Molapalayam: A Neolithic Site Near in Western

V. Selvakumar1, S. Gowrisankar1 and R. Karthikeyan1

1. Department of Maritime History and Marine Archaeology, Tamil University, – 613 010, Tamil Nadu, (Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])

Received: 25 August 2019; Revised: 17 September 2019; Accepted: 04 October 2019 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7 (2019): 70-94

Abstract: Tamil Nadu and are considered to be devoid of any significant influence of the Neolithic cultural complex of , due to the lack of noteworthy Neolithic settlements in these . The Neolithic cultural remains of Tamil Nadu are mainly limited to Paiyyampalli and a few other sites located close to and border. However, the foundations of the Iron Age Culture and the rise of Early Historic Sangam Age have remained archaeologically obscure. Against this backdrop, recent explorations undertaken in 2019 near Coimbatore have brought to light a Neolithic settlement at Molapalayam with ceramic evidence. The ceramics found from this site include burnished red ware, black ware, coarse red ware and black-and-red ware. Stone axes, querns, hammer stones, rubber stones and animal bones are found at the site from the surface context as well as exposed sections. Based on the surface finds, it appears that the settlement of Molapalayam belongs to the late phase of the Southern Neolithic cultural tradition, and further research is necessary to accurately date the site. The consisting of Coimbatore, Salem and along with , and areas in Tamil Nadu seems to have been a part of the Southern Neolithic cultural zone. The survey reveals that the archaeological sites of Tamil Nadu, especially those with polished stone axes and ash deposits need to be re-explored with a focus on the entire range of material culture. This paper presents a brief account of the archaeological materials noticed at this site.

Keywords: Neolithic Culture, Iron Age, Pastoralism, Ceramics, Stone Objects, Molapalayam, Tamil Nadu

Introduction Neolithic culture, which witnessed the introduction of cattle domestication and agriculture and began to develop around the early third millennium BCE in South India, is well represented in the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, and in northwestern parts of Tamil Nadu. The cultural formations in the late prehistoric context, from the Neolithic to the Iron Age in the major areas of Tamil Nadu and Kerala have not clearly emerged because of the lack of Neolithic and early Iron Age habitation sites, despite the finding of numerous polished stone axes also known as celts (Gurukkal and Varier 1999; Rajan, Yathees Kumar and Selvakumar 2008; Abhayan 2018). In addition, paucity of Selvakumar et al. 2019: 70-94 radiocarbon dates for the Iron Age and Early Historic contexts and lack of horizontal excavations have added to the poor understanding of the historical developments in these regions in the first two millennia before the beginning of the Common Era. It was generally contended that the Neolithic sites were absent in Tamil Nadu and the cultural transition from the Neolithic to the Iron Age had been mainly confined to Vellore, Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri regions in northern Tamil Nadu, and the transition in the southern and central regions was mainly from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age (Dayalan 2010; Selvakumar 2017). Against this backdrop, the recent finding of a Neolithic site near Coimbatore at Molapalayam has assumed significance as it has shed light on the Neolithic culture of Western Tamil Nadu suggesting that Coimbatore region was definitely a part of the Southern Neolithic cultural complex. This paper presents an account of the archaeological evidence from the site.

Previous Research There has been extensive research on the megalithic burials and Early Historic evidence in Tamil Nadu and Paiyyampalli has been the only excavated Neolithic site with radiocarbon dates (IAR 1964-65: 22-23; 1967-68: 26-27). B. Narasimhaiah (1980) as a part of Archaeological Survey of India’s activities and later the Ancient History and Archaeology Department of the University of Madras have explored and excavated a few sites in the northwestern part of Tamil Nadu, but there exists no significant understanding of the Neolithic cultural developments in Tamil Nadu other than a few sites as at Paiyyampalli, Dailamalai, Togarappalli and Mullikkadu, and the limited range of material culture from later contexts (Narasimhaiah 1980; Dayalan 2010; Venkatasubbiah 2012 Rajavelu 2017). At the site of Paiyyampalli, evidence of the Neolithic period stratigraphically preceded the Iron Age material remains. The archaeological site of T. Kallupatti, south of , produced traces of lingering Chalcolithic elements and Neolithic ceramic forms (IAR 1976-77, pp. 46-47; IAR 1979-80, p.69; Selvakumar 1996: Fig. 66), and no radiocarbon date is available for this site. The site produced evidence of a pre-russet-coated and painted ware phase with late Neolithic ceramics (Selvakumar 1996: Fig. 66). R. Ramesh who explored the Salem region identified several sites with polished stone axes (Ramesh 2016), but produced insufficient evidence of ceramics or other settlement evidence. However, traces of Neolithic ceramics and ash deposits have been reported from several sites in Tamil Nadu.

