Early Iron Age Megalithic Culture of Peninsular and South India

Editorial Note

[This essay is an up-to-date statement of the megalithicsituation in Vidarbha and further south. It is this megalithicor basically the Iron Age base which constituted thebackground of the early historic developments in southIndia. Considering that the Brahmi script is now found togo back at Porunthal and Kodumanal to c. 500 BC, thereis no reason to believe that the state and citydevelopment in that region is a particularly latedevelopment.]

h

The megalithic culture known for itscharacteristic mode of burial construction andritualistic offerings is associated with the earlyuse of iron in Peninsular India (Map 1). In 1823T. Babington identified megalithic culture atChattaparamba1 in Kerala (Babington 1823).Colin Mackenzie is said to have noticedmegalithic burials in south India even beforeBabington. His notes and sketches of megalithicmonuments of peninsular India remainedunpublished (Paddayya 1997). In Vidarbha,Pearse2 excavated megalithic burials at Kampteein 1867 (Pearse 1869). Hislop3 first noticed andexcavated megalithic burials at Takalghat4 in1847 (Hunter 1864:160). Hislop also dug ìafewî megalithic burials at Junapani (Carnac1879:2-3). He planned to excavate at Takalghatagain in 1863 at the request of Mr. Temple, thethen commissioner of Nagpur. Unfortunately,Hislop died crossing a nala while coming backfrom Takalghat in September 1863. Pottery andnotes on Takalghat were found in the pocket ofhis jacket when his deadbody was found.

Many megalithic sites were excavated inpeninsular India before 1947 (Mohanty and

IV.2. Peninsular andSouthern India

jogesh

Sticky Note

Mohanty, R. K. and T. Thakuria 2014. Early Iron Age Megalithic Culture of Peninsular Indian and South India, In History of Ancient India, Vol-3 Texts, Political History and Administration till c 300 B.C. (eds. D. Charkrabarti and M. Lal), Pp:343-378, Aryan Publisher and Vivakananda center, New Delhi.

The Texts, Political History and Administration till c. 200 BC

344

Map 1. Distribution of Megalithic sites in Peninsular India.

Selvakumar 2002). These excavations weresignificant in locating megalithic burials indifferent geo-ecological zones, understandingtypological variations and distinctive materialculture of megalithic people. Various issues likechronology and ëdiffusioní theory on the originof the megalithic culture of peninsular India(Mohanty 2001, Darsana 2006) also werehighlighted during this period. Wheelerísexcavation at Brahmagiri (Wheeler 1948)provided the starting point of later megalithicresearch (Srinivasan and Banerjee 1953,Banerjee 1956, Banerjee and Sundara Rajan1959, Das 1957, Thapar 1952, 1957, Singh 1968-69). The study of the megalithic culture was

taken up by the universities and other institutionsin the 1970s. (Mohanty and Selvakuma 2002).In Vidarbha S.B. Deo began work on megalithsin the late 1960s. (Deo 1970, 1973, Deo andJamkhedkar 1982).

MEGALITHS AND MEGALITHIC CULTURE

Megaliths are funerary monuments representedby various types and sizes. The term megalithetymologically means big stones. It is ageneralized definition, which is not adequateand appropriate for urn and sarcophagus burialsas they are found without any surface indicationof lithic appendages (Begley 1965, Gupta 1972,Leshnik 1974). At some sites urn and

Peninsular and Southern India

345

sarcophagus burials are also found in associationwith lithic appendages. At Chingleput andKunnattur urn and sarcophagus burials werefound placed within cairns or cists made ofstones slabs (Krishnaswami 1949, IAR 1955-56:23, 1956-57:31, 1957-58:37), and there aremore examples from Tamil Nadu ( Krishnaswami1957, Rajan 1991, 1997) and Andhra Pradesh(Sarkar 1969) where urns and sarcophagi werefound with lithic appendages such as stonecircle, cist, dolmen and capstone. However,there are some arguments regarding theincorporation of the commemorative monumentsof menhir and alignments in the ëmegalithiccultureí. Excavations of stone alignments inPiklihal and Maski revealed that they were notassociated with burials. Excavation of menhirsat Panchkedi was also devoid of any culturalmaterials and human skeletal remains. Erectionof menhirs or alignments and ritualistic offeringin commemoration of dead is common amongthe communities practicing ëmegalithicismí.Broadly, megaliths denote a socio-religious andsocio-economic mode of burying the dead in agrave with or without lithic appendages. It maybe said that megaliths denote monuments madeof stones or where stones were used asappendages to place the dead or incommemoration of the dead. Megaliths, mainlyin peninsular India, are associated with early andextensive use of iron and characteristic potterytype known as black and red ware (BRW).(Mohanty and Selvakumar 2002:313).

MEGALITHIC TYPOLOGY

There are about two thousand megalithic sitesin peninsular India (Moorti 1994, Mohanty andSelvakumar 2002, appendix IV, Thakuria 2010).Many of these sites are represented by one orseveral types of burials. Krishnaswami (1949)

offered a typology of south Indian megalithicburials : dolmenoid cist, cist, port-hole cist,dolmen, cairn circle, menhirs, umbrella stone,hood stone and rock cut caves. Cists and dolmensfall into sub-types which may be region -specificand was possibly influenced by geographicalfactors and availability of resource.Subsequently, many scholars tried to modifyKrishnaswamiís classification (Dikshit 1969,Guruajarao 1972, Leshnik 1974, Sundara 1975,1979, Agrawal 1982, Allchin and Allchin 1983,Rao 1988, Moorti 1994). Some of theseclassifications were region- or site- specific(Allchin 1956, Sarkar 1969, Deo 1969,Narasimhaiah 1980, Rajan 1986, 1990, 1997,Mohanty 2005a).

U.S. Moorti (1994:1-3). classified megalithicburials in two board categories of ësepulchralíand ënon-sepulchralí. The first category is properburial and the later is commemorative ormemorial in nature. He classified dolmen(chamber open on one side), port-holed dolmen(a closed chamber), menhir, stone alignment andavenue in non-sepulchral category. However,placing a burial in sepulchral and non-sepulchralcategory merely on the basis of the externalappearance of the burial is ambiguous. Thereare examples of finding remains of burial belowmenhir in pit in Kerala (Sundara 1979). On theother hand, stone circles are sometime founddevoid of any evidence of burial (Deo andJamkedkar 1982, Deglurkar and Lad 1992).Moreover, secondary burials are most oftendevoid of complete skeletal remains. Hence, theouter morphological look of a burial may notalways represent non-sepulchral category.

