South Indian

Neolithic:
Ash Mound
Problem :
Budihal .
AICA- MA PART- I -SEM 7
-PAPER CODE 701
-RENISHA.OLGA D’SOUZA -
ROLL NO 5
UID:228008
Introduction:
1
In this paper I intend to highlight the concept of animal rearing as a concept and
cattle-dung as its by product [which is a waste product
resulting from animal keeping]
“ashmounds representing burnt cow-dung formations as an agentive
power that actively shaped the life-world of the Neolithic pastoralists
of the Deccan region in India ”
I'd like to elaborate on this observation. First of all, I will briefly
Introduce the concept of ashmounds and the different views
and opinions offered over a long period of time about their age and
Origin.
2
What are Ash mounds?
Ashmounds are a unique type of archaeological site.The sites are made up of several layers of
soft and hard (vitrified) ashy deposits.
sites which still preserve their mound-like configuration. They are human made landscape
features found in some parts of south India that have been dated to the neolithic period
[30000-1200 BCE]

1
Paddayya, K. (2019). Neolithic Ashmounds of the Deccan, India: A Posthumanist Perspective.
Beyond the Human Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 44 Department of A.I.H.C. and
Archaeology, Deccan College

2
Paddayya, K. (2019) ,Ibid
3
What is believed to be their significance ?
They are believed to be of ritual significance and produced by early pastoral and
agricultural communities by the burning of wood,dung and animal matter

4 5 6
/ / Ashmounds: Discoveries and Interpretations:
Ashmounds are a distinct group of archaeological sites found only in the Deccan. They are
concentrated in the northern part of Karnataka, covering the districts of Gulbarga, Raichur,
Bellary, and Chitradurga, as well as the adjacent Kurnool and Anantapur districts of Andhra
Pradesh. The rivers Krishna and Tungabhadra drain this area. The sites are made up of
multiple layers of soft and hard (vitrified) ashy deposits. We currently know about 150
places. The ash deposits are no longer found as regular mounds in the majority of these
locations. Locals have quarried them away and used them for various purposes, resulting in
the localities becoming farmlands. We currently know about 150 different places. Most of
these ash deposits are no longer found as regular mounds. They have been quarried away by
locals and used for various purposes, resulting in the localities becoming farmlands. Only ten
or twelve sites have retained their mound-like configuration. The most notable are those at
Kakkera, Kamnatgi, Wandalli, Eachanal, Kupgal, Kudatini, and Palavoy. These are oval or
circular in plan, with diameters ranging from 60 to 70 metres and heights ranging from five to
ten metres. The amounts of ash deposits that make up theseMounds are also impressive. The
deposit at the Kudatini mound near Bellary town and the Wandalli mound in the Raichur area
is estimated to be five to six thousand cubic metres. The mounds are made up of ten or more
layers of deposit
In terms of cultural affiliation, ash mounds are the most striking feature of South Indian
Neolithic culture, which is the best documented of the Indian subcontinent's early
agro-pastoral complexes.With limited opportunities for plant agriculture due to the hilly
terrain and poor soil cover, the Neolithic groups specialised in cattle pastoralism in the early
stages. The archaeological record fully attests to this in more than one way: the evidence of
ashmounds themselves, the dominance of cattle bones in the faunal record from various sites,
and the depiction of cattle as a common theme in the region's rock art.
7 8
/ Detailed reviews of the discovery of ashmounds by various researchers, as well as
interpretations of their origin and age, are available , so a brief note will suffice as the
background for our own study here. The first discoveries were made in the early nineteenth
century.
Initially, these were regarded as natural products (volcanic ash, limestone slag, etc.). Folklore
associated the sites with either mythological demon cremations or locations where ancient
Rishis or sages performed sacrifices. Another interpretation attributed the ash formations to
mass cremations of soldiers killed in mediaeval wars. Finally, there are some who associate

3
Paddayya, K.[[2019],op.cit
4
Allchin, F. R. 1960. op.cit
5
Allchin, F. R. 1963. op. cit
6
Allchin, F. R. 1997. op. cit
7
Allchin, F. R. 1963. ibid
8
Paddayya, K.[[2019],ibid
the ashes with industrial waste from iron smelting, gold and glass production, and brick and
pottery production.