In Kerala, polished stone axes have been reported at several sites, but Neolithic habitation evidence is eluding (Gurukkal and Varier 1999). The megalithic site of Umichipoyil in Kasaragode has produced ceramics of Neolithic affiliation (Jayashree Nair 2005, 2007). There are reports of polished stone axes in the region of Kaladi in the River valley of Kerala, collected by Mr. K. A. Ali (Personal Communication 2018). However, the associated material vestiges are missing in this area. On and off, finds of polished stone axes are reported in popular media; but these axes as small, attractive and transportable objects were collected as curios or as objects of reverence and worshipped in shrines under trees in Tamil Nadu (Figure 1). Not only

71 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

the axes, but also pointed or rounded natural pebbles are placed along with the axes for worship. Sometimes the natural pebbles are mistaken for celts or polished axes. Many of these axes seem to have been constantly subjected to cultural formation process in history and have been transported to new contexts.

Figure 1: A Shrine with stone pebbles planted near the site under a tree at Molapalayam

With regard to the Neolithic culture of South India several studies have been undertaken and the early investigations gave considerable importance to the ash mounds and the associated material remains (Foote 1887, 1916; Subbarao 1948; Allchin 1960, 1961, 1963; Zeuner 1960; Majumdar and Rajaguru 1966; Paddayya 1973, 1993a, 1993b, 1995, 1998, 2019; Paddayya et al. 2005; Rami Reddy 1976, 1990; Khrisat 1999; Boivin 2004; Johansen 2004; Fuller, Boivin and Korisettar 2007; Venkatasubbiah 2007, 2011, 2012; Krishna 2010; Morrison, Reddy and Kashyab 2015; see, Korisettar, Venkatasubbiah and Fuller 2001). Several ash mound sites have been identified in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. K. Paddayya has classified the Southern Neolithic cultures into five zonal traditions and the southern limit of one of the zones (III) has been till the northern border area of Tamil Nadu (1973). Nambirajan (1984) reports that some of the sites in Coimbatore have produced Neolithic pottery; but he does not specify the sites. A few of the sites of Tamil Nadu are classified as Neolithic in Korisettar, Venkatasubbiah and Fuller 2001, and this classification is primarily based on the finds of polished stone axes. It appears that in the archaeological explorations there has been more emphasis on the celts or polished stone axes, rather than the ceramic and other artefact assemblages in classifying and understanding the Neolithic cultures in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The problem in Kerala has been the lack of significant, prominently visible habitation sites of Neolithic, Iron

72 Selvakumar et al. 2019: 70-94

Age and Early Historic periods due to the mountainous terrain in which natural forces and environment greatly contribute to the formation processes.

Figure 2: Megalithic burial and Early Historic sites in Coimbatore Upland Region (Courtesy: K. Rajan)

The first author has explored microlithic sites in the Coimbatore region near Marutamalai area, and at these sites quartz microliths are found in a higher frequency. P. Rajendran (1989), K. Rajan of Victoria College, (Personal communication, 2019) and Sujana Stephen (2017) have explored for prehistoric sites in Palakkad area and identified microlithic sites and a few late Palaeolithic sites.

The region of Coimbatore has been explored by K. Rajan (1994) and Yathees Kumar (2012) for Megalithic and Early Historic sites (Preetha 2014). The site of Kodumanal excavated by Y. Subbarayalu (2008) at first and by K. Rajan subsequently for several seasons (1994, 2014, 2015) has produced extensive evidence for Early Historic occupation along with evidence of Tamil-Brahmi script datable to fourth-fifth century BCE, bead- making and several other industrial and trade activities revealing that it was an exclusive trading and industrial production centre of the Early Historic times in the context of Indian Ocean Trade (Rajan 2014, 2015, 2017). The megalithic burials are extensive in South India, but their chronology has not been clear as is the case of the Iron Age material culture.

Perur, an important site of megalithic and historical affiliation, has been excavated by Archaeological Survey of India (IAR 1970-71: 32-33) and Tamil Nadu State Archaeology

73 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Department (Ashok Varadan Shetty 2003). This site produced evidence for Early Historic and medieval contexts and Period I produced a thicker variety of black-and-red ware.

Kerala has produced a large variety of megaliths (Jenee 2002; Darsana 2010; Abhayan 2018). In the Palakkad region of Kerala, megalithic burials have been studied by Cherian Poulose (1990), Shinu Abraham (2002), Koyu Rajan (Indian Express, Palakkad, 29 July 2019), Sanalkumar (2012) and Sujana Stephen (2017).

In the valley, the site of Kaliamangalam (or Kalimangalam, close to and west of Molapalayam at 76° 47' 47" E; 10° 54’ 54” N; Rajan 1997:38; Rajan, Yathees Kumar and Selvakumar 2008: 97) has been reported with habitation remains and cairn circles and a few other burial and habitation sites have been reported in this area. Despite the findings of ash mound like features, hammer stone and polished stone axes as at or Sarcar Samakkulam (Figure 2; Rajan, Yathees Kumar and Selvakumar 2008: 102; DCH 2011: vii), definite evidence of Neolithic settlement has been missing in this area.

Neolithic Evidence from Molapalayam The site of Molapalayam (10°55'49.8"N 76°49'20.0"E) with Neolithic settlement evidence was located during the exploration in the Noyyal river valley close to the Mountains, to the southwest of Coimbatore city. The site falls under the village of Puluvapatti and it is on the way to the Karupparayan temple.