There is not much difference among scholarsto identify basic types as chambered type, un-chambered types and monolithic erection likemenhirs and alignments.


346

A chambered burial is a box typearrangement placing orthostats on four sides inupright position and a capstone on the top. Theremay be holes in one or more orthostats, whichis known as port hole. If the chamber is raisedon the ground it is called a dolmen (Fig 1) and acist if it is underground (Fig 2). Besides cist anddolmen, Topikal, Kodaikals and rock-cut cavesare also basically chamber burials.

There are variations in cist and dolmen types.Sometime, in case of both cist and dolmen, agap is maintained in the one side of the orthostatand also at the entrance which is provided by apassage. The passage is also made by placingslabs. This type of variation is known as eitherpassage cist (Fig 3) or passage dolmen. Thefunction of the entrance is difficult to explain,but may have some ritualistic or symbolic value.Sometimes one or more holes are made in oneor more orthostats. That is termed port-holechamber. In oblong cist, two longer orthostatsare kept parallel to each other and then thesmaller orthostats are fixed vertically, slightlyinside on the either sides to project out the longerorthostats. The main chamber of the cist issometime found divided longitudinally orlaterally by placing one or more slab creatingsingle or multiple chambers. This type of cist is

called transepted cist (Fig 4). They are noticedat Brahmagiri in Karnataka and Pudukkottai,Nattukkalpalayam, Thandikudi Porrunthal inTamil Nadu and Irdduki in Kerala. Whenorthostats are found placed in swastika patternin clockwise or anti-clock wise, the cist is calledswastika cist (Fig 5). All these types of cist mayor may not occur with porthole and passage. AtKodumanal a transepted cist with two subsidiarycists placed on either side of the front slab ofmain cist having a common passage wasrevealed. At Sittannavasal and Tudaiyur inPudukottai, bench was noticed inside a cist (Rajan2003). Twin cists entombed by a cairn circlewere also found at Porunthal (Rajan 2009). Cistsare also found made in combination of swastikatype and transepted type in Palani hills (Rajan1993).

Both dolmen and cists are found entombedby additional architectural elements such as cairnfilling, circle of stone boulders and circle of stoneslabs (Fig 6). At Palani Hills a group of dolmenwas found confined within a rectangular wall(Fig 7) constructed using blocks of stones (Rajann.d.1). Similarly, they are also found in largenumber at Iduki in Kerala.

Topikals and Kudaikals are characteristicchamber burials mainly found in Kerala. Topikalis made by vertically placing three stones,Fig. 1. Dolmen from Mallasandram, Tamil Nadu.

Fig. 2. A cist burial from Mayiladumparai, Tamil Nadu.


347

triangular in shape, that incline inwardly at top,and on the top a plano-convex cap stone isplaced (Fig 8). Kodaikals are actually pit orunderground chamber that is covered by aplano-convex capstone (Fig 9). Inside the pitgrave goods with a large pot are placed invertical position. The rock cut chambers arefound mainly in the lateritic zones of Kerala (Fig10) and south Karnataka. They are carved out inthe lateritic deposits. They are sometime multi-chambered, pillared and provided with bench.At Ummichiipoyh, a flight of steps were cut asentrance passage of the cave. The entrance isgenerally covered by cap stone.

The pit burials are simplest of all megalithicburials. They are rectangular, oblong or circularin shapes containing primary or secondaryskeletal remains along with offerings of gravegoods. At Maski some of the pit burials are foundhaving feeble lithic appendage (Thapar 1957).At Mahurjhari, Dhamnalinga, Vyahad andDhavalameti rectangular pit burials are found inbetween stone circles (Mohanty 2002, Mohanty2005a). In another type, pit is surrounded bylithic appendage in circular fashion without anyrubble filling. A pit burial having circular lithicappendage made of basaltic boulders was

Fig. 3. Cist with passage at Kodumanal, Tamil Nadu.

Fig. 5. A swastika cist from Porunthal, Tamil Nadu.

Fig. 4. Transepted cist with passage at Kodumanal, TamilNadu.

Fig. 6. Cist entombing by stone circle at Kodumanal, TamilNadu.


348

excavated at Mahurjhari. There was no rubblefilling but compactly filled with black cotton soiland silty soil in the pit (Mohanty 2005).

A pit burial is sometime covered withheaped up rubble in circular or ovaloid plan withor without periphery boulders to demarcate thecircle. The heaped-up rubble without peripheryboulders is known as ëcairní and with peripheryboulders popularly known as ëstone circleí.Conceptually as well as architecturally both thecairn circles with the presence and absence ofthe periphery boulders are same (Fig 11).

Fig. 7. Group of Dolmen with enclosure wall atThandikundi, Tamil Nadu.

Fig. 11. Cairn with periphery boulders from Raipur,Vidarbha.

FIg. 10. Rock cut cave burial from Ummichiipoyh, Kerala.

Fig. 9. A Kudaikal from Kerala.

Fig. 8. A Topikal from Kerala.


349

Therefore, they can be termed as cairn withperiphery boulders and cairn without peripheryboulders. Both are found in Vidarbha. They arealso found in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, AndhraPradesh and Kerala. Sometimes they are foundassociated with cist, dolmen or menhirs. In caseof Vidarbha, the central pit is dug in the centreof the cairn. Black cotton soil was first spread inthe pit over which the dead along with gravegoods are placed and then covered with a thicklayer of black soil. Black soil preserves theskeletal remains from burrowing animals andinsects. However, the expanding andcontracting nature of the black soil disintegratesthe skeleton into tiny pieces making it difficultto excavate and preserve. In some cases thefragile bones get so disintegrated that if notobserved carefully, they look like secondaryremains of the skeleton.

