- Email: [email protected]
Palaeolithic occupation of southern Tamil Nadu, India: New evidence from south of the river Kaveri
Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Palaeolithic occupation of southern Tamil Nadu, India: New evidence from south of the river Kaveri V. Selvakumar a, *, S.N. Rajaguru b, Richa Jhaldiyal c a
Department of Epigraphy and Archaeology, Tamil University, Thanjavur 613010, Tamil Nadu, India Kamal Sudha Apartments, 567 Narayanpeth, Pune 411030, India c Department of Anthropology, 4034 Smith Laboratory, 174 West 18th Avenue, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1106, USA b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 10 August 2011
Research on the prehistory of the terminal zone of South Asia (south of 13 N) has been limited to the areas around Chennai/Madras and the Pamban Coast, located, respectively in the northeastern and southeastern parts of the state of Tamil Nadu; a few areas of Kerala, and Sri Lanka. However, the southern part of Tamil Nadu has remained poorly investigated, except for the Upper Gundar Basin. Archaeological research conducted from 2006 to 2010 by the first author revealed a few Palaeolithic and several microlithic sites in southern part of Tamil Nadu. The authors jointly reinvestigated some of these sites in Thanjavur and Nagapattinam regions in order to understand the geological and cultural contexts of the sites and artefacts. Archaeological excavations at Pillayarpatti, one of the sites in Thanjavur region, undertaken in 2009 and 2010 revealed evidence for the Palaeolithic culture in a stratigraphic context. This paper presents a survey of the context and significance of the recent Palaeolithic finds from southern Tamil Nadu. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Recent investigations in the region situated to the south of the river Kaveri, in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, India have brought to light new evidence for Palaeolithic occupation. The southern-most evidence for well-investigated Palaeolithic culture in south India comes from Chennai/Madras region (Pappu, 1996; Pappu et al. 2011), in the northern part of Tamil Nadu. Understanding of the Palaeolithic history of this area is minimal. This is largely because of the poor visibility of the prehistoric sites and the lack of focused investigations. Research on the prehistory of the terminal zone of South Asia (south of 13 N) has been limited to a few enclaves such as the Chennai region (Foote, 1916; Pappu, 2001) and the Pamban Coast (Zeuner and Allchin, 1956; Gardner and Martingell, 1990), located, respectively, in the northeastern and southeastern parts of Tamil Nadu; a few areas of Kerala (Rajendran, 1989), and Sri Lanka (Deraniyagala, 1992, 1998, 2007). Except for the Upper Gundar Basin (Selvakumar 1996a, 1996b,
* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Selvakumar), [email protected] (R. Jhaldiyal). 1040-6182/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.06.012
2001a, 2001b), the southern part of Tamil Nadu has remained poorly investigated. Archaeological research carried out from 2006 to 2010 by the first author led to the discovery of a few Palaeolithic and several microlithic sites in different geographic zones of southern Tamil Nadu (Selvakumar 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b). The authors of this paper jointly reinvestigated a few of these sites in Thanjavur and Nagapattinam regions in order to understand the geological and cultural contexts of the prehistoric sites. Subsequently, archaeological excavations were also conducted at Pillayarpatti, in the Thanjavur region, in 2009 and 2010 (Selvakumar 2009, 2010a, 2010b). Most significantly, these excavations exposed evidence for the Palaeolithic occupation in a stratified context. This paper presents a survey of the context and significance of the recent Palaeolithic finds as well as those reported earlier from southern Tamil Nadu. More detailed research on the geological contexts of the sites and typo-technological analysis of the artefacts is necessary to establish the true character of the Palaeolithic sites of southern Tamil Nadu. At present, these sites are considered as Palaeolithic. The first author is of the view that some of these sites represent the later phases of the Palaeolithic cultures, comparable to the Middle or Upper Palaeolithic cultures. A few of the artefacts from
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
surface contexts show similarities to the Lower Palaeolithic Acheulian bifaces, but their true context is uncertain. The possibility for the presence of Lower Palaeolithic evidence in this region needs to be further investigated.
2. Environmental background of the study area Southern Tamil Nadu is defined here as the area south of the river Kaviri (Kaviri or Kavery or Cauvery) (roughly south of 11500 N.), and north of Kanniyakumari and east of the Western Ghats (east of 77 E), and west of the Bay of Bengal (west of 79 500 E Fig. 1). This region is drained by the Kaveri, Vaigai and Tamirabarani rivers, which are major rivers and have their origins in the Western Ghats or its spurs, and flow towards the east-southeast to the Bay of Bengal. In addition, there are many dry, seasonal rivers, such as the Vellar, Agniyar, Gundar and Vaippar, draining the areas situated between these major rivers. The eastern plains of Tamil Nadu, located to the east of the Western Ghats, gently slope towards the southeast. A few mountain masses, which are extensions of the Western Ghats, and several isolated hillocks (inselbergs) lie in the intermediate and western parts of southern Tamil Nadu, around Madurai, Pudukkottai, Dindugal and Thiruchirappally. The coastal area, varying between about 50 and 150 km from the Bay of Bengal, is devoid of hillocks. The Palani group of hills around Dindugal is a major mountain mass. A few spurs of hillocks such as the Nagamalai (9 570 200 N; 78 10000 E), the Azhagarmalai (10 704300 N; 78 140 3400 E), the Yanaimalai (10 00 5100 N; 78 150 4600 E), the Sirumalai (10130 900 N; 78 00 5900 E), and the Varushanadu-Andipatti hills (9 400 1500 N; 77 280 4400 E and 9 550 5600 N; 77400 4500 E) stand prominently around Madurai region, in addition to many smaller hillocks. From a landscape archaeology perspective, some of these hillocks are very significant landmarks, and would have offered plant, animal and water resources, and shelter as well as vantage point facilities for prehistoric groups.
75
Most parts of southern Tamil Nadu plains enjoy tropical subhumid climates, with the summer temperature varying between 28 C and 40 C, and the winter temperature between 18 C and 26 C (SIPR, n.d.). The higher altitudes of the Western Ghats and the Palani (Pazhani) hills enjoy pleasant weather almost throughout the year. The hill station of Kodaikkanal has temperatures ranging between 8 C and 17 C in winter, and 11 C and 20 C in summer. The average annual rainfall varies between 800 and 900 mm in the dry hinterland region to 1200 mm in the Kaveri delta region. The hill regions including Kodaikkanal and Kanniyakumari, which lie on the west of the Western Ghats, receive higher annual rainfall of over 1500 mm. Migmatite gneisses, Granulites and Closepet Granitoid and other intrusive elements are found south of the Palghat Gap-Kaveri shear. Peninsular gneisses occur north of the river Kaveri (Fig. 2) (Subramanian and Selvan, 2001). Alluvial and coastal sediments of recent origin are found in the coastal and deltaic regions. Mesozoic-Palaeogene sediments consisting of Cuddalore Sandstone series-ferricrete formations capped by red soil occur along the Thanjavur-Pudukkottai-Sivagangai-Ramanathapuram-Thirunelveli Axis. In this text the term ferricrete is used instead of laterite to refer to the iron rich soil-sediment cemented by ferruginous matter (Oliver and Hetu, 2008). 3. Previous research As in the case of other parts of South India, it was Robert Bruce Foote who first discovered prehistoric sites in this region in the second half of the 19th century. The ferricrete belt from Thanjavur to Ongole was examined by Blanford (1865), Charles Oldham, King and Robert Bruce Foote (Foote, 1868: 486). Foote reported “palaeoliths washed out of a laterite deposit” at Vengurayan Kudikkadu (‘Vanganum Kudi kad’ according to Foote (1916: 54)). He collected only two specimens from this site. One of them was a “large scraper” and the other was “rather rudely made.” He reports that “I would rather regard them as exceptionally poor specimens of the Palaeolithic types made of very inferior material.” He also noticed
Fig. 1. Map Showing the Study Area, Southern Part of Tamil Nadu.
76
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Fig. 2. Geological Map of Southern Tamil Nadu (After Geological Survey of India).
microlithic sites on the red coastal sand dunes (Teris) near Thirunelveli, and a few other locations in southern Tamil Nadu (Foote, 1916; Selvakumar, 1996a, 1996b). Tottenham brought to light a few Stone Age artefacts at Rangiyam in Pudukkottai district, in the nineteenth century (Rajan, 2003). The Teri microlithic sites have received better academic attention than other sites (Aiyappan, 1944; Zeuner and Allchin, 1956; Gardner and Martingell, 1990). Raman (1970) reported Middle Palaeolithic artefacts at T. Puduppatti and Sivarakkottai in Madurai district. Akkaraju Sarma surveyed the coastal region for sea level changes and uncovered microlithic sites at Budalur southwest of Thanjavur (Sarma, 1978). Sridharan (1978) explored the Thanjavur region and identified microliths around Vallam near Thanjavur. Vedachalam et al. (2000) and Balachandran have also reported a few microlithic sites in southern Tamil Nadu. In the 1990s, the first author identified heavy-duty artefacts at Tottiyappatti and Perumalkoilpatti comparable to the Middle Palaeolithic artefacts reported by Raman at T. Puduppatti and Sivarakkottai in the Upper Gundar basin (Selvakumar 1996a, 1996b, 2001a, 2001b). However, due to their association with microliths, limited frequency, absence of stratigraphic evidence and surface nature of the sites, the author suggested that these heavy-duty artefacts could have been used along with the microlithic artefacts in the early Holocene Microlithic context. Balachandran (personal communication, 2005) collected a few large tools suspected to be Palaeoliths at Chettimadam, Athiveeranpatti and Chinnakamanpatti, and microliths at several sites in the Arjuna river basin of Virudunagar district. Recent surveys by Rajan and Ramji (2009) have brought to light Palaeolithic and Microlithic sites on the northern side of the Kaveri River around Ariyalur. Prasanna (Rajan et al. 2009) has reported a possible Palaeolithic site in Thirunelveli. In the neighbouring state of Kerala, a few Palaeolithic finds have come to light (Rajendran, 1989); and copious evidence for Middle Palaeolithic, and Late Pleistocene microlithic use has come from Ratnapura beds and the Iranamadu formations in Sri Lanka (Deraniyagala, 1992, 1998, 2007:
1e3). The sporadic finds from southern Tamil Nadu and their stratigraphic contexts, and the evidence from and the early dates available from Sri Lanka, suggest the possibility that southern Tamil Nadu has evidence for Pre-Holocene human occupation. Overall the Palaeolithic sites are not many in this region and the detailed studies are lacking on the typo-technology of the Palaeolithic artefacts. Against this background, the current research is being undertaken as part of the University Grants Commission’s research project titled “Landscape Archaeology of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Cultures of Southern Tamil Nadu.” The long-term goal of this research is to focus on the adaptation patterns of the Palaeolithic and Pre-Iron Age Holocene Microlithic cultures of southern Tamil Nadu from “landscape archaeological” perspectives. The methods of landscape archaeology differ according to the space-time-culture contexts, and the theoretical (Processual or post-Processual) perspectives. A landscape archaeological study of a historical context, aided by textual sources, would be much different from that of the prehistoric context. Cultural perception and construction of landscapes could be reconstructed for the historical periods. In prehistoric context, it serves as an alternate to settlement archaeology (Wandsnider and Dooley, 2004; Gojda, 2004). The concept of landscape archaeology is used as an alternative to settlement archaeology in the current research project. This paper confines itself to a preliminary survey of the Palaeolithic evidence from southern Tamil Nadu. The research method included surface surveys of the expos ed and disturbed surfaces, stream sections to identify the prehistoric sites, which are mostly buried in this region, and their contexts. Artefact clusters and off-sites were documented using GPS, and mapping of sites was undertaken at certain sites which are relatively better preserved such as Pillayarpatti. Sites with single artefact were plotted; plotting of artefacts from gridded area has been done at Pillayarpatti. In other sites, artefacts were collected to the precision of 10 m 10 m grids. Isolated artefacts and small clusters were plotted using GPS.
