malai region are drawn after photographs taken at the Sacred
Heart College, Shembaganur, where I was kindly shown the archaeological collection by Brother Robert Lourdou.
1
The term »Megalithic culture« was used by Sir Mortimer Wheeler when he published the results of the first scien-
tific excavation of a megalithic burial-cum-habitation site at Brahmagiri (Wheeler 1947-48). The extension of the Mega-
lithic culture nearly covers the five South Indian states, viz. Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil-
nadu. Its cultural assemblage comprises a particular kind of black-and-red ware with associated black ware and red ware,
iron artefacts, bronze and rarely gold objects besides ornaments made from shell and semiprecious beads. Concerning
the chronology, »The black-and-red ware of Megalithic association is found overlapping at the lower end with the Ne-
olithic-Chalcolithic wares, dated from 1000 to 700 B.C. (14 C dates of the Jorwe Ware) and at the upper end with the
Russet-coated painted and Rouletted wares of A. D. 100« (Ghosh 1989: 111). An internal chronology has as yet not been
established, except for an admirable attempt by McIntosh (1982; Cf.Notes 2,4). The meaning of the term »Megalithic cul-
ture« has recently been expanded to include expressions of »megalithism« in other parts of India also, which makes its
original inadequacy even more apparent, viz. the exclusion of associated burial types without megalithic appendage, par-
ticularly the urn burials of the extreme south. In spite of these shoncomings, the term has been used as an auxiliary ex-
pression in the present study, in the sense assigned to it by Wheeler.
For bilbiographies of the numerous publications on the subject see Ramachandran (1971) and Leshnik (1974:
285-299).
2
B.Subbarao has made an interesting initial attempt at a comparative study of pottery shapes by preparing a »Synoptic
morphology of the red-and-black wares« (Subbarao 1956-57: 74; 1958: Fig.43), a graphical representation, in which simi-
lar ceramic shapes from different sites have been grouped together. The deserving comprehensive study of the Mega-
lithic culture by L.S. Leshnik includes a classificatory system for all known pottery items from the South Indian Iron Age
burials (Leshnik 1974: 154-172, Charts 1-20; Cf. Note 4). His approach cannot be qualified as »interpretative«, as the
types have been merely grouped on the basis of geographical regions, thereby neglecting the interpretation of internal
evidence of type distribution. Concerning the chronological aspect, his dating lacks a firm basis, nor does he try to estab-
lish a relative chronology. - J.R.McIntosh (1982; 1985) has divided the Megalithic culture into six periods. For this at-
tempt, not only the ceramics, but all available data were taken into consideration. Unfonunately, it would be too lengthy
here to discuss her respective views (cf. also Note 4).
14 C. Wessels-Mevissen
Map A. 1 T. Narasipur,
2 Jadigenahalli,
3 Ramapuram,
4 Hallur,
5 Chandravalli,
6 Brahraagiri,
7 Maski,
8 Nagarjunakonda,
9 Yelleshwaram,
10 Hashmatpet,
11 Khapa,
12 Takalghat,
13 Mahurjhari,
14 Ranjala.
Map B. 1 Pomparippu,
2 Adichchanallur,
3 Thiruthu,
4 Paravai,
5 Perumal Malai,
6 Pollachi,
7 Porkalam,
8 Machad,
9 Pazhayannur,
10 Singanallur,
11 Kodumanal,
12 Kothapalayam,
13 Tirukkampuliyur,
14 Alagarai,
15 Arikamedu,
16 Muttarapalayam,
17 Suttukkeni,
18 Kadamalaiputtur,
19 Perumbayur,
20 Sanur,
21 Amirthamangalam.
0 100 km
the large ceramic material from the well-known urn field Adichchanallur as a basis3. This must remain
an attempt at paving the way for a complete evaluation and interpretation of typological data in the
future, as the lack of archaeological investigation in some areas, the scarcity of detailed stratigraphic
3
The results of the first excavations at ADR by A.F.Jagor in 1876 are comprised in the Berlin Jagor Collection. This
was studied along with the material recovered during the excavations by A. Rea at the same site in 1899-1904, kept at
Madras. The main publication on Adichchanallur is a monography by Rea (1915), the only report, in which the numbers
of the objects have been mentioned. While Rea has documented only a small portion of his material by photographs,
drawings of all available pottery items have been prepared by the present author. Recently, B. Narasimhaiah (1980:
Adichchanallur Reconsidered 15
observations and the often missing allotment of the finds to individual burials render it impossible at
present, to arrive at fully satisfactory results, such as the reconstruction of local groupings.
In order to give the outlines of the picture that emerges in the present state of research, the charac-
teristic features of the pottery in the different parts of the Megalithic culture will be introduced at
first. In the second paragraph, the pottery from Adichchanallur (hereafter ADR), which is presented
in a conventional systematic way4, will be discussed along with its analogues from other sites. Most of
these carefully chosen counterparts are illustrated by drawings in the same scale, so that the critical
eye of the reader is allowed to re-examine the compared specimens. In the third paragraph, a hypo-
thetic model of interpretation of the available data is offered, which may be either proven, modified
or even dismissed by future research in the field.
1. Specific regional Features
A short characterization of the ceramic wares is given here, because in the following, the technologi-
cal data will be largely left aside. These have been treated in an excellent study by Gurumurthy5.
The almost exclusive wares of the South Indian Megalithic culture are the red ware, the black ware
and the black-and-red ware, besides the white painted and black painted wares. It is interesting to ob-
serve a tendency towards a functional differentiation among the former four wares. At ADR, the red
ware has been chosen mainly for large jars (e.g. Fig. 9,3.5.6) and the black ware dominates in the case
of ringstands (Fig. 12,1.4), lids (e.g. Fig. 12,12) and some particular type variants (e.g. Fig. 2,2). The
white painted black ware and the white painted black-and-red ware remain, with a few exceptions
(Figs.4,5; 6,4; 9,1; 10,3), restricted to the cups (Figs.2,13; 3,1.8.10) and the lids with a profiled knob
(Figs. 4,6; 12,10.20), while the black-and-red ware comprises the majority of vessel types6.
A general characteristic of the Iron Age ceramic wares is the highly polished, glossy surface, which
evokes a metallic look7. The relative quantity of painted pottery-where it occurs-is generally low, ex-
cept for the Coimbatore District.
Figs.20-23) has published drawings of some items of the Madras material. The type numbers used by him have not been
considered here.
The Berlin material from Adichchanallur has so far remained unpublished, except for just a few pieces (Catalogue Ber-
lin 1971: PI. 2 and 1976: 158; Leshnik 1974; PI. 14, c.d).
4
The classification of the ceramics of an individual site into types, referred to by ciphers, and their variants, referred
to by small letters, has been employed by Wheeler (e.g. 1947-48: Figs. 9-16), Casai and Casai (1956:
Figs. 17-23.27-31.37-39), Thapar (1957: Figs. 14-21), Khare (1975: Figs.89-96) and Begley (1981: Figs.20-28).
Leshnik (1974: 154-172, Charts 1-20) has developed as classificatory system intended for the incorporation of all pot-
tery shapes of the Megalithic culture. For a general use, however, his types are not well-defined enough. Firstly, the ex-
act sizes have not been determined by him, secondly, sketchy and sometimes misread drawings from old publications
and fragmented items have been given the same weight as complete specimens, and thirdly, a classification of painted
motifs is inserted in the general classification of shapes (Types L3a-3f), which is not consistent. While Leshnik in an »in-
tegrative« manner created relatively few types, which meant the omission of variants, McIntosh (1982: 228-375,
Figs. 18-55) has introduced type variants into the slightly changed system of Leshnik. A deficiency, however, remained,
which makes any future application extremely difficult, viz. the liberal incorporation of sketchy drawings.
For the present study, it has been considered useful to make an individual arrangement of types for the ADR ceram-
ics, in line with the first mentioned approach.
5
Gurumurthy 1981. The ceramics of all important sites have been characterized here.
6
The boundary line between the black and the red parts of the ceramic items from ADR has been indicated in the fig-
ures. For the objects from other sites it is mostly not shown. The upper pan and the inner side of a black-and-red vessel
are always black, while the lower part is red, which in a few cases starts with an orange-coloured zone (Figs. 2,13; 3,1).
Black stains on the red portion of the vessels are not a rare feature (e.g. Figs. 1,10; 6,9; 8,1.9).
7
An important exception to this general rule is the pottery from Pomparippu/Sri Lanka. See Begley 1981: 85.
The huge vase-like containers of skeletal fragments and grave goods (»urns«) in coarse red ware have
not been included in this study. Nevertheless, their typology is another rewarding subject for re-
search.
Now, the morphological features will be discussed region by region, as they are discernible, starting
with the extreme south.
1.1. The Tirunelveli District and Parts of the Madurai District
Deep bowls or cups and their bell-shaped lids with profiled knob handles, which bear paintings of
dotted linear designs in white (Figs. 2,13; 3,1.8.10; 4,1.2; 12,10.20), form an essential part of the grave
goods. The decoration of the cups always borders the rim in the shape of parallely arranged dotted
rows, which are sometimes barely visible on the black surface8. In most cases, the lids have their
domed portion decorated with dotted linear motifs, set at regular intervals (Fig. 12,20). Besides these,
some unpainted items of the same types also occur. Apart from ADR, the painted cups and lids are re-
presented in the unpublished materials from Korkai, Kadampur and Pasuvanthanai in the Tirunelveli
District. In the Madurai District also, a few examples have been excavated9. Some of the better known
sites here are Paravai, Vadagarai, Anupanadi and T. Kallupatti10. Unfortunately, no excavations have
been conducted in the intermediary district of Ramanathapuram.
Concerning the stylistic aspect, a predilection for globular body forms (Figs. 3,1; 4,1; 6,9; 8,4.6.9;
10,3.4) is one of the most apparent qualities of the ADR pottery, besides another tendency towards
the elongation of certain shapes (Figs. 3,8-10; 5,12.13; 11,1).
1.2. The Perumal Malai (Perumal Hill) in the Madurai District
The ceramic articles which have so far only been excavated from burials on the slopes of the Perumal
Malai in the Palani Hills clearly form a group of their own11. Of the common Iron Age black-and-red
ware, two well distinguishable varieties have been encountered, a coarse variety of thick section and a
very thin, polished variety12. Besides that, the recovery of a few painted items is highly noteworthy13.
Their black motifs find good analogues further to the north14.
A typical morphological feature of the Perumal Malai pottery is the presence of channel spouts on
shallow and deep bowls of various sizes and on jugs (Fig. 13,12). While channel-spouted bowls are
8
A case in which the paint had come off completely was described as early as 1888: »On the black surface, next the
rim, is a peculiar attempt at ornament ... It seems to have been put on in another colour, and this, coming off, has left a
dull mark on the glazed surface.« (Rea 1888: 62).
9
See ibid.: PI. 11, Figs. 37,45,57 for the shape and PI. 10, Fig. 5 for the painted decoration. It is highly interesting to
observe the frequency of painted lines here, which outnumber the dotted motifs. The decoration, which here also seems
to be mostly confined to the rim portion of vessels, includes slightly curved and bent lines (IAR 1960-61: PI.30 B; IAR
1976-77: PI. 36). From ADR only one bowl-and-lid ensemble painted with continuous white lines is known
(Fig. 4,5.6).
10
In this and in later notes, references to the sites have been understood as refereces to the illustrated ceramic mate-
rial. See Rea 1888: PI. 11 (Paravai, Anupanadi and Dadampatti); Khan 1936-37: PI.26 (Vadagarai and Anupanadi); IAR
1960-61: PI. 30 B and IAR 1976-77: PI. 36 (T. Kallupatti).
11
Aiyappan 1941: Pls.2B.3; Anglade 1954: Pis. 2-19; Allchin 1974: Fig. 1. For different appraisals of the material see
ibid.: 305-307; Gurumurthy 1981: 196-201.
12
See Anglade 1954: 74-75.
13
Ibid.: 58-59, PI. 11 (second to last row, first and second item from the left). Ibid.: 75 mentions a piece painted with
vermilion colour.
14
For closely similar designs see Wheeler 1947-48: Fig. 17,12 (Brahmagiri, Group B) and Deo 1970: Fig. 12.T24 A/
D44 (Takalghat). For further references see Note 53.
also commonly found in the Neolithic-Chalcolithic period, the spouted jug has so far remained an
unique type. Besides the spouts, ring bases are also a dominating feature of the Perumal Malai ceram-
ics. They are found both perforated (Fig. 13,13.14) and unperforated (Fig. 11,10), and they support
bowls of various sizes (Figs. 11,10; 13,13) besides globular deep bowls with a flaring rim portion
(Fig. 13,14). The latter is also peculiar to this ceramic complex.
The interesting type spectrum contains furthermore bowls of various proportions, which are some-
times carinated, conical vessels, jars with globular bodies, huge ringstands, and a peculiar group of
vases with a broad funnel neck rising from a globular body, which may be genetically related to a type
of conical vessels at Sanur (Fig. 15,7). Jars with a broad, flaring neck and a featureless rim and deep
bowls with a slightly flaring rim portion are types, which have survived the Neolithic-Chalcolithic pe-
riod. They similarly occur in one single case in the Coimbatore region15. Moreover, the former often
appear as an isolated type among shapes, which are clearly restricted to the Iron Age16. In the Perumal
Malai complex, a few bowl and lid types of these »typical Iron Age shapes« can be identified, too
(Figs. 2,12.15; 12,21). Therefore, the Perumal Malai material must be dated on the basis of the latest
component of its type spectrum which is Megalithic.
1.3. The Coimbatore and Periyar Districts and Parts of the Tiruchirappalli, Salem and Dbarmapuri Districts
A well-known specific feature found here is a linear white or whitish decoration covered by a russet-
coloured coating, wavy lines being the most characteristic design (Figs. 2,14; 3,4; 6,6; 7,6; 13,7. 8;
14,12)17. Wavy line painted vessels dominate most of the pottery ensembles throughout the Coimba-
tore region, where numerous early excavations have been conducted. Their eastern distribution is
marked by their occurrence at the habitation sites of Tirukkampuliyur and Alagarai18. Painted pottery
of this kind has come to light in Kerala as well, but it does not predominate there19. Beyond these
eastern and western fringes of its distribution lies a less surveyed zone20. Thus, the emerging picture
may be corrected by future research.
15
See Rajan 1986: Fig. 11 (Kodumanal, »Megalith-1«). A complete jar conforming in size and roughly in shape with
the jar from Kodumanal has come from Mangalam (Casai 1956: Fig. 39,316).
16
See Wheeler 1947-48: Figs. 12.C30; 17,13 (Brahmagiri, Cists and Group B); Raghavan and Devasahayam 1974:
13,49/34 (Kilpauk); Subbayya 1978: Pis. 10,1; 14,25 (Heggadehalli); Khare 1975: Fig.91,14a (Nagarjunakonda); Banerjee
and Soundara Rajan 1959: Fig. 6,68.69 (Sanur).
17
For the technical details of this so-called Russet-coated Painted Ware see Gurumurthy 1981: 255-258. Besides the
wavy-line pattern, straight horizontal lines, both often starting from below with a semicircular line (Fig. 11,7), are very
common, as are also concentric semicircles (Fig. 14,10). In some cases, criss-cross patterns have been reported from me-
galiths (Archaeological Survey of India, Southern Circle, Madras, Photograph No.2093; Gururaja Rao 1972: PI.23), which
are frequent on Early Historical Russet-coated Painted Ware, occurring at habitation sites throughout South India (for
this see Ghosh 1989: 258-259). In the Coimbatore region, paintings have occasionally been applied to the interiors of
vessels also (e.g. Rajan 1986: Fig. 16,18.20 and Fig. 19,3.4.30.35).
18
See IAR 1963-64. PI. 43 A; Mahalingam 1970: Fig.7,T 13.14.14 A-D, PI. 6 (above, left side). To my knowledge, the
typical wavy-line painted Russet-coated Painted Ware does not occur outside the mentioned area with the natural
boundaries of hills in the north and the south. Therefore, it can be assumed that Gurumurthy (1981: PI. 19b) is wrong in
assigning such an item to the North Arcot District.
19
An unusually large amount of Russet-coated Painted Red Ware has come from Tiruvilwamala (see Menon 1937:
Figs. 1-5), while a few items of this kind are among the finds from Chataperamba (see Babington 1823: Fig.B,10.18.19).
Viewing the collections in the Trichur Museum, it becomes apparent that only a small number of painted vessels has oc-
curred in central Kerala.
20
From south Kerala, however, some ceramic finds have been shown in an unpublished thesis (Tampi 1983:
379-400, Figs. 1-9, PL58). It is highly interesting that the Russet-coated Painted Ware is mentioned in connection with
these objects from the Sasthamangalam burials.
During the recent excavations at Kodumanal, some hints at a chronological sequence were ob-
tained21. One burial yielded shapes from the Neolithic-Chalcolithic tradition, but executed in the
black-and-red ware. Besides this evidence, other finds in the region suggest that ensembles of un-
painted pottery may belong to a different phase of Megalithic activity here. Sets of unpainted ceram-
ics were excavated earlier at Chettipalayam and Sirumugai22.
Concerning the black ware, which according to Gurumurthy also abounds in this region23, it may be
remarked that in the Berlin collection24 its quality is so poor, that a true black lustre does not appear.
The respective items, mostly dishes (Fig. 13,6), ringstands (Fig. 13,9) and lid-cum-bowls (Fig. 13,11)
have dark-brown surfaces in patchy shades.
The ceramic industry of the Coimbatore region, which has produced the painted pottery, has in-
vented a wide range of shapes. Unfortunately, the materials from Nallampatti, Singanallur, Pollachi,
Vellalur, Kodumanal, Kalapatti, Sivagiri, Erode and Kaniyampundi, besides Mohanur, Hogenakkal
and Kothapalayam in the periphery, are largely unpublished25.
Chalices (Fig. 11,7) and ring-based bowls (Fig. 14,10.11) and jars are among the most typical shapes
of the region. Furthermore, the pear-shaped cup seems to be peculiar to the Coimbatore region. A pe-
destalled version of it (Fig. 13,7) has been created, too.
Generally, the vessels and lids are of a clear-cut, sometimes angular shape, and they often have one
portion of their bodies richly profiled (Figs.7,6; 13,8.9.11). A carination occurs on a typical bowl type
(Fig. 14,12) and on most of the jars (Fig.6,6; 7,6; 13,8). In the Coimbatore region as well as in most of
the regions discussed below, jars with three or four »legs« form an interesting type (e.g. Fig. 16,9.10).
7.4. Chengalpattu (Chingleput) District and Pondicherry
The pottery of these areas with a good standard of archaeological research is generally unpainted26.
The sites with a fairly close resemblance of ceramic types are Auroville, Muttarapalayam (Mouttra-
21
My informations come from a unpublished thesis by Rajan (1986). The first of the two periods of the habitation
yielded pottery painted with thick bands in white (ibid.: Fig. 6), while the material of the second period is painted with
thin lines only (ibid.: Fig.9). The cases with wavy line painting outnumbered those with rectilinear designs in Period I
and in the lower levels of Period II. Megalith 2, in which thin line painting occurs, yielded a radiocarbon date of 0 + 100
B.C./A.D. (ibid.: 175-179).
As the unpainted pots from a pit burial below the habitational strata (ibid.: Fig. 11) are similar to some Neolithic-Chal-
colithic common shapes (cf. Gurumurthy 1981: Fig. 14,12.14.25), they can be regarded as the earliest trace of the Iron
Age black-and-red ware at this site.
22
See Khan 1930-34; PI.46c (Chettipalayam); Longhurst 1913-14: Pis.6-7 and Leshnik 1974: PI. 14b (Sirumugai).
23
Gurumurthy 1981: 190.
24
The major part of the Berlin Jagor Collection (See also Note 3) is constituted by ceramic finds from burials in the
Coimbatore District (nowadays the districts Coimbatore and Periyar). One portion of the over hundred items seems to
have been dug by Jagor himself (from Pollachi and Singanallur), while another portion has been presented to him by gov-
ernment officials (findspot unknown).
25
See Balakrishnan Nayar 1977: Figs.23-26 (Nallampatti); for Pollachi and Singanallur cf. Notes 3 and 24, unpubli-
shed; Foote 1901: PI.23-24, 1091-3, and Rajan 1986: Fig.19,17-27 (Vellalur); ibid.: Figs.5-17.20 (Kodumanal); ibid.:
Fig. 18 (Kalapatti); ibid.: Fig. 19,11-16 (Sivagiri); ARADSCM 1910-11: PI. 3 and Rajan 1986: Fig. 19,1-10 (Kaniyam-
pundi); IAR 1961-62: 26 (no illustr., Mohanur); present study, Fig. 14,2-6.8.10.11.13.15-17 (Kothapalayam). There are
many ceramic finds from old excavations, which are labelled only »Coimbatore District«. For such examples see Foote
1901: PI. 23,1077.1080.1084; Gururaja Rao 1972: PI. 24 A; Leshnik 1974: PI. 14a.e (Jagor Collection, for the latter cf.
Fig.7,6 of the present study); Gurumurthy 1981: Pls.20b-23a (For the vase on PI.20b, middle, see Fig. 13,7 of the pres-
ent study. The cup and lid on PI. 21 most likely originate from the Tirunelveli area rather than from the Coimbatore
Dt.).
26
An exception is formed by a jar from Muttarapalayam (Casai 1956: 67, Fig. 19,117c), which bears faintly visible
straight, intersecting lines in white and black pigment. Subbarao (1958: Fig. 43,433.434.438.441.471) has falsely ascribed
some dotted designs to the Perumbayur pottery, as the Madras Museum numbers belong to specimens from ADR. Guru-
murthy (1981: 266, Fig. 64,10.11) has taken over this mistake.
paléon), Suttukkeni (Souttoukèny), Perimbé, Perumbayur (Perambair), Kadamalaiputtur, Pallavaram,