9
The Site and its Environmental Background, The Neolithic site of Budihal lies about
a kilometre north of the modern budihal village (Lat. 160 22’ N;
Long. 760 23’ E), in the extreme southwest corner of Shorapur Taluk of Gulbarga district of
Karnataka. This is one among the many ash mounds found out and investigated in South
India [Shorapur Doab] in the last 60 years by many tireless hands like Mahadevan 1941;
Mukherjee1941 and Paddayya 1973, it is located on the river Don a tributaries of the
Krishna about 1.5 km from the left bank ,It lies on a sandstone plateau at about 500 m. above
sea level, and is defined on its
northern and eastern sides by narrow ravines containing
seep springs with a perennial supply of water. Thee springs are still used for drinking
purposes, the landscape around supports
thick pasture for grazing purposes and contains raw
materials like dolerite and chert required for making pecked
and polished implements and blade tools, respectively.
10
The Budihal site covers an area of 400 m. x 300
m. It consists of four ashmound-cum-habitation localities
(localities I to IV),an extensive workshop for making blade
tools of chert and a cluster of stone grooves in the eastern
ravine where dolerite axes and other edge-tools were
Packed and polished 11/12/13 LOCALITY I: this locality covering an area
of 1.84 ha, is the most well preserved and the larges site among the four the scholar and
archaeologist Paddayya has done a detailed field studies including
large-scale excavations at this locality from 1989 to
1996 exposed a full-fledged Neolithic pastoral settlement which included dwelling houses,
an area for occupation , human burials , a cow -dung disposal area, a cattle shelter/penning
area. We get to know this from the formation of ash deposits which is a result of burning of
accumulated cow-dung. This site is dated by C-14 method from 2000 to 1400 B.C.E
14 15 16
/ / Investigation of Formation Processes
9
Khrisat, Bilal. (2007). A Study of Formation Processes at the Neolithic Site of Buidhal, Karnataka,
India. 131
10
Paddayya, K.1995. Further Field Investigations at Budihal,
Gulbarga District, Karnataka. Bulletin of the Deccan
College Research Institute, 53:277-322.
11
Paddayya, K. 2002a. The Problem of Ashmounds of Southern Deccan in the Light of Budihal
Excavations.Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 60-61: 189-225.
12
Paddayya, K. 2002b. The Problem of Ashmounds of Southern Deccan in the Light of Recent
Research. In Recent Advances in Indian Archaeology (K. Paddayya Ed.), pp. 81-111. New Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal..
13
Khrisat, Bila. op. cit
14
Paddayya, K.1995. Op. cit
15
Paddayya, K. 1998. Evidence of Neolithic Cattle-Penning
at Budihal, Gulbarga District, Karnataka. South
Asian Studies, 14:141-153.
16
Khrisat, Bilal. (2007).op. Cit
Palaeo Topographic Analysis
At Budihal the different segments and activity areas of the settlement were defined on the
basis of intensive archaeological surveys and excavations. The current Budihal is the result of
the cumulative outcome of a slow and long drawn out process of erosion and deposition by
natural and cultural agencies.17The nature of sandstone bedrock, the bedrock-cultural
sediment interface and the pre-Neolithic surface were carefully observed from the sections in
the archaeological trenches and irrigation ditches which were dug on the location . The
Budihal plateau is in general a gently undulating surface consisting mainly of small raised
stretches of sandstone bedrock separated from one another by shallow valleys and
depressions.Characteristically the plateau, which forms part of the catchment area of the Don
river, is highly influenced by the erosional nature of the Don river.
18