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
77
Fig. 3. Distribution of Possible Palaeolithic Sites in Southern Tamil Nadu.
4. Palaeolithic sites of southern Tamil Nadu The prehistoric site contexts of southern Tamil Nadu can be classified into distinct geographic zones (Fig. 3). They are: Zone A, the coastal (ca. 5 km from the modern coastline) and deltaic zone; Zone B, the ferricrete/lateritic zone along the ThanjavurPudukkottai-Sivagangai-Sangarankovil Axis mostly characterized by Cuddalore Sandstone formations; Zone C, the intermediate tract located to the west of the Ferricrete Zone, covered with black soil to the south of Madurai; Zone D, the piedmont region, the areas adjacent to the Western Ghats and its spurs (up to ca. 50 km from the mountains); and Zone E, the forested, mountainous region of the Western Ghats and its spurs. Considering the comparatively lower sea levels during the Late Pleistocene, it would be appropriate to suggest a submerged underwater context (Zone F) adjacent to the east coast of India. Surveys have revealed microlithic sites in all five zones, but Palaeolithic artefacts have been reported only from Zones B, C and D. No underwater investigations have been undertaken to identify any prehistoric site in Zone F. 4.1. Zone A. Coastal and deltaic Zone A covers the coastal area situated within 5 km from the modern coastline, and the river deltas, and it has mostly alluvial and littoral sediments. This area must have been geomorphologically dynamic during the Pleistocene due to sea level fluctuations, and the associated shore-line changes and the deposition of alluvium by the rivers, and as a result, Palaeolithic contexts here, if at all they existed, would have been disturbed or buried or eroded away or submerged under the sea. In this zone, only microlithic artefacts have been found from Vazhmangalam, Thirumalairayanpattinam, M. Panangudy, Poigainallur and Thiruppoondi (Selvakumar, 2009), in the Lower Kaveri delta. Based on the available sedimentological studies on the Kaveri delta region, these microlithic sites could be placed in the Holocene (Alappat et al., 2010: 46). The most important prehistoric occupation of this zone comes from the microlithic sites of
the Teri sand dunes on the Pamban coast (Aiyappan, 1944; Zeuner and Allchin, 1956; Gardner and Martingell, 1990).
4.2. Zone B. Ferricrete/lateritic The ferricrete zone located in the eastern part of Tamil Nadu has better preservation of prehistoric sites, including Palaeolithic and Early Holocene Microlithic, than does Zone A. South of the river Kaveri, this zone extends from (Vallam Table-land) Thanjavur to Thirunelveli region along the Thanjavur-Pudukkottai-SivagangaiSangarankovil Axis for over 300 km. The stratigraphic context of the sites all along this region appears to be more or less identical. The three major sedimentary contexts were identified above the Cuddalore sandstone formations that form the underlying geology in this region. Layer 4 e Cuddalore sandstone. Layer 3 e Ferricrete: overlying the Cuddalore sandstones is a layer of hard, compact ferricrete with several sub-layers, containing Palaeolithic artefacts. Layer 2 e Loose ferricrete rubble: derived from weathering and re-deposition of the compact ferricrete. The ferricrete rubble on is mixed with red soil sediment, the amount of which varies from location to location. This rubble layer, which has higher concentrations of microliths predominantly made of quartz, is noticed as surface exposures and in streams and dug-out areas. Layer 1 e Red soil: a red soil (oxisol) deposit disconformably overlies layer 2. The oxisol is present in most of the region. Its thickness varies according to the terrain, from 0 cm to w200 cm. Occasional quartz microlithic chips occur on the surface of the red soil, even when there is no major known disturbance to the layers underneath. The red soil deposit itself also has microliths, as revealed by the Pillayarpatti excavations and also from the exposed stream section near Punalkulam. A few of the important sites of the ferricrete zone are discussed below.
78
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Fig. 4. Straigraphy at the Site of Pillayarpatti based on Trench PPT II.
4.2.1. Pillayarpatti Pillayarpatti village lies about eight km west of Thanjavur on the road to Vallam. A stream called vaari or odai (a Tamil term for a stream or nulla, generally the first order or second order streams) clearly exposes artefacts and their contexts here. Excavations undertaken at this village, within the Tamil University Campus, Thanjavur, in 2009 and 2010 have helped establish the precise stratigraphic context of the Palaeolithic artefacts that were earlier found occurring on the surface as well as in various dug-out areas in the Vallam table-land around Thanjavur. Five trenches, PPT I to PPT V, excavated at Pillayarpatti have exposed a stratigraphic sequence almost identical to the one discussed above (Fig. 4). Interestingly, this sequence is structurally somewhat comparable to the Reddish Brown Earth Formations of Sri Lanka and also the Iranamadu formation of coastal region of Sri Lanka, which has aeolian deposits on top (Deraniyagala, 2007: 2e5). Layer 1 covers most of this area and consists of reddish silty sand with oxic soil development, which is indicated by the development of prismatic peds and the presence of ferruginous pellets of pedogenic origin. At PPT I and PPT III, Layer 1 measured about 70e110 cm in thickness, and yielded a few microliths and occasional black-and-red ware pottery of the Iron Age-Early Historic period. In 2010, a polished triangular stone axe (celt) was also encountered at a depth of 70 cm from the surface in a possible Iron Age context. Similar axes (celts) were used in South India from the Neolithic period onwards. From this evidence, it appears that the oxisol layer could be tentatively dated to later than ca. 3000 BP, based on the radiocarbon dates available for the Iron Age sites in South India (Nagaraja Rao, 1971; Satyamurthy, 1990). However, this chronology needs to be substantiated by radiocarbon dates. The Pillayarpatti evidence suggests the continued use of microliths along with black-and-red ware in the Iron Age context, which has been established in several other sites in southern Tamil Nadu (Selvakumar 2001a). Layer 2 is slightly compact ferricrete rubble with blocks and pebbles of quartz and cherty quartzite of ca. 30 cm in thickness that produced abundant microliths, including geometric specimens. The rubble is moderately consolidated in a ferruginous silty matrix. The chronology of this layer could be tentatively placed at least in the Early or Mid-Holocene, based on the absence of ceramics, and the presence of Iron Age black-and-red ware datable to post 3000 years BP in the overlying oxisol layer. Underneath this layer is a nearly sterile, highly compact, hard ferricrete (duricrust) layer (3) of about 30 cm. Occasional quartz
flakes were noticed with rare occurrence of quartz chips. No ceramic evidence was found here. Layer 4 at this site is a pebble-gravel, rich in quartz lithoclasts and a few of cherty quartzite, well cemented by ferruginous material. This layer, which is about 20 cm thick, produced relatively larger artefacts than the microliths. The artefacts include cores, points, scrapers, flakes, and chips ascribable to the later phases of Palaeolithic. The artefacts display a tendency towards microlithization. The pebbles from the deposit itself seem to have been used as raw material for making the artefacts. The tools appear abraded which suggests some degree of movement. Both brecciated cherty quartzite and quartz were used as raw material at this site. Layers 3 and 4 show the most important ferricretised contexts, with various phases of weathering, erosion and deposition. Further excavations, about 30 cm beneath, revealed a ferricrete layer without any artefact or other lithoclasts (Layer 4). The thickness of this layer is not clear, as it has not been excavated. From the areas nearby the site, it appears that Cuddalore Sandstone formations (Layer 6) of Miocene age occur beneath this layer. No scientific dating is currently available for Pillayarpatti. Sediment samples have been sent to Durham University, UK for OSL dating and the results are awaited. The excavations at Pillayarpatti clearly suggest the presence of Palaeolithic artefacts in a premicrolithic context, which could be definitely dateable to PreHolocene Age. 4.2.2. Manojipatti Manojipatti, ca. five km west of Thanjavur town, lies close to the northeastern edge of the Vallam table-land which slopes towards southwestern edge of the Kaveri delta, which begins about 1 km to the north. Artefacts are exposed here due to the trenches dug for the lay-out for a new residential area. The stratigraphy is very similar to what has been reported at other sites in the Vallam table-land. The dug-out material consists of very large blocks of brecciated cherty quartzite, pebbly cobbly-gravel of mostly gneiss and ferricrete. At this site, ferricrete does not occur in the form of a continuous bed, but appears to have undergone weathering. The overlying red soil layer is not very well preserved. As this site lies closer to the edge of the Kaveri delta, it is possible that erosion towards the edge of delta might have removed overlying sediments. Manojipatti appears to be one of the main raw material procuring sites in this area, and compared to other sites, it has an
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
unusually large number of large-sized heavy-duty artefacts, which is explained by the presence of large natural blocks of brecciated cherty quartzite, which are not often met within the exposed contexts at most sites of this area. The assemblage includes cores, scrapers, flakes, debitage made of brecciated cherty quartzite blocks. Quartz microliths are rare at this site. It needs to be researched to understand if this site belongs to a different techno tradition i.e. the Lower Palaeolithic. 4.2.3. Thirukkanurpatti locality I (Varattukulam) Thirukkanurpatti lies 11 km southwest of Thanjavur on Pudukkottai road, and within a tank called Varattukulam, Palaeolithic artefacts were found at a depth of 3 m from the surface level. At this site the lower-most exposed stratigraphic layer is the ferricrete (duricrust). Heavy-duty artefacts were found embedded (in situ) within the upper part of this ferricrete layer, but no microliths were noticed from the exposed areas. It is possible that the artefacts occurring in the upper part of the ferricrete layer were cemented when weathered ferruginous material was referricretised. Overlying the hard ferricrete is a layer consisting of ferricrete rubble along with microlithic artifacts made of quartz and cherty quartzite. The ferricrete rubble is capped by the red soil horizon. As at Pillayarpatti, this site also suggests that there was Palaeolithic activity on the landscape predating the microliths. A few broken artefacts resembling bifaces were found at this site. This site revealed both microlithic and Palaeolithic artefacts mixed together due to disturbances caused by quarrying. 4.2.4. Punalkulam The site of Punalkulam, which lies 15 km southwest of Thanjavur on the Pudukkottai road, exposes badland topography. This area has poor scrub forest with almost no grass cover, and this has caused intensive erosion. A vaari (seasonal stream) originates west of this village and flows southeast to join the Maharajasamudram River, which meets the Bay of Bengal near Adiramapattinam. The stratigraphy at this site consists of oxisol sediment with well-developed prismatic pedal structure, measuring 1.5 me2 m in thickness. It overlies a ca. 5 cm thick weathered ferricrete rubble exposed in erosion with a large amount of quartz chips, flakes, cores and hammer stones. Some of the flakes have derived from red soil deposit, and the soil erosion brings the microliths to the ferricrete horizon. Underneath the rubble is a mottled greyish clay deposit, which is probably a saprolitic horizon of the ferricrete. This mottled greyish clay is not found at Pillayarpatti and Thirukkanurpatti, which are located away from the major stream present at Punalkulam. This horizon is highly clayey and is exposed to about 1.5 m. The total thickness and the underlying geology are unknown, as no section is available for inspection. An important feature here is the concentration of large quantities of quartz flakes within the weathered ferricrete rubble and the occurrence of stray microlithic quartz chips from the red soil above. From the eroded surface, mostly microliths and a few large artefacts of possible Palaeolithic context were found. Due to the erosional activities of the river, it appears that the context of the artefacts at this site is mixed. 4.2.5. Kadavarayanpatti Kadavarayanpatti lies 17 km southwest of Thanjavur on Pudukkottai road. At this site, artefacts made of brecciated cherty quartzite were brought to the surface while digging a tank. However, no clear-cut section is exposed at this site. In addition to the sites mentioned above, several sites explored in southern Tamil Nadu have produced occasional large-sized artefacts along with microliths. Vannikonendal is a microlithic site located in Thiruneveli district, 31 km northwest of Thiruneveli