Kilpauk and Amirthamangalam27.
As elements of decoration, multiple incised lines have often been employed, but these are widely
distributed in the Megalithic culture (e.g. Fig. 5,12. 13. 15). Oblique corrugations and incisions
(Figs. 3,5; 7,5) are likewise not restricted to the Chengalpattu-Pondicherry region. A quite distinctive
feature of this complex, however, is the presence of rolls slightly above or on the widest part of some
vessel types (Figs.2,3; 3,5; 4,3; 14,8.9). Typical shapes include the fairly large deep bowl with one or
more central rolls (Fig. 4,3), the flat-based container with nearly vertical sides (Fig. 5,14) and the squat
jar with a sharp carination and a long cylindrical neck (Fig. 7,7).
While at ADR the majority of jars exhibits a globular body (Fig. 6,9), the jars of the Coimbatore re-
gion are mostly carinated (Fig.7,6). In the Chengalpattu-Pondicherry region, however, both jars with
globular bodies (Figs.6,10.12.13; 8,5.10; 10,2) and with squat, sharply carinated bodies (Fig.7,7) exist
side by side, even in the same burial28.
Pomparippu on the west coast of Sri Lanka has yielded an interesting ceramic material with dis-
tinctly local features29. It is linked to Kadamalaiputtur and Muttarapalayam by two analogues, the
globular cup with central grooves (Fig. 3,2) and the jar with a long, sloping shoulder and a flaring neck
(Fig. 9,2), of which many variants exist at Pomparippu.
Another site in the Chengalpattu District, Sanur, is characterized by peculiar and partly unique
types30, which are comprised in two distinct type groups, presented by the Megaliths I to IV and by
Megalith V, respectively. It is difficult to explain the fact, that both groups of almost mutually exclu-
sive types also contain different analogues for the material of the Brahmagiri Pit-circles (see under
1.6.). These analogues are the dish with vertical sides and a sagger base (cf. Fig. 15,2), the bowl with a
folded rim portion (Fig. 16,5), which is related to a less squat type at Brahmagiri (Fig. 16,3), and the
ring-handled lid, however much smaller than the Brahmagiri specimen (Fig. 15,11), in the first type
group, and the tulip-shaped bowl (cf. Fig. 15,1) and the lid with a flat top (cf. Fig. 15,5) in the second
type group. In both groups of shapes, so far unique types occur, like the bowls with a pointed bottom
(Fig. 15,7) and the set of twelve vases with broad, profiled necks (Fig. 8,8), the only analogue for
which could be traced at ADR (Fig. 8,7). The three-legged vessels (cf. Fig. 16,9) and the squat deep
bowl (cf. Fig. 2,17) are the only types, which Sanur shares with the aforementioned sites of the Chen-
galpattu-Pondicherry region.
Mangalam is a burial site in Pondicherry, which has yielded a range of pottery types with clearly
Neolithic-Chalcolithic affinities31.
Little or nothing has been published on Iron Age pottery from the districts North and South Arcot,
Dharmapuri, Salem, the Nilgiri Hills, Thanjavur, Pudukkottai, Ramanathapuram and Kanyakumari.
27
Pingel 1987: 44-51 (Auroville); Casai 1956: Figs. 17-23 (Muttarapalayam); ibid.: Figs.27-31 (Suttukkeni); Laffitte
1932: 23-27 (Perimbé); Rea 1908-09: Pls.33-36 and Rea 1915: Pls.10-11 (Perumbayur); Rea 1908-09: Pis.34,4.6.9-11;
35,1-2; 36,1-4.6.15 (Kadamalaiputtur); Rea 1888: 55 and Leshnik 1974: Fig. 11 (Pallavaram); Khan 1934-35: P1.20 and
Raghavan and Devasahayam 1974: 9-13 (Kilpauk/Madras city); Banerjee 1966: Fig.3 (Amirthamangalam).
28
Urns V and XXXIV at Muttarapalayam (cf. Casai 1956: 67,69, Figs. 19-22). In urn No.V, jars with globular bodies
like the Types 118,118a have been combined with the extremely squat jar of Type 124a, while the urn burial No.XXXIV
contained several types of round-bodied (Types 120,120e,121) and carinated squat jars (Types 123b,124,124c).
29
See Godakumbura 1957: G12-G13, P1.5 and Godakumbura 1965-66: G133-G136; Begley 1981: Figs. 20-28. Cf.
also Note 7.
30
See Banerjee and Soundara Rajan 1959: Figs.2-7. Cf. also Banerjee 1956: Figs.2-3, where many pottery shapes are
shown without any reference to their exact provenance in the Chengalpattu District. Some of these can be found in the
report on Sanur, but the origin of most of them unfortunately remains unknown.
31
See Casai 1956: Fig. 39. Cf. Gurumurthy 1981: Fig. 14,8.20.25. An intricate rim profile (Casai 1956: Fig. 39,315),
however, is reflected at Takalghat and Gangapur (Deo 1970: Figs. 14.T45; 22,G6) in a quite similar way.
Megalithic and urn burials, however, have been reported from most of these districts of Tamilnadu32.
From the sporadic pottery finds known to me, it can be deduced, that at least some of these areas
have also produced their specific ceramic types.
1.5. Kerala
Most of the excavated sites in Kerala are located in the north-central portion of this narrow coastal
state. The main sites are Chataperamba, Tiruvilwamala, Panunda, Eyyal, Kattakampal, Porkalam, Ma-
chad and Pazhayannur33.
As already mentioned, some of the Kerala sites have yielded wavy-line painted vessels, while these
are altogether absent from the material of the other sites, irrespective of their distance to the Coimba-
tore District. The three well-documented sites, Porkalam, Machad and Pazhayannur, belong to the lat-
ter group. It is interesting to note, that besides white painting in the manner of the Coimbatore re-
gion, paintings of straight lines, triangles and dots in black sometimes occur on four-legged jars (cf.
Fig. 16,10)34. Thus, Kerala had also developed its own idiom of painted decoration.
Significant types of the ceramic production comprise the low carinated bowl for the white painted
pottery (cf. Fig. 14,12) and the globular cup-shaped vessel of an enormous size for the unpainted pot-
tery (Fig. 3,6.7). A typical shape of the latter is further a broad or high flaring neck attached to a body
with a nearly horizontal shoulder portion rounded to a softly conical bottom (cf. Fig. 7,5). Thus, the
predominating body shape of jars does not correspond to the shapes discussed before, viz. the globu-
lar and the squat, carinated body shape.
Four-legged jars with similarly flaring necks are likewise highly frequent (cf. Fig. 16,10), whereas
the distinctly conical body, combined with an extensive surface decoration, seems to be rare here as
elsewhere (Figs. 14,7.13; 16,13).
1.6. Karnataka
Here, the relevant sites are Jadigenahalli, T. Narasipur, Huttanhalli, Heggadehalli, Koppa, Hallur, Ta-
dakanahalli, Komaranahalli, Chandravalli, Brahmagiri, Maski, Lingsugur Tank, Andola and Jiwarji35. In
this state which covers most of the Deccan plateau, we are in the fortunate position that a chronologi-
cal division has been hinted at by the excavators of the eminently important sites Brahmagiri and
Maski. At Brahmagiri, the so-called Pit-circles offer a type spectrum (Figs. 2,9; 15,1.2.4-6. 9-11;
32
Exploration is constantly in progress. For brief reports see the journal IAR. In the present context not mentioned
are Tenkasi (Krishnamacharlu 1936-37: PI. 26b-e), Odugattur (Richards 1924: Pis. 30-31), Mottur (Sinha 1982:
100-102, no illustr.), Paiyampalli (IAR 1967-68: 27, Fig.6), Togarapalli (Narasimhaiah 1980: Figs. 29-34), Uraiyur (Gu-
rumurthy 1981: Figs.28-29) and a few minor sites, besides many sites with unpublished material. For illustrations of pot-
tery from different sites see Foote 1901: Pis. 18-28.30.32-34; Phillips 1873: Figs. 1-11.14-29; Narasimhaiah 1980:
PL 10B-C. An interesting hint at megalithic burials containing polished (»highly glazed«) pottery in the Nilgiri Hills,
where Iron Age ceramics have otherwise not been reported, was given by Breeks (1873: 106-107).
33
Babington 1823: Fig.B (Chataperamba); Menon 1937: Figs.1-5 (Tiruvilwamala); Raghavan and Devasahayam 1974:
26 (Panunda); Sharma 1956: P1.45 (Eyyal and Kattakampal); Thapar 1952: Figs.2-3 (Porkalam); Mehta and George 1978:
Figs.34
4-7 (Machad and Pazhayannur).
See Babington 1823: Fig.B,8; Raghavan and Devasahayam 1974: 26, Fig.7.
35
Seshadri 1960: Figs. 9-16 (Jadigenahalli); Seshadri 1971: Pis. 56-58 (T. Narasipur); ARASI 1930-34, Pt.II: PI. 129
(Huttanhalli); Subbayya 1978: Pis. 10-15 (Heggadehalli); Nagaraja Rao 1971: Figs. 17-19 (Hallur); Nagaraja Rao 1981:
Figs.6-9 (Tadakanahalli); IAR 1980-81: 29 (no illustr., Komaranahalli); Krishna 1931: PI. 10,1 and Wheeler 1947-48:
PigS.43_44 (Chandravalli); ibid.: Figs.9-17.24-26 (Brahmagiri); Thapar 1957: Figs. 14-24 (Maski); Munn 1935: Ph. 18
(Lingsugur Tank); Taylor 1852: P1.17A (Andola); Taylor 1847-50: PL facing p.190 (Jiwarji). In the reprint of Taylor’s ar-
ticles (Taylor 1941), most of the ceramic items are labelled differently.
16,3.13), which is distinct from that of the Cist burials (Fig. 1,16; 5,7; 8,3; 15,3.8; 16,8.11.12). It can be
argued on the basis of the burial construction36 as well as on typological grounds that the latter pre-
ceed the former.
Typological arguments consist in the development of the sagger-based bowl with pronouncedly in-
curved sides (Fig. 1,16) to a more shallow type with only slightly convex sides (Fig. 15,2), the modifi-
cation of the less distinct neck of the wide-mouthed jar with a simple, thickened rim (Fig. 8,3) into a
higher, well demarcated neck with a profiled rim (Fig. 15,9), the possible development of the deco-
rated high jars with a corrugated, heavy rim (Fig. 16,11.12) into a huge type of jar which is profusely
decorated and has a heart-shaped body (Fig. 16,13), and the presence of only small, squat vessels with
tiny legs and a rudimentary neck (Fig. 16,8), which probably grow in the course of later developments
(Fig. 16,9.10).
The most characteristic and distinctive types of the Brahmagiri Pit-circle complex include the so-
called tulip-shaped bowl (Fig. 15,1), the flat-topped high, conical lid with (Fig. 15,6) or without a con-
cave-sided brim (Fig. 15,5), the high container of a somewhat parabolic shape (Fig. 15,4) and the large
lid with a ring handle (Fig. 15,11). The predominant body shape of small as well as large jars at Brah-
magiri and Maski can be described as a heart shape (Figs. 15,9; 16,13), of which numerous variants
have been created, some of them having a flattened base. Their necks are generally less sharply de-
marcated from the body than in the south.
The Maski burials of Type B(i) have been considered as the earliest of that site37. They also contain
distinctive ceramic types (Figs. 1,14; 10,5; 11,9; 13,15; 16,1), most of which are restricted to this group
of burials here. As four of these types recur in the so-called Groups A and B at Brahmagiri (cf.
Fig. 1,13.14)38, pottery ensembles which were stratigraphically situated below the Cists V and VI, a
general chronological order can be established:
I. Maski B(i) and the Groups A and B at Brahmagiri
II. The Brahmagiri Cists
III. The Brahmagiri Pit-circles
Through observing the distribution of the Brahmagiri and Maski ceramic types, a surprising picture is
obtained. Several of the easily recognizable shapes of the Brahmagiri Pit-circles can be traced at Maski
B(iii) and B(v), Tadakanahalli, Komaranahalli, Heggadehalli and the habitations of Brahmagiri, Maski
and Hallur in Karnataka, furthermore at Ranjala in Maharashtra, Yelleshwaram (cairn circle;
Fig. 15,13) and Nagarjunakonda in Andhra Pradesh, Arikamedu (habitation) and Sanur in Tamilnadu,
besides single items occurring at Jala/Karnataka, Hayat Nagar, Patpad (»cache«) and Guntakal in
Andhra Pradesh39. The distribution of some types peculiar to the Brahmagiri Cists - except for a
widespread bowl type (Fig. 15,3)-seems to extend to the north and the east only. Thus, the bowls and
dishes of the urn burial at Yelleshwaram/A.P. and of the Vidarbha Megaliths in Maharashtra clearly
recall several shapes from the Brahmagiri Cist burials (e.g. Fig. 1,16; 15,8)40.
36
See Wheeler 1947-48: 196.
37
See Thapar 1957: 27.
38
Compare ibid.: Fig. 14,B(i)2,B(i)3a,B(i)4 to Wheeler 1947-48: Fig. 17,9.3.2, respectively.
39
E.g.Thapar 1957: Figs. 18,B(iii)4.B(iii)5b; 21,B(V)2.B(V)3 (Maski); Nagaraja Rao 1981: Figs.7-8 (Tadakanahalli);
Subbayya 1978: Pis. 12,22; 14,26 (Heggadehalli); Wheeler 1947-48: Figs.24,T99; 25.T103-T104 (Brahmagiri habit.); Tha-
par 1957: Figs. 22,21; 23,23.24.26 (Maski habit.); Nagaraja Rao 1971: Figs. 17,17-19; 18,7-8 (Hallur); IAR 1960-61:
PI.33B (Ranjala); Khan 1963: Fig.3,la-b (Yelleswaram); Khare 1975: Figs.89,1a; 90,10; 92,15.15a (Nagarjunakonda); Ca-
sai 1949: Figs. 11,14a; 18,56.57.60.60b (Arikamedu); Banerjee and Soundara Rajan 1959: Figs. 2,2.6-7; 6,74.77 (Sanur);
Foote 1901: Pi. 26,1286/1386 (Jala); Taylor 1870: Pi. 9,12 (Hayat Nagar); Foote 1916: PL 55,6205/26051 (Patpad); Foote
1901: PI. 33,1231 (Guntakal).
40
For the following comparison, the corresponding type at Brahmagiri is given in brackets. Khan 1963: Figs. 1,5
(C7a); 2,la-b (C2); Deo 1970: Figs.9,T5C (C16a); 13,T40 (C16a); 14.T53 (cf.C3); 15,T55 A.T55 C (C13a); Deo 1973:
Fig. 12,27 A (C13a); Deo and Jamkhedkar 1982: Figs.8,T2 A (C8a); 13.T37 (C13a).
Genuine analogues for the ceramic types of Maski B(i) are comparatively rare (e.g. Figs. 11,10;
13,13), but some influences of its repertoire can be felt as far as ADR (Figs. 1,12; 10,3; 11,8). The char-
acteristic carinated bowl of the Maski B(i) burials (Fig. 16,1) or related types (Fig. 16,2-4) occur quite
frequently at other sites, too41.
Lids with a profiled knob (Figs. 12,10-23; 13,1.2) are conspicuous by their absence from the Brah-
magiri and Maski materials. Komaranahalli, Tadakanahalli and the nearby habitation site Hallur have
some of their material painted with groups of white parallel lines mostly running vertically on the
black surface42. The ceramic types at Koppa and Huttanhalli in the southern part of Karnataka com-
prise the carinated deep bowl, which recalls a Maski B(i) type (Fig. 16,1) and the bowl with a set-back
rim portion, which is known from the Brahmagiri Cist burials (Fig. 15,3). Deep bowls, which are re-
lated to the tulip-shaped ones (Fig. 15,1), but with steeper sides (cf. also Fig. 15,7), occur at both
sites.
While at Koppa three-legged vessels of a medium height (cf. Fig. 16,9) abound, an extremely re-
duced, probably rudimentary form of a four-legged vessel occurs at Huttanhalli43. It has a collar in-
stead of a neck and bosses in the place of legs. Higher four-legged jars are known from Tadakana-
halli.
The quite unusual material from Jadigenahalli with clearly southern affinities will be treated exten-
sively in the description and comparison of ADR types, while Chandravalli and the northernmost
sites Lingsugur Tank, Jiwarji and Andola typologically link up with the ceramic material from Andhra
Pradesh.
1.7. Andhra Pradesh
Apart from the just mentioned complexes with a clear affinity to the material from Brahmagiri/Karna-
taka, a different »typological milieu« finds its expression in the pottery from Sankavaram, Hashmat-
pet, Yelleshwaram (cist burials), Narkailpalli, Maula Ali, Kesarapalle, Raigir and Dornakal44, besides
the just mentioned sites in Karnataka.
All these sites-except for Andola-share the squat container with a shallow, sometimes flat base
(Fig. 4,11) and its lid with a flaring or a pointed top (Fig. 4,12). It is a noteworthy fact that a corre-
sponding container in bronze has been found at Mahurjhari in Maharashtra (Fig. 4,13). Besides this
ensemble, wide-mouthed squat, sometimes carinated pots form a frequent type45. The wide-mouthed
jar with an extremely long shoulder portion (Fig. 15,17) may be regarded as a related type. It is so far
known from Hashmatpet, Narkailpalli and Andola. Its well-proportioned shape is reflected by a speci-
men from Pomparippu/Sri Lanka (Fig. 9,2).
The large jars with a spherical body, a non-demarcated neck and a heavy rim (Fig. 15,14) seem to be
related both to the jars from Maski B(i) (Fig. 10,5) and from the Brahmagiri Pit-circles. They occur at
41
See also Seshadri 1971: PL57,19 (T. Narasipur); Khare 1975: Fig. 89,4.4a-d (Nagarjunakonda); Nagaraja Rao 1971:
Fig. 19,1 (Hallur).
42
The black interiors of bowls are often painted (e.g. ibid.: Fig. 18,1-4.7-9). Black, flat-topped lids bear groups of
short, oblique lines on the exterior (ibid.: Figs. 18,11; 19,14). An interesting comparison can be drawn with an unpubli-
shed jar from Ponnmedu/Dharmapuri Taluk, which bears on its black exterior groups of three vertical white lines.
43
See ARASI 1930-34, Pt.II: PI. 129,3. Horizontal and vertical grooves have been vigorously incised on its collar.
44
See Raghavan and Devasahayam 1974: 33-35 (Sankavaram); Nigam 1971: Nos. 1-10 (Hashmatpet); Khan 1963:
Figs. 1-4 (Yelleshwaram); Taylor 1852: PI. 17 (top row, left and right; bottom row, left and middle) (Narkailpalli); ibid.:
PI. 17 (bottom, right) (Maula Ali; see also following reference); Hunt 1916: PI.44, cf. also PI.45 (Dornakal); Sarkar 1966:
Figs.
45
6-7 (Kesarapalle).
E.g. Raghavan and Devasahayam 1974: 35,21/35.
Hashmatpet, Yelleshwaram and Nagarjunakonda. The sites Gajjalakonda and Ramapuram46 cannot be
classified according to the mentioned criteria. At Gajjalakonda, wide-mouthed pots occur, but the ex-
pected squat container is seemingly absent. The informations on the highly interesting material from
Ramapuram are unfortunately quite poor. Here, an unique mixture of Neolithic-Chalcolithic and Iron
Age ceramic types has been encountered in a burial. The latter are represented by a three-legged jar
(cf. Fig. 16,9) and a lid crowned by a bird figurine (cf. Fig. 13,1). The occurrence of painted black-on-
red ware in this burial and in the early Iron Age levels of the habitation is highly noteworthy.
At Raigir47, the type spectrum comprises large, wide-mouthed pots with oviform bodies and a huge
variant of the globular deep bowl, which resembles that from Kerala (Fig. 3,6.7). Both these types of
vessels at Raigir occur in a painted version, where zig-zag and hatched designs, dots, concentric cir-
cles and other geometrical patterns in white have been combined. This »chaotic« style of painting has
hitherto not been reported from any other Megalithic burial. Jars with a high cylindrical neck and a
projecting rim occur at Raigir and Gajjalakonda48.
There are striking analogues, which connect some sites of the eastern part of the Megalithic culture
over considerable distances. Concave lids of actually identical diameters have appeared at Yelleshwa-
ram (Fig. 15,16), Narkailpalli, at most of the Chengalpattu-Pondicherry sites (Figs. 12,8; 15,15) and
also at ADR (Fig. 12,7). Moreover, lids with a ring handle (Fig. 15,11.13)49 and lids crowned by a bird
figurine (Fig. 13,1.2)50 have so far remained restricted to the eastern reaches of the Megalithic cul-
ture.
1.8. Maharashtra
In the Vidarbha region of eastern Maharashtra, a cluster of Megalithic sites has been extensively exca-
vated. The sites are Mahurjhari, Takalghat, Khapa, Gangapur, Naikund, Junapani, Khairwada, Bhagi
Mahari and Boregaon51.
The pottery, which comprises some peculiar ceramic wares, has been recovered mostly in a highly
fragmented state. Bowls with convex, often bluntly carinated sides and jars with flaring necks domi-
nate the type spectra. The lids are of varying shapes and topped by a ring handle (cf. Fig. 15,13), a
pointed finial (e.g. Fig. 12,16.18), so far invariably with ADR relations (e.g. Fig. 12,17), a goat figurine,
multiple bird figurines or a flat end with an affixed cylindrical element52.
The regular occurrence of painted black-on-red ware is a noteworthy fact. In an Iron Age context,
similar wares are only known from Brahmagiri (Group B), Ramapuram and from the Perumal Malai in
the south53. Another remarkable fact is the resemblance which some of the bronze vessels (Fig. 4,13)
46
See Longhurst 1914-15: Pis. 18.24 (Gajjalakonda); IAR 1980-81: 4, Fig.l; IAR 1981-82: 4, Fig. 1-2, P1.5A (Rama-
puram).
47
For Raigir see Hunt 1916: PI. 43 and Hunt 1924: PI. 27.
48
E.g. Hunt 1916: PI. 43 (right).
49
Further, lids with ring handles have come from Sanur, Nagarjunakonda, Arikamedu (See Note 39), Mahurjhari
(Deo
50
1973: Fig. 13,36.36 A), and a specimen in copper occurs at ADR (Rea 1903-04a: PI. 2,8).
An interesting piece is the lid from Ramapuram (IAR 1981-82: PI. 5 A, middle). A lid crowned by four birds is
known from Mahurjhari (Deo 1973: Fig. 13,32 A), while Paiyampalli (IAR 1964-65: PI. 17 and IAR 1967-68: 27, Fig. 1)
and Kilpauk (Khan 1934-35: PI. 20a) have yielded fragmented bird figurines, which may have formed a lid finial.
51
See Deo 1973: Figs.9-13 (Mahurjhari); Deo 1970: Figs.9-22 (Takalghat, Khapa and Gangapur); Deo and Jamkhed-
kar 1982: Figs. 8-22 (Naikund). From the other sites, ceramic finds have not been published.
52
See Deo 1970: Figs. 14,T48; 19,T101; 22,K24.K24 A; Deo 1973: Fig. 13,32.32 A.32 B.35.36.36 A.
53
For the Perumal Malai and Brahmagiri see Notes 13 and 14. In the case of the well-shaped jar from Brahmagiri,
however, the pigment is not black, but dark ochre-coloured. At Ramapuram, black-on-red ware abounds, but only in the
case of the illustrated contents of a pit burial (IAR 1981-82: P1.5 A, p.6) we get a firm proof for its occurrence in an early
Iron Age context. Groups of parallel lines and hatchings occur at Ramapuram and in the Vidarbha region alike, the latter
also at the Perumal Malai, while the bunches of segments are shared by the Perumal Malai and Brahmagiri.
List of Site Abbreviations on Table 1
AMM Amirthamangalam, Chengalpattu Dt./Tamilnadu.