Trenches 4 and 6 excavated in the residential area revealed that the Neolithic inhabitants of
the site preferred slightly elevated and gently sloping rocky surfaces with a thin soil cover for
constructing their homes. Dwelling structures were constructed on the rock patches and the
surface was prepared by laying shale and limestone slabs or a thin layer of clay. Sometimes
direct occupation of the rocky surface also took place. Small islands of exposed bedrock with
a large amount of chert debitage on their surface can also be seen beneath the thick soil cover
of the chert workshop area. These rocky surfaces seem to have been favoured by the
Neolithic chert knappers.
19
Locality 1 rests on the most elevated portion of the bedrock at the site.
1. The area which is exposed in the southern dug-out portion of Ashmound 1 and ID
N-S 4 (ID= Irrigation Department Ditch) is the highest part of exposed bedrock in this
locality.
2. The same elevated bedrock patch separates Ashmound 1 from the residential area of
Trench 4 and the butchering floor of Trench 5.
3. To the south and southeast of Trenches 4 and 5, another semi-circular patch of
bedrock exposure can be seen.
4. It continues up to the corner of Trench 6 in the west. As a result of these two bedrock
exposures, the surface area between them has trapped some amount of sediment in the
cracks of the dissected sandstone bedrock to produce a gently sloping surface.Part of
this surface was used by the 20Neolithic inhabitants for their house construction, as
revealed in Trench 4, and the up-slope area, which was covered with a thicker
sediment, was used for the construction of the butchering floor as seen in Trench 5.
5. Immediately, to the south of this stretch the bedrock shows a sudden drop in the
contour lines from 495 m to 493 m and rises further south again to 495 m to produce a
shallow valley-like depression with a width of about north-south distance of150 m
6. Viewing this valley from the opposite eastern plateau, it appears to represent a minor
tectonic displacement of the plateau where erosion has contributed to its broadening.
7. On the other hand, the polished surface of the sandstone blocks in its eastern margin
near the eastern ravine must have resulted from regular discharge of the plateau’s rain
water and sediment. In this shallow depression, Paddayya discovered Neolithic
occupation (Locality IV).
8. 21The presence of a depression beneath the thickest ash deposit in the west of the
Ashmount 1 corroborates Paddayya suggestion of the dumping of the cow dung in
this area, while the gently sloping rocky patch in the northern and eastern parts of
Ashmound 1 area were used for cattle penning.
17
Paddayya, K.1995.Ibid
18
Paddayya, K.1995. ibid
19
Paddayya, K.1995. ibid
20
Paddayya, K.1995. Ibid
21
Paddayya, K. 1998.op. cid
 22
9. However, this land use management for cattle penning could be observed only in
Ashmound 1 area and it was difficult to conclude the same for the other ashmounds of
the settlement due to their highly disturbed state and circumstance .
10. 23This is due to soil quarrying by the villagers as they have already removed a large
portion of the neolithic deposit from this part
11. It's even important to remember that these people were the first to create artificial
plaster in South India.
a] the bottom half 1.2 m in thickness 300m2 east which was used for community
cattle- penning.
b] the ash deposits measure 1.2m in thickness and 300m2 in extended
24
The Ash mount: The deposits consist of several layers or lenses of granular
Ash decomposed cow dung and carbonaceous matter,which represent various
episodes of cattle penning ,dung accumulation and cleaning/burning, more
important,this trench revealed that periphery of the penning area. Was defined by a
sandstone rubble embankment.