79
on the Sangakarankovil road. The geological context of the site is identical to that of the Vallam table-land sites around Thanjavur, and a few large-sized artefacts have been found at this site. The Palaeolithic site of Alavantankulam, reported by Prasanna (Rajan et al. 2009) is located south of Thirunelveli. Here, artefacts were found within a red soil horizon. It is not clear if ferricrete occurs at this site along with the artefacts, since the authors have not inspected the site. From the above survey it is clear that the ferricrete zone (Zone B) sealed by the oxisol has pre-Holocene Microlithic and Palaeolithic evidence in stratified contexts. It appears that this zone certainly has many more sites and further explorations could bring to light more sites in the buried red soil deposit. 4.3. Zone C. Intermediate tract The intermediate tract which lies west of the ferricrete zone and south of Madurai, has a black soil deposit over the Migmatite formations of the Peninsular Gneissic Complex I. This region covers the eastern part of the Upper Gundar Basin. In this zone, the Palaeolithic sites occur as surface scatters along with calcrete nodules in the black soil tract. The sites of T. Pudupatti and Tottiyapatti and Sivarakkottai lie in this zone, which has an elevation of more than 100 m asl. The seasonal streams of this area do not carry much water due to limited rainfall, and as result have not exposed very deep sections for inspection. T. Puduppatti is located 9 km southwest of Thirumangalam and 27 km from Madurai. The river Varattar flows through this site. Sivarakkottai is located east of T. Puduppatti. Raman (1970) identified Middle Palaeolithic artefacts at this site. Exploration did not reveal any significant Palaeolithic finds at Sivarakkottai, but T. Pudupatti yielded evidence for heavy-duty artefacts, and Tottiyappatti, which lies about 1 km southwest of T. Pudupatti on the southern bank of the river Varattar, revealed similar artefacts. The artefacts from these sites were interpreted as probable heavy-duty tool components associated with the microlithic industries of (Holocene Microlithic) Mesolithic context (Table 1). Chinnakkamanpatti lies 8 km southeast of Sivakasi in Virudunagar district in the Vaippar basin. This site has a black soil deposit and also large cherty quartzite blocks. A few large flake tools have been found in surface context. At Athiveeranpatti (9 300 1300 N; 77480 5900 E), Balachandran (personal communication, 2010) has found heavy-duty/Palaeolithic artefacts, and the precise context of the site is not known. 4.4. Zone D. Piedmont region The westernmost locations to produce heavy-duty tools in southern Tamil Nadu are Perumalkovilpatti (9 530 18.1700 N; 77480 53.3900 E), Vittilpatti and T. Krishnapuram, located less than 20 km from the Varushandu-Andipatti hills. This region has not revealed any clear stratigraphic evidence for Palaeolithic contexts. The heavy-duty artefacts are found in surface contexts along with microliths. Excavation at the site of S. Pappinayakkanpatti in this zone has only produced microliths in the red soil lying above the Archaen formations. 4.5. Zone E. Mountainous region Zone E refers to the mountainous regions of the Western Ghats and its branches, situated west of Zone D. A few microlithic sites have been found in this region, such as Vasimalai (Selvakumar, 2001a) and Thandikkudy (Rajan et al., 2009). No evidence for a Palaeolithic phase has been found in this zone. Landslides,
80
Table 1 List of Palaeolithic Sites and Microlithic Sites with Heavy-duty Tool Components. Site Name
Longitude N
Latitude E
District
Cultural Context as reported by the Researchers
Reference
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Aykkal Elakkurichi K. Ambavur Kattur Kavanur Kilakolattur Kilanattam Kilimangalam Muttucanceri Nakkambadi Telur Velankudy Manojipatti Pillayarpatti Vengurayankudikkadu (Vanganamkudikkadu) Thirukkanurpatti Kadavarayanpatti Punalkulam T. Puduppatti Sivarakkottai Perumalkovilpatti Tottiyappatti Chinnakamanpatti Athiveeranpatti Alvanthankulam Vannikonenthal T. Krishnapuram Vittilpatti Mapillainayakanpatti
79.162778 79.206944 79.141111 79.206944 79.135998 79.239722 79.185833 79.262500 79.158611 79.184167 79.207500 79.203056 79.095000 79.091850 79.124333 79.08365 79.040606 79.047007 77.920556 77.982778 77.814831 77.904444 77.870278 77.816389 77.723889 77.622100 77.675556 77.711111 79.087247
10.975278 11.160000 11.160000 11.146944 10.979778 11.033611 11.168889 11.024167 11.261111 11.113889 11.123333 11.160556 10.761389 10.728300 10.702500 10.703133 10.635999 10.649990 9.776667 9.740833 9.888381 9.780556 9.413333 9.503611 8.868889 9.004067 9.811944 9.800000 10.719167
Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Thanjavur Thanjavur Thanjavur Thanjavur Thanjavur Pudukkottai Madurai Virudunagar Madurai Madurai Virudunagar Virudunagar Thirunelveli Thirunelveli Madurai Madurai Thanjavur
Middle Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Lower & Middle Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Heavy-duty Component of Microlithic Context Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Heavy-duty Component of Microlithic Context Heavy-duty Component of Microlithic Context Palaeolithic
Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Selvakumar 2009 Selvakumar 2007a,b Foote 1916 Selvakumar 2007a,b Selvakumar 2009 Selvakumar 2007a,b Raman 1970 Raman 1970 Selvakumar 1996a,b Selvakumar 1996a,b Balachandran Pers. Comm. Balachandran Pers. Comm. Rajan et al. 2009 Selvakumar 2010 Selvakumar 1996a,b Selvakumar 1996a,b Selvakumar 2007a,b
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
No.
Table 2 Lithic Artefacts from the Palaeolithic Sites of Southern Tamil Nadu: Frequency Distribution of Artefact Types. Blade
Borer
Point
Bifaces
Knife
Hammer Stone
Blade Core
Chip
Nodule
Possible Tool
Crystal/Pebble
Chunks
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scraper 1 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0
Chopper 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Modified Flake 0 2 2 3 3 5 0 2 6 3 1 2 1 2 0 4
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Flake Core 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 1 1 1 6 5 0 1
Simple Flake 0 2 7 7 1 5 9 0 4 2 0 5 4 4 1 7
0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 2 5 13 12 16 23 17 6 11 8 11 11 20 12 3 13
Total
1
2
1
12
12
5
1
36
7
1
22
58
6
6
4
4
5
183
Table 3 Lithic Artefacts from the Palaeolithic Sites of Southern Tamil Nadu: Frequency Distribution of Raw Material. Site Name T. Pudupatti II T. Pudupatti I T. Pudupatti III Tottiyapatti III Vittilpatti I Vittilpatti II Vittilpatti III Vittilpatti IV Vittilpatti V Vittilpatti VI Tirukkanurpatti I Tirukkanurpatti II Pillayarpatti I Tettuvasalpatti Manojipatti II Manojipatti I Total
Quartz
Brecciated Cherty Quartzite
Chert
Gneiss
Total
0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 6 6 0 0
2 2 7 8 13 19 12 6 10 5 8 7 14 6 3 13
0 2 0 0 3 4 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
2 5 13 12 16 23 17 6 11 8 11 11 20 12 3 13
29
135
17
2
183
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Site T. Pudupatti I T. Pudupatti II T. Pudupatti III Tottiyapatti III Vittilpatti I Vittilpatti II Vittilpatti III Vittilpatti IV Vittilpatti V Vittilpatti VI Tirukkanurpatti I Tirukkanurpatti II Pillayarpatti I Tettuvasalpatti Manojipatti II Manojipatti I
81
82
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Table 4 Lithic Artefacts from the Palaeolithic Sites of Southern Tamil Nadu: Frequency Distribution of Raw Material. Count Brecciated Chert Quartz Chert Gneiss
135 29 17 2
Total
183
Percentage (%) 73.77 15.84 9.28 1.09 100%
Fig. 5. Palaeolithic Artefacts from Pillayarpatti and Thirukkanurpatti.
Fig. 7. Palaeolithic Artefacts from Pillayarpatti.
erosional and other natural activities would have buried the sites, if they existed.
and hammer stones made on cobbles, pebbles and flakes are found at these sites (Figs.5e11). A few fragmentary artefacts resembling bifaces have been reported from the sites of the Vallam table-land in the Thanjavur region. These artefacts are not on par with the specimens from Attirampakkam in terms of their finishing. Probably, this particular nature of the artefacts forced Foote (1916) to comment on the palaeoliths from this region as “poor specimens of Palaeolithic material made of very inferior material”. What could be the reason for the differences between the Palaeolithic artefacts from Thanjavur and Chennai region? Is it cultural, or chronological or both? To the south of Thanjavur, no biface-like artefacts have been found. The possibility of some of these artefacts belonging to Lower Palaeolithic cannot be ruled out. The true context of these large artefacts needs to be established through detailed research. The assemblage from the secured stratigraphic context at Pillayarpatti has generally medium-sized artefacts, and overall shows the characteristics of Middle or Upper Palaeolithic with a higher frequency of scrapers and points. Perhaps the typology dominated by scrapers and the larger tool size influenced Raman’s classification of similar artefacts from Madurai region as Middle Palaeolithic (Raman, 1970). At a few sites, the heavy-duty artefacts, especially from the Upper Gundar Basin, are from mixed, disturbed contexts and are found along with microliths. Detailed analysis of the lithic assemblage is being undertaken. One hundred and eighty three artefacts were randomly collected from six sites. Finished implements form about 18 percent of the collection, modified artefacts are about 23%, and more than 50% of the artefacts are debitage. Brecciated cherty quartzite forms the bulk of the raw material (77%), and quartz is about 15%.
5. Lithic industry The Palaeolithic industry of southern Tamil Nadu has large tools of brecciated cherty quartzite, and quartz artefacts made on cores as well as flakes (Tables 2e4). Only a preliminary analysis of the lithic artefacts is presented here. Borers, points, scrapers, choppers
Fig. 6. Palaeolithic Cores from Kadavarayanpatti: Photo by S Gowrishankar.
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
83
Fig. 8. Heavy-duty Artefacts from the Upper Gundar Basin.