BRG Brahmagiri/Karnataka.
CBE ceramics from the Coimbatore Dt. in the Berlin Collcection, including the sites Pollachi and Singanallur/Tamil-
nadu.
CHV Chandravalli/Karnataka.
JGH Jadigenahalli/Karnataka.
JLA(?) probably Jala/Karnataka; cf. Note 93.
KHP Khapa/Maharashtra.
KMR Kadamalaiputtur, Chengalpattu Dt./Tamilnadu.
KPM Kothapalayam, Tiruchirappalli Dt./Tamilnadu.
MCD Machad/Kerala.
MPM Muttarapalayam/Pondicherry, enclave in Tamilnadu.
MSK Maski/Karnataka.
PDK Pudukkottai Dt./Tamilnadu.
PML Perumal Malai, Madurai Dt./Tamilnadu.
PBR Perumbayur, Chengalpattu Dt./Tamilnadu.
PKM Porkalam/Kerala.
PRP Pomparippu in Sri Lanka.
PRV Paravai, Madurai Dt./Tamilnadu.
SLM Salem Dt./Tamilnadu.
SNR Sanur, Chengalpattu Dt./Tamilnadu.
STK Suttukkeni/Pondicherry, enclave in Tamilnadu.
TKG Takalghat/Maharashtra.
TNR T. Narasipur/Karnataka.
TRT Thiruthu, Tirunelveli Dt./Tamilnadu.
YWM Yelleshwaram/Andhra Pradesh.
bear with the squat ceramic container common in Andhra Pradesh (Fig. 4,11)- Of the excavated sites
in western Maharashtra, Ranjala and Pimpalsuti54, the former shares two types with the Brahmagiri
Pit-circles (cf. Fig. 15,1.4), while in the material of the latter, some Chalcolithic elements can be recog-
nized besides a lid recalling a type from the Brahmagiri Cists55.
2. The Ceramic Types at Adichchanallur
The ADR material with its amazing variety of shapes provides a good basis for a comparative study of
ceramic types. Through this, an impression will be formed, to what extent it is possible to find analo-
gous examples from other sites, and see, how far the distribution of types can reach in some cases. It
may be even more relevant to observe systematically, how many and how close are the analogues
shared by ADR and each of the other sites under survey.
In the comparative figures (Figs. 1-3,5-14), the closest available analogues have been chosen for
each type variant from ADR. In Table 1, the respective degree of affinity has been defined, and the
marks secured by the different sites or complexes were counted up. The actual distribution of a single
type cannot be traced by the »closest analogue method«, but the respective affinity with the ADR ce-
ramic complex can be estimated quite well, at least in a one-way direction. While a few well compa-
rable items can always be expected, particularly for the nearby sites, a clustering of closely similar
54
See IAR 1960-61: PI.33 B (Ranjala); Ansari and Dhavalikar 1976: Figs. 1-3 (Pimpalsuti).
55
Compare ibid.: Fig.2,4 with Wheeler 1947-48: Fig. 10, Clla.
Table 1. Comparision of shapes.
S S
I C
T o
E R
ADR S E
TYPES 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
AMM a:3 b:2 a:2 a:4 18

