Ancient south Indian diets featured milk, wild game: study

1. At a Glance

• A new study published in Heritage Science reconstructs what people ate in early historic South India, using organic residue analysis (ORA) of pottery and the study of animal bones (zooarchaeology) at two sites: Keezhadi (Tamil Nadu) and Gottiprolu (Andhra Pradesh) [1].
• Main finding: people processed plants in advanced ways and drank cow milk in 600–100 BC. The authors conclude that these societies "primarily depended on agriculture, cattle rearing, and dairying practices" [1].
• Wild game also turns up in the diet. Bones of antelope and wild boar at Keezhadi carry cut marks, which suggests hunting added to people's food [1].
• UPSC relevance: the topic links GS-I (Ancient History, Art & Culture: early historic South India, Sangam-age material culture) with GS-III (Science & Technology: scientific methods in archaeology). It also counters the idea that food archaeology is well documented only for the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) [1].

2. Why in the News

• 15 November 2026: The Hindu (International page, p. 10, by Divya Gandhi) reported the Heritage Science study on ancient South Indian diets at Keezhadi and Gottiprolu [1].
• The study is presented as filling a gap. For the IVC, pottery-residue studies have already shown dairy, meat and plant products as far back as 2500 BC. Comparable evidence for prehistoric South Indian cuisine had been missing [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Benchmark from the IVC: studies of IVC pottery shards found dairy, meat and plant-based products as early as c. 2500 BC [1].
• Gottiprolu, first excavation phase (2019):
• Carried out by the ASI's Excavation Branch VI, Bangalore [2].
• Located near Naidupeta, in Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore district, Andhra Pradesh [2].

• Found a huge settlement inside a massive brick enclosure, and judged the site to have been a trade centre in the early historic period [2].

• Gottiprolu finds:

• A Vishnu sculpture about 2 m tall, whose style points to the Pallava period (c. 8th century AD) [2].
• Bricks of sizes comparable to Satavahana/Ikshvaku-period structures in the Krishna valley [2].
• Imitation amphorae, suggesting trade in liquid goods, and rouletted ware, coins and terracotta beads [2].

• The site lies close to the coast, which suggests maritime trade [2].

• Sites within a 15 km radius of Gottiprolu [2]:

• a fortified early historic settlement at Puduru;
• a Subrahmanya temple at Mallam;

• a rock-cut stepped well at Yakasiri.

• 2026 study: applies ORA to pottery from Keezhadi (6th–2nd century BC) and Gottiprolu (2nd–1st century BCE) [1].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Keezhadi	Gottiprolu
State	Tamil Nadu [1]	Andhra Pradesh [1]; SPSR Nellore district, near Naidupeta [2]
Period covered by the study	6th–2nd century BC [1]	2nd–1st century BCE [1]
Setting	River bank [1]	River bank [1]; close to the coast [2]
Animal remains	70 skeletal fragments analysed. Mostly cattle, buffalo, goat; also wild antelope, wild boar with cut marks [1]	Cow/ox, buffalo, sheep, goat, horse, dog, pig [1]
Other finds	—	Brick enclosure, Pallava-era Vishnu idol, rouletted ware, imitation amphorae, coins, terracotta beads [2]
Excavating agency (2019 phase)	—	ASI Excavation Branch VI, Bangalore [2]

• Organic residue analysis (ORA): a method that pulls dietary biomarkers (molecules such as lipids) out of pottery. These molecules get trapped in the pores of the vessel and can survive for millennia [1].
• Sample size: only four potsherds, analysed as a proof of concept [1].
• Fish: none detected. Although both sites are on river banks, "the chosen pottery may not have been used to cook aquatic species such as fish" [1].
• Journal: Heritage Science. One co-author is an associate professor at the Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) [1].

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Historical

• The study gives direct chemical evidence of dairying in early historic South India, putting the region alongside the IVC's documented diet of dairy, meat and plants [1].
• It shows a mixed economy: farming plus cattle and buffalo rearing as the base, with hunting as a supplement [1].
• Gottiprolu's bricks resemble Satavahana/Ikshvaku structures and the site shows Pallava-era continuity. This places the site within the Krishna-valley and East-coast cultural sequence [2].

Scientific / Technological

• ORA goes beyond bones and charred grains. It recovers what was actually cooked or stored in a vessel [1].
• Combining ORA with zooarchaeology (bone counts, cut-mark analysis) gives two independent lines of evidence [1].
• Limitation: four shards is a pilot sample. The results are indicative, not representative [1].

Economic

• Cattle, buffalo and goat dominate the bones, which points to pastoral wealth and organised dairying [1].
• At Gottiprolu, imitation amphorae, rouletted ware and a coastal location point to a trading economy linked to wider exchange networks [2].

Social / Cultural

• The evidence of meat-eating, including wild game, alongside dairy challenges uniform modern assumptions about traditional South Indian diets [1].
• Horse and dog remains at Gottiprolu raise questions about transport and domestic animal use [1].