6. Discussion and conclusions The findings from the archaeological surface surveys in southern Tamil Nadu and the excavations at Pillayarpatti clearly suggest that pre-Mesolithic (Pre-Iron Age Holocene Microlithic) industries are well represented in this region. The Vallam plateau (ca. 20 m above the Kaviri delta surface, Zone B) has preserved stratigraphic evidence for the existence of a pre-microlithic “Palaeolithic” industry in gravelly facies within ferricrete. The reasons for the limited frequencies of the Palaeolithic sites and artefacts in southern Tamil Nadu appear to be their buried nature, especially in the red soil sediments. A few larger fresh artefacts are found in surface context at Pillayarpatti. The Palaeolithic artefacts from the buried layers of the Pillayarpatti trench PPT II, at a distance of 20 m in the same locality, are slightly rolled. Did the larger artefacts come to the surface from
a different early Palaeolithic horizon due to post-depositional disturbances? Were they used in a later context also? These issues needs to be researched further. In the case of surface sites with heavy-duty artefacts, especially from Zone C, the Upper Gundar Basin, it is difficult to establish the true context of the assemblages. Earlier, the first author had argued the possibility of the heavy-duty artefacts from surface contexts at T. Pudupatti, Tottiyapatti and other sites in the Upper Gundar Basin as belonging to the Mesolithic context (Holocene Microlithic) (Selvakumar 1996a), due to their association with microliths and the absence of stratigraphic evidence. The recent excavations at Pillayarapatti have suggested the possibility that what was earlier classified as the functionally distinct heavy-duty component of the Mesolithic (Holocene Microlithic) could be a temporally, culturally distinct industry from that of the Mesolithic (Holocene Microlithic) industries. Surface evidence is unreliable, and only stratigraphic
84
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Fig. 9. Heavy-duty Artefacts from the Upper Gundar Basin.
evidence could shed clear light on this issue. A reanalysis of the assemblages from Gundar and a comparative study with the heavyduty artefacts recovered from stratified contexts will probably throw more light. The current research and the consideration of the formation processes of the archaeological record suggest the complex nature of the archaeological sites and the assemblages therein. In the absence of stratigraphic evidence, there is always a risk of attributing a functionally distinct assemblage to a distinct cultural period. Similarly, one could collect the larger artefacts from a microlithic site and create a Palaeolithic assemblage. Most of the sites in the Upper Gundar Basin seem to be palimpsests, comprising evidence for several cultural periods. It is possible that the assemblages at many of the sites are highly mixed, perhaps due to erosional processes. Southern Tamil Nadu is generally a low-energy environment as it has limited rainwater catchment area compared to the northern part of Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka and Andhra regions. In addition, this region lies in the rain shadow area of southwest monsoon. Due to these factors, the chronological resolution of the assemblages is very poor in this region, and the sites with heavy-duty artefacts that have been reported in the higher altitudes in the Zones C and D are surface sites, perhaps exposed due to erosional processes. Only further research can help to establish the true nature of the sites with heavy-duty artefacts in the Upper Gundar basin. Therefore, the context of the ‘heavy-duty tools’ should be considered with caution, considering the complex nature of the prehistoric archaeological record of this region. In view of the proximity, it is worth considering the prehistoric evidence from Sri Lanka. Compared to southern Tamil Nadu, Sri Lanka has produced significant evidence for human occupation in the late Pleistocene (Deraniyagala, 2007). During the last one million years India and Sri Lanka were connected several times by land bridges, and the last land link is reported to have existed before 7000 BP (Deraniyagala, 1992: 167). Deraniyagala observes that the first migrants reached Sri Lanka at least one million years ago. In that case, one can definitely expect sites as old as those
in Sri Lanka in southern part of Tamil Nadu. As argued by Deraniyagala (1998), the prehistory of Sri Lanka cannot be viewed in isolation, considering the frequent sea level oscillations and the proximity of India and Sri Lanka. Thanjavur is only w200 km from the Iranamadu formations of Sri Lanka, much closer than the Chennai region. The excavated Middle Palaeolithic site of Bundala in Sri Lanka is dated to ca. 125,000 BP. Based on Sri Lankan evidence, it could be proposed that the Palaeolithic occupation in southern Tamil Nadu could be old as the sites of Sri Lanka if not earlier. Further research is required to establish the precise chronology of the sites from southern Tamil Nadu. Based on stratigraphic context, as revealed by the Pillayarpatti excavations and the exposure at Thirukanurpatti, it can be argued that the Palaeolithic context is distinct from the microlithic industry and predates it. Perhaps the size of the artefacts and their contexts and his experience in studying the artefacts of Madras region would have prompted Foote (1916) to label the artefacts from Vengurayan kudikkadu as Palaeolithic. The industry represented at Pillayarpatti in stratigraphic context is hypothesised as belonging to the later part of the Late Pleistocene based on typo-technology and also its association with ferricretised fluvial sediments and the characteristics of the assemblage. Further investigations could help in testing this hypothesis and to date the sites of this region accurately. Based on the isolated finds of artifacts (cf Rajan and Ramji, 2009), it could be argued that there exists Lower Palaeolithic industry in this region. The recent investigations by Pappu et al. (2011) have placed the Palaeolithic site of Attirampakkam before 1 Ma. If Palaeolithic groups lived around Chennai around 1 Ma, they could have definitely moved into this region. Some of the isolated artefacts from southern Tamil Nadu could belong to the Lower Palaeolithic, but this possibility needs to be explored and researched further. The upper secondary ferricrete zone has about 1e1.5 m of deposits that could hold the key for Palaeolithic
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
85
Fig. 10. Artefacts from Pillayarpatti Excavation: Photo by Thangadurai.
occupation in this region. There might be some contexts that could help us establish the stratigraphic evidence for Lower Palaeolithic culture in this region. In conclusion, Palaeolithic industries exist in the southern part of Tamil Nadu. More detailed explorations, research into the typotechnology, and radiometric dates are essential to sub-classify the Palaeolithic industries, and to establish if Lower Palaeolithic culture existed in this region.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the University Grants Commission and the Archaeological Survey of India for the financial support, Mr. S. Gowrishankar, Project Fellow, UGC Major Project for the assistance during the fieldwork, and the referees of this paper and S. Darsana for suggestions on the manuscript.
References
Fig. 11. Frequency Distribution of Raw Material.
Aiyappan, A., 1944. Mesolithic artifacts from Sawyerpuram in Tinnevelly district, south India. Spolia Zeylanica 24 (2), 145e154. Alappat, L., Tsukamoto, S., Singh, P., Srikanth, D., Ramesh, R., Freche, M., 2010. Chronology of Cauvery delta sediments from shallow subsurface cores using elevated-temperature post-Ir Irsl dating of feldspar. Geochronometria 37, 37e47. Blanford, H.F., 1865. On the Cretaceous and other rocks of south Arcot, and Trichinopoly districts, Madras. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India 4, 1e217. Deraniyagala, S.U., 1992. The Prehistory of Sri Lanka, pts. I, II. Archaeological Survey Department, Colombo. Deraniyagala, S.U., 1998. Pre- and Protohistoric Settlement in Sri Lanka. International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. In: Proceedings of the Xiii Congress Forli’ e Italia e 8e14 September, 1996, vol. 5/section 16. BACO, Forli, Italy, pp. 277e285 (The prehistory of Asia and Oceania). Deraniyagala, S.U., 2007. The prehistory and protohistory of Sri Lanka. In: Prematilake, L., Bandaranayake, S., Deraniyagala, S.U., Silva, R. (Eds.), The Art and Archaeology of Sri Lanka. Central Cultural Fund, Colombo, pp. 1e96. Foote, R.B., 1868. On the distribution of stone implements in southern India. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 24, 484e495. Foote, R.B., 1916. The Foote Collection of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities. Notes on their Ages and Distribution. Madras: Government Museum. Leela Devi Publications, Delhi. Reprint 1979.
86
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Gardner, R.A.M., Martingell, H., 1990. Microlithic sites and their palaeoenvironmental setting, southeast India: a Reevaluation. Geoarchaeology 5, 1e13. Gojda, M., 2004. Landscape Archaeology. Eolss Publishers. Nagaraja Rao, M.S., 1971. ProtoHistoric Cultures of the Tungabhadra Valley (A Report on Hallur Excavations). Dharwar. Oliver, C.D., Hetu, C.S., 2008. The High Deccan duricrusts of India and their significance for the laterite issue. Journal of Earth System Science 117, 537e551. Pappu, S., 1996. Reinvestigation of the prehistoric archaeological record in the Kortallayar basin, Tamil Nadu. Man and Environment 20, 1e23. Pappu, S., 2001. A Re-examination of the Palaeolithic archaeological Record of Northern Tamil Nadu, South India British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1003. Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Akhilesh, K., Braucher, R., Taieb, M., Demory, F., Thouveny, N., 2011. Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian Hominins in south India. Science 331, 1596e1599. Rajan, K., 2003. Archaeology of the Pudukottai region Tamil Nadu. Man and Environment 28, 41e56. Rajan, K., Ramji, M.S., 2009. Palaeolithic sites in Kaviri River Valley of Ariyalur region, Tamil Nadu. Man and Environment 34, 1e10. Rajan, K., Yathees Kumar, V.P., Selvakumar, S., 2009. Catalogue of Archaeological Sites in Tamil Nadu, vol. 1. Heritage India Trust, Thanjavur. Rajendran, P., 1989. Prehistory and Environment in Kerala. Thiruvanathapuram. Raman, K.V., 1970. Distribution pattern of cultural traits in the pre and Protohistoric times of Madurai region. Aaraichi 1, 499e509. Sarma, A., 1978. The Paleoecology of Coastal Tamilnadu, South India: chronology of raised beaches. In: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 122, pp. 411e426. Satyamurthy, T., 1990. Excavations at Mangadu. Kerala State Archaeology Department, Thiruvanathapuram. Selvakumar, V., 1996a. Archaeological investigations in the upper Gundar basin, Madurai district, Tamil Nadu. Man and Environment 21 (2), 27e42. Selvakumar, V., 1996b. Investigations into the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cultures of the Upper Gundar Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Poona, University of Poona.