The Valley of Noyyal River The Noyyal river originates in the Boluvampatty/Siruvani valley close to the Velliyangiri mountains and is known as Swami Mudiyar. The Noyyal is joined by the Periyar and Chinnar rivers. The Noyyal sub-basin is a part of the Kaveri river basin and covers about 3500 square kilometre area. This river is formed by seven small tributaries, which originate in the Nilagiri hills which lie to the west of Coimbatore region. The hill areas in the upland of Coimbatore receive rainfall of more than 3000 mm per annum, mostly during the Southwest ; and the lower reaches receive about 600 mm per annum (Srinivasan et al. 2014).

The Valley of Noyyal River is an important resource area in this dry Coimbatore Upland region. Perhaps the water resource of this region led to the rise of several important historical settlements in the Noyyal river valley, and it even seems to have determined the location of the core area of the modern urban centre of Coimbatore. The Noyyal river basin is heavily urbanised because of the development of Coimbatore. There are eight major tanks in the area which supply water to the city of Coimbatore. They are Krishnampathi tank, Selvampathi tank, Kumarasami tank, Narasampathi tank, Selvasinthamani tank, Valankulam tank, Singanallur tank and Muthannakulam tank. These tanks are supported by the Noyyal river water. The city enjoys pleasant climate and the temperature varies between 18° C and 35° C. Siruvani waterfall is located up in the Noyyal river valley.

74 Selvakumar et al. 2019: 70-94

Geologically, is covered by rocks belonging to the Archean age comprising of the Khondalite group, Charnockite Group, Migmatite group, Sathayamangalam group, Bhavani Group and Alkali complex of Proterozoic age and Late Pleistocene rocks of Cenozoic age. The Charnockite Group of rocks consists of Charnockite, pyroxene granulites and associated magnetite quartzite, the Khondalite Group comprises of garnetiferous–sillimanite gneiss, calc-granulite, crystalline limestone, sillimanite quartzite and associated migmatitic gneisses (GD 2019).

The granites of Proterozoic age found on the western end and eastern parts of the district are known, respectively, as Maruthamalai Granite and Punjaipuliyampatti granite. Quaternary alluvium is seen in the western areas of Coimbatore town. The alluvium is more than 30 m in thickness in the Chinnathadagam valley northwest of Coimbatore and in the Siruvani valley west of Coimbatore. Limestone, gypsum, kankar, soapstone, quartz, feldspar, colour granites (Dimensional stones), gravel and brick earth are available and some of these minerals are mined (GD 2019).

Figure 3: Coimbatore Region and the site location (Courtesy: GoogleEarth)

The Site of Molapalayam and Its Environs The site of Molapayalam lies in the area close to the southern hills of the Boluvampatti range (Figure 3). It is located in the southeastern corner of the Noyyal river valley. One has to reach the site via Vadivelampalayam and Adukkupparai, which is a granite rock formation and resembles the granite hill formations encountered in many parts of South India, where Neolithic sites are located. Here a narrow arm of hill formation covers the three sides of a small area forming a corner, in which the site is located (Figures 4 and 5). The area is known as Moolakkadu, which means ‘an agrarian field in the corner’ of the valley (moolai = corner in Tamil). A cairn circle site has been identified by K. Rajan to the west of this area (Rajan 1997).

75 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4: The site surrounded by hillocks (Courtesy:GoogleEarth)

Figure 5: A View of the Hills around the site of Molapalayam

The site is in between two streams that drain the hill area in the south of the valley (Figure 6) and covers about 65,000 square meter roughly (estimated based on field walking and surveys and based on the information collected from the local people and

76 Selvakumar et al. 2019: 70-94 the estimation from the Google Earth Map). The site is completely under cultivation and appears in several terraces with the higher elevation in the south and lower elevation in the north. The ceramics and large stone objects encountered in the plough zones were collected and deposited on the boundaries (bunds) of the field. Since these objects disturb the cultivation, the farmers have shifted them to the boundary of the fields. The materials collected during the survey are described below. The artefacts collected from the site include stone objects, animal bones and pottery.

Figure 6: A view of the section of the Site from the eastern stream

Stone Objects Several types of stone objects were found at the site (Figure 7). They include polished stone axes, hammer stones, rubber stones, spheroids (sling stones?) and a few microlithic chips, which are mostly of quartz.

Polished Stone Axes: Three polished stone axes were collected from the site. Two were collected by us and one was with a farmer, who had collected it from the field. Two of the axes are shorter with rounded or flat butt, end and one is longer with a pointed butt. Two of them appear to have been made of dolerite and further studies are needed to identify the raw material. The data on the axes is presented in Table 1. For the axes, the value of length divided by breadth is 0.98 for Table 1, Sl. No. 1 and 1.69 for No.3, the pointed butt axe, and 1.1.4 for the Sl. No. 2. The shorter axes were made perhaps when the longer axes were damaged, as revealed by the secondary nature on the rubbed surfaces of the butt area. The edges of the polished stone axes show use marks.

77 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 7: Hammer stones, polished stone axes and other objects

Hammer Stones: A few hammerstones were also found in this area. The hammer stones are roughly in spherical shapes and they bear pitting marks suggesting their use in making tools, possibly through indirect percussion. The pitting marks could have emerged because of repeated hitting with an intermediary object, while the smooth surface could have emerged due to repeated hitting of a hard surface or rubbing the surface. Only microwear studies could tell about their precise use. The data on the hammer stones is given in Table 1.