Environmental

• Both sites lie on river banks, yet there is no fish signal in the pots tested. This shows that where a site is located does not by itself settle what people ate. Deliberately sampling many kinds of vessels is necessary [1].
• Hunting antelope and wild boar implies that scrub or forest habitats were within reach of these settlements [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 15 Nov 2026: The Hindu reports the Heritage Science study on milk and wild game in ancient South Indian diets at Keezhadi and Gottiprolu [1].
• The source article was truncated, so the publication date of the paper and the names of the other authors could not be verified. Check the original Heritage Science paper.
• No whitelisted Tier-1 source available within the retrieval budget gave the latest excavation status (later phases) for either site.

7. Prelims Hooks

• Study on ancient South Indian diets published in the journal Heritage Science (2026) [1].
• Technique used: organic residue analysis of biomarkers trapped in pottery pores [1].
• Keezhadi (Tamil Nadu) layers studied: 6th–2nd century BC [1].
• Gottiprolu (Andhra Pradesh) layers studied: 2nd–1st century BCE [1].
• Overall window of the dietary evidence: 600–100 BC [1].
• 70 animal skeletal fragments analysed at Keezhadi [1].
• Keezhadi's dominant animals are cattle, buffalo, goat; the wild species with cut marks are antelope and wild boar [1].
• Gottiprolu fauna: cow/ox, buffalo, sheep, goat, horse, dog, pig [1].
• Only four potsherds analysed, as a proof of concept [1].
• No fish biomarkers found, even though both sites are on river banks [1].
• IVC pottery studies show dairy and meat use as early as 2500 BC [1].
• Gottiprolu is near Naidupeta, in SPSR Nellore district, and was excavated by ASI Excavation Branch VI, Bangalore [2].
• Gottiprolu was an early historic trade centre inside a massive brick enclosure [2].
• The ~2 m Vishnu idol at Gottiprolu dates to the Pallava period (~8th century AD) [2].
• Gottiprolu's brick sizes match Satavahana/Ikshvaku structures of the Krishna valley [2].
• Rock-cut stepped well at Yakasiri, Subrahmanya temple at Mallam, fortified settlement at Puduru: all within 15 km of Gottiprolu [2].

8. What Four Pots Can and Cannot Tell Us

• Four pots are a test run, not a picture of the whole diet
• The study tested only four potsherds (broken pieces of pots), as a proof of concept [1].
• Many potsherds give no usable result. At a Neolithic site in Spain, only 65.5% of samples held enough lipids (fats) to be read at all [5].

• So with four pieces, one bad piece removes a quarter of the evidence.

• A pot shows its whole life, not one meal

• In a year-long cooking experiment, old residues were replaced only slowly. What stayed in the pot was a mixture of everything cooked in it over its life [4].

• So 'milk in this pot' means milk was cooked in it at some point. It does not tell us how often people drank milk, or how much.

• 'No fish' is a gap in the evidence, not proof

• Both sites are on river banks, yet the tested pots show no fish [1].
• The authors say these pots may simply not have been used for fish [1].

• With four pots, the absence of a signal proves nothing. In a South China study, a small sample size may have hidden dairy fats that were actually there [6].

• Two methods answer two different questions

• Residue in pots tells us what was cooked or stored. Bones tell us which animals were killed or kept [1].
• Cut marks are reported on antelope and wild boar bones [1]. Cattle, buffalo and goat bones are the most common [1], but a cattle bone alone does not show whether the animal was eaten or used for milk and ploughing.
• In an answer, do not write 'they ate cattle' on the strength of bone counts alone.

9. Why One Label for All of South India Goes Too Far

• Two sites cannot stand for a whole region
• The headline speaks of 'ancient south Indian diets', but the evidence comes from just two sites, Keezhadi and Gottiprolu [1].
• Their dates barely overlap. Keezhadi covers the 6th–2nd century BC, Gottiprolu the 2nd–1st century BCE [1].

• So the '600–100 BC' window joins two different places from two different centuries. It is not one continuous record.

• Trade towns may not have eaten like villages

• Gottiprolu was a walled trade centre near the coast, with imitation amphorae and rouletted ware [2].
• People in a busy trading town could get foods that farmers inland could not.

• The result tells us about town diets. It does not tell us about forest, hill or dryland communities.

• The comparison with the IVC rests on thin evidence too

• Before 2020, only one Harappan vessel, a perforated pot from Nausharo, had been tested for lipid residues [3].
• The Kotada Bhadli study in Gujarat (2300–1950 BCE) was described as the earliest direct evidence of dairy processing in South Asia [3].
• So the IVC is not 'well documented' while South India is 'missing'. Both rest on a few studies. South India is now starting to catch up.

10. How to Make These Findings Count: Next Steps

• Excavating agencies should test many pots of different types, not four
• ASI's Excavation Branch VI dug Gottiprolu [2]. Its pottery collections can supply sherds from cooking pots, storage jars and serving bowls.