Selvakumar, V., 2001a. Mesolithic Adaptation Patterns of the Mesolithic HuntereGatherers of the Upper Gundar Basin, Tamil Nadu. Report of Post-Doctoral Research submitted to ICHR. Selvakumar, V., 2001b. Culture and chronology of lithic industries from southern Tamil Nadu. In: Rajagopal, S. (Ed.), Kaviri-studies in Epigraphy, Archaeology and History. Panpattu Veliyittakam, Chennai, pp. 256e266. Selvakumar, V., 2007a. Kaverippadugaiyil tholliyal kandupidippukal. Avanam 18, 139e140 (in Tamil). Selvakumar, V., 2007b. Archaeology of the Lower Kaviri Delta, on the East Coast of Tamil Nadu: Early Historic Settlement System A Report Submitted to the Nehru Trust for the Indian Collections at the Victoria and Albert Museum, New Delhi. Selvakumar, V., 2008a. Kaverippadugaiyil puthiya tholliyal aayvugal 2007e08. Avanam 19, 156e158 (in Tamil). Selvakumar, V., 2008b. Archaeological research in Thanjavur and Pudukkottai regions: a report of the explorations in 2008. Tamil Civilization 19, 128e134. Selvakumar, 2009. Archaeological research in Thanjavur and Pudukkottai regions: a report of the explorations. Tamil Civilization 19, 24e35. Selvakumar, V., 2010a. Pillayarpatti (Thanjavur) Akazhaayvukal. Paper Presented at the World Classical Tamil Conference, June 23e27, 2010, Coimbatore, India. (in Tamil). Selvakumar, V., 2010b. Thamizhip Palkalai Valaagatthil Akazhaayvu. Avanam 21, 158e160 (in Tamil). SIPR, n.d., State Industrial Profile Report of Tamil Nadu. Sridharan, K., 1978. Tanjore microliths. In: Nagaswamy, R. (Ed.), South Indian Studies, vol. 1. SAHER, Chennai, pp. 126e127. Subramanian, T.N., Selvan, T.A., 2001. Geology of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. Geological Society of India, Bangalore. Vedachalam, V., Sethuraman, G., Krishnan, Madhuca, 2000. Virudunagar District. An Archaeological Source Book, Sivakasi. Wandsnider, L., Dooley, M.A., 2004. Landscape Approaches to Regional Archaeological Variation Abstract, 69th Annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal, April 2004. Zeuner, F.E., Allchin, B., 1956. The microlithic sites of Tinnevelly district, Madras state. Ancient India 12, 4e20.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Palaeolithic occupation of southern Tamil Nadu, India: New evidence from south of the river Kaveri V. Selvakumar a, *, S.N. Rajaguru b, Richa Jhaldiyal c a
Department of Epigraphy and Archaeology, Tamil University, Thanjavur 613010, Tamil Nadu, India Kamal Sudha Apartments, 567 Narayanpeth, Pune 411030, India c Department of Anthropology, 4034 Smith Laboratory, 174 West 18th Avenue, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1106, USA b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 10 August 2011
Research on the prehistory of the terminal zone of South Asia (south of 13 N) has been limited to the areas around Chennai/Madras and the Pamban Coast, located, respectively in the northeastern and southeastern parts of the state of Tamil Nadu; a few areas of Kerala, and Sri Lanka. However, the southern part of Tamil Nadu has remained poorly investigated, except for the Upper Gundar Basin. Archaeological research conducted from 2006 to 2010 by the first author revealed a few Palaeolithic and several microlithic sites in southern part of Tamil Nadu. The authors jointly reinvestigated some of these sites in Thanjavur and Nagapattinam regions in order to understand the geological and cultural contexts of the sites and artefacts. Archaeological excavations at Pillayarpatti, one of the sites in Thanjavur region, undertaken in 2009 and 2010 revealed evidence for the Palaeolithic culture in a stratigraphic context. This paper presents a survey of the context and significance of the recent Palaeolithic finds from southern Tamil Nadu. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Recent investigations in the region situated to the south of the river Kaveri, in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, India have brought to light new evidence for Palaeolithic occupation. The southern-most evidence for well-investigated Palaeolithic culture in south India comes from Chennai/Madras region (Pappu, 1996; Pappu et al. 2011), in the northern part of Tamil Nadu. Understanding of the Palaeolithic history of this area is minimal. This is largely because of the poor visibility of the prehistoric sites and the lack of focused investigations. Research on the prehistory of the terminal zone of South Asia (south of 13 N) has been limited to a few enclaves such as the Chennai region (Foote, 1916; Pappu, 2001) and the Pamban Coast (Zeuner and Allchin, 1956; Gardner and Martingell, 1990), located, respectively, in the northeastern and southeastern parts of Tamil Nadu; a few areas of Kerala (Rajendran, 1989), and Sri Lanka (Deraniyagala, 1992, 1998, 2007). Except for the Upper Gundar Basin (Selvakumar 1996a, 1996b,
* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Selvakumar), [email protected] (R. Jhaldiyal). 1040-6182/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.06.012
2001a, 2001b), the southern part of Tamil Nadu has remained poorly investigated. Archaeological research carried out from 2006 to 2010 by the first author led to the discovery of a few Palaeolithic and several microlithic sites in different geographic zones of southern Tamil Nadu (Selvakumar 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b). The authors of this paper jointly reinvestigated a few of these sites in Thanjavur and Nagapattinam regions in order to understand the geological and cultural contexts of the prehistoric sites. Subsequently, archaeological excavations were also conducted at Pillayarpatti, in the Thanjavur region, in 2009 and 2010 (Selvakumar 2009, 2010a, 2010b). Most significantly, these excavations exposed evidence for the Palaeolithic occupation in a stratified context. This paper presents a survey of the context and significance of the recent Palaeolithic finds as well as those reported earlier from southern Tamil Nadu. More detailed research on the geological contexts of the sites and typo-technological analysis of the artefacts is necessary to establish the true character of the Palaeolithic sites of southern Tamil Nadu. At present, these sites are considered as Palaeolithic. The first author is of the view that some of these sites represent the later phases of the Palaeolithic cultures, comparable to the Middle or Upper Palaeolithic cultures. A few of the artefacts from
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
surface contexts show similarities to the Lower Palaeolithic Acheulian bifaces, but their true context is uncertain. The possibility for the presence of Lower Palaeolithic evidence in this region needs to be further investigated.
2. Environmental background of the study area Southern Tamil Nadu is defined here as the area south of the river Kaviri (Kaviri or Kavery or Cauvery) (roughly south of 11500 N.), and north of Kanniyakumari and east of the Western Ghats (east of 77 E), and west of the Bay of Bengal (west of 79 500 E Fig. 1). This region is drained by the Kaveri, Vaigai and Tamirabarani rivers, which are major rivers and have their origins in the Western Ghats or its spurs, and flow towards the east-southeast to the Bay of Bengal. In addition, there are many dry, seasonal rivers, such as the Vellar, Agniyar, Gundar and Vaippar, draining the areas situated between these major rivers. The eastern plains of Tamil Nadu, located to the east of the Western Ghats, gently slope towards the southeast. A few mountain masses, which are extensions of the Western Ghats, and several isolated hillocks (inselbergs) lie in the intermediate and western parts of southern Tamil Nadu, around Madurai, Pudukkottai, Dindugal and Thiruchirappally. The coastal area, varying between about 50 and 150 km from the Bay of Bengal, is devoid of hillocks. The Palani group of hills around Dindugal is a major mountain mass. A few spurs of hillocks such as the Nagamalai (9 570 200 N; 78 10000 E), the Azhagarmalai (10 704300 N; 78 140 3400 E), the Yanaimalai (10 00 5100 N; 78 150 4600 E), the Sirumalai (10130 900 N; 78 00 5900 E), and the Varushanadu-Andipatti hills (9 400 1500 N; 77 280 4400 E and 9 550 5600 N; 77400 4500 E) stand prominently around Madurai region, in addition to many smaller hillocks. From a landscape archaeology perspective, some of these hillocks are very significant landmarks, and would have offered plant, animal and water resources, and shelter as well as vantage point facilities for prehistoric groups.
75
Most parts of southern Tamil Nadu plains enjoy tropical subhumid climates, with the summer temperature varying between 28 C and 40 C, and the winter temperature between 18 C and 26 C (SIPR, n.d.). The higher altitudes of the Western Ghats and the Palani (Pazhani) hills enjoy pleasant weather almost throughout the year. The hill station of Kodaikkanal has temperatures ranging between 8 C and 17 C in winter, and 11 C and 20 C in summer. The average annual rainfall varies between 800 and 900 mm in the dry hinterland region to 1200 mm in the Kaveri delta region. The hill regions including Kodaikkanal and Kanniyakumari, which lie on the west of the Western Ghats, receive higher annual rainfall of over 1500 mm. Migmatite gneisses, Granulites and Closepet Granitoid and other intrusive elements are found south of the Palghat Gap-Kaveri shear. Peninsular gneisses occur north of the river Kaveri (Fig. 2) (Subramanian and Selvan, 2001). Alluvial and coastal sediments of recent origin are found in the coastal and deltaic regions. Mesozoic-Palaeogene sediments consisting of Cuddalore Sandstone series-ferricrete formations capped by red soil occur along the Thanjavur-Pudukkottai-Sivagangai-Ramanathapuram-Thirunelveli Axis. In this text the term ferricrete is used instead of laterite to refer to the iron rich soil-sediment cemented by ferruginous matter (Oliver and Hetu, 2008). 3. Previous research As in the case of other parts of South India, it was Robert Bruce Foote who first discovered prehistoric sites in this region in the second half of the 19th century. The ferricrete belt from Thanjavur to Ongole was examined by Blanford (1865), Charles Oldham, King and Robert Bruce Foote (Foote, 1868: 486). Foote reported “palaeoliths washed out of a laterite deposit” at Vengurayan Kudikkadu (‘Vanganum Kudi kad’ according to Foote (1916: 54)). He collected only two specimens from this site. One of them was a “large scraper” and the other was “rather rudely made.” He reports that “I would rather regard them as exceptionally poor specimens of the Palaeolithic types made of very inferior material.” He also noticed
Fig. 1. Map Showing the Study Area, Southern Part of Tamil Nadu.
76
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Fig. 2. Geological Map of Southern Tamil Nadu (After Geological Survey of India).
microlithic sites on the red coastal sand dunes (Teris) near Thirunelveli, and a few other locations in southern Tamil Nadu (Foote, 1916; Selvakumar, 1996a, 1996b). Tottenham brought to light a few Stone Age artefacts at Rangiyam in Pudukkottai district, in the nineteenth century (Rajan, 2003). The Teri microlithic sites have received better academic attention than other sites (Aiyappan, 1944; Zeuner and Allchin, 1956; Gardner and Martingell, 1990). Raman (1970) reported Middle Palaeolithic artefacts at T. Puduppatti and Sivarakkottai in Madurai district. Akkaraju Sarma surveyed the coastal region for sea level changes and uncovered microlithic sites at Budalur southwest of Thanjavur (Sarma, 1978). Sridharan (1978) explored the Thanjavur region and identified microliths around Vallam near Thanjavur. Vedachalam et al. (2000) and Balachandran have also reported a few microlithic sites in southern Tamil Nadu. In the 1990s, the first author identified heavy-duty artefacts at Tottiyappatti and Perumalkoilpatti comparable to the Middle Palaeolithic artefacts reported by Raman at T. Puduppatti and Sivarakkottai in the Upper Gundar basin (Selvakumar 1996a, 1996b, 2001a, 2001b). However, due to their association with microliths, limited frequency, absence of stratigraphic evidence and surface nature of the sites, the author suggested that these heavy-duty artefacts could have been used along with the microlithic artefacts in the early Holocene Microlithic context. Balachandran (personal communication, 2005) collected a few large tools suspected to be Palaeoliths at Chettimadam, Athiveeranpatti and Chinnakamanpatti, and microliths at several sites in the Arjuna river basin of Virudunagar district. Recent surveys by Rajan and Ramji (2009) have brought to light Palaeolithic and Microlithic sites on the northern side of the Kaveri River around Ariyalur. Prasanna (Rajan et al. 2009) has reported a possible Palaeolithic site in Thirunelveli. In the neighbouring state of Kerala, a few Palaeolithic finds have come to light (Rajendran, 1989); and copious evidence for Middle Palaeolithic, and Late Pleistocene microlithic use has come from Ratnapura beds and the Iranamadu formations in Sri Lanka (Deraniyagala, 1992, 1998, 2007:
1e3). The sporadic finds from southern Tamil Nadu and their stratigraphic contexts, and the evidence from and the early dates available from Sri Lanka, suggest the possibility that southern Tamil Nadu has evidence for Pre-Holocene human occupation. Overall the Palaeolithic sites are not many in this region and the detailed studies are lacking on the typo-technology of the Palaeolithic artefacts. Against this background, the current research is being undertaken as part of the University Grants Commission’s research project titled “Landscape Archaeology of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Cultures of Southern Tamil Nadu.” The long-term goal of this research is to focus on the adaptation patterns of the Palaeolithic and Pre-Iron Age Holocene Microlithic cultures of southern Tamil Nadu from “landscape archaeological” perspectives. The methods of landscape archaeology differ according to the space-time-culture contexts, and the theoretical (Processual or post-Processual) perspectives. A landscape archaeological study of a historical context, aided by textual sources, would be much different from that of the prehistoric context. Cultural perception and construction of landscapes could be reconstructed for the historical periods. In prehistoric context, it serves as an alternate to settlement archaeology (Wandsnider and Dooley, 2004; Gojda, 2004). The concept of landscape archaeology is used as an alternative to settlement archaeology in the current research project. This paper confines itself to a preliminary survey of the Palaeolithic evidence from southern Tamil Nadu. The research method included surface surveys of the expos ed and disturbed surfaces, stream sections to identify the prehistoric sites, which are mostly buried in this region, and their contexts. Artefact clusters and off-sites were documented using GPS, and mapping of sites was undertaken at certain sites which are relatively better preserved such as Pillayarpatti. Sites with single artefact were plotted; plotting of artefacts from gridded area has been done at Pillayarpatti. In other sites, artefacts were collected to the precision of 10 m 10 m grids. Isolated artefacts and small clusters were plotted using GPS.