b:3 c:4
BRG c:2 2-3 b:2 a:2-3 a:3 14
CBE b:3 d:3 c:2 2-3 13,5
a:3
CHV b:4,3 7
JGH C'A a:2 b:2 a:3 a:3 a:2 C:4 g:2 25
b:3
JLA(?) 2-3 2,5
KHP c:2-3 2.5
KMP b:4 a:2 6
KPM a:3 f:3—4 13.5
(Fig. 14,3) (Fig. 14,16)
d:4 i:3
MCD b:2 2
MPM b:3 b:l c:2-3, c:3 a:4 b:2—3 23.5
2 c:2-3
MSK c:2 2-3 6.5
PDK h:2 2
PML 2 g;3 11
PBR 3 3
PKM b:2 b:2 a:4 a:3 g:2 13
(Fig. 4,9) (Fig. 4,10)
PRP a:3 b:3 a:2 a:2 a:2 a:2 17.
b:3
PRV d:2-3 2,5
SLM C:2-3 2,5
(Fig. 14,7)
SNR a:3 e:3 b:3 a:3 g:2 14
STK b:2 a:3 b:2 a:3 C:3 13
(Fig. 4,3) (Fig. 15,15) (Fig. 4,4)
TKG e:3 3
TNR b:3 3
TRT c:2 2
(Fig. 4,8)
YWM b:2 b:3 a:3 e:4 12
(Fig. 4,11) (Fig. 15,16) (Fig. 4,12)
Marks:
1 - little similarity, perhaps common function; AMM a:3
2 - some similarity, but differences in shape and size; b:3 read: At Amirthamangalam, analogues for Type 1, Variants a and b, both show
3 - a considerable degree of similarity, but differing details; a considerable degree of similarity. The figure has been specified in cases, where the items are
4 - a remarkable similarity, almost identical shape and size; not shown on the same illustration.
Adkhchanallur Reconsidered 25
pieces occurs in the cases of Amirthamangalam, Jadigenahalli and Muttarapalayam, which are all quite
distant from ADR. Since two different type spectra can actually share several type variants, last doubts
about the relevance of morphological analogues should be removed. The fact that overregional anal-
ogues often show a striking congruency with each other hereby points to the lack of data on type dis-
tribution. It is assumed that most of the occurring similarities arise from common aesthetic and func-
tional norms, which suggest a specific cultural background. In this way, the overregional analogues
have been understood as indicative of a »specific contemporaneousness«.
For a more objective study of ceramic types, which also includes the tracing of typical ensembles,
the pottery should be examined burial-wise. This is, however, not possible for many of the sites, viz.
for ADR, for a part of the Pomparippu material, the Perumal Malai complex, the Berlin collection of
Coimbatore pottery56, Jadigenahalli, Kadamalaiputtur, Perumbayur and other materials from early ex-
cavations. Thus, there are several limitations to the complete evaluation of the data provided by the
Megalithic burials. The results of the relatively few excavations of Iron Age habitations are still less
informative with regard to the distribution of significant types. In several cases, however, they have to
be referred to.
At ADR, the circa 450 surveyed pottery items exhibit so many variations, that all of them could not
be shown in the figures. Even among the frequently represented types, the degree of uniformity is
sometimes surprisingly low. Some of the frequent and quite uniform types are:
Type la (Fig. 1,1), the miniature bowl;
Type 2a (Fig. 1,8), the hemispherical bowl;
Type 4a (Fig. 2,1), the carinated bowl with a beaded rim;
Type 6b (Fig. 2,11), the bowl with vertical sides and a projecting rim;
Type 7b (Figs. 3,1; 4,1), the globular deep bowl or cup;
Type 11a (Fig.5,12), the high oviform vase with a flat base and a projecting rim;
Type 12b (Fig. 6,3), the miniature jar with a wide neck;
Type 13a (Fig. 6,9), the jar with a cylindrical neck of medium height and a globular body;
Type 23a (Fig. 12,10), the lid with a finial consisting of a rounded, a projecting and a pointed ele-
ment.
The respective functions of these types seem to be specialized in so different ways, that their combi-
nation may be regarded as a hypothetical set of pottery. It is interesting to note, that for two out of
these nine types there are no analogues known so far (Types 4a, 11a), while for three others corre-
sponding items are extremely rare (Types 6b, 23a), and only the four remaining ones have a wider dis-
tribution.
The elongated cup with a pointed bottom (Fig. 3,9.10) is another type peculiar to ADR, as there are
no analogues known to us. It occurs frequently at ADR, but not in an uniform way, as there is a con-
siderable range of sizes.
2.1. The Types and their Analogues
Type 1: The small bowls with a sagger base (Fig. 1,1), a pointed base (Fig. 1,4) or a shallow base
(Fig. 14,1) form the largest group among the ADR types. The Variants a to c are extremely well reflec-
ted at Amirthamangalam (Fig. 1,2.5), Pomparippu (Fig. 1,3), Kothapalayam (Fig. 14,2.3) and at Kala-
patti in the Coimbatore region57. The spouted Variant d (Fig. 1,7) represents a rare shape at ADR and
elsewhere.
56
Cf. Note 24.
57
See Rajan 1986: Fig. 18,3.
Type la with its incurving rim portion may be regarded as a miniature version of Type 7a
(Fig. 2,13). Like the latter had been provided with a finial lid (e.g. Fig. 12,10), the small bowls were
sometimes equipped with a close-fitting lid (Fig. 1,6). Analogues for all variants can be traced at Iron
Age habitation sites58.
Type 2: For the softly incurving rim portion of the hemispherical bowl (Fig. 1,8), there are two com-
parable specimens from Sanur (Fig. 1,9), which have a conical base. A tendency towards the conical
shape is also visible on some of the numerous exponents of this type at ADR. Similar bowls have
been recovered at the habitation of Arikamedu in a supposedly later context^9.
The bowl of Variant b with almost straight, sloping sides (Fig. 1,10) is in its individuality quite iso-
lated at ADR. Its counterpart at Pomparippu (Fig. 1,11) is likewise rare at that site1'0. It reflects the
heavy rim as well as the groove below the rim portion. Among the material of the Perumal Malai com-
plex, the bowls with nearly straight sides form a frequent type. Bowls of this shape have sometimes
been supplied with an affixed pedestal (Fig. 11,10) there.
Another rare variant of the simple bowls at ADR is the one with steep sides (Fig. 1,12). One exam-
ple of this variant with its sides slightly less curved than those of the one shown, corresponds more
convincingly in shape with the examples from Brahmagiri (Fig. 1,13) and Maski (Fig. 1,14), in spite of
its flattened base61. Both the latter, however, share the feature of a groove just below the rim, which is
missing at ADR.
Type 3: The bowl with vertical convex sides, a blunt carination and a sagger base has been shown by
Rea and Narasimhaiah (Fig. 1,15). It seems to be an isolated piece at ADR. This bowl, however, re-
presents a well-known type in the South Indian Iron Age. Because of the pronounced sag of the base
and the broad, distinctly convex rim portion, it can be best compared with some specimens from the
Brahmagiri Cist burials (Fig. 1,16) and from the habitation site Arikamedu62. Many other possibly re-
lated bowls are more shallow in shape and mostly smaller, which also applies to the example from the
Coimbatore District shown here (Fig. 13,6).
Type 4: Of the bowls with the rim marked by an external roll, sides sloping inwards and a sharp
(Fig.2,1) or a blunt carination (Fig.2,2.4), the first variant is the most frequent and uniform one, but
without analogues elsewhere coresponding in size. Variant b exhibits double rolls at the rim
(Fig.2,2), which is recalled by a piece from Amirthamangalam (Fig.2,3). The rare Variant c with a pro-
jecting rim (Fig. 2,4) has a few impressive counterparts, one of which is a surface find from Amirtha-
mangalam (Fig. 2,5). At Jadigenahalli, the small receptacles of this kind (Fig. 2,6) were covered by con-
cave lids (cf. Fig. 15,16). Another related specimen has been found at Perumbayur63.
Type 5: The frequent collared bowls, of which not all variants could be included here, show differ-
ences concerning their sizes, collar forms and proportions64. Their bottoms are mostly conical
(Figs.2,7; 4,5) or bluntly conical (Fig. 2,8). Their features are only generally reflected by the examples
from Brahmagiri (Fig. 2,9), Perumbayur and Sanur65.
58
See Wheeler 1946: Fig.9r (Arikamedu); Thapar 1957: Fig.26,10 (Maski); Seshadri 1971: PI.58,1.3.13 (T.Narasipur);
IAR 1981-82: 4, Fig. 1,5 (Ramapuram); Deo and Jamkhedkar 1982: Fig.20,T81 (Naikund). The last specimen has an un-
usually thick section.
59
See Wheeler 1946: Fig. 16,9c. In the black-and-red ware levels at that site, the comparable bowls have much steeper
sides (Casai 1949: Fig. 9,3a-c). For the sequence at Arikamedu see Begley 1983: 466.
60
See Begley 1981, 89.
61
See Rea 1902-03: PI.6 (second row, second from the right).
62
See Wheeler 1946: Fig. 16,8t. This shape, which is a variant of a common type at Arikamedu, however, does not oc-
cur in the black-and-red ware levels there, which have been excavated by Casai (1949: Figs. 9-19).
63
See Rea 1908-09: PI. 33,9.
64
E.g. Rea 1915: Pis. 6,3; 8,17.19. The first and the second specimen have also been shown by Narasimhaiah (1980:
Fig. 22,27,31,33).
65
See Rea 1915: PI. 10,15 (Perumbayur); Banerjee and Soundara Rajan 1959: Fig.5,52.53 (Sanur).
Type 6: The uniformity absent from Type 5 can be observed for Type 6, the deep bowl with vertical
sides and a projecting rim (Fig.2,10.11). The large Variant b is characterized by multiple grooves be-
low the rim portion. For this shape, which is so frequent at ADR, only one isolated analogue is known
from the Perumal Malai complex (Fig. 2,12), which does not have the grooves.
Type 1: The simple deep bowls or cups of Type 7 form a distinctive group, as they are the vessels,
which are most often painted with white dotted rows (Figs.2,13; 3,1.8.10; 4,1). There are many inter-
mediate forms and sizes.
Some specimens of Variant a have a pronouncedly incurving rim portion (Fig. 2,13), a feature,
which is hardly met with in the wide distribution of this type. Two rare examples for this feature
come from the Coimbatore District (Fig. 2,14) and the Perumal Malai complex (Fig. 2,15). Their
shapes do not seem to be common in their respective regions. The mode of painting of the former ex-
ample is confined to the greater Coimbatore region. The variants with a nearly straight rim portion
are much more common elsewhere (Fig. 2,16.17). At Jadigenahalli, such variants are akin to a flat-
based type (Fig. 5,8) there.
The globular cup forms one of the more frequent types at ADR. The distinctive shape resembling a
cognac glass (Figs. 3,1; 4,1), however, is achieved in its typical form only by four items in the Berlin
Collection66. All the ten specimens known from ADR are painted with oblique rows of white dots, be-
low which one or two grooves may be incised (cf. Fig. 3,8.10).
The cognac glass shape is best reflected by the isolated examples from Pomparippu/Sri Lanka
(Fig. 3,2) and Kadamalaiputtur (Fig. 3,3). Both are linked together by grooves on their widest part,
which do not occur on the ADR cups. The affinity to the specimens from the Coimbatore District
(Fig.3,4), Muttarapalayam (Fig.3,5) and to the huge variants from Kerala (Fig. 3,6.7) can be described
as less close, but still quite remarkable. It is interesting to observe that different kinds of surface de-
coration as painting (Fig. 3,4), multiple grooves (Fig. 3,5.7), faintly incised oblique lines (Fig. 3,5.6)
and vigorously incised vertical lines (Fig. 3,7) have been chosen for them.
The Variants c, d and e are less often painted (Fig. 3,8.9.10). Variant c, the high cup with a flat-
tened base (Fig. 3,8), is recalled at Eyyal in Kerala67.
Figure 4 shows some ensembles of deep bowls and lids, which have been found together. Below
right is an ensemble in bronze from Maharashtra, the container of which was compared to a corre-
sponding ceramic bowl (Fig. 4,11; see 1.7,8). Cases of pottery items resembling containers and lids in
metal are not rare68.
The globular cup with its close-fitting lid stands for the most typical combination at ADR
(Fig.4,1.2). Interestingly, the ensemble from Suttukkeni (Fig.4,3.4) is quite similar in shape, the main
differences being the profile of the lid and the squat appearance of both members.
The collared bowl with a conical bottom and its big lid (Fig. 4,5. 6) are painted with continuous
lines, which is unique at ADR. Its shape, however, represents an ensemble, which is not rare at this
site. The combination from Thiruthu (Fig. 4,7.8) bears a certain degree of resemblance with this type,
while the ensemble from Kerala (Fig. 4,9.10) which is so far unique, has two features in common with
the one from Yelleshwaram (Fig. 4,11.12), viz. the rim profile of the lid and the flattened base of the
container. Most ensembles have rested on ringstands. The bowl-and-lid ensembles are generally pecu-
liar to the region, in which they occur.
Type 8: Both variants of the vase with a flaring collar and a flat (Fig. 5,1) or a rounded base (Fig. 5,2)
are represented by single specimens. Their only analogue comes from the habitation site of T. Nara-
66
Museum für Indische Kunst, Berlin, nos. I 701a, I 717, I 726a and I 867.
67
See Sharma 1956: PL 45 (3rd row, right).
68
E-g-. the jar no. 256 (Fig. 11,1 in the present study) and its lid (Fig. 12,9) have counterparts in bronze at ADR itself
(Rea 1915: PI.2,2). Similarly, a pointed lid finial (Fig. 12,17; Rea 1915: PI.8,18) finds an approximate analogue at the same
site (Rea 1915: PI. 2,20 and Rea 1902-03: Fig. 8).
sipur (Fig. 5,3). Its size and steepness of the sides are of a remarkable similarity, while its collar is
higher and fully concave, unlike that of the ADR vases.
Type 9: Three examples of the flat-based bowl with sloping sides (Fig. 5,4) are extant at ADR. Pe-
rumbayur has yielded the only analogue known from the Iron Age burials (Fig. 5,5).
Type 10: The receptacles with a flat base, sides of medium height and a nearly straight (Fig. 5,6) or a
flaring rim portion (Fig. 5,9) are rare at ADR. While flat-based vessels of similar proportions at other
sites mostly have constricted rim portions (Figs.4,9; 5,7.8.15), there are some impressive counterparts
for Variant b at the Chandravalli habitation site (Fig.5.10.11), where most strikingly, the concave base
is reflected, too (Fig. 5,10).
Type 11: The high oviform vases with a flat bottom in most cases have a short collar or an externally
rolled rim (Fig.5,12). Only one piece exhibits a featureless rim (Fig.5,13). All the vases of Type 11 are
characterized by a set of grooves on the upper part of the body.
As no counterpart exists for any of the variants, two »distant relatives« have been considered here.
These are the straight-sided, high vase from Muttarapalayam (Fig. 5,14) and the squat, convex-sided
container from Jadigenahalli (Fig. 5,15) with a similar set of grooves on its widest part.
Type 12: The jars at ADR are of multifarious shapes and often exhibit a surprisingly low degree of
uniformity. This holds also true for the miniature jars, most of which seem to be small imitations of
larger vessels (cf. Figs.6,1 to 7,1; 6,3 to 8,1; 6,5 to 9,5; 9,4 to 9,3; 10,4 to 10,1). The same relationship
between small and large jars can be observed at Jadigenahalli (cf. Figs. 6,2 to 7,4). Exceptions are the
Variants c and e, which do not have larger counterparts (Fig. 6,4.7).
The miniature jars form a quite homogenous group with regard to their sizes. The main shapes are
represented by Variant a with a nearly cylindrical neck and a carinated body (Fig. 6,1), Variant b with
a wide and short neck and a squat bulgy body (Fig. 6,3), Variant c with a narrow constricted neck and
a conical bottom (Fig. 6,4), Variant d with a high flaring neck and a softly carinated body (Fig. 6,5),
Variant e with an elongated slim body and a short flaring neck (Fig. 6,7), Variant f with a funnel neck
and a squat carinated body (Fig. 9,4) and Variant g with a short narrow neck and a globular body
(Fig. 10,4). The specimen shown for Variant c is the only one painted in white, a feature, which recurs
rarely on the shoulders of large jars (Figs. 9,1; 10,3). Its black surface shines with a unique silverish
lustre.
Among the miniature jars, which are not very rare and occur even in the habitations, the wide-