Layer 1 :
● This is the top most layer which is light grey, somewhat loose soil 15 to 20 cm thick
respecting the plough zone.
● Due to extreme ploughing and production , there is a displaced by the plough from
their original positions

Layer2:
● 20-25 cm thick greyish compact soil,constituting the main neolithic horizon
● 8 strictures in the mount doesn't belong to the period non-residential
● 1st stricture is the charred blade factory
● 2nd stricture is the debitates

Layer3:
● Greyish brown ,5 to 10 cm thick, representing based phase of neolithic occupation
Layer4:
● Natural soil,as formed by sandstone floor.

The churn is found 6-7 kms away, broken pottery both rectangle and circle
The second stricture was small and was found at a dept of 40cm below surface.it was
probably a storage place for pottery, as suggested by the occurrence of a considerable
Rectangular and the rest were oval on plan ,measuring 3 to 4.5 m across.The framework of
wooden poles and sticks with a covering of grasses or reeds was raised. The whole
framework was supported by a central vertical post fixed into the ground.Keeping household
articles ,and a chipped oval shaped limestone slab for preparing food items ,a small rubble
platform
Clay and ash floor each structics provided
A hearth was found, the chured workshop never had ash.

22
Paddayya, K.1995 , op. cid
23
Paddayya, K., Thomas , P. K., & Joglekar, P. P. (1995).op. Cid
24
Khrisat, Bilal. (2007). Op. cid
2526
Habitational deposit- House deposit.
Within the habitation area , the archaeological
excavations, which was done with the help of chemical and physical analyses,
clearly indicates the different activity areas. On the
basis of the conditions of the artefacts and their distribution
as well as the sediment matrix , it was suggested that these
activity areas remained more or less in the same state since initial
deposition.

● The second locality consists of a cluster of more than a dozen grinding of axes, chisels
and other dolerite artefacts of the pecked and ground stone industry,take the form of
oval shaped depressions 12 to15 cm deep, 20 to 40 cm long and 10-20cm broad
● We find cheered blades and dolaried pecked and polished tool
● The Dolaried was procured from about 6kilometres apart.

27
Houses and Living Floor Construction
This process has given rise to the accumulation of a large
amount of debris which consist
1. stones for wall construction,
2. mud to fill the gap in the stone walls,
3. organic matter for roofing,
4. plaster is generally made of a mixture of ash,Cow dung and clay for
flooring and in some cases stone flooring, and other fine-grained
rubbles are also seen .
We see More than 8 such configurations of cultural deposit were in Layer 2 of Trench 4
which is the main neolithic habitation area in this site, we can see several rebuilding over
older settlements One example of such
reoccupation of the same area was identified in this trench.
28
Beneath Structure 3, which was excavated at about 25 cm below the surface, smaller sized
structure where also found at a
depth of 35 cm . We find huge sandstone blockers which might have been use is found in
layer 1 which is the ploughing zone which could have been
associated with these erratic structures. We also find finely grained sediments containing
refuse such as broken blades, separate potsherds,charred bone fragments were found in the
passage area between these structures in the habitational area

29
Human Remains Burials
We notice that the burials are found in the vicinity of house structures at Budihal and are
significant additions, we also find alteration and disturbance to the habitation deposit of
Trench 4 . It is observed that in general, all burials took place directly on the rock surface,
due to which sediments from the upper layers were introduced to the lower layers in addition

25
Khrisat, Bilal. (2007). Op.cit
26
Paddayya, K., Thomas , P. K., & Joglekar, P. P. (1995). op. cit
27
Paddayya, K. 1998. op. cit
28
Paddayya, K.' 1993a. Ashmound Excavations at Budihal,Gulbarga District, Karnataka, Man andEnvironment
18: 57-87.
29
Khrisat, Bilal. (2007).op. cit
to the remains and the burial goods. Given the fact that the habitation thickness was limited
(about 55-60 cm), it was difficult to identify the depth at which these burials took place.
Secondly there also appears to be a tendency to dig the sediments right up to the bedrock
surface to inter the human remains.

30
During the excavation there also got exposed a total of 10 child burials in the residential
area.The age of the children ranged from a few months to a few
years; they were, either buried in pits or interred in pots.

● A total of 13 human burials were exposed in the Budihal excavation.