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
77
Fig. 3. Distribution of Possible Palaeolithic Sites in Southern Tamil Nadu.
4. Palaeolithic sites of southern Tamil Nadu The prehistoric site contexts of southern Tamil Nadu can be classified into distinct geographic zones (Fig. 3). They are: Zone A, the coastal (ca. 5 km from the modern coastline) and deltaic zone; Zone B, the ferricrete/lateritic zone along the ThanjavurPudukkottai-Sivagangai-Sangarankovil Axis mostly characterized by Cuddalore Sandstone formations; Zone C, the intermediate tract located to the west of the Ferricrete Zone, covered with black soil to the south of Madurai; Zone D, the piedmont region, the areas adjacent to the Western Ghats and its spurs (up to ca. 50 km from the mountains); and Zone E, the forested, mountainous region of the Western Ghats and its spurs. Considering the comparatively lower sea levels during the Late Pleistocene, it would be appropriate to suggest a submerged underwater context (Zone F) adjacent to the east coast of India. Surveys have revealed microlithic sites in all five zones, but Palaeolithic artefacts have been reported only from Zones B, C and D. No underwater investigations have been undertaken to identify any prehistoric site in Zone F. 4.1. Zone A. Coastal and deltaic Zone A covers the coastal area situated within 5 km from the modern coastline, and the river deltas, and it has mostly alluvial and littoral sediments. This area must have been geomorphologically dynamic during the Pleistocene due to sea level fluctuations, and the associated shore-line changes and the deposition of alluvium by the rivers, and as a result, Palaeolithic contexts here, if at all they existed, would have been disturbed or buried or eroded away or submerged under the sea. In this zone, only microlithic artefacts have been found from Vazhmangalam, Thirumalairayanpattinam, M. Panangudy, Poigainallur and Thiruppoondi (Selvakumar, 2009), in the Lower Kaveri delta. Based on the available sedimentological studies on the Kaveri delta region, these microlithic sites could be placed in the Holocene (Alappat et al., 2010: 46). The most important prehistoric occupation of this zone comes from the microlithic sites of
the Teri sand dunes on the Pamban coast (Aiyappan, 1944; Zeuner and Allchin, 1956; Gardner and Martingell, 1990).
4.2. Zone B. Ferricrete/lateritic The ferricrete zone located in the eastern part of Tamil Nadu has better preservation of prehistoric sites, including Palaeolithic and Early Holocene Microlithic, than does Zone A. South of the river Kaveri, this zone extends from (Vallam Table-land) Thanjavur to Thirunelveli region along the Thanjavur-Pudukkottai-SivagangaiSangarankovil Axis for over 300 km. The stratigraphic context of the sites all along this region appears to be more or less identical. The three major sedimentary contexts were identified above the Cuddalore sandstone formations that form the underlying geology in this region. Layer 4 e Cuddalore sandstone. Layer 3 e Ferricrete: overlying the Cuddalore sandstones is a layer of hard, compact ferricrete with several sub-layers, containing Palaeolithic artefacts. Layer 2 e Loose ferricrete rubble: derived from weathering and re-deposition of the compact ferricrete. The ferricrete rubble on is mixed with red soil sediment, the amount of which varies from location to location. This rubble layer, which has higher concentrations of microliths predominantly made of quartz, is noticed as surface exposures and in streams and dug-out areas. Layer 1 e Red soil: a red soil (oxisol) deposit disconformably overlies layer 2. The oxisol is present in most of the region. Its thickness varies according to the terrain, from 0 cm to w200 cm. Occasional quartz microlithic chips occur on the surface of the red soil, even when there is no major known disturbance to the layers underneath. The red soil deposit itself also has microliths, as revealed by the Pillayarpatti excavations and also from the exposed stream section near Punalkulam. A few of the important sites of the ferricrete zone are discussed below.
78
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Fig. 4. Straigraphy at the Site of Pillayarpatti based on Trench PPT II.
4.2.1. Pillayarpatti Pillayarpatti village lies about eight km west of Thanjavur on the road to Vallam. A stream called vaari or odai (a Tamil term for a stream or nulla, generally the first order or second order streams) clearly exposes artefacts and their contexts here. Excavations undertaken at this village, within the Tamil University Campus, Thanjavur, in 2009 and 2010 have helped establish the precise stratigraphic context of the Palaeolithic artefacts that were earlier found occurring on the surface as well as in various dug-out areas in the Vallam table-land around Thanjavur. Five trenches, PPT I to PPT V, excavated at Pillayarpatti have exposed a stratigraphic sequence almost identical to the one discussed above (Fig. 4). Interestingly, this sequence is structurally somewhat comparable to the Reddish Brown Earth Formations of Sri Lanka and also the Iranamadu formation of coastal region of Sri Lanka, which has aeolian deposits on top (Deraniyagala, 2007: 2e5). Layer 1 covers most of this area and consists of reddish silty sand with oxic soil development, which is indicated by the development of prismatic peds and the presence of ferruginous pellets of pedogenic origin. At PPT I and PPT III, Layer 1 measured about 70e110 cm in thickness, and yielded a few microliths and occasional black-and-red ware pottery of the Iron Age-Early Historic period. In 2010, a polished triangular stone axe (celt) was also encountered at a depth of 70 cm from the surface in a possible Iron Age context. Similar axes (celts) were used in South India from the Neolithic period onwards. From this evidence, it appears that the oxisol layer could be tentatively dated to later than ca. 3000 BP, based on the radiocarbon dates available for the Iron Age sites in South India (Nagaraja Rao, 1971; Satyamurthy, 1990). However, this chronology needs to be substantiated by radiocarbon dates. The Pillayarpatti evidence suggests the continued use of microliths along with black-and-red ware in the Iron Age context, which has been established in several other sites in southern Tamil Nadu (Selvakumar 2001a). Layer 2 is slightly compact ferricrete rubble with blocks and pebbles of quartz and cherty quartzite of ca. 30 cm in thickness that produced abundant microliths, including geometric specimens. The rubble is moderately consolidated in a ferruginous silty matrix. The chronology of this layer could be tentatively placed at least in the Early or Mid-Holocene, based on the absence of ceramics, and the presence of Iron Age black-and-red ware datable to post 3000 years BP in the overlying oxisol layer. Underneath this layer is a nearly sterile, highly compact, hard ferricrete (duricrust) layer (3) of about 30 cm. Occasional quartz
flakes were noticed with rare occurrence of quartz chips. No ceramic evidence was found here. Layer 4 at this site is a pebble-gravel, rich in quartz lithoclasts and a few of cherty quartzite, well cemented by ferruginous material. This layer, which is about 20 cm thick, produced relatively larger artefacts than the microliths. The artefacts include cores, points, scrapers, flakes, and chips ascribable to the later phases of Palaeolithic. The artefacts display a tendency towards microlithization. The pebbles from the deposit itself seem to have been used as raw material for making the artefacts. The tools appear abraded which suggests some degree of movement. Both brecciated cherty quartzite and quartz were used as raw material at this site. Layers 3 and 4 show the most important ferricretised contexts, with various phases of weathering, erosion and deposition. Further excavations, about 30 cm beneath, revealed a ferricrete layer without any artefact or other lithoclasts (Layer 4). The thickness of this layer is not clear, as it has not been excavated. From the areas nearby the site, it appears that Cuddalore Sandstone formations (Layer 6) of Miocene age occur beneath this layer. No scientific dating is currently available for Pillayarpatti. Sediment samples have been sent to Durham University, UK for OSL dating and the results are awaited. The excavations at Pillayarpatti clearly suggest the presence of Palaeolithic artefacts in a premicrolithic context, which could be definitely dateable to PreHolocene Age. 4.2.2. Manojipatti Manojipatti, ca. five km west of Thanjavur town, lies close to the northeastern edge of the Vallam table-land which slopes towards southwestern edge of the Kaveri delta, which begins about 1 km to the north. Artefacts are exposed here due to the trenches dug for the lay-out for a new residential area. The stratigraphy is very similar to what has been reported at other sites in the Vallam table-land. The dug-out material consists of very large blocks of brecciated cherty quartzite, pebbly cobbly-gravel of mostly gneiss and ferricrete. At this site, ferricrete does not occur in the form of a continuous bed, but appears to have undergone weathering. The overlying red soil layer is not very well preserved. As this site lies closer to the edge of the Kaveri delta, it is possible that erosion towards the edge of delta might have removed overlying sediments. Manojipatti appears to be one of the main raw material procuring sites in this area, and compared to other sites, it has an
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
unusually large number of large-sized heavy-duty artefacts, which is explained by the presence of large natural blocks of brecciated cherty quartzite, which are not often met within the exposed contexts at most sites of this area. The assemblage includes cores, scrapers, flakes, debitage made of brecciated cherty quartzite blocks. Quartz microliths are rare at this site. It needs to be researched to understand if this site belongs to a different techno tradition i.e. the Lower Palaeolithic. 4.2.3. Thirukkanurpatti locality I (Varattukulam) Thirukkanurpatti lies 11 km southwest of Thanjavur on Pudukkottai road, and within a tank called Varattukulam, Palaeolithic artefacts were found at a depth of 3 m from the surface level. At this site the lower-most exposed stratigraphic layer is the ferricrete (duricrust). Heavy-duty artefacts were found embedded (in situ) within the upper part of this ferricrete layer, but no microliths were noticed from the exposed areas. It is possible that the artefacts occurring in the upper part of the ferricrete layer were cemented when weathered ferruginous material was referricretised. Overlying the hard ferricrete is a layer consisting of ferricrete rubble along with microlithic artifacts made of quartz and cherty quartzite. The ferricrete rubble is capped by the red soil horizon. As at Pillayarpatti, this site also suggests that there was Palaeolithic activity on the landscape predating the microliths. A few broken artefacts resembling bifaces were found at this site. This site revealed both microlithic and Palaeolithic artefacts mixed together due to disturbances caused by quarrying. 4.2.4. Punalkulam The site of Punalkulam, which lies 15 km southwest of Thanjavur on the Pudukkottai road, exposes badland topography. This area has poor scrub forest with almost no grass cover, and this has caused intensive erosion. A vaari (seasonal stream) originates west of this village and flows southeast to join the Maharajasamudram River, which meets the Bay of Bengal near Adiramapattinam. The stratigraphy at this site consists of oxisol sediment with well-developed prismatic pedal structure, measuring 1.5 me2 m in thickness. It overlies a ca. 5 cm thick weathered ferricrete rubble exposed in erosion with a large amount of quartz chips, flakes, cores and hammer stones. Some of the flakes have derived from red soil deposit, and the soil erosion brings the microliths to the ferricrete horizon. Underneath the rubble is a mottled greyish clay deposit, which is probably a saprolitic horizon of the ferricrete. This mottled greyish clay is not found at Pillayarpatti and Thirukkanurpatti, which are located away from the major stream present at Punalkulam. This horizon is highly clayey and is exposed to about 1.5 m. The total thickness and the underlying geology are unknown, as no section is available for inspection. An important feature here is the concentration of large quantities of quartz flakes within the weathered ferricrete rubble and the occurrence of stray microlithic quartz chips from the red soil above. From the eroded surface, mostly microliths and a few large artefacts of possible Palaeolithic context were found. Due to the erosional activities of the river, it appears that the context of the artefacts at this site is mixed. 4.2.5. Kadavarayanpatti Kadavarayanpatti lies 17 km southwest of Thanjavur on Pudukkottai road. At this site, artefacts made of brecciated cherty quartzite were brought to the surface while digging a tank. However, no clear-cut section is exposed at this site. In addition to the sites mentioned above, several sites explored in southern Tamil Nadu have produced occasional large-sized artefacts along with microliths. Vannikonendal is a microlithic site located in Thiruneveli district, 31 km northwest of Thiruneveli