necked ones are the most common variant (cf. Fig. 6,3)69. Analogues for the other variants like those
from Jadigenahalli (Fig. 6,2), the Coimbatore District (Fig. 6,6) and from Sanur (Fig. 6,8) are therefore
quite exceptional. The small jars have been sometimes covered by simple conical, domed or inverted
lids70.
Type 13: The jars with a high cylindrical or slightly flaring neck, a globular body and a slightly coni-
cal bottom (Fig. 6,9) form the most frequent and most uniform type variant at ADR. A larger variant is
constituted by four jars with diameters of about 24 cm. Their necks have the same size as those of
Variant a. It is surprising to find so well-corresponding examples from other sites (Fig. 6,10-13). The
one from Amirthamangalam (Fig. 6,10) can be regarded as practically identical with the ADR speci-
men shown in the figure (Fig. 6,9). There is no indication that the jars with cylindrical necks represent
a frequent type at their respective sites, but, as stated above, in the Chengalpattu-Pondicherry region
a general liking for globular bodies has been expressed.
69
The jars with a wide neck are particularly common at Maski and Brahmagiri, where they often come down to diame-
ters of about 11-12 cm (e.g. Fig. 15,9). See further some examples from the black-and-red ware levels of Arikamedu (Ca-
sai 1949: Fig. 13,27a-c).
70
For a conical lid see Rea 1915: PI.7,15, for a domed lid ibid.: PI.7,31 and for the inverted lid type see Casai 1956:
Figs. 19,118.118a; 20,120g.l21b.
Adhhchanallur Reconsidered 29
While several examples for closely similar shapes paired with different sizes occur in the ADR ma-
terial, here we come to a demonstration of slight variations in the shapes of two vessels of identical
sizes. The two exponents of Variant b (Fig. 7,1.2) must have been designed as equivalent to each
other, which is also underlined by a mutual greyish-brown colour, which is unusual at ADR. Except
for Variant c (Fig. 7,3), there are no other jars of comparable forms at ADR, and the decoration with
multiple grooves on the widest part (cf. also Fig. 9,1.4) occurs much less frequent compared to
grooves on the upper part of the vessel (Figs.2,11; 5,2.12.13; 10,3). Nevertheless, both jars differ with
regard to the width of the neck and the rim profile. The second jar has a stronger curvature of the
shoulders and the bottom and a flattened base. In consideration of the prehistoric potter’s intention,
both vessels have been defined to form one variant.
Variant c has its broad neck decorated with rolls (Fig. 7,3), and its for ADR unusually squat body
shows some similarity with a specimen from Jadigenahalli (Fig. 7,4), where some intermediate stages
between the rounded and the squat body shape likewise occur. The profiled necks of both jars find an
interesting counterpart in a quite isolated piece from Muttarapalayam (Fig. 7,5), which however dif-
fers with regard to its high shoulders and its conical bottom. The grooves on its widest part conform
to those of the examples of Variant b and of the Jadigenahalli piece (Fig. 7,1.2.4), the incised decora-
tion is a comparatively rare feature.
The two jars with extremely squat carinated bodies and a moderately high (Fig. 7,6) or a high neck
(Fig. 7,7) from the Coimbatore District and from Muttarapalayam, respectively, seem to be related to
the few squat bodies occurring at ADR (Figs. 7,1-3; 9,1.6). Moreover, their necks profiled with rolls
reveal some similarity with that of Variant c (Fig. 7,3).
Type 14: Wide-mouthed jars are not at all a uniform type at ADR. Their sizes range between those
of the Variants a and b (Fig. 8,1.4) and their shapes vary considerably. They mostly have short necks
like the examples in the figure. As the wide-mouthed miniature jars (Fig. 6,3) form a distinctive group
defined by their sizes, even a relatively small specimen like that of Variant a (Fig. 8,1) must be de-
scribed as belonging to the category of large jars.
For the well-proportioned jar of Variant a with a low, but distinct neck and a slightly pointed bot-
tom, there is an impressive analogue at Porkalam (Fig. 8,2)71. Among the wide-necked jars of varying
shapes from the Brahmagiri Cist burials, a specimen has been chosen here (Fig. 8,3), which resembles
the ADR piece in its size, shape and proportions. It does not have the beaded rim, which is present
on a few other items of that complex.
Variant b with its huge spherical body (Fig. 8,4) and its neck reduced to a double roll formation of
the rim is an isolated specimen at ADR. It has been coupled here with a vessel from Suttukkeni
(Fig.8,5), which represents a common shape at Suttukkeni and Muttarapalayam (Fig. 14,9). Because of
the different body shape and the double rolls, of which the lower one projects, however, the pot from
Suttukkeni proves not to be a close relative of the ADR jar. The manner, in which the two rolls at the
rim are arranged on a few of the ADR jars (Figs. 8,4.6; 11,4) is nowhere reflected, not even in the
Chengalpattu-Pondicherry region, where double roll rims often occur72.
Type 15: The jars with a constricted neck, which is straight (Fig. 8,6), slightly or pronouncedly con-
vex (Fig. 8,7.9), are another morphological group of loose uniformity. Variant a (Fig.8,6) has a few not
too close relatives at ADR and no analogues at other sites, while Variant b is unique at ADR (Fig. 8,7)
71
This jar has a much larger counterpart at Porkalam itself (Thapar 1952: Fig.2,11), while at ADR also, larger jars of
closely similar shapes exist.
72
In the case of a smaller, oviform jar from Perumbayur (Rea 1908-09: PI. 33,8) the upper roll projects, but a gap is
visible between both rolls. At Jadigenahalli, an angular rim profile (present study, Fig.6,11) faintly recalls the double roll
design at ADR.
with its broad convex neck of medium height, its projecting rim and its heart-shaped body. In shape
and size it can be linked to the series of peculiar jars from Sanur (Fig. 8,8)
The relationship between Variant c (Fig. 8,9) and the Muttarapalayam jar (Fig. 8,10) seems to be
likewise specific, as not only the neck shapes are similar, but also the sizes, and the broad bulgy
shapes of the body are almost congruous. It is another remarkable fact, that each of the neck shapes
occurs at the other site combined with a spherical body, respectively74.
Type 16: The jars with a flaring (Fig. 9,1) or clearly funnel-shaped neck (Fig.9,3-6) also show a con-
siderable degree of variation. The unique jar of an unusually squat shape with a long sloping, painted
shoulder part and a roll below the neck (Fig. 9,1) shall be compared to a specimen from Pomparippu/
Sri Lanka (Fig. 9,2). While the grooves above and on the widest part are present in both cases, the
Pomparippu jar has a pronouncedly funnel-shaped, broad neck with a heavy rim. Jars of such propor-
tions are quite common at that site.
Out of the four jars with a marked funnel neck at ADR, two belong to the broad-necked variant
with a zig-zag profile of the body (Fig. 9,3), which is so well reflected by a miniature type (Fig. 9,4),
one is higher, has a narrow neck and rounded shoulders (Fig. 9,5), and the remaining one exhibits a
sharp carination marked by grooves and a somewhat U-shaped bottom (Fig. 9,6). The neck of the lat-
ter is pronouncedly concave. A similar carination of the body characterizes the specimen from Paravai
(Fig. 9,7), and its neck is well comparable but for its height. A corresponding design of the neck can
further be observed on a jar from Pomparippu (Fig. 11,3) with a different body shape and a flat base.
The prevailing neck form in Kerala, which starts from below with a vertical line75, is best comparable
with the neck of Variant d (Fig. 9,6).
Type 17: There are two uniform huge jars with a globular body and a short narrow neck at ADR
(Fig. 10,1). Another piece with a beautiful painted and incised decoration on the shoulder has lost its
neck (Fig. 10,3).
A single specimen from Muttarapalayam (Fig. 10,2) reflects the somewhat oval shape of the body
and the cylindrical neck of the example from ADR. While the slightly pointed base of the latter does
not recur at Muttarapalayam, the absence of comparable shapes at other sites favours a direct relation-
ship between both jars.
The body shape of the fragmented jar with the shoulder decoration (Fig. 10,3) is reminiscent of the
slightly heart-shaped body of a large jar from Maski B(i) (Fig. 10,5).
Type 18: The Variants a and b of the jars or bottles with a broad and high neck and a flattened base
are each represented by a single specimen (Fig. 11,1.4). Variant a with a cylindrical neck and an ovi-
form body and its tight-fitting cover (Fig. 12,9) have copper vessels as their counterparts at ADR it-
self. The vases discovered at Jadigenahalli (Fig. 11,2) and Pomparippu (Fig. 11,3) are not close rela-
tives in shape, but they recall the oviform body and the rolls on the neck portion. Their necks are
flared and less broad and their heavy rim profiles cannot be compared to the featureless rim of the
vase from ADR.
Variant b (Fig. 11,4) finds a remarkable analogue at Yelleshwaram (Fig. 11,5), which, because of its
more angular, better formulated shape may be regarded as a prototype for the ADR specimen. There
are no other related shapes known so far. The high-necked jar with a squat, bluntly carinated body
from Yelleshwaram, which also has a roll decoration on its neck, was covered by a small ledged lid of
an unusual shape76. In the burial, it had been combined with a concave-sided ringstand, a rare ensem-
ble of a large dish with a ring-handled lid (Fig. 15,12.13) on a large perforated ringstand, a small con-
73
For the complete series of jars see Banerjee and Soundara Rajan 1959: Figs. 5,56-65; 6,66-67.
74
At ADR, Government Museum Madras, no. 205, and at Muttarapalayam, Casai 1956: Fig. 21,122.
75
See Thapar 1952: Fig. 3,17.18; Mehta and George 1978: Figs. 5,18-20; 6,21-23; 7,26-27.
76
See Khan 1963, Fig. 3,4b and PI. 6a.
cave lid (Fig. 15,16), two jars with globular bodies (cf. Fig. 15,14) and a cup with nearly vertical,
straight sides and a flaring rim. In the discussion, part 3, argument c, the ceramic finds of the cairn cir-
cle at Yelleshwaram will attain a key position.
Type 19: The chalice consists of a cup element, comparable to Type 7b (Fig. 3,1), to which a con-
cave-sided ring base is luted (Fig. 11,6). It was covered by a close-fitting lid of Type 23a (cf.
Fig. 12,10). This unique piece may be related to the slim egg cup-like vessels at ADR shown by
Rea77.
Analogues reflecting its proportions are so far only known from the Coimbatore region, from where
there is an example in the Berlin Collection (Fig. 11,7). It exhibits features typical for that region, viz.
the carination and the white line paintings below a russet-coloured coating \
Type 20: The pedestalled bowls are a less rare type at ADR (Fig. 11,8). The specimen chosen here
consists of a bowl element of medium depth with incurving sides. Some other examples are more
shallow and sometimes reach a considerable width. One or two rolls have been often inserted be-
tween the upper and the lower part of the vessel.
It is an interesting parallelism, that the groove below the rim of this and at least one more example
at ADR recurs at Maski (Fig. 11,9). That piece from the earliest burial complex there resembles the
ADR bowl with its upper part and the one from the Perumal Malai (Fig. 11,10) with its lower part. A
relationship between Maski B(i) and the Perumal Malai can be accepted as a fact, because there is an-
other correspondence with regard to the perforated ring bases (Fig. 13,13-15). At ADR, there are
several cases of influence of the early Maski and Brahmagiri repertoires, which may include this type
as well.
Type 21: Simple, low ringstands with concave sides and beaded rims (Fig. 12,1) abound at ADR A
To match with this example, two similar specimens have been chosen here, originating from Sanur
(Fig. 12,2) and from Porkalam (Fig. 12,3). From this comparison it can be inferred that the simple ring-
stands at ADR tend to be particularly squat.
Apart from the simple ringstands, those with a central roll form another large group at ADR. Here,
the egg cup-shaped, slim variant (Fig. 12,4) has been separated from a variant with a similar wavy pro-
file, but a much larger diameter (Fig. 12,5). For the latter, there exists an impressive analogue at Jadi-
genahalli (Fig. 12,6), which merely has a slightly different profile of its upper part.
Type 22: The group of lids without handle comprises the concave lids (Fig. 12,7) with their major
parts resting in the mouth of the covered vessel, besides other simple covers, which are hemispheri-
cal80, conical81 or, in one instance, cylindrical (Fig. 12,9). The quite widespread concave lids are repre-
sented by only one specimen at ADR (Fig. 12,7). The lid from Muttarapalayam (Fig. 12,8) conforms to
it in almost every respect, while those from Suttukkeni and Yelleshwaram (Fig. 15,15.16) are more
shallow. Their diameters are, however, strikingly similar82.
Variant b, the lid with straight sides and a flat top (Fig. 12,9) is an unique specialized piece, which
served as a cover for the vase of Type 18a (Fig. 11,1).
77
Rea 1903-04: PI. 57,14-19.
78
Cf. Note 17.
79
See also Rea 1915: Pis.7,16.17.19-24.28.31.34—37; 8,1.7.13.16.21.23.26.27.
80
Cf. Note 70.
81
82
Cf. Note 70. See also present study, Fig. 1,6.
It is highly noteworthy that the inverted lids from different sites, though of varying shapes, often have diameters of
about 9-10 cm. This is also the case with the inverted lids from Perumbayur (Rea 1908-09: PI. 35,3-7), Narkailpalli
(Taylor 1852: PI. 17, top, right) and perhaps also the largest one from Jadigenahalli (Seshadri 1960: PI. 13, right. On
Fig. 15, a wrong scale has been given). The specimens from Pallavaram (Leshnik 1974: Fig. 11,14) and from Arikamedu
(Wheeler 1946: Fig. 22,31.31a-f) are slightly larger. The latter examples come from contexts, which are subsequent to
the black-and-red ware levels (cf. Begley 1983: 466).
Type 23: The lids with a profiled knob handle are a very important typological group, shedding
much light on the relationship of ADR to other sites. It is a significant fact, that for the most frequent
Variant a (Figs.4,2; 12,10) only one analogue has been found far from the Tirunelveli region83. A few
other imaginative variants of the lids with a pointed handle, which could not be shown here, likewise
have only stray counterparts at other sites84.
Variant a has a bell-shaped body, which in most cases starts with a convex-sided brim (Figs. 4,2;
12,10)85. It is topped by a roll element beneath a horizontal disc or a shallow cup-like member, from
which a conical element rises. This variant is in most cases painted with geometrical designs consist-
ing of dotted lines in white. The small lid from Pomparippu/Sri Lanka (Fig. 12,11) represents a related
type, as it also contains a combination of a flaring and a pointed element. Its finial has a long »stem«,
while the body shape resembles that of one example of Variant i (cf. Fig. 14,14).
Variant b has a conical, slightly bell-shaped body and a convex-sided, pointed element in the shape
of a flame (Fig. 12,12). Its counterpart from Muttarapalayam (Fig. 12,13) shows a different curvature of
the upper as well as the lower part. Nevertheless, both specimens are morphologically related.
In the case of Variant c, the pointed top element is broader and has a central swelling (Fig. 12,14).
Roughly similar shapes and sizes are represented by the finials from Muttarapalayam (Fig. 12,15), Sut-
tukkeni (Fig. 4,4), Thiruthu (Fig. 4,8), Khapa (Fig. 12,16) and Mahurjhari86.
Variant d (Fig. 4,6) is again related to te preceding variant, but it differs from it with regard to its
short, carinated top element, its considerable size and the painted ladder-motif consisting of continu-
ous lines. The only slightly curved body shape and the incurving rim portion of this and a few other