Spheroids or Sling Stones: Some of the stone objects are perfectly spherical and some are roughly spherical (Table 1) and they could have been used as sling stones; but their precise function is uncertain.

Querns: Querns or grinding stones are found in a large number at the site (Figure 8). Being large stone objects, the quern stones that have been encountered while ploughing the lands have been deposited along the bunds. A few are being reused by the farmers for washing clothes. They show extensive grinding in the central part and some of them developed holes and are broken due to intense grinding. They reveal that the inhabitants at the site perhaps cultivated plants and ground the grains for consumption. They resemble the finds from the Neolithic sites of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

Rubber Stones: Rubbers stones used for grinding grains on the querns also occur at the site (Table 1). They show the traces of rubbing developed from the grinding.

78 Selvakumar et al. 2019: 70-94

Table 1: Stone Artefacts from Molapalayam No Old Object Material L B T Weight Remarks No. cm cm Cm gm 1. 2 Polished Dolerite 5.6 5.7 2.4 121 Short axe with a flat Stone Axe (?) butt. With use marks showing tiny chipping in the working edge. 2. 3 Polished Dolerite 8.3 4.9 3 176.5 Long axe with Stone Axe (?) pointed butt 3. 26 Polished Dolerite 6.2 5.4 3.2 203 With a flat butt. Stone Axe (?) Damaged with a small flake scar in the working edge. Originally a long axe (?), perhaps modified. 4. 4 Polisher (?) Dolerite 5.6 4.6 2 107.5 It is very well polished. Roughly trapezoidal in shape and could have been used for polishing objects/ surfaces. 5. 5 Hammer Dolerite 5.4 5.2 4.5 236.5 Very roughly Stone spherical in shape. Pitting marks, with a Shallow depression. 6. 6 Hammer Dolerite 5.7 5.6 3.6 229 With flat surfaces stone and hitting/rubbing marks in the round edges. Suitable to hold between the thumb and the index finger. 7. 7 Hammer Dolerite 4.7 4.2 4.1 136 Nearly Spherical Stone with pitting marks. Appears charred. Has rubbing and hitting marks. 8. 8 Spheroid/ Granite 5.4 5.3 4.6 212.5 Nearly spherical in shape. With

79 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Hammer rubbing/hitting Stone marks 9. 9 Hammer Granite 8.5 7.4 4.8 498.5 Amorphous shape Stone 10. 10 Hammer Granite 7.4 6.8 4.6 406 It has flaked as well Stone as rubbed surfaces. With pitting marks 11. 11 Hammer Granite 10.5 9.7 4.3 642 Also used as rubber Stone- stone. Partly round Rubber in shape stone 12. 12 Flake from Granite 6.1 5.2 2.6 125 Broken a hammer Hammerstone. stone 13. 27 Rubber Granite 8.1 5.9 0.9 545 With rubbing/ stone hitting marks

Figure 8: Querns and Rubber stones and other stone objects and a potsherd

Animal Bones Several bones of animals occur at the site (Figure 9), more frequently than the Iron Age sites. It appears that most of the bones belong to Bos Sp. and sheep-goat (Capra-Ovis).

80 Selvakumar et al. 2019: 70-94

These bones possibly are an indication of the pastoral nature of the occupants of the site. Both cattle and sheep goat were perhaps raised by the people who lived in this area. Scientific identification is necessary on these bones.

Ceramics The ceramics are the most important materials that reveal about the Neolithic character of the site (Figure 10). The site produced burnished ceramics and varieties such as burnished red ware, black ware and black-and-red ware (Figure 11), and coarse red ware. The rims of jars are highly flaring suggesting their Neolithic affinity. The burnishing marks are very clear and some of them have slipped surfaces. A few have unslipped surfaces and tool marks on the interior. Most of the ceramics appear hand- made and some of them are wheel-made. Two varieties of black-and-red ware occur; one is hand-made with thicker section and bearing traces of burnishing, and another is wheel-made with thin section, without traces of burnishing.

One group of ceramics belongs to the Neolithic phase and another group of ceramics appears to belong to the terminal phase of the Neolithic or Iron Age (Figures 12-18, Table 2). The ceramics of the Neolithic phase appear to be handmade or made with the help of a slow wheel. These ceramics show burnishing evidence and are thicker in section. The ceramics from the later context are of fine texture and show the use of wheel and firing at a higher temperature. The ceramics suggest that the site has evidence of two cultural phases of occupation.