There is another variety known as hoodstones where stone slabs are conical at top andarranged in circular fashion (Fig 12). The slabsare placed in a manner inclined inwardly. Belowthe super structure, inside, dead body is placedeither in a pit, Urn or sarcophagus. Hoodstonesare mainly found in Kerala and southernKarnataka.

Urn and sarcophagus burials are made ofterracotta. They are found placed in a pit withor without any kind of lithic appendages. Thelithic appendages may be cist, dolmen, and cairnwith or without periphery boulders or slabs. Urnburials are common in Tamil Nadu (Rajan 1997)and Kerala. They are also found in southernKarnataka (Sundara 1975). Adichchanalur (Rea1902, IAR 2003-04:267-68) is one of the uniqueand best examples of urn burial site in TamilNadu (Fig 13). The size of urn may vary fromsmall pot to large tall jars. Urns of such varioussizes were recovered from Chingleput(Krishnaswami 1949). Shape of an urn,

especially made for burial having wide mouth,bulbous or globular body and conical or saggingbase is generally called a pyriform. They oftenhave decoration of bands on the neck.

Sarcophagi can be boat- shaped, animalshaped or legged. At present there is only oneevidence of sarcophagus at Dhmanalinga inVidarbha (IAR 2000-01: 97-107). It is boat-shaped and contains skeletal remains of a child.A ram -shaped sarcophagus has been recoveredat Sankavaram in the Cuddapah district (Sarkar1969). Legged sarcophagi are common inChingleput district and in Coimbatore region (Fig14). Sarcophagi placed inside stone circle were

Fig. 12. Hood stones from Ceeramaangngaat, Kerala.

Fig. 13. Burial urns from Addichchannalur, Tamil Nadu.


350

reported from Perambur (Rea 1908-09:92),Kunnattur (Krishnaswami 1957:189), Pallavaram(Bidie 1887:693-695), Sittamur and Kanthadu(Rajan 1997) in Tamil Nadu. They were alsofound placed inside cist and dolmen from NorthArcot (IAR1978-79:72-73, Richards 1954:157-65, Rajan 1991:37-52, Rajan 1994: 251-70, Rajan1997:284). In the legged variety of sarcophagus,the legs vary from minimum two to maximum24. At Paiyampalli a sarcophagus with maximum24 legs was reported (IAR 1964-65:22-23, 167-68:26-30)

Menhirs are upright monolithic stones ofvaried height (Fig 15). In Vidarbha, menhirs arenot common; only a few examples are found inNagpur, Chandrapur and Gondia districts.Menhirs are generally devoid of any skeletal andcultural materials. However, in some cases inKerala and southern Karnataka menhirs arefound erected on pit burials (Sundara 1979: 339).There is another variety of monolithic stonesknown as triangular stone (Fig 16). Suchtriangular stones are found at several places inTamil Nadu and Karnataka. Association oftriangular stones with mortuary practice isdifficult to ascertain because of lack ofexcavations. However, their location close to

megaltihc burials suggests their association withmegalithic culture.

Alignments are considered as monuments(Sundara 1979). In alignments, several monolithicstones are placed parallel in patterns of squareor diagonals. One of the early discoveries ofalignments near Hyderabad was made byAllchin (Allchin 1956). Alignments are found inRaichur, Gulbarga, Mahabubnagar and Nalgondadistricts of Karnataka-Andhra region (Sundara1979). At Hanamasagar in Gulbarga district analignments was found having 1000 uprightstones (Fig 17). At Maski (Thapar 1957) andPiklihal (Allchin 1960) alignments revealed noassociation with burial or offerings.

A unique type discovered at Katapura wasëanthropomorphic figureí carved out of singleslab (Mulheran 1868: 116-18). There are severalsites reported having anthropomorphic figuredistributed in central Godavari Valley to TamilNadu5. They are found associated with cist anddolmen entombed by circle. Morphologically,these huge anthropomorphic figures (Fig 18) onstones have resemblance with theanthropomorphic figures of copper hoardculture.

Variation in architecture within the sametype of megalithic burial is noticed at severalsites. For instance, in Vidarbha it has beennoticed that ëstone circlesí within a site may varyin their size, nature of deposit and externalarchitecture (Mohanty 1993-94, Mohanty 2005,Mohanty and Walimbe 1993). Furthermore, thesame type may also have additional innerarchitectural variations. There is hardly anysimilarity in internal architecture, size, anddeposit between different megaliths. Variations,for various reasons, may be the characteristiccomponent of the culture in a site or a region.For example, at Khariwada burials were

Fig. 14. A legged sarcophagus, Chingleput.


351

categorized architecturally in two groupsó-those with pebble clay filling with a circle ofboulders and those with loose pebbles piled upwithout use of clay within a circle of boulders(IAR 1981-82: 51-52). At Bhagimohari, funnellike pits aligned with medium sized boulderswithin the stone circle were noticed on thesurface of a few ëstone circlesí (Mohanty 1994).However, the most interesting characteristicfeature is the placement of huge slab of sandstones like menhirs in slanting position within afew circles. These menhir-like stones werebrought from outside, most probably fromBorgaon megalithic site. Borgaon burials whichare about 10km away from Bhagimohari, haveused these locally available stones extensively.Similarly, Bhagimohari burials also have somenon- local stones like Gondwana formationslabs/blocks placed very close to the skeletalremains and were brought from at least 35km.from the site where they are found associatedwith burial locations. At Raipur within a cairncircle, a cist burial was found( Deglurkar andLad 1992). These lime stone slabs must havecome from far-off place as it is not availablelocally. They probably suggest extension of

Fig. 15. A menhir from Ayyampatt, Tamil Nadu.

Fig. 16. Triangular stone from Kovukkalmedu.

Fig. 17. A view of a portion of the avenue at Hanamsagarfrom a hill on the west.


352

social relationship, probably by kinship orinfluence. At Malli6 in Gondia district, severalvariations are noticed in cairn type burials.Almost all the burials are made of lateriticboulders and rubble. The common type is cairnwith periphery boulders having a rectangularchamber in the centre (Fig 19). The chamber isopen on one side and the top is covered by alarge slab of either sandstone or basalt. Thelength of the chamber varies from 1 m to 1.5 mdepending upon the size of cairn. The chamberis partly filled by rubble exposing the capstone.At Satana, another site close to Malli, besidecircular and oval shaped cairn type of burials,oblong type of cairn with periphery boulders

and having no rubble filing but clay filling arenoticed.