lids (Figs. 4,8; 12,12) bear some similarity with the copper lid from Mahurjhari (Fig. 4,14).
The lancet-shaped top element of Variant e (Fig. 12,17), set above a roll with a sharply carinated
profile, finds its close relatives at Yelleshwaram (Fig.4,12) and Takalghat in Vidarbha (Fig. 12,18). An
also related finial from Khapa (Fig. 12,16), a nearby site of the latter, has already been mentioned in
connection with Variant c, because of its swollen top element.
Variant f is characterized by a squat, sharply profiled knob, which directly sits on a cylindrical neck.
Its counterparts have a similar distribution as those of the preceding variant. They come from the Yel-
leshwaram cairn circle, however in a much smaller size87, and from Khapa, however in a less squat
form88. The closest analogue in shape and size occurs at Kothapalayam (Fig. 14,16).
The lids of Variant g with their flaring top portions are another characteristic group (Fig. 12,20).
They are sometimes painted like Variant a and their body shape is similar to that of the Variants a and
h (Figs. 12,20; 13,1). In contrast to the specimens from Porkalam (Fig. 4,10), the Perumal Malai
(Fig. 12,21) and Sanur (Fig. 12,22), no central channel has been left open at ADR. Apart from this fact,
the lid from the Perumal Malai (Fig. 12,21) resembles the ADR type in a significant way. The example
from Jadigenahalli (Fig. 12,23), where so many types related to those from ADR occur, is of a similar
size, but baroquely profiled in its upper part. The four lids of slightly varying shapes from this site89
have been mistaken for goblets by the excavator. Their body forms, however, betray their relationship
with a lid form, which is common in the Coimbatore region (Fig. 13,10).
83
See Rea 1908-09: PI. 33,16.
84
For such a variant at ADR see Rea 1903-04a: PI. 4,39. There are peculiar variants of lids, also in black ware, in the
Pudukkottai District, which have been shown by Gurumurthy (1981: Fig.55) as sketches. Out of these, nos.4 and 5 each
recall a rare variant at ADR.
85
For examples without brim see Narasimhaiah 1980: Fig. 23,46(iii).(vi).
86
See Deo 1973: Fig. 13,35. The finial shape corresponds to that from Khapa.
87
Cf. Note 76.
88
See Deo 1970: Fig.22,K24 A.
89
See Seshadri 1960: Fig. 14 and PI. 16. These items have the common lid colour, black. Another specimen of a lid
with an unusually long stem comes from Pidariyur, Erode District, and belongs to the collection of the Kalaimagal Kalvi
Nilaiyam, Erode/Tamilnadu.
Adicbcbanallur Reconsidered 33
The lids with flaring tops from Porkalam (Fig. 4,10) and Sanur (Fig. 12,22) resemble each other in a
remarkable way. Both are quite large, they have a vertical channel and their rim portions are similarly
flanged, the latter also applying to the lids from Suttukkeni (Fig. 4,4) and Yelleshwaram (Fig. 4,12). It
is an interesting fact, that so far no other site than ADR has yielded both lid types with a flared and
with a pointed top.
Variant h is crowned by a fine bird figurine over a marked roll (Fig. 13,1). For this, there is a coun-
terpart from the Pudukkottai region (Fig. 13,2) with a bird of a more geometrical conception, while a
fragmented bird figurine from Kilpauk (Madras) resemblçs the ADR specimen with regard to its back
and tail90. The lid from Ramapuram, which has been mentioned in part 1.7., bears a very simple bird
of little artistic aspiration, but the lid shape resembles the ADR piece remarkably. The figurines of the
lids with multiple birds made from clay or bronze in the Vidarbha region are realistically conceived,
but they represent a long-necked species91. However, they are undoubtedly related to the filigree-like
finials of a number of bronze lids at ADR, particularly to the one with multiple cocks92.
The lids of Variant i (Fig. 14,14) have an unusually coarse and unpolished surface. The straight
sides of the trunk, the bluntly folded rim portion, the sharpened rim and the angular shape of the pro-
filed handle are reflected by a specimen from Kothapalayam (Fig. 14,15) in a very similar way. For the
interpretation of typological data it is revealing to have a look at the other ceramic contents of the
Kothapalayam urn burial (Fig. 14,2-6.8.10.11.13.15-17). Examining the shapes, it becomes apparent,
that particularly the carinated vessels, viz. the dish with upturned sides (Fig. 14,6), the deep bowl with
a roll decoration (Fig. 14,8), the pedestailed bowls (Fig. 14,10.11) and the high jar with a conical bot-
tom (Fig. 14,13) seem to belong to a different stylistic background than most of the ADR material.
Among these types, however, which are seemingly »at home« in that region, a strong affinity to ADR
is shown by four items, viz. two variants of the miniature bowl (Fig. 14,2.3) and the already men-
tioned complete and fragmented lids (Fig. 14,15.16). This is a fact, which can only be regarded as a
proof for a specific contemporaneousness with the respective types at ADR (Figs. 14,1; 1,1; 14,14;
12,19). Intepreting this case, we come to the conclusion, that close analogies between burial ensem-
bles of different regions point to a synchronism, even if the type spectra of the ensembles differ con-
siderably. The ceramic type spectra and the mode of decoration in particular have a clearly regional
character.
Type 24: The lid of Type 24 (Fig. 13,3) has an unusually squat, nearly straight-sided body, out of
which a long spike protrudes without any break in the line. For the shape of the body and for the
crowning element there are no counterparts at ADR itself. An analogue for this rare form, however,
comes from a site further to the north (Fig. 13,4)93. Its spike is demarcated from the straight-sided
body, which has a folded rim portion.
In this connection, it is interesting to note, that a few possibly related lids with a curved profile oc-
cur in Karnataka and at Sirumugai94 in the Coimbatore District, where the same shape is reflected by
the upper part of an unique »hut model«.
90
Cf. Note 50.
91
See Deo 1970: Fig. 28,10; Deo 1973: Fig. 13.32 A. The fancifully designed, filigree-like bronze lid finials of the Vi-
darbha region are apparently related to those from ADR (e.g. Rea 1915: PI. 2,17-19.21-27), what has already been no-
ticed by the excavator (Deo 1973: 60).
92
See Rea 1902-03: Fig.4 and Rea 1915: PI.2,21.
93
Foote 1901: PI. 26, assigns the no. 1287 to this pointed lid, which belongs to Jala in the very south of Karnataka.
Viewing the photograph and the object itself, however, the number could rather be read as »1207«, which would shift its
place of origin to Iralabanda, North Arcot District/Tamilnadu.
94
The examples from Karnataka are unfortunately unpublished. They belong to the material from Tadakanahalli and
Komaranahalli, which is with the Karnataka State Department of Archaeology, Mysore. For Sirumugai see Longhurst
1913-14: Fig. 6a (left and right side). The hut model has also been shown by Leshnik (1974: PI. 14b).
3. Discussion
In the following, a short attempt is made to put together the observations and results of the previous
paragraphs and form a picture of the South Indian Iron Age. Using the ceramics as a sole basis for an
overall survey is certainly a disputable approach. But it can be argued that for the »language« of the
shapes there is so copious evidence that it is worthwhile listening, how much it really can communi-
cate.
Shape and function of an utensil are determined by factors like the technological development, aes-
thetic principles and sociological categories, which are all subject to certain mechanisms of change. In
order to get a glimpse of such mechanisms, some observations on the »character« and the chronologi-
cal »behaviour« of Megalithic pottery are quite helpful.
What is even more evident at first sight, however, is the static situation, the patterns of type distri-
bution and local groupings arising from these. With both factors, static and dynamic, in mind, the fol-
lowing points can be stated:
1. A great number of ceramic types have been created during the Iron Age in South India.
2. Ceramic types have been handed down for some time, and the introduction of related variants is
quite common.
3. Type developments and modifications have taken place, but there is little evidence as yet. Three
examples for such a development have been illustrated here (Fig. 16,1-7.8-10.11-13), which are
partly hypothetical and partly confirmed by stratigraphic or other evidence95.
4. As mentioned above (see under Type 23i), the spectrum of ceramic types presented by a particu-
lar site varies from region to region. This holds true not only for the burial sites, but, as far as this can
be inferred from the relatively sparse published results, also for the habitations. The regional variabil-
ity of shapes and other features of the pottery is an interesting field for further research.
5. The distribution of the types, which belong to the sequence fixed above, viz. Maski B(i)-Brah-
magiri Cists-Brahmagiri Pit-circles, can be revealing with regard to possible changes within the Me-
galithic culture. It is noteworthy that the peculiar distribution of the ceramic types from the Brahma-
giri Pit-circles, for which the tulip-shaped bowl (Fig. 15,1) and the flat-topped lid (Fig. 15,5.6) are
diagnostic, extends widely in a surprisingly uniform way96. One cannot help thinking of a sudden or
even aggressive process of expansion.
After summing up these observations, a hypothesis shall be developed concerning a phase subse-
quent to that of the Brahmagiri Pit-circles. As ADR is supposed to belong to this phase, its »typologi-
cal position« shall be characterized at first. In the tabular comparison of pottery shapes (Table 1) it
could be shown that the highest numbers of corresponding shapes connect ADR with the sites Mutta-
rapalayam, Jadigenahalli and Amirthamangalam. It must be kept in mind, however, that the materials
from these sites, which have been collected from a limited number of burials97, should be expected to
be much more homogenous than the large material from ADR, which, coming from an unknown
number of burial urns, may well cover different phases. The most significant analogues for ceramic
95
According to the sequence fixed in paragraph 1.6, Fig. 16,1 and 2 are anterior to Fig. 16,3 and 4. Fig. 16,5 and 6 are
supposedly later (cf. the last part of this article). Fig. 16,7 is from the Mediaeval Period of the habitation at Maski and
therefore certainly later. Fig. 16,8-10 show a hypothetical sequence, while the posteriority of Fig. 16,13 to Fig. 16,11 and
12 is based on Wheeler’s observation (cf. Note 36) and on the typological arguments in paragraph 1.6.
96
The most striking instance is the occurrence of a tulip-shaped bowl (cf. Fig. 15,1) and an elongated conical vessel
(cf. Fig. 15,4) in a pit-burial at Ranjala, Maharashtra (IAR 1960-61: PI.33 B and Gururaja Rao 1972: PI.25 B). Other sites
are Hayat Nagar, Guntakal, Patpad, Sanur and Arikamedu (see Note 39).
97
From the description of types it becomes clear that 34 urns have been opened at Muttarapalayam (Casai 1956:
59_70). The last urn has been omitted in the description of burials. At Jadigenahalli, 4 megaliths have been opened
(Seshadri 1960), and at Amirthamangalam, 5 urn burials were excavated (Banerjee 1966).
Adhbchanallur Reconsidered 35
specimens from ADR have been listed below. They comprise instances of almost identical shapes as
well as significantly related rare shapes:
Fig. 2,5.6 for Fig. 2,4 (Type 4c)
Fig. 5,10.11 for Fig. 5,9 (Type 10b)
Fig. 6,2 for Fig. 6,1 (Type 12a)
Fig. 8,8 for Fig. 8,7 (Type 15b)
Fig. 8,10 for Fig. 8,9 (Type 15c)
Fig. 10,2 for Fig. 10,1 (Type 17)
Fig. 11,5 for Fig. 11,4 (Type 18b)
Fig. 12,6 for Fig. 12,5 (Type 21c)
Fig. 4,12 for Fig. 12,17 (Type 23e)
Fig. 14,15 for Fig. 14,14 (Type 23i)
It is a striking fact that the elsewhere so dominant types from Brahmagiri and Maski, which have been
put in a chronological framework, do not find any counterparts at ADR. The types at ADR, which
have been compared to them (Types 2c,3,5b,10a,14a,17,20), have proven not to be direct analogues.
Thus we must assume that either a chronological gap exists between those sites, or that the culture
contact inferable from the ADR finds, which even reached as far as Jadigenahalli and the Vidarbha re-
gion, did not include central Karnataka.
The tendency towards a mutual exclusion of types, however, has been realized to be a part of a
phenomenon of a more general nature. This is the phenomenon that burial contexts with finial lids
(Type 23) have so far never contained the typical shapes from the Brahmagiri Pit-circles, e.g. the tu-
lip-shaped bowl (Fig. 15,1) and the conical flat-topped lid (Fig. 15,6). The mutual exclusion of types
presents itself not as a matter of spatial distribution, but rather as a matter of chronology, because two
sites, which have yielded the bowl-and-finial lid ensemble, viz. Chandravalli and Lingsugur Tank98,
are situated close to Brahmagiri and Maski, respectively.
In short, there are three arguments for a succession of the ADR material and related contexts to the
material of the Brahmagiri Pit-circles and their related contexts:
a) The ceramic types at ADR, which are loosely related to a type from the Brahmagiri Pit-circles
(Type 5b) or to the earlier contexts Maski B(i) (Types 2c, 17,20) and the Brahmagiri Cists
(Types 3,10a,14a), can be interpreted as derivatives of these shapes, which have become »floating
types« in the stock of ceramic forms.
b) The spatial-typological division, which was made between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in the
paragraphs 1.6. and 7. was partly an auxiliary construction. Actually, the distributions of the contexts
with and without finial lids penetrate each other.
c) Three meeting points of types having analogues at ADR with types related to the Brahmagiri Pit-
circle material lie on the eastern periphery of the distribution of the latter, viz. the sites Sanur, Yel-
leshwaram and Mahurjhari". In Megalith V at Sanur, the jar with a broad profiled neck and a heart-
98
See Krishna 1931: 26, PI. 10,1; Munn 1935: 243, Ph. 18. The photographic »group-pieces« of the collected pottery
confirm the presence of two finial lids, respectively. Similar wide-mouthed jars occur at both sites, and Lingsugur Tank
yielded squat containers (cf. Fig. 4,11), which are both common types in Andhra Pradesh (see under s.7). At Chandra-
valli, however, the squat three-legged jars (cf. Fig. 16,8.9), which have not been combined with the former types in
Andhra Pradesh, suggest a local origin.
99
Special reference is made to Megalith V at Sanur (Banerjee and Soundara Rajan 1959: Types
7-13,14-17,23,32-36,52-54,56-67,71-72,77-80), the cairn-circle at Yelleshwaram (Khan 1963: Figs. 3; 4,1.1a) and
three lids in the quite homogenous material from Mahurjhari (Deo 1973: Fig. 13,35.36.36 A).
36 C. Wesseh-Mevissen
shaped body (Fig. 8,8) has been found along with a conical flat-topped lid (cf. Fig. 15,5.6) and a
modified form of the tulip-shaped bowl (cf. Fig. 15,1). The cairn-circle at Yelleshwaram has yielded
the unique jar with a broad and high neck (Fig. 11,5) with a lid related to the ADR Type 23f
(Fig. 12,19) besides an ensemble of dish and lid (Fig. 15,12.13), which clearly recalls a similar combina-
tion at Brahmagiri (Fig. 15,10.11), although a different curvature of both members is shown. At Ma-
hurjhari also, modified ring-handled lids (cf. Fig. 15,13) occur side by side with a finial lid (cf.
Fig. 12,16.17), however not in the same burial. These combinations have been taken to be proofs of
the absence of genuine Brahmagiri Pit material from contexts related to ADR.
Putting the observations of paragraph 1.6. and the just developed chronological hypothesis together,
the »ceramic history« of the South Indian Iron Age proceeds thus:
At Maski B(i) and in some other South Indian nuclei, the Iron Age black-and-red ware commenced.