● Three in the lower ashmound area and the rest in the settlement area,close to
the dwelling structures
● Further, two instances of stay deposition of a small number of human bones [
including those of an adult]were encountered in decomposed cow dung layers
of trench1
● Among the burials from the residential area, seven were found in clustered
fashion in the southeastern part of trench4 and rest in other trenches .
● In four cases the dead were interred in pits and rest were urn burials .
● What are urn burial ?- urn burial is when the burial takes place in a earthen pot
● These are of sub- adults [ youth/young adults] in long pots

● The infants urn burial was also a double urn burial

Which is when the head and the upper body is covered with one pot
and the lower body and legs are put into another and crouched together /or
into the foetal position .
31
Fauna : animal remains showing the presence of them.
1. We find mainly animal bones which included both wild and domesticated
2. The domestic cattle was in highest percentage
3. They compressed more of buffalo ,sheep/goat and fowl and less of other domestic
animals
4. They also exploited wild animals such as the nilgai, the black buck, the four - horned
antelope ,the monitor lizard, birds and aquatic food like fish, tortoise,crabs and
mollusks
5. After observing the predominance of domestic animals we can Consider the fact
that cattle and other domestic animals played a dominant role in the food
requirements and the economy of the people and were in all likelihood also an aspect
of their ideology, which can be explained by cow dung burnings and many other
instances of the intentional burial of the skull and other
bones of cattle.
32
Floral: plants
30
Paddayya, K., Thomas , P. K., & Joglekar, P. P. (1995). op. cit
31
Paddayya, K., Thomas , P. K., & Joglekar, P. P. (1995). op. cit
32
Khrisat, Bilal. (2007). op. cit
 ● Non Carbonated fruit seeds of three wild species, which are the indian jujube[
barle] the indian cherry and the emblic myrobalan
● Carbonised grains of domesticated barley , hyacinth bean,and graminaceous
seeds [ panicum and setaria types]
33
Animal Butchering Floor:
We also find a large amount of plaster which must have been used along with the habitational
deposits at budihal by the construction of a large butchering floor in the area of Trench 5. We
can analyse that the processes of animal butchering itself resulted in the introduction of large
amounts of bone material and fine organic residue to the sediments.we are not at all
surprising that the people of a major settlement like Budihal felt the need for a regular
structural facility where butchering and associated activities could be conducted. One of the
trenches yielded unmistakable evidence of such a facility.The butchering floor structural
feature was identified in Trench 5 excavated in the settlement area on the southern side of the
ash mound and covering a total of 129m2 which had taken the excavasionest over three field
seasons.An important feature of this facility is that there are clear signs in the field that it
originally covered a much larger area measuring up to 250 m2 .. In the area on the eastern
side of this trench , this is currently partly occupied by
one of the roads laid on the site as part of the proposed new
Budihal settlement, and there is also one of the roadside
drainage ditches, many bone pieces as well as patches of
flooring materials were noticed on numerous occasions.
From these clues it would seem that an additional area of
40 to 60 m2 was a part of the site.
1. Its layer 2 which is about 5 cm thick which consists of faunal material like bones
2. 34Layer 3 is about 2-5 cm thick sediment in the form of a rammed floor of kankar a
material made of very fine ash,clay and tiny bits of chert , pottery and charcoal all
mixed with water and spread over the brown soil and rammed well in order to obtain a
hard working surface
3. There are no dwelling and burial on this trench site
4. The primary or principal cultural material consisted of chopping tools and
hammerstones of dolerite and limestone and large knife-like blades of chert which is a
large quantity of flannel material belonging to domestic cattle and to a great extent
sheep goat and buffalo
5. Bones have markes of chopping, splitting and cooking ,charring and giving them to
the family
6. Which also indicates cooking for a large group mainly the settlement or cluster and
distributing it like a common kitchen