Despite having external variation in size andcontain, the excavated burials at Raipur,Mahurjhari, Takalghat, Naikund, Borgaon,Khariwada, Bhagimohari, Dhavalameti andVyahad in Vidarbha shows further additionalinternal architectures of varied types. Anintensive visual physical documentation ofmegalithic monuments was carried out at the siteof Bhagimohari and later at Mahurjhari by thefirst author (Mohanty 1994; 2005a). Thesevariations of inner architecture can be describedas (i) cairn with single row of peripheryboulders, (ii) cairn with double rows ofperiphery boulders, (iii) cairn with single rowof periphery boulders and a circular chamber inthe centre(Fig 20), (iv) cairn with peripheryboulders and a circular chamber containing arectangular rubble filling covering the centralpit (Fig 21), (v) cairn with double of peripheryboulders and a rectangular chamber in the centre(Fig 22), (vi) cairn with periphery boulders andtwo adjacent square chamber with a commonpassage (Fig 23), (vi) cairn with peripheryboulders and a central chamber made by placinghuge boulders (Fig 24), (vii) cairn with peripheryboulders and a stone trough in the centre (Fig25), (viii) cairn with periphery boulders and acentral cist, (ix) cairn with periphery bouldersand a menhir in the centre. Their distribution inthe burial landscape, clustering types, variedarchitectural manifestation are also suggestiveof segregating and ever changing perspectivenature of the developing community.

Megalithic burials are intentionalconstruction that required investment of wealthand labour (Mohanty and Walimbe 1993, 1996).Hence, variations on the basic types andcombinations of types may act as an importantelement to understand the socio-economic status

Fig. 18. Anthropomorphic figure from Mottur.

Fig. 19. Cairn with periphery boulders having arectangular chamber in the centre from Malli, Vidarbha.


353

of the deceased and his family. The nature ormode of construction such as size, nature ofdeposit and monuments constructed partlyabove the ground and partly buried may alsohave socio-economic significance. Descriptionof types, therefore, does not mean merelymorphological features, but underlie the socio-economic significance of the monument orpeople who made it.

SETTLEMENT PATTERN

Until recently, it was reasonably believed thatmegalithic people were pastoral community,because of relative scarcity of documentation

of habitation deposits. Mahurjhari, which wasknown as an important site from the report ofHunter (Hunter 1933) and later excavatedextensively by Deo (Deo 1973, IAR 1978-79:71), was believed to be only a burial site.However, a habitation site was located andexcavated at Mahurjhari(Mohanty 2002, 2005a).Habitation deposits were subsequently locatedin close proximity of burial sites, also atPanchkedi (Nath 2001)and Vyahad (Gupata andIsmail 2010) in Nagpur district and Malli6 inGondia district. Recent explorations have shownthat almost all burial sites are associated with

Fig. 20. Cairn with single raw of periphery boulders anda circular chamber in centre from Bhagimohari, Vidarbha.

Fig. 21. Cairn with periphery boulders and a circularchamber containing a rectangular rubble filling coveringthe central pit from Dhavalemeti, Vidarbha.

Fig. 22. Cairn with double of periphery boulders and arectangular chamber in centre from Vyahad, Vidarbha.

Fig. 23. Cairn with periphery boulders and two adjacentsquare chamber with a common passage, Bhagimohari,Vidarbha.


354

habitation, except a few cases where substantialchanges in the landscape have taken place.Cultural deposits belonging to megalithic culturemay not be visible on the surface of multiculturalsites like Adam (Nath 1992), Kauindinyapur(Dikshit 1968), Arni (IAR 1978-79:71-72, IAR1984-85:52-53), Tharsa (IAR 1985-86:58-60),Chandankeda7, Hallur (Nagarajarao. 1971),Kodumanal (Rajan 1994), Mayiladumpari (Rajan2004) and Porunthal (Rajan 2009). At all thesesites megalithic culture was overlain by thickearly historic cultural deposits. Therefore,systematic survey and excavations of earlyhistoric mounds located in the region rich in

megalithic remains may produce underlyingmegalithic deposits.

Mohanty and Joshi classified megalithic sitesinto three categories (Mohanty and Joshi 1996).Category A includes all the sites that directlycontribute to the better understanding of the lifeñpattern of megalithic community of Vidarbha.Sites like Mahurjhari, Naikund, Takalghat-Kapa,Raipur, Borgaon, Bhagimohari, Vyahad, etc.which have either megalithic monuments ormegalithic burials along with habitation are ofCategory A. In Category B those sites are placedwhere no trace of megalithic burials are foundin vicinity, but the presence of Megalithic phasesucceeded by the early historic period instratigraphical order is found. Sites likeKaundinyapura in Amaravati and Arni inYavatmal district are placed in this category. InCategory C includes sites where evidence ofMegalithic and early historic culture are foundin the vicinity of megalithic burials. Anothercategory may be added, where megalithichabitation deposit is found preceded bymesolithic or neolithic deposit, for exampleMayiladumpari (Rajan 2004), Jawalapuram(Clarkson et al. 2009), Hallur (Nagarajarao 1971),and Pachkheri (Nath 2002).

Moorti commented that location of habitationsites was dependent on environment andresources both for subsistence economy andconstruction for burials (Moorti 1994:11-18).Therefore, megalithic sites are located in mainlyresource rich areas of mineral and ore resourceslike iron, copper, gold and mica, biotic resources,arable land and water, raw material for burialconstructions. Moorti further emphasized thatsome of the sites were located on the traderoutes and in deltaic zones convenient for tradeactivity (Moorti 1994:16-17).

The observations on location of megalithsin Vidarbha suggest that almost all discovered

Fig. 24. Cairn with periphery boulders and a centralchamber made by placing huge boulders from Raipur,Vidarbha.

Fig. 25. Cairn with periphery boulders and a stone troughin centre from Boregaon, Vidarbha.