Interestingly, the repertoire of the Brahmagiri Cists, which follows at that site and retains a few
shapes of Maski B(i), is absent from the Maski graves. In the Brahmagiri Pit-circles, the tradition of
the carinated bowl, which started at Maski B(i) (Fig. 16,1), is continued (Fig. 16,3), but the three-
legged jars of the Brahmagiri Cists have no successors in them. The ceramic types of the Brahmagiri
Pit-circles occur at Maski also. Some of them are based on an earlier development, which is apparent
at Hallur, where a bowl of the Maski B(i) shape (Fig. 16,1) occurs side by side with the precursors of
the conical vessels, lids and tulip-shaped bowls100. Thus, the sequence Maski B(i)-Brahmagiri Cists-
Brahmagiri Pit-circles is so far only known from Brahmagiri itself. At the stage of the Brahmagiri Pit-
circles, however, a considerable expansion took place, which spread this repertoire into other parts of
the Deccan. It cannot be decided yet, if the earlier elements of Maski B(i) and the Brahmagiri Cists
reached the peripheral regions in this or already in a previous phase. The northern part of Tamilnadu
and Vidarbha in Maharashtra have been affected by this or a slightly later infiltration of »ceramic in-
fluence«, as some types of the Brahmagiri Pit-circles appear there in a modified form1"1. The subse-
quent development was characterized by the bowl-and-finial lid ensemble (Fig.4), which took its indi-
vidual shape in the respective regions. After the upheavals of the formative phases, a considerable
conservatism has frozen the ceramic shapes, and the stock of ceramic forms remained quite contstant
until the Early Historical Period, which some shapes might even have survived (e.g. Fig. 16,7). From
this hypothetical model a surprising notion arises102, which is also confirmed by type comparison
(Type 23, Variants e and f), viz. the synchronism of the Vidarbha sites with ADR. Trusting the 14 C
dates from Takalghat and Naikund in Vidarbha, ADR might have flourished in the 6th to 4th centu-
ries B.C.103
Working with an initial date of 800 B.C. for the Vidarbha megaliths104, but at the same time holding
that the urn burial custom belongs to a later phase of the Megalithic culture105, McIntosh recently ar-
rived at a later date for ADR of c. 5th to 2nd centuries B.C. However, it is necessary to note that the
100
For the bowl of Maski B(i) shape see Nagaraja Rao 1971: Fig. 19,1, for the possible precursors of Brahmagiri Pit-cir-
cle types see ibid.: Figs. 17,17-19; 18,7.8; 19,14. In any case, this pottery, which comes from an »overlap phase of the
Neolithic-Chalcolithic and Iron Age cultures« (ibid.: 55), is undoubtedly early.
101
See argument c above.
102
It is generally believed that the extreme south is the last to accept the megalithic and urn burial culture.
103
Although a few earlier 14 C dates have been referred to by the excavator S. B. Deo in a paper read in 1981 (1984:
222) and by F. R. Allchin (1982: 328) for Naikund and Takalghat, respectively, the majority of 14 C dates for the one-cul-
ture Megalithic phase in Vidarbha clearly falls in the period expressed in the publication on Naikund: »Generally speak-
ing the megalithic remains at Naikund may, therefore, be placed between 6th cent. B.C. and 4th cent. B.C. These dates
are in consonance with the dates from Takalghat which come to 555 ±100 B.C. and 615 ±100B.C.« (Deo and Jamkhed-
kar 1982: 8).
104
Deo (1970: 13; 1984: 222) believes that the one-culture Megalithic phase in Vidarbha probably started in the 8th
cent. B.C.
105
See McIntosh 1985: 486, 489.
mode of urn burial as well as a widespread urn type, which is decorated with a raised band ending in
curves around two bosses106, is actually rooted in the Chalcolithic period. A migration from the Vi-
darbha area to ADR as proposed by the same author107 is, in my opinion, not very likely. In any case, it
should not tell against a general synchronism of the two complexes, which has been advocated in this
study.
It is hoped that in future more analogues from outside the Megalithic culture, like a characteristic
type of iron blade108, could help to confirm its internal sequence.
Address: C. Wessels-Mevissen, Erasmusstraße 17, D-1000 Berlin 21
Bibliography
Aiyappan, A.
1941 Rude Stone Monuments of the Perumal Hills, Kodatkanal: Quarterly Journal of the Mythical Society Ban-
galore, Vol. 31, Pts.3-4, 373-379.
Allchin, B. & F. R.
1982 The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan (Cambridge).
Allchin, F. R.
1974 Pottery from Graves in the Perumal Hills near Kodaikanal: Ghosh, A. K. (ed.). Perspectives in Palaeoan-
thropology (Calcutta) 299-308.
Anglade, L.
1954 Dolmens and Tombs of the Pulney Hills: Journal of the Anthropological Society Bombay, Vol. 8 (NS),
No. 2, 23-78.
Ansari, Z. D./Dhavalikar, M. K.
1976 Megalithic Burials at Pimpalsuti: Bulletin of the Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute,
Vol. 36, 84-88.
ARADSCM = Annual Progress Report of the Archaeological Survey Depanment, Southern Circle, Madras.
ARASI = Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, Archaeological Survey of India.
Babington, J.
1823 Description of the Pandoo Coolies in Malabar: Transactions of the Literary Society Bombay, Vol. 3,
324-330.
Balakrishnan Nayar, T.
1977 The Problem of Dravidian Origins - A Linguistic, Anthropological and Archaeological Approach (Ma-
dras).
Banerjee, N. R.
1956 The Megalithic Problem of Chingleput in the Light of Recent Exploration: Ancient India, Vol. 12, 21-34.
1966 Amirthamangalam 1955: A Megalithic urn-burial site in District Chingleput, Tamilnadu: Ancient India,
Vol. 22, 3-36.
Banerjee, N. R./Soundara Rajan, K.V.
1959 Sanur 1950 & 1952: a Megalithic Site in District Chingleput: Ancient India, Vol. 15, 4-42.
Begley, Vimala
1981 Excavations of Iron Age Burials at Pomparippu, 1970: Ancient Ceylon, No. 4, 49-142.
1983 Arikamedu Reconsidered: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 87, 461-481.
Breeks, J. W.
1873 An Account of the Primitive Tribes and Monuments of the Nilgiris (London).
Casai, J. M.
1949 Fouilles de Virampatnam-Arikamedu (Paris).
106
Cf. e.g. Nagaraja Rao 1971: Fig. 14,1; PI. 5B with Rea 1915: PI. 9,2.
107
108
McIntosh 1985: 482.
The tanged dagger or »spear-head« with a straight-sided bottom of the blade occurs at ADR, in the Vidarbha re-
gion and at Atranjikhera. For this cf. Rea 1902-03a: PI. 23,34; Deo 1970: Fig.24,6; Gaur 1983: Fig. 121,1. The sizes are
similar. The one from Atranjikhera falls in the time bracket of c. 500-350 B.C.
Casai, J. M. & G.
1956 Site Urbain et Sites Funéraires des Environs de Pondichéry (Paris).
Catalogue Berlin
1971 Museum für Indische Kunst Berlin. Katalog 1971. Ausgestellte Werke (Berlin).
1976 Museum für Indische Kunst Berlin. Katalog 1976. Ausgestellte Werke (Berlin).
Deo, S. B.
1970 Excavations at Takalghat and Khapa (Nagpur).
1973 Mahurjhari Excavations 1970-72 (Nagpur).
1984 Megalithic Problems of the Deccan: Ed. B. Allchin, South Asian Archaeology 1981, Proceedings of the
Sixth International Conference of the Association of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe (Cam-
bridge) 221-224.
Deo, S. B./Jamkhedkar, A. P.
1982 Naikund Excavations (1978-80) (Bombay).
Foote, R. B.
1901 Catalogue of the Prehistoric Antiquities, Government Museum (Madras).
1916 Indian Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities. Notes on Their Ages and Distribution (Madras).
Gaur, R. C.
1983 Excavations at Atranjikhera (Delhi/Patna/Varanasi).
Ghosh, A. (ed.)
1989 An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology, Vol.I (New Delhi).
Godakumbura, C.E. (ed.)
1957 Types of some of the vessels contained in the urns at Pomparippu ...: Ceylon Administration Reports -
Archaeological Survey of Ceylon, G 12-G 13.
1965-66 Burial urns from Pomparippu: Ceylon Administration Reports - Archaeological Survey of Ceylon,
G133-G136.
Gurumurthy, S.
1981 Ceramic Traditions in South India (Madras).
Gururaja Rao, B. K.
1972 Megalithic Culture in South India (Mysore).
Hunt, E. H.
1916 Hyderabad Cairns: Journal of the Hyderabad Archaeological Society, 180-224.
1924 Hyderabad Cairns Burials and Their Significance: Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 54,
140-156.
IAR = Indian Archaeology - A Review, Archaeological Survey of India (New Delhi).
Khan, H.H.
1930-34 Megalithic Monument at Chettipalayam: Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 112-113.
1934-35 Excavations in Madras Presidency: Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 43-45.
1936-37 Excavations in Southern Circle: Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 61-62.
Khan, M.A.W.
1963 A Monograph on Yelleshwaram Excavations, Andhra Pradesh Government Archaeological Series No. 14
(Hyderabad).
Khare, M. D.
1975 Pottery: Subrahmanyam et alia, Nagarjunakonda (1954-60), Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of In-
dia No.75, Vol.I (New Delhi) 195-201.
Krishna, M. H.
1931 Excavation at Chandravalli (Mysore State), Supplement to the Annual Report of the Mysore Archaeologi-
cal Department for 1929 (Bangalore).
Krishnamacharlu, C. R.
1936-37 Some Prehistoric Sites in the Ramnad and Tinnevelly Districts: Annual Report of the Archaeological Sur-
vey of India, 67-75.
Laffitte, Numa
1932 Rapport d’ensemble, sur les fouilles exécutées dans le Sud de l’Inde 1928-29 (Paris).
Leshnik, L. S.
1974 South Indian >Megalithic< Burials. The Pandukal Complex (Wiesbaden).
Longhurst, A. H.
1913-14 A Report on the Excavation of Certain Cairns in the Coimbatore District: Annual Progress Report of the
Archaeological Survey Department, Southern Circle, Madras, 43-49.
1914-15 A Report on the Excavation of Certain Cairns in the Kurnool District: Annual Progress Report of the Ar-
chaeological Survey Department, Southern Circle, Madras, 39-41.
Mahalingam, T. V.
1970 Report on the Excavations in the Lower Kaveri Valley (Tirukkampuliyur and Alagarai) 1962-64 (Madras).
McIntosh, Jane Rowan
1982 The Megalithic Culture of South India: A Chronological Study (unpubl. Ph. D. diss., Cambridge).
1985 Dating the South Indian Megaliths: Janine Schotsmans and Maurizio Taddei (eds.), South Asian Archaeo-
logy 1983. Papers from the Seventh International Conference of the Association of South Asian Archaeolo-
gists in Western Europe, Vol. 2 (Naples) 467-493.
Mehta, R. N./George, K.M.
1978 Megaliths at Machad and Pazhayannur, Talppally Taluka, Trichur District, Kerala State (Baroda).
Menon, K. G.
1937 Red Painted Pottery from Cochin State: Man, Vol.37, No. 179, 144-146.
Munn, L.
1935 Prehistoric and Protohistoric Finds of the Raichur and Shorapur Districts of H.E.H. The Nizam’s State:
Man in India, Vol. 15, Pt.4, 225-250.
Nagaraja Rao, M. S.
1971 Protohistoric Cultures of the Tungabhadra Valley (A Report on Hallur Excavations) (Dharwar).
1981 Earliest Iron-using People in India and the Megaliths (Recent Excavations at Tadakanahalli, Taluk Hire-
kerur, District Dharwar, Karmataka State, India): Nagaraja Rao, M.S. (ed.), Recent Researches in Indian
Archaeology and Art History, Sri M. N. Deshpande Felicitation Volume (Delhi) 25-32.
Narasimhaiah, B.
1980 Neolithic and Megalithic Cultures in Tamil Nadu (Delhi).
Nigam, M. L.
1971 Report of the Excavation of two Megalithic Burials at Hashmatpet, Birla Archaeological and Cultural Re-
search Institute (Hyderabad).
Phillips, M.
1873 Tumuli in the Salem District: Indian Antiquary, Vol. 2, 223-228.
Pingel, P.
1987 The Auroville Megaliths: The India Magazine, March 1987, 44-51.
Raghavan, M. D./Devasahayam, N.
1974 Excavations by the Madras Museum at Kilpauk, Panunda, Punnol and Sankavaram (Madras).
Rajan, K.
1986 Megalithic Culture in Coimbatore Region - A Study (unpubl. Ph. D. diss., Mysore).
Ramachandran, K. S.
1971 A Bibliography on Indian Megaliths (Madras).
Rea, A.
1888 Some Pre-historic Burial-places in Southern India: Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol.57, Part 2,
48-71.
1902-03 Adichanallur Excavations: Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of Madras and Coorg, 11-14.
1902-03a Prehistoric Antiquities in Tinnevelly: Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 111-140.
1902- 03b Prehistorics discovered during the Previous Excavations at Adichanallur and other neighbouring sites,
Tinnevelly district: Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of Madras and Coorg, 7-8.
1903- 04 Prehistoric Pottery from Tinnevelly: Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 158-163.
1903-04a An Account of Excavations Conducted during the Year 1903-04: Annual Report of the Archaeological
Survey of Madras and Coorg, 18-25.
1908-09 Prehistoric Remains at Perambair: Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 92-99.
1915 Catalogue of the Prehistoric Antiquities from Adichanallur and Perumbair (Madras).
Richards, F.J.
1924 Note on some Iron Age Graves at Odugattur, North Arcot District, South India: Journal of the Royal An-
thropological Institute, Vol. 54, 157-165.
Sarkar, H.
1966 Kesarapalle 1962: Ancient India, Vol.22, 37-74.
Seshadri, M.
I960 Report on the Jadigenahalli Megalithic Excavations (Mysore).
1971 Report on the Excavations at T. Narasipur (Bangalore).
Sharma, Y. D.
1956 Rock-cut Caves in Cochin: Ancient India, Vol. 12, 93-115.
Sinha, B. K.
1982 Excavations at Mottur in Tamil Nadu: Man and Environment, Vol. VI, 100-102.
Subbarao, B.
1956-57 Some Problems in the Archaeology of South India: Transactions of the Archaeological Society of South In-
dia, 62-78.
1958 The Personality of India (Baroda).
Subbayya, K. K.
1978 Archaeology of Coorg. With Special Reference to Megaliths (Mysore).
Tampi, S. P.
1983 Prehistoric Archaeology of South-Central Kerala with Special Reference to the Valley of Anjunad (unpubl.
Ph. D. diss., Poona).
Taylor, M.
1847-50 Ancient Remains at the Village of Jiwarji near Farozabad on the Bhima: Journal of the Bombay Branch of
the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol.3, 179-193.
1852 Notices of Cromlechs, Cairns and other Ancient Scytho-Druidical Remains in the Principality of Sorapur:
Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol.4, 380-429.
1870 Description of Contents of a Cairn at Hyat Nugger in the Dekhan: Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy, Vol. 10, 60-64.
1941 Megalithic Tombs and other ancient Remains in the Deccan (reprints of the articles published in 1851,
1852 and 1862) (Hyderabad).
Thapar, B. K.
1952 Porkalam 1948 - Excavation of a Megalithic Urn-burial: Ancient India, Vol. 8, 3-16.
1957 Maski 1954: A Chalcolithic Site of the Southern Deccan: Ancient India, Vol. 13, 4-142.
Wheeler, R. E. M.
1946 Arikamedu: An Indo-Roman Trading-station on the East Coast of India: Ancient India, Vol. 2, 17-124.
1947-48 Brahmagiri and Chandravalli 1947: Megalithic and other Cultures in the Chitaldrug District, Mysore State:
Ancient India, Vol.4, 180-310.
Pig l. 1 ADR (484). - 2 Amirthamangalam. - 3 Pomparippu. - 4 ADR (391). - 5.6 Amirthamangalam. - 7 ADR (293). -
8 ADR (330). - 9 Sanur. - 10 ADR (1 2868). - 11 Pomparippu. - 12 ADR (111). - 13 Brahmagiri, Group B. -
14 Maski, B(i). - 15 ADR (1). - 16 Brahmagiri, Cists. - (2.5.6 after Banerjee 1966; 3.11 after Begley 1981; 9 after Baner-
jee/Soundara Rajan 1959; 13.16 after Wheeler 1947-48; 14 after Thapar 1957; 15 after Narasimhaiah 1980). - scale 1:3.
Fig.2. 1 ADR (483). - 2 ADR (354). - 3 Amirthamangalam. - 4 ADR (545). - 5 Amirthamangalam. - 6 Jadigenahalli. -
7 ADR (137). - 8 ADR (39). - 9 Brahmagiri, Pit-circles. - 10 ADR (398). - 11 ADR (89). - 12 Perumal Malai. -
13 ADR (I 729a). - 14 Poilachi (I 903). - 15 Perumal Malai. - 16 Pomparippu. - 17 Amirthamangalam. - (3.5.17 after
Banerjee 1966; 6 alter Seshadri 1960; 9 after Wheeler 1947-48; 15 after Allchin 1974; 16 after Begley 1981). - Scale 1:3.
Adkhchanallur Reconsidered 43
Fig. 3. 1 ADR (I 726a). - 2 Pomparippu. - 3 Kadamalaiputtur. - 4 Coimbatore Dt. (I 865/866). - 5 Muttarapalayam. -