Figure 9: Animal Bones

81 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 10: Pottery from the site of Molapalayam

82 Selvakumar et al. 2019: 70-94

Figure 11: Thicker variety of Burnished black-and-red Ware

Figure 12: Jars of Burnished Ware

83 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 13: Jars of Burnished Ware

Figure 14: Burnished Ware and Black ware

84 Selvakumar et al. 2019: 70-94

Figure 15: Burnished Ware and Black Ware

Figure 16: Black Ware and other Ceramics

85 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 17: Burnished Red Ware and Coarse Red Ware Pottery

Figure 18: Coarse Ware Ceramics

86 Selvakumar et al. 2019: 70-94

Table 2: Ceramics from the Molapalayam Archaeological Site Fig. ID. Vessel Ware and size of Description No. No. Type sherds (maximum dimensions) 12.1 76 Jar Burnished Red Ware Externally flaring rim. Red slip on 5 x 10.7 x 0.6 cm both the surfaces. Traces of Rd, 26 cm burnishing are seen. Two grooves around the neck. Slip has worn out. 2.5 YR 4/4 Reddish Brown. The surface is 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow. Core is dark grey in colour. Exterior very lustrous. 12.2 137 Jar Burnished Red Ware Externally flaring rim. Slip on both 16.8 x 5.2 x 1.5 cm surfaces. Very slightly lustrous. Traces of burnishing. Heavy encrustation. 5YR 5/6 strong brown and 5/4 brown 12.3 2 Jar Burnished Red Ware Externally flaring rim. Burnished 7.7 x 12 x 0.8 cm surfaces with slip on the exterior as Rd, 26 cm well as near the rim in the interior. The exterior is very lustrous. Interior below rim does not have traces of slip. Red slip 2.5 YR 4/4 Reddish Brown. The interior is 2.5 YR 4/2 weak Red. 13.1 70 Jar Burnished Red Ware Flaring rim. Slipped and moderately Rd, 21cm lustrous interior and exterior surfaces. Red surfaces are 2.5 YR 4/6 Red. Post-depositional accretion is very strong. The core is very dark grey 2.5YR N3 Very Dark Grey. 13.2 226 Jar with Burnished Red Ware Prominently flaring rim (9 cm), high Rd, 20 c externally, moderately lustrous flaring surfaces on both sides. Surface colour neck is 2.5 YR 4/8 red; patches of 5YR 3/2 Dark Reddish Brown seen near the rim. Core is black or dark grey 14.1 144 Bowl Black ware Burnished ware. Very slightly Rd, 21 cm lustrous. Traces of burnishing seen. Has a slip on both the surfaces. Hand/slow wheel made. Outer surface colour 2.5 YR N2.5 Black; patches of red 2.5 YR 5/4 reddish

87 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

brown. Patches of 7.5 YR 6/4 light brown on the exterior. Hand/slow wheel made. Thicker variety. 14.2 15 Bowl Black and red ware Coarse ware. The exterior rim and 4.9 x 5.2 x 0.8 cm the interior are black. Slipped Rd, 12 cm surfaces, moderately lustrous. Exterior 7.5YR 5/4 brown. Interior YR N2 black. Core is black. glittering mica. Traces of moderate burnishing. Hand/slow wheel made. Thicker variety. 14.3 9 Deep Black Ware With carinated body, high neck and bowl 4.7 x 5.4 x 0.4 cm featureless knife-shaped rim. Highly Rd, 18 cm lustrous surfaces wheel made and has striation marks. One groove on the exterior. Very thin section 15.1 182 Bowl Burnished Red Ware Chatty type. With everted rim with 8.6 x 6.7 x 0.8 cm slip on both the surfaces. Glittering Rd, 36 cm mica specs on the exterior. Moderately Lustrous surfaces on both surfaces. Surfaces 2.5 YR 5/2 weak red, 2.5YR 4/6 Red with small patches of dark grey. Mica is seen and also feldspar in the core. 15.2 8 Bowl Black and Red Ware Burnished. With lustrous surfaces. Burnished One 3 mm wide groove on the 6.7 x 8.2 x 0.6 cm exterior below rim. Slip on both the Rd, 30 cm surfaces. 2.5 YR N2.5 black surfaces. Patches of 7.5 YR 5/6 strong brown. Hand/slow wheel made. Thicker variety. 15.3 159 Bowl Black Ware Possibly wheel made. Thin variety. 2.7 x 2.2 x 0.4 cm Very black surfaces very lustrous. Rd, 16 cm Mica specs are seen on the surface. 15.4 191 Bowl Coarse Grey Ware Coarse ware without slip. Rough 3.8 x 3.7 x 0.9 cm surfaces. 10 YR 5/2 greyish brown to Rd, 15 cm 4/2 dark greyish brown. 16.1 230 Dish Black ware Burnished lustrous interior. Exterior 2.5 x 3.9 x 0.5 cm is not lustrous. Handmade/slow Rd, 16 cm wheel made. Interior black and exterior 10 YR 5/2 greyish brown. Probably slipped on both the surfaces.