• Testing every vessel type is the only way to settle the fish question that four pots left open [1].

• Labs should use compound-specific isotope analysis to tell milk from meat fat

• Compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA) measures the chemical 'fingerprint' of each fat molecule.
• At Kotada Bhadli, CSIA separated dairy from ruminant animals (cattle, buffalo, goat) from adipose fats (body fat from meat) [3].

• Indian labs such as VIT, which co-authored this study [1], can use the same method on Keezhadi and Gottiprolu pots.

• Researchers should cook with local foods to build a reference set

• The year-long cooking experiment showed how residues build up and change inside a pot [4].

• Indian teams can repeat this with local foods such as ghee, millets and river fish. This gives them a South Indian reference to match ancient residues against.

• Join the chemistry with the bones and the literature

• Cut marks on bones [1] and residues in pots are two separate lines of evidence. Sangam-era texts can be a third.
• A claim about diet is strongest when all three agree.

11. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Only 4 potsherds analysed as a proof of concept; 70 animal bone fragments studied at Keezhadi [1]
• Data: Before 2020, only one Harappan vessel (Nausharo) had been tested for lipid residues [3]
• Data: At a Neolithic site in Spain, only 65.5% of sherds held enough lipids to interpret, so sample size matters [5]
• Comparison: Kotada Bhadli, Gujarat (2300–1950 BCE): CSIA separated dairy fat from meat fat, described as the earliest direct evidence of dairy processing in South Asia [3]
• Comparison: A year-long cooking experiment showed that pot residues are a mixture of everything cooked over the vessel's life, not a single meal [4]

12. Mains Relevance

• GS-I: Indian Heritage & Culture; Ancient History (salient features of early historic South India, material culture and economy).
• GS-III: Science & Technology (applying scientific techniques to heritage and archaeology).
• Possible question stems: 1. Scientific techniques such as organic residue analysis are rewriting our understanding of ancient Indian food cultures. Discuss with reference to recent findings from South Indian sites. (150 words) 2. Archaeological evidence from Keezhadi and Gottiprolu points to an agro-pastoral economy in early historic South India. Examine. (250 words) 3. Coastal settlements like Gottiprolu show South India's integration into early maritime trade networks. Elucidate with archaeological evidence. (150 words)

13. Related Topics to Study Next

• Sangam-age society and economy: the literary context for Keezhadi-era material culture.
• IVC subsistence and dairying: the benchmark the study compares against [1].
• Satavahanas and Ikshvakus of the Krishna valley: the cultural parallel for Gottiprolu's bricks [2].
• Indo-Roman trade (rouletted ware, amphorae; Arikamedu): maritime-trade markers found at Gottiprolu [2].
• Pallava art and iconography: to date the Vishnu sculpture [2].
• Scientific dating and analysis methods (radiocarbon, AMS, ORA, isotope analysis): frequently tested in S&T and culture questions.
• Tamil Brahmi script: an epigraphic debate often linked to Keezhadi.
• ASI's structure and mandate: how excavation branches, licensing and Centre–State roles work.

14. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Archaeology (History): The study rebuilds ancient diets from pottery residues and bones, so archaeology's methods and evidence types are the base.
• Harappan civilisation (History): The study uses Indus pottery findings from 2500 BC as the benchmark for South Indian diets.
• Sangam age (History): Keezhadi's material culture is linked to the Sangam age, the literary and social setting of early historic Tamil country.
• Tamil-Brahmi (History): Keezhadi finds are tied to the debate over Tamil-Brahmi's antiquity, a frequently asked topic.
• Archaeological Survey of India (History): ASI's Excavation Branch VI dug Gottiprolu, so its role and mandate matter for exam questions.
• Rouletted ware (History): Rouletted ware found at Gottiprolu is a marker of maritime trade with the Roman world.
• Amphora (History): Imitation amphorae at Gottiprolu suggest trade in liquid goods such as wine or oil.
• Indo-Roman trade (History): Gottiprolu's coastal location and trade goods place it in the Arabian Sea trade network.
• Arikamedu (History): Arikamedu is the best-known east-coast port with the same trade markers found at Gottiprolu.
• Satavahana dynasty (History): Gottiprolu's brick sizes match Satavahana-period structures of the Krishna valley.

15. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Mixing up the two sites' periods. Keezhadi is 6th–2nd century BC; Gottiprolu is 2nd–1st century BCE [1].
• Swapping the states. Keezhadi is in Tamil Nadu, Gottiprolu in Andhra Pradesh (Nellore district), not Telangana [1][2].
• Two different dates at Gottiprolu. The 8th-century AD Vishnu idol (Pallava) is much later than the early historic settlement [2].
• Overstating the result. The study looked at only four shards as a proof of concept. "No fish" means the vessels sampled showed no fish, not that people never ate fish [1].
• Wrong method attribution. Dietary biomarkers came from organic residue analysis of pottery. Cut marks on bones are separate, zooarchaeological evidence [1].