79
on the Sangakarankovil road. The geological context of the site is identical to that of the Vallam table-land sites around Thanjavur, and a few large-sized artefacts have been found at this site. The Palaeolithic site of Alavantankulam, reported by Prasanna (Rajan et al. 2009) is located south of Thirunelveli. Here, artefacts were found within a red soil horizon. It is not clear if ferricrete occurs at this site along with the artefacts, since the authors have not inspected the site. From the above survey it is clear that the ferricrete zone (Zone B) sealed by the oxisol has pre-Holocene Microlithic and Palaeolithic evidence in stratified contexts. It appears that this zone certainly has many more sites and further explorations could bring to light more sites in the buried red soil deposit. 4.3. Zone C. Intermediate tract The intermediate tract which lies west of the ferricrete zone and south of Madurai, has a black soil deposit over the Migmatite formations of the Peninsular Gneissic Complex I. This region covers the eastern part of the Upper Gundar Basin. In this zone, the Palaeolithic sites occur as surface scatters along with calcrete nodules in the black soil tract. The sites of T. Pudupatti and Tottiyapatti and Sivarakkottai lie in this zone, which has an elevation of more than 100 m asl. The seasonal streams of this area do not carry much water due to limited rainfall, and as result have not exposed very deep sections for inspection. T. Puduppatti is located 9 km southwest of Thirumangalam and 27 km from Madurai. The river Varattar flows through this site. Sivarakkottai is located east of T. Puduppatti. Raman (1970) identified Middle Palaeolithic artefacts at this site. Exploration did not reveal any significant Palaeolithic finds at Sivarakkottai, but T. Pudupatti yielded evidence for heavy-duty artefacts, and Tottiyappatti, which lies about 1 km southwest of T. Pudupatti on the southern bank of the river Varattar, revealed similar artefacts. The artefacts from these sites were interpreted as probable heavy-duty tool components associated with the microlithic industries of (Holocene Microlithic) Mesolithic context (Table 1). Chinnakkamanpatti lies 8 km southeast of Sivakasi in Virudunagar district in the Vaippar basin. This site has a black soil deposit and also large cherty quartzite blocks. A few large flake tools have been found in surface context. At Athiveeranpatti (9 300 1300 N; 77480 5900 E), Balachandran (personal communication, 2010) has found heavy-duty/Palaeolithic artefacts, and the precise context of the site is not known. 4.4. Zone D. Piedmont region The westernmost locations to produce heavy-duty tools in southern Tamil Nadu are Perumalkovilpatti (9 530 18.1700 N; 77480 53.3900 E), Vittilpatti and T. Krishnapuram, located less than 20 km from the Varushandu-Andipatti hills. This region has not revealed any clear stratigraphic evidence for Palaeolithic contexts. The heavy-duty artefacts are found in surface contexts along with microliths. Excavation at the site of S. Pappinayakkanpatti in this zone has only produced microliths in the red soil lying above the Archaen formations. 4.5. Zone E. Mountainous region Zone E refers to the mountainous regions of the Western Ghats and its branches, situated west of Zone D. A few microlithic sites have been found in this region, such as Vasimalai (Selvakumar, 2001a) and Thandikkudy (Rajan et al., 2009). No evidence for a Palaeolithic phase has been found in this zone. Landslides,
80
Table 1 List of Palaeolithic Sites and Microlithic Sites with Heavy-duty Tool Components. Site Name
Longitude N
Latitude E
District
Cultural Context as reported by the Researchers
Reference
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Aykkal Elakkurichi K. Ambavur Kattur Kavanur Kilakolattur Kilanattam Kilimangalam Muttucanceri Nakkambadi Telur Velankudy Manojipatti Pillayarpatti Vengurayankudikkadu (Vanganamkudikkadu) Thirukkanurpatti Kadavarayanpatti Punalkulam T. Puduppatti Sivarakkottai Perumalkovilpatti Tottiyappatti Chinnakamanpatti Athiveeranpatti Alvanthankulam Vannikonenthal T. Krishnapuram Vittilpatti Mapillainayakanpatti
79.162778 79.206944 79.141111 79.206944 79.135998 79.239722 79.185833 79.262500 79.158611 79.184167 79.207500 79.203056 79.095000 79.091850 79.124333 79.08365 79.040606 79.047007 77.920556 77.982778 77.814831 77.904444 77.870278 77.816389 77.723889 77.622100 77.675556 77.711111 79.087247
10.975278 11.160000 11.160000 11.146944 10.979778 11.033611 11.168889 11.024167 11.261111 11.113889 11.123333 11.160556 10.761389 10.728300 10.702500 10.703133 10.635999 10.649990 9.776667 9.740833 9.888381 9.780556 9.413333 9.503611 8.868889 9.004067 9.811944 9.800000 10.719167
Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Ariyalur Thanjavur Thanjavur Thanjavur Thanjavur Thanjavur Pudukkottai Madurai Virudunagar Madurai Madurai Virudunagar Virudunagar Thirunelveli Thirunelveli Madurai Madurai Thanjavur
Middle Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Lower & Middle Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Heavy-duty Component of Microlithic Context Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Heavy-duty Component of Microlithic Context Heavy-duty Component of Microlithic Context Palaeolithic
Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Rajan and Ramji 2009 Selvakumar 2009 Selvakumar 2007a,b Foote 1916 Selvakumar 2007a,b Selvakumar 2009 Selvakumar 2007a,b Raman 1970 Raman 1970 Selvakumar 1996a,b Selvakumar 1996a,b Balachandran Pers. Comm. Balachandran Pers. Comm. Rajan et al. 2009 Selvakumar 2010 Selvakumar 1996a,b Selvakumar 1996a,b Selvakumar 2007a,b
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
No.
Table 2 Lithic Artefacts from the Palaeolithic Sites of Southern Tamil Nadu: Frequency Distribution of Artefact Types. Blade
Borer
Point
Bifaces
Knife
Hammer Stone
Blade Core
Chip
Nodule
Possible Tool
Crystal/Pebble
Chunks
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scraper 1 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0
Chopper 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Modified Flake 0 2 2 3 3 5 0 2 6 3 1 2 1 2 0 4
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Flake Core 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 1 1 1 6 5 0 1
Simple Flake 0 2 7 7 1 5 9 0 4 2 0 5 4 4 1 7
0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 2 5 13 12 16 23 17 6 11 8 11 11 20 12 3 13
Total
1
2
1
12
12
5
1
36
7
1
22
58
6
6
4
4
5
183
Table 3 Lithic Artefacts from the Palaeolithic Sites of Southern Tamil Nadu: Frequency Distribution of Raw Material. Site Name T. Pudupatti II T. Pudupatti I T. Pudupatti III Tottiyapatti III Vittilpatti I Vittilpatti II Vittilpatti III Vittilpatti IV Vittilpatti V Vittilpatti VI Tirukkanurpatti I Tirukkanurpatti II Pillayarpatti I Tettuvasalpatti Manojipatti II Manojipatti I Total
Quartz
Brecciated Cherty Quartzite
Chert
Gneiss
Total
0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 6 6 0 0
2 2 7 8 13 19 12 6 10 5 8 7 14 6 3 13
0 2 0 0 3 4 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
2 5 13 12 16 23 17 6 11 8 11 11 20 12 3 13
29
135
17
2
183
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Site T. Pudupatti I T. Pudupatti II T. Pudupatti III Tottiyapatti III Vittilpatti I Vittilpatti II Vittilpatti III Vittilpatti IV Vittilpatti V Vittilpatti VI Tirukkanurpatti I Tirukkanurpatti II Pillayarpatti I Tettuvasalpatti Manojipatti II Manojipatti I
81
82
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Table 4 Lithic Artefacts from the Palaeolithic Sites of Southern Tamil Nadu: Frequency Distribution of Raw Material. Count Brecciated Chert Quartz Chert Gneiss
135 29 17 2
Total
183
Percentage (%) 73.77 15.84 9.28 1.09 100%
Fig. 5. Palaeolithic Artefacts from Pillayarpatti and Thirukkanurpatti.
Fig. 7. Palaeolithic Artefacts from Pillayarpatti.
erosional and other natural activities would have buried the sites, if they existed.
and hammer stones made on cobbles, pebbles and flakes are found at these sites (Figs.5e11). A few fragmentary artefacts resembling bifaces have been reported from the sites of the Vallam table-land in the Thanjavur region. These artefacts are not on par with the specimens from Attirampakkam in terms of their finishing. Probably, this particular nature of the artefacts forced Foote (1916) to comment on the palaeoliths from this region as “poor specimens of Palaeolithic material made of very inferior material”. What could be the reason for the differences between the Palaeolithic artefacts from Thanjavur and Chennai region? Is it cultural, or chronological or both? To the south of Thanjavur, no biface-like artefacts have been found. The possibility of some of these artefacts belonging to Lower Palaeolithic cannot be ruled out. The true context of these large artefacts needs to be established through detailed research. The assemblage from the secured stratigraphic context at Pillayarpatti has generally medium-sized artefacts, and overall shows the characteristics of Middle or Upper Palaeolithic with a higher frequency of scrapers and points. Perhaps the typology dominated by scrapers and the larger tool size influenced Raman’s classification of similar artefacts from Madurai region as Middle Palaeolithic (Raman, 1970). At a few sites, the heavy-duty artefacts, especially from the Upper Gundar Basin, are from mixed, disturbed contexts and are found along with microliths. Detailed analysis of the lithic assemblage is being undertaken. One hundred and eighty three artefacts were randomly collected from six sites. Finished implements form about 18 percent of the collection, modified artefacts are about 23%, and more than 50% of the artefacts are debitage. Brecciated cherty quartzite forms the bulk of the raw material (77%), and quartz is about 15%.
5. Lithic industry The Palaeolithic industry of southern Tamil Nadu has large tools of brecciated cherty quartzite, and quartz artefacts made on cores as well as flakes (Tables 2e4). Only a preliminary analysis of the lithic artefacts is presented here. Borers, points, scrapers, choppers
Fig. 6. Palaeolithic Cores from Kadavarayanpatti: Photo by S Gowrishankar.
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
83
Fig. 8. Heavy-duty Artefacts from the Upper Gundar Basin.