88 Selvakumar et al. 2019: 70-94

16.2 19 Lid Black Ware Coarse ware with striations 3 x 4.5x 0.7 cm probably wheel made. Black slip on Rd, 18 cm both surfaces. Glittering mica on the surface. Moderately lustrous surfaces. 7.5YR N3 very dark grey. 16.3 4 Jar Black Ware With short neck and everted rim. 4.3 x 9.2 x 0.8 cm With traces of burnishing. With slip Rd, 24 cm on both the surfaces showing crackled slip. Lustrous surfaces, exterior is more shiny. 2.5 YR N2.5 black. 17.1 41 Jar Burnished Red ware Jar with flaring rim. Burnished and 4.9 x 7.9 x 0.8 cm lustrous surfaces. Traces of slip on Rd, 24 cm both the surfaces with Glittering mica. 2.5 YR 4/6 Red. 17.2 183 Bowl Coarse Red Ware Unslipped, rough surfaces. Dark 5 x 7 x 0.7 cm grey core. Exterior 10 YR 4/3 weak Rd, 32 cm red. Interior has a slip probably. Hand-made or slow wheel made. 17.3 228 Bowl Burnished Red Ware Red slip on both surfaces. Traces of 5.4 x 4.3 x 0.5 cm burnishing. Moderately lustrous Rd, 18 cm surfaces. 10 R 5/6 and 4/4 red. Glittering specs of mica. 18.1 79 Bowl Coarse Red Ware With highly constricted mouth. 4.8 x 6.1. x 0.9 cm Rough surfaces No traces of slip. 2.5 Rd, YR 4/6 red. 5/2 weak red. Probably handmade 18.2 81 Base of a Grey Ware Rough surfaces. Core 10 YR 3/2 very jar or 9.5 x 8.9 x 0.9 cm dark greyish brown; Tool marks on bowl Rd, 6 cm the interior. Wooden tool has been used on the interior. 18.3 139 Jar Coarse Black Ware Interior black with tool marks. 2.5 YR 13 x 12 x 1.4 cm N2.5. Black, an appliqué design of a Rd. Rim is not ridge with triangular section and available, body triple pinching decoration over the diameter uncertain ridge is seen.

Among the vessel forms illustrated above, Figs. 13.4, 15. 3 and 16.2-3 belong to the late phase of Neolithic or Iron Age, while the rest of the vessel forms belong to the Neolithic Phase. The Neolithic forms resemble the vessels forms from other parts of South India. The bowl with sloping sides in Fig. 14.1 has parallel to the vessel forms of Piklihal, Allchin 1960, Period I, and 2a-2 c. These forms also resemble Neolithic ceramics from Utnur, Allchin 1963 Fig. 7, forms 27-31. The jar form of Fig. 17.1 has parallel at Utnur,

89 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Allchin 1963 Fig. 8, forms 44. Channel spouted vessel forms commonly occurring in the Neolithic Sites are found at Molapalayam.

Discussion and Conclusions The material culture discussed above is clearly suggestive of the Neolithic affinity of the site of Molapalayam. It also has the later Neolithic or Early Iron Age evidence as revealed by the fine black-and-red ware sherds. It appears to have two cultural phases and only excavation can reveal about the nature of occupation and chronology of the site.

The site is located at a higher elevation of the Noyyal river valley that would not have been flooded in the rainy season, unlike the area in the middle of the valley where the Noyyal river flows seasonally and alluvial deposits are found. Besides, the steep gradient and presence of drainage streams on both the eastern and western sides of the site would have supported the draining of the rain water, thus facilitating the animal domestication at the site. Since this region has good water supply through the high rainfall in the Nilagiri arms of the Western Ghats, it would have been an ideal location for supporting animal domestication as well as small scale agricultural activities. The site has natural protection in the form of hills on three sides, which offers security and would have protected the cattle from cattle lifters or invaders. In the summer months, the hill areas would have acted as a grazing ground for the animals.

There could be more such Neolithic sites in this area. The site of Sarcar Samakkulam/Kovilpalayam has ash deposits and even Neolithic-like vitrified ash deposits in a limited area. When the authors explored this site, they could not clearly locate any typical Neolithic ceramics as at Molapalayam, and mainly pottery resembling medieval forms were found. Strangely polished stone axes have been found in the site. We could find several later ceramic forms, which appear to be historical materials. It is probable that this area was a camp site of the Neolithic context, and later on it could have been occupied during the historical times. More research and excavation are needed at this site to understand the site and the nature of occupation. This site as of now perhaps has the earliest evidence for agriculture and pastoralism in the Coimbatore region.

Several sites in the Later Neolithic and Iron Age contexts in Tamil Nadu have ash deposits and these sites may suggest the continuity of old Neolithic traditions and such sites need to be investigated. The site of Molapalayam is a clear pointer that Tamil Nadu was definitely a part of the Southern Neolithic culture. For all along, the focus of the early archaeological studies in Tamil Nadu has been on the polished stone axes and on the megalithic burials. Because of such a biased focus, the cultural formation of this region has not been clearly understood, and more intensive study of the archaeological sites with a focus on habitation sites and the ceramic materials has to be undertaken. The vivid poetic narrations found in the Sangam Tamil texts and the development of Iron Age culture in Tamil Nadu definitely had the Neolithic antecedents, and western and northern Tamil Nadu should be included as part of the Southern Neolithic cultural complex.

90 Selvakumar et al. 2019: 70-94

Acknowledgement We are thankful to Mr. Barat Kumar, Fellow, Pumpuhar ETAR Project for inking the drawings.