355

megalithic burial sites in the region are locatedeither on the non-agricultural barren land on theDeccan trap or on the hill- slopes. On the otherhand habitation sites are located close to waterresources with abundant arable land around.Mahurjhari, Naikund, Khariwada, Bhagimohari,Takalghat, Vyahad are located either on thepools, small streams or near the tributary ofWardh-Wainganga system. It is also noticed thatburials are either close to the habitation or justacross the waterbody as in Takalghat, Naikund,Mahurjhari and Vyahad.

The observations made on burial-cum-habitation sites, mainly from Vidarbha, indicatecombination of barren and arable land withavailability of water sources for selection ofhabitation-cum-burial sites which also had thesocio-cultural and socio-economic implications.There may be several factors which might haveinfluenced them to stay close to the burials orcemeteries surrounding them. Certainly, respectfor ancestor may be one of the major factors.Respect for the dead and preference of buryingdead in close proximity of or even inside thehouse was prevalent from the chalcolithic periodin western Maharashtra as seen at Nevasa(Sankalia et al. 1960), Inamgaon (Dhavalikar etal. 1988), Diamabad (Sali 1986) and Chandoli(Snakalia et al. 1960, Sali 1986, Dhavaikar et al.1988). Therefore, it is logical to think thatmegalithic people preferred to accommodateëdeadí near the habitation instead of inside thehabitation and selected barren land for burialconstruction for two reasonsói) need of largerspace to construct elaborate burials, ii) keepingthe burials safe from agricultural activity.Therefore, sites like Mahurjhari, Khariwada,Vyahad, Malli and Bhagimohari representlandscape that has combined factor of barren andarable land with plenty resources available inthe surroundings.

There are no remarkable differences inmaterial culture from excavated habitation sites,which can really be taken as evidence of sitehierarchy. However, iron-smelting sites likeNaikund and Kodumanal might have playedsome role in production and distribution systemwithin the cultural territory. The continuousoccupation at a site for a longer period, increaseof population over a period of time, increase ofthe settlement size, number of burials erectedand the amount of labour and the nature of gravegood may provide clues to the dominance of asite in a regional perspective. For example,Khariwada in Vidarbha has largest number ofburials( 1500) and has thick habitation depositbelonging to megalithic period. SimilarlyMahurjhari has large number of burials locatedin 11 localities with rich burial architecture andrich burial goods in comparison with other sitesin Vidarbha.

EXCAVATIONS

Mohanty adopted three methods whileexcavating burials outside the cairn burial withperiphery boulders at Mahurjhari (2005a, 2005b)to understand remains of activities during theconstruction of the burial. He first excavated thecairn burial following the quadrant method, andthen extended the base lines towards north-southand east-west outside the periphery accordingto the area selected for excavation as in case ofnormal trenching. Thus, the extended area getsthe reference point from the central peg of thecairn. Then trenches were laid in association withthe periphery of the cairn following theextended base lines. In this, a larger area canbe excavated outside the burial keeping relationto the center of the cairn. In the other method,the radius of the circle was extended to 1 or 2moutside the periphery boulders and excavated.The third was excavating a cluster of burials in


356

a locality irrespective of the size, deposit andarchitecture. All three have given excellentresults ( Mohanty 2005a)

Ismail Kellelu adopted octagonal method ofexcavation of cairn circle instead of traditionalëquadrant methodí. The cairn was divided intoeight quadrants taking reference point in thecenter of the circle (Fig 26). According to Kellelu,each quadrant can be extended convincinglyoutside the cairn periphery. Excavation wasconducted at Dhmanalinga (IAR 2000-01:97-107), Vyahad (Ismail 2006) and Dhavalameti(Ismail 2008) by adopting this method thatresulted in discovery of pit burials at theperiphery. However, the limitation of thismethod is that, very less space remains insidethe burial for excavation when divided into eightquadrants with baulks.

The aim of these methods of excavationswas to know the activities outside the peripherythat was ignored by previous excavators. BothMohanty and Kellelu were successful in locatingpit burials and evidence of ritual outside theperiphery of burials that was hitherto unknown.Mohantyís excavations in the locality ìAî atMahurjhari for the first time revealed that thereare many more burials, mostly primary in nature

with limited burial goods similar to thecontemporary culture without any lithicappendages. They are buried in a simpleprocedure by digging a pit within theneighbourhood and sometimes in between thespace of a cluster of megalithic burials (Mohanty2005a). These evidences provided new insightinto the different burial customs, economiccondition and social representation of megalithicpeople of Vidarbha. Brief notes on some of therecently excavated sites in peninsular India havebeen given below.

Mahurjhari: Mahurjhari is located 15 km westof Nagpur city on the Nagpur Kotal road inNagpur district. The presence of megalithicmonuments at Mahurjhari village was broughtto light by Hunter in 1933 during his investigationof historic antiquities (Hunter 1933). After 25years of Hunterís notice of megalithicmonuments in the village, in 1958 Banerjee fromArchaeological Survey of India explored the siteand recorded 300 megalithic stone circles (IAR1958-59:21). Later, Deo excavated megalithicmonuments at the site first in 1971-72 (Deo1973) and later in 1978-79 (IAR 1978-79:71).The site was further selected for exploration andexcavation by Mohanty with the aim of locatingthe habitation deposit (IAR 2001-02: 123-31,2002-203:172-74, Mohanty 2003) which waslocated 1 km south to the Early Historic mound.Excavations at the habitation deposits revealedtypical micaceous red ware, black and red ware,thick red and black slip ware of Vidarbhamegalithic culture. Besides, sherds of black -painted red ware were also found. Several floorlevels were exposed along with silos, hearths,roasting places, fireplaces, washing platformsmade with pebbles and clay. The floor weremade by ramming the black clay upon whichstone chips were laid and then it was coveredwith a thin layer of brownish earth and stickyFig. 26. Octagonal method of excavation.


357

fine clay paste. U-shaped earthen hearth andstorage pits are the other characteristic finds. Thecircular post holes indicate some kind ofsuperstructures made of wood or otherperishable materials. The burnt clay clumpsfound with impression of bamboo and matindicate mud plaster over the bamboo mat.Besides, artifacts like semiprecious stone beads,terracotta beads, clay tablets, pottery discs andgrounded-flat-circular stones of differentwrights were found along with large amount ofanimal bones and charred grains. The lowerlevels have given evidence of potteryresembling the late phase of neolithic traditionfrom the south along with stone blades andflakes.