33
Paddayya, K., Thomas , P. K., & Joglekar, P. P. (1995). op. cit

34
Khrisat, Bilal. (2007).op.cit
Analysis:
35
After studying the ashmound at Budihal I think that it is mainly comprises of various forms
of ash, decomposed cow dung, burnt plant matter and organic cultural
sediments. Both cultural and natural processes led to the transformation and distribution of
the components in the ashmound in different forms. As a result the ashmound reveals a
complex stratigraphy.this also suggests that different settlement segments were distributed in
different areas of the ancient site. This also highlights the Neolithic occupation of the plateau
is represented by an accumulation of more than half a metre of habitation deposit spanning as
much as six hundred years of settlement occupation. With the help of my analysis I want to
indicate that the Neolithic settlement was of the permanent type or more semi permanent in
nature . The site of Budihal clearly points out to the deprecating or eroding nature of the site
due to the stop in the Neolithic activities. I want to further suggest that the ash mound
structure is the result of a cyclical phenomenon of the operation of cultural and non-cultural
processes. The ashmounds are different in nature from the habitation area in terms of
sediments and cultural materials which indicates the planned nature of the people in the
neolithic settlement . Therefore, we should easily expect and distinguish these dissimilar
functions for these types of deposits. I would even like to highlight that the finding at this site
might not be all this settlement might have as there is a contaminated layer due to the modern
civilization interference and use of the ash mount as a means for natural fertiliser in the area
before it was rediscovered. This can indicate as to what we might have lost from layer one as
we know or even from the borders and neighbouring area of the site, based on my analys i
think the ash mount might not be just a dumping area away from the penning area but might
have had more significance , it can be a symbol of the growing bull cult or the annual belief
costume of the neolithic civilization who were mainly pasterlist, this might also be a mark
when they moved from place to place in search of greener pastures , they might have burned
these repeatedly , this civilization or settlement is at an important threshold as it shows early
signs of more sedentary living rather than the wandering stage, it also indicates the early
community butchering and kitchens as we have found the butchering floor and sigs cooking
in this site, overall we see a more amicable resolution.

Conclusion :
36
As a last remark, let me relate Neolithic ash mounds to ancient Indian philosophy.
We have seen a the fairly large horizontal extent of the floor and its location between the
ashmound and settlement Areas,
37
The changes due to modern human modification mainly resulted from the cultivation and
bunding of fields which are located on the Neolithic settlements itself. As a result of the
traditional methods of tilling are still used the disturbance was confined mostly to the top 15
to 20 cm of the site which was initially recorded to be the most damaged but with the
repeated ploughing, this depth increased year by year, thus displacing a greater number of
artefacts. A large number of Neolithic artefacts such as polished stone axes, polished stones
and hammerstones were collected by the farmers ,which is from the plough zone and

35
Khrisat, Bilal. (2007).op.cit
36
Paddayya, K., Thomas , P. K., & Joglekar, P. P. (1995). op. cit
37
Khrisat, Bilal. (2007).op.cit
dumped along the field. It was also noticed that some of the artefacts were considered as
sacred objects and were worshipped by the farmers. Many new and old cart-tracks on the
site have removed a large amount of cultural deposits
38
The butchering floor indicates that Several animals were killed and the meat shared among
the entire community there. We can also see how the modern day interference has
contaminated the site which has resulted in the loss of a lot of valuable layer of the ash
mount, the plugging has mixed modern debry with the neolithic ash which is a very sad plight
, over all Budihal has traced back alot of the neolithic culture in the region and has not only
thrown light on the ash mount but also the cattle rearing, pening ,butchering,cleaning
,cooking and distribution too. Hence it is fitting to say that it is because of the site of Budihal
we get to know about the diet and life of the neolithic pastoralism in the region.