References Abhayan, G.S. 2018. ‘Iron Age Culture in Kerala, South India: An Appraisal’ in Uesugi A. Ed. Iron Age in South Asia. Osaka: Research Group for South Asian Archaeology, Kansai University, pp. 145-188. Abraham, S. A. 2002.Social complexity in early Tamilakam: Sites and ceramics from the Palghat Gap, Kerala, India. Ph.D. Dissertation, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania. Allchin, F.R. 1960. Piklihal Excavations. : Government of Andhra Pradesh Allchin, F.R. 1961. Utnur Excavations. Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pradesh. Allchin, F.R. 1963. Neolithic Cattle-Keepers of South India: A Study of the Deccan Ashmounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boivin, N. 2004. ‘Landscape and Cosmology in the South Indian Neolithic: New Perspectives on the Deccan Ashmounds,’ Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(02), pp. 235- 257. DOI: 10.1017/S0959774304000150. Darsana, S.B. 2010. ‘Megalithic Burials of Iron Age-Early Historic Kerala: An Overview,’ Man and Environment 35(2), pp. 98-117 Dayalan, D. 2010. ‘Tamil Culture: Revealed through Excavations,’ Paper presented in World Classical Tamil Conference. Accessed through academia.edu, October 2019. Abstract Doi: http://www.jeywin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/World- Classical-Tamil-Conference-Special-Souvenir-Part-61.pdf. DCH. 2011. District Handbook, 2011, Coimbatore, Village and Town Directory. Doi: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/dchb/DCHB_A/33/3331_PART_A_DC HB_COIMBATORE.pdf. Foote, R.B. 1887. ‘Notes on Some Recent Neolithic and Palaeolithic Finds in South India,’ Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 46(2), pp. 259-282. Foote, R.B. 1916 The Foote Collection of Indian Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities: Notes on Their Ages and Distribution. Madras: Government Museum. Fuller, D., N. Boivin, and R. Korisettar. 2007. ‘Dating the Neolithic of South India: New radiometric evidence for key economic, social and ritual transformations,’ Antiquity, 81 (313), pp. 755-778. Doi: 10.1017/S0003598X00095715 GD. 2019.Geology Dept, District Survey Report for Soapstone, Coimbatore District. : . Gurukkal, R. and R. Varier. 1999.Cultural .Tiruvanathapuram: Department of culture Publications. IAR. Indian Archaeology A Review, New : Archaeological Survey of India. Khrist, B. R. 1999. Geoarchaeology of the South Indian Neolithic Sites with Special Reference to Budihal, Shorapur Doab, Karnataka. Ph.D. Dissertation. : University of Poona.

91 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Korisettar, R., P. C. Venkatasubbaiah, and D. Q. Fuller. 2001. Brahmagiri and Beyond: the Archaeology of the Southern Neolithic, in S. Settar and R. Korisettar. Eds., Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, volume I. Prehistory, : Manohar, pp. 151-238. Krishna, K.R. 2010 Agroecosystems of South India: Nutrient Dynamics, Ecology and Productivity. Boca Raton, Fla., Brown Walker Press. Morrison, K. D., S. N. Reddy, A. Kashyap. 2015. ‘Agrarian Transitions in Iron Age Southern India: Social and Environmental Implications,’ in Vincent Lefèvre, Aurore Didier, A. and Benjamin Mutin (eds.). 2017.South Asian Archaeology and Art 2012, Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers n.v., pp. 185-196. Mujumdar, G.G. and S.N. Rajaguru. 1966.Ashmound Excavations at Kupgal. Pune: Deccan College. Nair, K. J. 2005. ‘Exploring the Megaliths in Kasaragod,’ Journal of the Centre for Heritage Studies 2, pp. 18-35. Nair, K. J. 2007. Megaliths in Kasaragode: Understanding an Unexplored Region. Ph.D. Dissertation. Kottayam: M.G. University. Nambirajan, M. 1994.Archaeology of Goa (early period). PhD. Dissertation. Department of Ancient Indian History and Epigraphy. Dharwad: Karnatak University. Narasimhaiah, B. 1980.Neolithic and Megalithic Cultures in Tamil Nadu. New Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan. Nayar, P. 2014. Socio Economic Conditions during the Megalithic Period in . Ph.D. Dissertation Submitted to University of Madras. Chennai: Meenakshi College for Women. Doi: http://hdl.handle.net/10603/200158. Paddayya, K. 1973.Investigations into the Neolithic Culture of the Shorapur Doab, South India. Leiden: E.J.Brill. Paddayya, K. 1993a. ‘The ashmounds of South India: Fresh Evidence and Possible Implications,’ Bulletin of Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 51- 52(1991-1992), pp. 573-626. Paddayya, K. 1993b.Ashmound Excavations at Budihal, Gulbarga District, Karnataka. Man and Environment 18(1), pp. 57-87. Paddayya, K. 1995. ‘Further Field Investigations at Budihal, Gulbarga District, Karnataka,’ Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 53(1993), pp. 277- 322. Paddayya, K. 1998. ‘Evidence of Neolithic Cattle Penning at Budihal, Gulbarga District, Karnataka,’ South Asian Studies 14, pp. 141-153. Paddayya, K. 2019. NeolithicAshmounds of the Deccan: Their Place in the Archaeology of Peninsular India. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. Paddayya, K., P.K. Thomas and P.P. Joglekar. 1995. ‘A Neolithic Animal Butchering Floor from Budihal, Gulbarga District, Karnataka,’ Man and Environment 20(2), pp. 23-31. Peter, J. 2002.Dimensions of Megalithic Culture of Kerala in Relation to Peninsular India: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation. : The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda.