There are 270 burials identified in 11localities located in considerable distance fromeach other at Mahurjhari. Many burials have beencompletely and partially removed duringmining, road-widening and land clearance. Theyare located on barren, less fertile, un-productivelandscape and hilly tracts. Each of these localitieshave around 15-70 burials with different shapes,sizes with various external filling and features.Again, within the locality burials are clusteredin groups separated from each other and oftenhaving personality of their own.

To testify some of the behavioural aspect ofthe Mahurjhari megalithic burial builders, threeadjacent burials from one of the clusters inlocality ëAí were undertaken for excavations.All the three burials opened in this cluster hadsecondary skeletal refuse along with funeralofferings and consist of iron chisels, adzes, axes,cross ring fastener axes, daggers, arrowheads,spearheads, ladles, hoes, ploughshares, knifes,nail- parers, horse-bits, copper bangles, bellsand beads of semi-precious stones. Along withsecondary burial scattered in different parts ofthe burial, the Megalithic number 10 had two

primary burials, one of them inserted at a laterdate. The sticky black clay which covered theskeleton was mostly brought from the sedimentsof the nearby water-bodies, which dries up afterthe monsoon.The cultural materials recoveredfrom the excavated burials are the same aspreviously recovered by Deo (Deo 1973).However, the finding of bead manufacturingrefuse from excavated burials located close tothe early historic mound at Mahurjhari isintriguing.

There were four pit burials without anysurface indicators and significant stoneappendages, two on either side (north and south)of the burial number 10 with similar culturalmaterial of the period (Mohanty 2005).Discovery of pit burials outside periphery addeda new piece of information.

DHAVALAMETI

The village Dhavalameti is located 12 km westof Nagpur on Nagpur-Amaravati road. Therewere 14 megalithic burials scattered in an areaof 10 hectares. These are Cairns with andwithout peripheral boulder type. Excavationconducted by Nagpur University in 2003-04 inone of the burials revealed unique internalarchitectural elements not previously known inthe Vidarbha Megalithic burials (Kellelu 2006).It was two circled burials having a rectangularrubble features covering the central pit. Theouter circle is measured 18 m in diameter madeof placing basaltic boulders. The inner circle wasmade of multi- coursed rubble with a diameterof 4m. Excavation of the rectangular rubblefeature in the center of the inner circle yieldednothing except a few potsherds. But just outsidethis rectangular feature on the western side afew copper objects, parts of a horse facialornaments were noticed. The entire inner circlewas packed with black cotton soil in a small heap


358

and the entire space between the inner and outercircles were given a filling of murum and smallto medium sized rubble mixture giving theentire megalith a domical shape. Material cultureincluding iron tools like spearheads, chisels,knife, adze and copper objects were founddistributed in all the excavated quadrants. Butin the SE quadrant arrangement of a fewmicaceous red ware pots kept in a semi circularfashion on the natural murum floor in the middleof the outer and inner circles was noticed. Closeto these pots some fragmentary human skeletalremains were also noticed. This quadrant alsorevealed iron tools along with black-and-redware, red ware and black ware pottery. Anothernoteworthy discovery was the finding of tworectangular pit burials outside the periphery.Both the burials are secondary in nature.

VYAHAD

Vyahad is habitation cum burial site belongingto megalithic culture located 24 km away fromNagpur on the Nagpur-Amaravati road. The sitewas excavated by Nagpur University in 2005-06 (Meshram and Kellelu 2009). The habitationmound is located on the right back of a perennialstream and burials are located on the left bank.Survey conducted at burial site located 100 cairnburials with or without periphery boulders. Thediameter of the cairn varies from 8m to 20m. Aburial was excavated having a filling of 80 to 90cm. It was a double circle having a gap of 1 mbetween two circles. The central pit wassurrounded by a rectangular chamber. Thechamber was made by multicourse pebbles.Interestingly, the burial is mainly made ofpebbles of varied sizes. The pebbles used ininner circle were smaller than the outer circle.The central pit contains red ware potsaccompanied by black-and-red ware bowls/dishes in all four corners. Other cultural materials

found from the central pit are copper horse-faceornaments, iron bridle, stirrups, knives, lances,chisels and few fragmentary human bones werefound. Outside the rectangular chamber, a fewhuman and animal bones associated withpotsherds were found. Two east-west orientedrectangular pit burials were also located on theperipheral of the excavated burial. Except a fewmicaceous red ware shreds nothing was foundin these pits.

The habitation deposit on the right bank ofthe stream was also excavated to know thenature of the deposit and their culturalassociation with the burials located on theopposite bank. The megalithic people settledover the natural alluvial soil at the site. Theymade floor of rammed black cotton soil,plasteredwith lime. The alignment of a few postholes,some of which contain the remnants of burntwooden posts show that the huts were eithercircular or oval. The floors were blackened andashy suggesting burning activity. Several floor-levels were encountered in excavation. This hasbeen observed also at Takalghat, Naikund,Bhagimohari, Khariwada and Mahurjhari. Excepta few urns and animal bones and pottery noother antiquities were recovered from thesefloors. Some huts revealed U-shaped hearths fullof ash. The pottery assemblage consists ofmicaceous red ware, black slipped ware andtypical megalithic Black-and-Red ware .

PACHKHERI

Pachkheri is located in Kuhi taluk of Nagpurdistrict and was excavated by the ArchaeologicalSurvey of India (IAR 1992-93:64-73, Nath 2002).The site has menhirs and stone circles.Excavation revealed five cultural levels betweenthe Mesolithic and the medieval. Period II ismegalithic, with mainly black and red ware, redware, black on red painted ware and black


359

slipped ware. Discovery of the patches of mudfloor and iron rod, ring fastener and a copperbowl are some of the important finds. Excavationof the menhirs revealed that a pit was dug toerect the monolithic stone or slab. No funerarymaterials were found in the excavation ofmenhirs. One stone circle was also excavated,where a central pit was surrounded by a circularchamber made of pebbles. The funerarymaterials include a copper bowl, iron coiledrings, ring fastener and red ware vases.