38
Khrisat, Bilal. (2007).op.cit
REFERENCES:
1. Alberti, B. and Bray, T.L. 2009. Special Section on “Animating Archaeology:
Subjects, Objects and Alternative Ontologies” (Introduction). Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 19(2): 337– 343.
2. Alberti, B., Fowles, S., Holbrand, B., Marshall, Y. and Witmore, C. 2011. Forum on
Theory in Anthropology: ““Worlds Otherwise”— Archaeology, Anthropology, and
Ontological Difference”. Current Anthropology 52(6): 896–912.
3. Alberti, B., Jones, A.N, and Pollard, J. (eds). 2013. Archaeology after Interpretation:
Returning Materials to Archaeological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
4. Allchin, B. and Allchin, F.R. 1997. Origins of a Civilization: The Prehistory and
Early Archaeology of South Asia. New Delhi: Viking (Penguin) Books.
5. Allchin, F. R. 1960. Piklihal Excavations. Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh Governmen
6. Allchin, F. R. 1961. Untur Excavations. Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh Government
7. Allchin, F. R. 1963. Neolithic Cattle-Keepers of South India: A Study of the Deccan
Ashmounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Baker, C.M. 1978. Assemblage Content: The Size Effect- An Explanation of
Variability in Surface Artifacts. American Antiquity 43: 288-293.
9. Butzer, K.W.1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
10. Boivin, N. 2004a. Landscape and Cosmology in the South Indian Neolithic: New
Perspectives on the Deccan Ashmounds. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14:
235–257.
11. Boivin, N. 2004b. Geoarchaeology and the Goddess Lakshmi: Rajasthani Insights
into Geoarchaeological Methods andPrehistoric Soil Use. In Bovin, N. and Owoc,
M.A. (eds.). Soils, Stones and Symbols: Cultural Perceptions of the Mineral World.
London: UCL Press, 165–186.
12. Boivin, N. 2008. Material Cultures, Material Minds: The Impact of Things on Human
Thought, Society, and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Clarke, D.L. 1973. Archaeology: The Loss of Innocence. Antiquity 47: 6–18.
14. Coomaraswamy, A.K. 1985 [1915]. The Dance of Shiva. In Coomaraswamy, A.K. The
Dance of Shiva: Essays in Indian Art and Culture. New York: Dover Publications, 56–66
15. Coomaraswamy, A.K. 1986 [1938]. The Nature of Buddhist Art. In Lipsey, R. (ed.).
Coomaraswamy I: Selected Papers (Traditional Art and Symbolism). New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
16. DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C. and Renfrew, C. (eds.). 2004. Rethinking Materiality: The
Engagement of the Mind with the Material World. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
17. Dobres, M.A. and Robb, J.E. 2000. Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm or Platitude? In
Dobres, M.A. and Robb, J.E. (eds.). Agency in Archaeology. London: Routledge, 3–17.
18. Deotare, B.C. and Kshirsagar, A. 1993. Ashmound at Budihal Karnataka: A Chemical
Approach. Bulletin Deccan College and Post-Graduate and Research Institute 53:
39-48.
19. Fisher, J.W. Jr. 1995. Bone Surface Modifications in
a. Zooarchaeology, Journal of Archaeological
b. Method and Theory 2: 7-68.
20. Foote, R.B. 1887. Notes on Some Recent Neolithic and Palaeolithic Finds in Southern India.
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 56(2,3): 259–282.
21. Foote, R. B. 1916. The Foote Collection of Indian Prehistoric and Protohistoric
Antiquities: Notes on their Ages and Distribution. Madras: Government Museum.
22. Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
23. Gosden, C. and Malafouris, L. 2015. Process Archaeology (P-Arch). World
Archaeology 47(5): 701–717.
24. Hodder, I. (ed.) 1982. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
25. Ingold, T. 2012. Towards an Ecology of Materials. Annual Review of Anthropology
41: 427–442.
26. Johansen, P.J. and Bauer, A.M. 2018. On the Matter of Resources and
Techno-Politics: The Case of Water and Iron in the South Indian Iron Age. American
Anthropologist 120(3): 412–428.
27. Johnson, M.H. 2012. Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology.
Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 269–284. Jones, A. 2004. Archaeometry and
Materiality: Materials-based Analysis in Theory and Practice. Archaeometry 46:
327–338.
28. Khrisat Bilal R. 1999. Geoarchaeology of the South Indian Neolithic Sites with
Special Reference to Budihal, Shorapur Doab, Karnataka. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