6 Porkalam. - 7 Machad. - 8 ADR (477). - 9 ADR (508). - 10 ADR (520). - (2 after Godakumbura 1965-66; 3 after Rea
1908-09; 5 after Casai 1956; 6 after Thapar 1952; 7 after Mehta/George 1978). - Scale 1:3.
Fig- 4. 1 ADR (I 867). - 2 ADR (I 747a). - 3.4 Suttukkeni. - 5 ADR (302). - 6 ADR (302/1). - 7.8 Thiruthu. - 9.10 Por-
kalam. - 11.12 Yelleshwaram. - 13.14 Mahurjhari. - (3.4 after Casel 1956; 7.8 after Rea 1903-04a; 9.10 after Thapar
1952; 11.12 after Khan 1963; 13.14 after Deo 1973). - Scale 1:3.
Adichcbanallur Reconsidered 45
Fig. 5. 1 ADR (415). - 2 ADR (250). - 3 T.Narasipur. - 4 ADR (201). - 5 Perumbayur. - 6 ADR (301). - 7 Brahmagiri,
Cists. - 8 Jadigenahalli. - 9 ADR (43). - 10.11 Chandravalli. - 12 ADR (262). - 13 ADR (336). - 14 Muttarapalayam. -
15 Jadigenahalli. - (3 after Seshadri 1971; 5 after Rea 1908-09; 7.10.11 after Wheeler 1947-48; 8.15 after Seshadri 1960;
14 after Casai 1956). - Scale 1:3.
Fig. 6. 1 ADR (I 715a). - 2 Jadigenahalli. - 3 ADR (98). - 4 ADR (274). - 5 ADR (447). - 6 Pollachi (I 889). - 7 ADR
(290). - 8 Sanur. - 9 ADR (495). - 10 Amirthamangalam. - 11 Jadigenahalli. - 12 Kadamalaiputtur. - 13 Suttukkeni. -
(2.11 after Seshadri 1960; 8 after Banerjee/Soundara Rajan 1959; 10 after Banerjee 1966; 12 after Rea 1908-09; 13 after
Casai 1956). - Scale 1:3.
Fig. 7. 1 ADR (379). - 2 ADR (514). - 3 ADR (579). - 4 Jadigenahalli. - 5 Muttarapalayam. - 6 Coimbatore Dt.(I 792). -
7 Muttarapalayam. - (4 after Seshadri 1960; 5.7 after Casai 1956; for 6 see also Leshnik 1974: PI. 14,e). - Scale 1:3.
Fig. 9. 1 ADR (328). - 2 Pomparippu. - 3 ADR (342). - 4 ADR (465). - 5 ADR (497). - 6 ADR (509). - 7 Patavai.
(2 after Begley 1981; 7 after Rea 1888). - Scale 1:3.
Fig. 11. 1 ADR (256). - 2 Jadigenahalli. - 3 Pomparippu. - 4 ADR (263). - 5 Yelleshwaram. - 6 ADR (297). - 7 Coimba-
tore Dt. (I 851). - 8 ADR (370). - 9 Maski, B(i). - 10 Perumal Malai. - (2 after Seshadri 1960; 3 after Begley 1981; 5 af-
ter Khan 1963; 9 after Thapar 1957; 10 after Allchin 1974). - Scale 1:3.
52 C. Wessels-Nlevissen
Fig. 12. 1 ADR (I 2858). - 2 Sanur. - 3 Porkalam. - 4 ADR (273). - 5 ADR. - 6 Jadigenahalli. - 7 ADR. - 8 Muttarapal-
ayam. — 9 ADR (256/1). — 10 ADR (I 747a). — 11 Pomparippu. — 12 ADR (590/1). — 13 Muttarapalayam. — 14 ADR
(445). - 15 Muttarapalayam. - 16 Khapa. - 17 ADR (446). - 18 Takalghat. - 19 ADR (444). - 20 ADR (567/1). -
21 Perumal Malai. - 22 Sanur. - 23 Jadigenahalli. - (2.22 after Banerjee/Soundara Rajan 1959; 3 after Thapar 1952;
5.7 after Rea 1903-04a; 6.23 after Seshadri 1960; 8.13.15 after Casai 1956; 11 after Godakumbura 1965-66; 16 18 after
Deo 1970). - Scale 1:3.
Fig. 13. 1 ADR (594). - 2 Pudukkottai Dt. - 3 ADR . - 4 Jala (?). - 5 Coimbatore Dt. (British Mus. 1935.4-19.10). -
6 Singanallur (I 813). - 7 Coimbatore Dt. - 8 Singanallur (I 900). - 9 Pollachi (I 785). - 10 Singanallur (I 884). -
11 Coimbatare Dt. (I [50—70] 852). — 12—14 Perumal Malai. — 15 Maski, B(i). — (2 after Archaeological Survey of India,
Madras, ph.no. 1923; 3 after Rea 1903-04a; 4 after Foote 1901; 12 after Allchin 1974; 15 after Thapar 1957). - 1-11 scale
1:3; 12-15 scale 1:4.
Adhhchanallur Reconsidered 55
Fig.16. 1 Maski, B(i). - 2 Brahmagiri, Group B. - 3 Brahmagiri, Pit-circles. - 4 Maski, B(iii). - 5 Sanur. - 6 Suttukkeni. -
7 Maski, Mediaeval. - 8 Brahmagiri, Cists. - 9 Salem Dt. (I 790). - 10 Coimbatore Dt. (I 801a). - 11-12 Brahmagiri,
Cists. - 13 Brahmagiri, Pit-circles. - (1.4.7 after Thapar 1957; 2.3.8.11-13 after Wheeler 1947-48; 5 after Banerjee/Soun-
dara Rajan 1959; 6 after Casai 1956). - 1-7 scale 1:4; 8-13 scale 1:5.

Adichchanallur Reconsidered A Typologica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adichchanallur Reconsidered A Typologica

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adichchanallur Reconsidered A Typologica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corinna Wessels-Mevissen

Adichchanallur Reconsidered-A Typological Study of South Indian

1. Specific regional Features

1.1. The Tirunelveli District and Parts of the Madurai District

1.2. The Perumal Malai (Perumal Hill) in the Madurai District

7.4. Chengalpattu (Chingleput) District and Pondicherry

paléon), Suttukkeni (Souttoukèny), Perimbé, Perumbayur (Perambair), Kadamalaiputtur, Pallavaram,

1.7. Andhra Pradesh

List of Site Abbreviations on Table 1

AMM Amirthamangalam, Chengalpattu Dt./Tamilnadu.

2. The Ceramic Types at Adichchanallur

AMM a:3 b:2 a:2 a:4 18

2.1. The Types and their Analogues

Address: C. Wessels-Mevissen, Erasmusstraße 17, D-1000 Berlin 21

Fig. 3. 1 ADR (I 726a). - 2 Pomparippu. - 3 Kadamalaiputtur. - 4 Coimbatore Dt. (I 865/866). - 5 Muttarapalayam. -

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.