DHAMNALINGA

The site is located on the south- east and south-west banks of the Vena reservoir situatedbetween the villages Peth and Dhamnalinga inNagpur district. Excavation was conducted byNagpur University (IAR 2000-01:97-107). Thereare about 50 burials located in three differentclusters. In total 12 Megalithic burials have beenexcavated. All are cairns with and withoutperiphery boulders measuring 17m to 1.3 m indiameter. Some of the excavated burials havedouble peripheral boulders. The inside fillingvaries from loose pebble-filling to compactpebble-filling with clay. In one of them, redsandstone chips were used to fill the gapbetween the outer and inner circles. Almost allthe excavated burials produced human skeletalremains in secondary condition but buried in aproper anatomical alignment along with theburial furniture comprising pottery, ornamentsand both copper and iron objects.

The significant discoveries are peripheralapsidal pit burials and a boat shaped terracottasarcophagus. So far in Vidarbha onlyDhmanalinga has given evidence of terracottasarcophagus having post cremated bones of achild. Altogether 32 peripheral pit burials wereexcavated here. They are mostly in east-westdirection with slight deviation. The pit were

filled with murum and cultural materials like afew found pots and iron tools characteristicmegalithic culture. Moreover, fragmentaryhuman bones, tooth remains and skull portionwere also recovered from some of the pits. Fouroblong shaped rubble filled features were alsoexcavated that produced human skeletal remainsand red ware pottery.

ADICHCHANALLUR

Adichchanallur is known for the remains of urnburials. The site was excavated by AlexanderRea in 1902-03. The site was excavated recentlyby Chennai circle of archaeological Survey ofIndia (IAR 2003-04:267-68). The excavationcovered an area of 600 sq m that resulteddiscovery of 160 urn burials. Based on the urntypes and nature of skeletal remains excavated,urns were divided into three phases. Phase oneis dominated by primary burials. Urns of phaseI invariably contain non-articulated humanskeletal remains along with grave goods likepottery, iron tools and ornaments. The skeletalremains interned in urns are in crouchedposition. Example of double burials in the sameurn was also noticed. In Phase II primary burialsare fewer and urns containing secondary burialsmore. The third phase is dominated bysecondary burials. In Phase II skeletal remainsare kept in non-articulated manner.

In the secondary burials, the body was firstallowed to decompose and then bones werecollected for secondary burial. In ArunachalPradesh, the Nocte tribe follows a similar typeof burial system. First, they keep the dead bodyon a platform made of bamboo far fromsettlement area. Later they collect the skeletalremains to perform secondary burial ritual. Inthe primary burials, as evident fromAdichchanallur, the fore and hind limbs of thebody were folded and tied by vegetal or bark


360

rope and then kept inside the urn. The urn no.83B revealed a double burial with bodies keptin such manner.

The grave goods found in the urns are mainlybowls, dishes, ring stands and lids of black andred ware, black polished ware, red ware andblack ware. Besides, white pained black and redwares were also found. Other finds include axe,arrowheads, dagger and spearhead of iron andcopper ornaments. Traces of rice husk andimpression of cloth also noticed.

A piece of potsherd found inside an urn withhuman skeletal remains shows the appliquèfigures of two crocodiles and a deer on one sideof a standing women and a sheaf of paddy anda crane on her other side is a noteworthydiscovery.

THANDIKUNDI

The village is situated in the Kodaikanal talukof Dindugal district of Tamil Nadu. TamilUniversity located around 1000 burials spreadingover an area of 40 hectares on the right bank ofriver Marudandi (Rajan et al. 2005). The burialsare mainly dolmen and cist within cairns withperiphery boulders. Four such cist burials withhuge capstones were excavated. All the cistsshow a passage constructed by placing stoneslabs in front of the porthole. Two out of fourexcavated cists are transepted cists. All the cistsrevealed rich grave goods placed on the floorslab inside the chamber. Cist no I was rich ingrave good in the form of pottery and ironobjects. A total 41 pots was found placed belowand around four urns kept in the four corners ofthe chamber. Besides pots like bowls, basins,dishes, four legged jars, small pots, ring stand,lids, iron objects like swords, dagger and Lshapes objects were found. A dagger was foundplaced on two black and red ring stand. Cist no

2 yielded 296 etched carnelian beads of ëtypeIí. The characteristic patterns on the beads areradial lines on the periphery. Quartz beads 48in number were also recovered from the samecist burial. No remains of skeletal remains werefound from any of the burials.

MAYILADUMPARI

Survey in this area located more than 1000megalithic burials (Rajan 2004). A burial locatedon the northern side of the burial complex wasexcavated. Excavation revealed a cist burialwithin a cairn circle.. The cist is simple inconstruction without having the base slab andany kind of passage. However, on the top ofwestern orthostat an unusual ëUí-shaped porthole was located. No skeletal remains werefound, but grave goods consisting of an axe anda bunch of arrow heads along with black andred ware dishes and pot with conical base werefound. Distribution and occurrence of burialgoods suggest two levels of ritual performances.The first was witnessed on the floor slab andthe second was performed in the middle layerwhere a red polished pot was found .Excavationat the habitation mound revealed cultural depositunderlying the early historic cultural deposit.Evidence of mesolithic and neolithic culturebeneath the megalithic culture was alsorecovered. There are several rock shelters thatcontain painting ascribed to the neolithic period.

NEDUNGUR

Nedungur is a recently discovered andexcavated burial cum habitation site located 15km west of Karur Excavation was carried outthe Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology in 2008 (Gurumurty 2008). Thehabitation deposit located on the southeasternside of the modern village is spread over an area


361

of 20 hectares. Close to the habitation depositsabout 50 cairn burials with or without peripheryboulders were located. Some of these burialshave cist in the central portion. A cairn type withdouble circle of periphery boulders entombinga transepted cist with passage was excavated.Orientation of the transepted cist was east-west,and inside a four- legged jar, black and red warebowls, iron spears, knifes and an adze werefound.

The different localities in the habitationmound revealed black and red ware, blackpolished ware, red ware, red slipped ware andrusset-coated ware. Besides, iron tools likesword, arrowhead, knives, copper rings, shellbangles, terracotta gamesman, pipes, lamps andspindle whorls were also found.