University of Pune.
29. Lyman, R.L. 1987. Archaeofaunas and Butchery Studies: a Taphonomic Perspective,
in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory (M.B.Schiffer), Vol. 10, pp.
249-337. San Diego:Academic Press.
30. Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge:
a. Cambridge University Press.
31. Lucas, G. 2012. Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
32. Mahadevan, C. 1941. Geology of the South and South-Western Parts of Surapur Taluk
of Gulbarga District. Journal of Hyderabad Geological Survey 4:102-161.
33. Mujumdar, G.G. and S.N. Rajaguru. 1966. Ashmound Excavation at Kupgal. Pune:
Deccan College.
34. Mukherjee, S.K. 1941. Geology of Parts of Surapur and Shahpur Taluks, Gulbarga
district. Journal of Hyderabad Geological Survey 4:9-54.
35. Munn, L. 1934. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Finds. Journal of the Hyderabad Geological
Survey 207: 121–135.
36. Newbold, T.H. 1843. On Some Ancient Mounds of Scorious Ashes in Southern India.
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 7: 129– 136.
37. Paddayya, K. 1973. Investigations into the Neolithic Culture of the Shorapur Doab,
South India. E.J. Brill, Leiden.
38. Paddayya, K. 1991-92. The Ashmounds of South India:Fresh Evidence and Possible
Implications,Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 51-52: 573-626.
39. Paddayya, K.' 1993a. Ashmound Excavations at Budihal,Gulbarga District,
Karnataka, Man andEnvironment 18: 57-87.
40. Paddayya, K. 1993b. Further Field Investigations at
41. Budihal, Gulbarga District, Karnataka, Bulletin of the Deccan College Research
Institute 53: 277-322.
42. Paddayya, K.1995. Further Field Investigations at Budihal, Gulbarga District,
Karnataka. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, 53:277-322.
43. Paddayya, K., P. K. Thomas and Joglekar, P. P. 1995. A Neolithic Animal Butchering
Floor at Budihal, Gulbarga District, Karnataka. Man and Environment 20:23-31.
44. Paddayya, K. 1998. Evidence of Neolithic Cattle-Penning at Budihal, Gulbarga
District, Karnataka. South Asian Studies, 14:141-153.
45. Paddayya, K. 2002a. The Problem of Ashmounds of Southern Deccan in the Light of
Budihal Excavations. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 60-61:
189-225.
46. Paddayya, K. 2002b. The Problem of Ashmounds of Southern Deccan in the Light of
Recent Research. In Recent Advances in Indian Archaeology (K. Paddayya Ed.), pp.
81-111. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal..
47. Paddayya, K. 2003. The Ashmounds of South India: Fresh Evidence and Possible
Implications. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 51–52(1991–1992):
573–626.
48. Paddayya, K. 2019. Neolithic Ashmounds of the Deccan: Their Place in the Archaeology
of Peninsular India. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
49. Rami Reddy, V. 1976. Pre-and Protohistoric Cultures of Palavoy, South India.
Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pradesh.
50. Rami Reddy, V. 1978. The Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cultures of Palavoy, South
India, with special reference to the Ashmound Problem. Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh
Government.
51. Sherratt, A. 1981. Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products
Revolution. In Hodder, I., Isaac, G. and Hammond, N. (eds.). Pattern of the Past:
Essays in Honour of David Clarke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 261–
305.
52. Thomas, J. 2015. The Future of Archaeological Theory. Antiquity 89(348):
1287–1296.
53. Whewell, W. 1857 [1837]. History of the Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the
Present Times, Volume I. London: John W. Parker and Son.
54. Woolley, L. 1940. Some Aspects of Problems in Indian Archaeology. Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society of Arts 88: 191.
55. Wood, W. R. and D. L. Johnson. 1978. A Survey of Disturbance Processes in
Archaeological Site Formation. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory,
Vol. 1, pp. 315-370. New York: Academic Press.
56. Yazdani, G. 1935–1936. Notes on a Survey of Neolithic Sites Annual Report of the
Archaeological Department of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Dominions – Appendix A: 20.
57. Zeuner, F. E. 1959.On the Origin of the Cinder Mounds of the Bellary District, India.
Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, London 2:37-44