92 Selvakumar et al. 2019: 70-94

Peter, J. G. 2004. ‘Landscape, Monumental Architecture and ritual: a Reconsideration of the South Indian Ashmounds,’ Journal of the anthropological Archaeology 23, pp. 309- 330. Poulose, C. 1990.Some Aspects of Megaliths in Palghat Region: A Study. Ph.D. Dissertation. Dharwad: Karnatak University. Rajan, K. 1991. ‘Archaeology of , Tamil Nadu,’ Man and Environment, 26(1), pp. 37-52. Rajan, K. 1994.Archaeology of Tamilnadu (Kongu Country). New Delhi: Book India Publishers. Rajan, K. 1997.Archaeological Gazetteer of Tamil Nadu.Tanjavur: ManooPathippakam Rajan, K. 2014.Iron Age-Early historic Transition in South India: An Appraisal. PadmashriAmalananda Ghosh Lecture. New Delhi: Institute of Archaeology. Rajan, K. 2015.Early Writing System: A Journey from Graffiti to Brahmi. Madurai: Pandya Nadu Centre for Archaeological Research. Rajan, K. 2017. ‘South Indian Stones Beads: Archaeological, Textual, and Ethnographic Approaches to Traditional Gemstone Industry’ in Alok Kanungo (ed.) Stone Beads of South and Southeast Asia: Archaeology, Ethnography and Global Connections. Gandhi Nagar IIT Gandhi Nagar and Aryan Books International, pp.347-366. Rajan, K., V.P. Y. Kumar, and S. Selvakumar.2008.Catalogue of Archaeological Sites in Tamil Nadu. Thanjavur: Heritage India Trust. Rajavelu, S. 2017.Archaeological Excavations in Tamil Nadu: Recent Trends Balakrishnan Nair Endowment Lectures: 6. Chennai: Government Museum. Rajendran, P. 1989.The Prehistoric cultures and Environment: A case study of Kerala. Delhi: Classical Publishing Corporation. Ramesh, R. 2016.Historical Archaeology of Salem Region with Special Reference to Settlement Patterns up to 1600 CE. Ph.D. Dissertation Submitted to Department o Epigraphy and Archaeology. Thanjavur: Tamil University. Reddy, V. R. 1976 The Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cultures of Palavoy South India. Hyderabad: The Government of Andhra Pradesh. Reddy, V. R. 1990.Ashmounds in South India, in A. Sundara (ed.) Archaeology in Karnataka. : Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, pp. 85-99. Sanalkumar, V. 2012.A Geographical Analysis of Ancient Venginadu Kingdom Region of . Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Geography. Mysore: Mysore University Selvakumar, V. 1996 Investigations into the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cultures of The Upper Gundar Basin, , Tamil Nadu. Ph.D. Dissertation, Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute. Pune: University of Pune. Doi: https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/149003. Selvakumar, V. 2017. Early Cultural and Historical Formations In South India: Thoughts On The Processes, Deconstruction And Models in S.G. Deo, Andre Baptista and Jayendra Joglekar (eds.)Rethinking the Past: A Tribute to Professor V.N.

93 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Misra, Pune. Indian Society for Prehistoric and Quaternary Studies, pp. 343- 350. Shetty, V. A. K. 2003. Excavations at . Madras: Department of Archaeology, Government of Tamilnadu. Srinivasan, V., D. S. Kumar, P.Chinnasamy, S.iSulagna, D. Sakthivel, P. Paramasivam and S.Lele. 2014.Water Management In The Noyyal River Basin A Situation Analysis. Environment and Development. Discussion Paper No. 2, February 2014, : Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment. Doi: http://eprints.atree.org/52/. Stephen, S. 2017.Landscape Archaeology of Upper Bharathapuzha Basin, Kerala. Prehistoric period to 1600 AD. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Epigraphy and Archaeology, Thanjavur: Tamil University. Subbarao, B. 1948.Stone Age Cultures of Bellary. Poona: Deccan College Post Graduate Research Institute. Subbarayalu, Y. 2008. ‘Pottery Inscriptions of Tamil Nadu – A Comparative View’ in Airavati, Felicitation volume in Honour of , Chennai: Varalaru.com, pp. 209-249. Venkatasubbaiah, P.C. 2007.South Indian Neolithic Culture Pennar Basin, Andhra Pradesh. Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan. Venkatasubbaiah, P.C. 2011. ‘A Preliminary study on the Ashmound sites in the Lower Tungabhadra Region of Andhra Pradesh,’ Ancient Asia 3, pp. 36-48. Venkatasubbaiah, P.C. 2012. ‘Neolithic Culture of Tamil Nadu: An Overview,’ Tamil Civilization 24(1-2) (April- July 2012), pp. 1-13. Yatheeskumar, V. P. 2012.Archaeology of Amaravathi river valley, Tamil Nadu. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of History, : Pondicherry University. Doi: https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/5254. Zeuner, F.E. 1960. ‘On the Origin of the Cinder Mounds of the Bellary District, India’ Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, London 2 (1959), pp.37-48.

94