6. Discussion and conclusions The findings from the archaeological surface surveys in southern Tamil Nadu and the excavations at Pillayarpatti clearly suggest that pre-Mesolithic (Pre-Iron Age Holocene Microlithic) industries are well represented in this region. The Vallam plateau (ca. 20 m above the Kaviri delta surface, Zone B) has preserved stratigraphic evidence for the existence of a pre-microlithic “Palaeolithic” industry in gravelly facies within ferricrete. The reasons for the limited frequencies of the Palaeolithic sites and artefacts in southern Tamil Nadu appear to be their buried nature, especially in the red soil sediments. A few larger fresh artefacts are found in surface context at Pillayarpatti. The Palaeolithic artefacts from the buried layers of the Pillayarpatti trench PPT II, at a distance of 20 m in the same locality, are slightly rolled. Did the larger artefacts come to the surface from
a different early Palaeolithic horizon due to post-depositional disturbances? Were they used in a later context also? These issues needs to be researched further. In the case of surface sites with heavy-duty artefacts, especially from Zone C, the Upper Gundar Basin, it is difficult to establish the true context of the assemblages. Earlier, the first author had argued the possibility of the heavy-duty artefacts from surface contexts at T. Pudupatti, Tottiyapatti and other sites in the Upper Gundar Basin as belonging to the Mesolithic context (Holocene Microlithic) (Selvakumar 1996a), due to their association with microliths and the absence of stratigraphic evidence. The recent excavations at Pillayarapatti have suggested the possibility that what was earlier classified as the functionally distinct heavy-duty component of the Mesolithic (Holocene Microlithic) could be a temporally, culturally distinct industry from that of the Mesolithic (Holocene Microlithic) industries. Surface evidence is unreliable, and only stratigraphic
84
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Fig. 9. Heavy-duty Artefacts from the Upper Gundar Basin.
evidence could shed clear light on this issue. A reanalysis of the assemblages from Gundar and a comparative study with the heavyduty artefacts recovered from stratified contexts will probably throw more light. The current research and the consideration of the formation processes of the archaeological record suggest the complex nature of the archaeological sites and the assemblages therein. In the absence of stratigraphic evidence, there is always a risk of attributing a functionally distinct assemblage to a distinct cultural period. Similarly, one could collect the larger artefacts from a microlithic site and create a Palaeolithic assemblage. Most of the sites in the Upper Gundar Basin seem to be palimpsests, comprising evidence for several cultural periods. It is possible that the assemblages at many of the sites are highly mixed, perhaps due to erosional processes. Southern Tamil Nadu is generally a low-energy environment as it has limited rainwater catchment area compared to the northern part of Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka and Andhra regions. In addition, this region lies in the rain shadow area of southwest monsoon. Due to these factors, the chronological resolution of the assemblages is very poor in this region, and the sites with heavy-duty artefacts that have been reported in the higher altitudes in the Zones C and D are surface sites, perhaps exposed due to erosional processes. Only further research can help to establish the true nature of the sites with heavy-duty artefacts in the Upper Gundar basin. Therefore, the context of the ‘heavy-duty tools’ should be considered with caution, considering the complex nature of the prehistoric archaeological record of this region. In view of the proximity, it is worth considering the prehistoric evidence from Sri Lanka. Compared to southern Tamil Nadu, Sri Lanka has produced significant evidence for human occupation in the late Pleistocene (Deraniyagala, 2007). During the last one million years India and Sri Lanka were connected several times by land bridges, and the last land link is reported to have existed before 7000 BP (Deraniyagala, 1992: 167). Deraniyagala observes that the first migrants reached Sri Lanka at least one million years ago. In that case, one can definitely expect sites as old as those
in Sri Lanka in southern part of Tamil Nadu. As argued by Deraniyagala (1998), the prehistory of Sri Lanka cannot be viewed in isolation, considering the frequent sea level oscillations and the proximity of India and Sri Lanka. Thanjavur is only w200 km from the Iranamadu formations of Sri Lanka, much closer than the Chennai region. The excavated Middle Palaeolithic site of Bundala in Sri Lanka is dated to ca. 125,000 BP. Based on Sri Lankan evidence, it could be proposed that the Palaeolithic occupation in southern Tamil Nadu could be old as the sites of Sri Lanka if not earlier. Further research is required to establish the precise chronology of the sites from southern Tamil Nadu. Based on stratigraphic context, as revealed by the Pillayarpatti excavations and the exposure at Thirukanurpatti, it can be argued that the Palaeolithic context is distinct from the microlithic industry and predates it. Perhaps the size of the artefacts and their contexts and his experience in studying the artefacts of Madras region would have prompted Foote (1916) to label the artefacts from Vengurayan kudikkadu as Palaeolithic. The industry represented at Pillayarpatti in stratigraphic context is hypothesised as belonging to the later part of the Late Pleistocene based on typo-technology and also its association with ferricretised fluvial sediments and the characteristics of the assemblage. Further investigations could help in testing this hypothesis and to date the sites of this region accurately. Based on the isolated finds of artifacts (cf Rajan and Ramji, 2009), it could be argued that there exists Lower Palaeolithic industry in this region. The recent investigations by Pappu et al. (2011) have placed the Palaeolithic site of Attirampakkam before 1 Ma. If Palaeolithic groups lived around Chennai around 1 Ma, they could have definitely moved into this region. Some of the isolated artefacts from southern Tamil Nadu could belong to the Lower Palaeolithic, but this possibility needs to be explored and researched further. The upper secondary ferricrete zone has about 1e1.5 m of deposits that could hold the key for Palaeolithic
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
85
Fig. 10. Artefacts from Pillayarpatti Excavation: Photo by Thangadurai.
occupation in this region. There might be some contexts that could help us establish the stratigraphic evidence for Lower Palaeolithic culture in this region. In conclusion, Palaeolithic industries exist in the southern part of Tamil Nadu. More detailed explorations, research into the typotechnology, and radiometric dates are essential to sub-classify the Palaeolithic industries, and to establish if Lower Palaeolithic culture existed in this region.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the University Grants Commission and the Archaeological Survey of India for the financial support, Mr. S. Gowrishankar, Project Fellow, UGC Major Project for the assistance during the fieldwork, and the referees of this paper and S. Darsana for suggestions on the manuscript.
References
Fig. 11. Frequency Distribution of Raw Material.
Aiyappan, A., 1944. Mesolithic artifacts from Sawyerpuram in Tinnevelly district, south India. Spolia Zeylanica 24 (2), 145e154. Alappat, L., Tsukamoto, S., Singh, P., Srikanth, D., Ramesh, R., Freche, M., 2010. Chronology of Cauvery delta sediments from shallow subsurface cores using elevated-temperature post-Ir Irsl dating of feldspar. Geochronometria 37, 37e47. Blanford, H.F., 1865. On the Cretaceous and other rocks of south Arcot, and Trichinopoly districts, Madras. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India 4, 1e217. Deraniyagala, S.U., 1992. The Prehistory of Sri Lanka, pts. I, II. Archaeological Survey Department, Colombo. Deraniyagala, S.U., 1998. Pre- and Protohistoric Settlement in Sri Lanka. International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. In: Proceedings of the Xiii Congress Forli’ e Italia e 8e14 September, 1996, vol. 5/section 16. BACO, Forli, Italy, pp. 277e285 (The prehistory of Asia and Oceania). Deraniyagala, S.U., 2007. The prehistory and protohistory of Sri Lanka. In: Prematilake, L., Bandaranayake, S., Deraniyagala, S.U., Silva, R. (Eds.), The Art and Archaeology of Sri Lanka. Central Cultural Fund, Colombo, pp. 1e96. Foote, R.B., 1868. On the distribution of stone implements in southern India. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 24, 484e495. Foote, R.B., 1916. The Foote Collection of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities. Notes on their Ages and Distribution. Madras: Government Museum. Leela Devi Publications, Delhi. Reprint 1979.
86
V. Selvakumar et al. / Quaternary International 269 (2012) 74e86
Gardner, R.A.M., Martingell, H., 1990. Microlithic sites and their palaeoenvironmental setting, southeast India: a Reevaluation. Geoarchaeology 5, 1e13. Gojda, M., 2004. Landscape Archaeology. Eolss Publishers. Nagaraja Rao, M.S., 1971. ProtoHistoric Cultures of the Tungabhadra Valley (A Report on Hallur Excavations). Dharwar. Oliver, C.D., Hetu, C.S., 2008. The High Deccan duricrusts of India and their significance for the laterite issue. Journal of Earth System Science 117, 537e551. Pappu, S., 1996. Reinvestigation of the prehistoric archaeological record in the Kortallayar basin, Tamil Nadu. Man and Environment 20, 1e23. Pappu, S., 2001. A Re-examination of the Palaeolithic archaeological Record of Northern Tamil Nadu, South India British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1003. Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Akhilesh, K., Braucher, R., Taieb, M., Demory, F., Thouveny, N., 2011. Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian Hominins in south India. Science 331, 1596e1599. Rajan, K., 2003. Archaeology of the Pudukottai region Tamil Nadu. Man and Environment 28, 41e56. Rajan, K., Ramji, M.S., 2009. Palaeolithic sites in Kaviri River Valley of Ariyalur region, Tamil Nadu. Man and Environment 34, 1e10. Rajan, K., Yathees Kumar, V.P., Selvakumar, S., 2009. Catalogue of Archaeological Sites in Tamil Nadu, vol. 1. Heritage India Trust, Thanjavur. Rajendran, P., 1989. Prehistory and Environment in Kerala. Thiruvanathapuram. Raman, K.V., 1970. Distribution pattern of cultural traits in the pre and Protohistoric times of Madurai region. Aaraichi 1, 499e509. Sarma, A., 1978. The Paleoecology of Coastal Tamilnadu, South India: chronology of raised beaches. In: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 122, pp. 411e426. Satyamurthy, T., 1990. Excavations at Mangadu. Kerala State Archaeology Department, Thiruvanathapuram. Selvakumar, V., 1996a. Archaeological investigations in the upper Gundar basin, Madurai district, Tamil Nadu. Man and Environment 21 (2), 27e42. Selvakumar, V., 1996b. Investigations into the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cultures of the Upper Gundar Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Poona, University of Poona.
Selvakumar, V., 2001a. Mesolithic Adaptation Patterns of the Mesolithic HuntereGatherers of the Upper Gundar Basin, Tamil Nadu. Report of Post-Doctoral Research submitted to ICHR. Selvakumar, V., 2001b. Culture and chronology of lithic industries from southern Tamil Nadu. In: Rajagopal, S. (Ed.), Kaviri-studies in Epigraphy, Archaeology and History. Panpattu Veliyittakam, Chennai, pp. 256e266. Selvakumar, V., 2007a. Kaverippadugaiyil tholliyal kandupidippukal. Avanam 18, 139e140 (in Tamil). Selvakumar, V., 2007b. Archaeology of the Lower Kaviri Delta, on the East Coast of Tamil Nadu: Early Historic Settlement System A Report Submitted to the Nehru Trust for the Indian Collections at the Victoria and Albert Museum, New Delhi. Selvakumar, V., 2008a. Kaverippadugaiyil puthiya tholliyal aayvugal 2007e08. Avanam 19, 156e158 (in Tamil). Selvakumar, V., 2008b. Archaeological research in Thanjavur and Pudukkottai regions: a report of the explorations in 2008. Tamil Civilization 19, 128e134. Selvakumar, 2009. Archaeological research in Thanjavur and Pudukkottai regions: a report of the explorations. Tamil Civilization 19, 24e35. Selvakumar, V., 2010a. Pillayarpatti (Thanjavur) Akazhaayvukal. Paper Presented at the World Classical Tamil Conference, June 23e27, 2010, Coimbatore, India. (in Tamil). Selvakumar, V., 2010b. Thamizhip Palkalai Valaagatthil Akazhaayvu. Avanam 21, 158e160 (in Tamil). SIPR, n.d., State Industrial Profile Report of Tamil Nadu. Sridharan, K., 1978. Tanjore microliths. In: Nagaswamy, R. (Ed.), South Indian Studies, vol. 1. SAHER, Chennai, pp. 126e127. Subramanian, T.N., Selvan, T.A., 2001. Geology of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. Geological Society of India, Bangalore. Vedachalam, V., Sethuraman, G., Krishnan, Madhuca, 2000. Virudunagar District. An Archaeological Source Book, Sivakasi. Wandsnider, L., Dooley, M.A., 2004. Landscape Approaches to Regional Archaeological Variation Abstract, 69th Annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal, April 2004. Zeuner, F.E., Allchin, B., 1956. The microlithic sites of Tinnevelly district, Madras state. Ancient India 12, 4e20.