PORUNTHAL

It is located 12 km southwest of Palani taluk ofDindigal district (Rajan 2009). The habitationmound is located on the left bank of the riverPorunthal covering an area of 5.5 hectares. Themegalithic burials are located in five localitiesfrom 4 to 1 km distance from the habitationmound. All five localities indicate a generalpattern of typological distribution. The firstlocality, towards the south of habitation mound,represents urn burials and dolmen. Dolmenwithin a rectangular enclosure are also noticedin this locality. The second locality is on theeither bank of river Porunthal, almost 2 km southof the habitation mound. The locality representsdolmen and cist with cairn filling withoutperiphery boulders. The third locality is about1.5 km southwest from the habitation mound andcontains urn burials and cists with cairns markedby periphery boulders. The fourth localitycontain only dolmen located 4 km away to westfrom the habitation mound. The fifth locality islocated 2.5 km west of habitation mound and

contain only cairns with periphery boulders.Excavations at the habitation mound as well asburials were excavated by PondicheryUniversity in 2009 and 2010.

Of the four burials excavated, two aretransepted cists with passage entombed by cairnwith periphery boulders. The other two are twincists entombed by cairn with periphery boulders.In the transepted cists grave goods were offeredin both the chambers. Grave goods consist offour-legged jars, bowl and dishes of black andred ware, horse stirrups, arrow heads, swards,knives and beads of carnelian, quartz, agate andgarnet. Grave goods are found generally placedon the floor slab of the cists which is the firstlevel of ritualistic offerings. In the second leveloffering was made on a bench higher than firstlevel offering. In one of the legged jars wasfound paddy. In another instance paddy wasfound placed on a dish. Human skeletal remainsfound in the burials are fragmentary. Offeringsin the form of various pottery of black and redware, black polished ware and red polishedware are found in all the burials. Graffiti marksfound on some of the pots on the shoulderportion represents mostly ëUí and ëXí type ofmarks. Sometime two identical graffiti occurredopposite to each other.

Enormous quantity of glass beads withevidence of polishing and furnace used inpolishing glass beads were found from the earlyhistoric level.

UMMICHIIPOYH

This is a rock cut burial site in the Kasargoddistrict of Kerala (IAR 2002-03:140-41). A clusterof rock cut caves was noticed on the westernslope of a lateritic outcrop. Two caves wereexcavated by Thrissur circle of ArchaeologicalSurvey of India. The caves are circular on plan.A circular hole was made on the top of the cave.


362

The rectangular entrance was closed by placinga slab. A steep slope was provided as passageto the entrance. No antiquity save pots of varioussize, bowls and lids of black and red ware andred ware were found.

Recently a rectangular rock cut burial with apillar in the center was reported at Kodakkal inMalappuram district (Ajit Kumar 2006). Entrancewas provided by a flight of steps. Inside therectangular chamber a bench was made wherepots of various sizes of black and red ware, redware and black ware along with iron objects liketripod ring stand and swords were kept.Besides, remains of a large urn were alsorecovered.

CHRONOLOGY

Several Megalithic sites in Peninsular India havebeen dated applying absolute dating method likeradiocarbon dating and thermoluminicence.11 InVidarbha, 14C dates are available from Takalghat,Naikund, Bhagimohari and Khariwada andsuggest c. 800 BC for megalithic culture ofVidarbha. However, dates available from thehabitation deposits at Naikund, Bhagimohari andKhariwada are only from the middle layers. Thelower levels of all these sites remained to date.Hence, it is possible that the date in Vidarbhacan go back beyond 800 BC. Noteworthyexcavations at habitation deposit at Mahurjharihave produced evidence of lithic assembles andpottery resemblance to late neolithic phase ofsouth India (Mohanty 2005b). Dates availablefrom other geographical areas are Rayalaseemac. 1880ñ1595 BC, upper Tungabhadra Valley c.1440ñ930 BC, Cuddapah basin 1375ñ1230 BC,Tambraparni plain c. 905ñ780 BC, Javadi Hills c.425/0155 BC, upper Cauvery Valley c. 225 BC,Krishna-Tungabhadra doab 1670 BCñAD 35,Warangal plateau c. 185 BCñAD 35, upper KrishnaValley c. 160 BCñAD 70, Kongunad upland c. 300

BCñAD 100. From these available dates, thebeginning of the megalithic culture in peninsularIndia can be pushed back to around 1500 BC.The culture was prevalent during the earlycenturies of the christen era in differentgeographical pockets in peninsular India.

SUBSISTENCE ECONOMY

The opinions and arguments regarding thesubsistence economy of Megalithic people arevaried. These opinions suggest megalithiccommunity as pastoral nomad (Leshnik 1967,1974, Narasimhaiah 1980) or agrarian(Gururajarao 1972, Ramachandran 1980, Rao1988, Kajale 1989) or combination of both(Ramachandran 1962, Soundara Rajan 1962, Deo1985, Lukacs et al. 1989, Mohanty 2005b).

With the increasing number of discovery ofhabitation sites in recent years, it is now,however, somewhat difficult to think ofmegalithic society as pastoral nomad. Moreover,the artifact remains suggest that megalithiccommunity comprised groups of artisans andcraftsmen like potters, carpenters, cobblers,bamboo craft, lapidary, blacksmiths,coppersmiths, goldsmiths, etc. The veryexistence of these professional groupspresupposes surplus production (Misra 1985).It is often unrealistic for a pastoral communityto manage surplus of such a group ofprofessionals and utilize them in the event ofsocial functions. Hence, the economic systemindicates towards stable surplus production andmanagement system.

Kajale based on his archaeobotanicalresearch suggested that megalithic peoplecarried out agricultural activity in both seasonsduring Rabi and Kharif seasons (Kajale 1989).Variety of grains including rice, wheat, kodomillet, barley lentil, black gram, horse gram,common pea, pigeon pea, Indian jujube


363

(Table 1) were recovered from excavation athabitations8. Paddy husk was recovered fromburial at Jadigenahalli and recently at Porunthallarge quantity of paddy was found offeredin a four legged jars (K. Rajan personalcommunication). Moreover, discovery of circularbins from the floor of houses from Bhagimohari,Naikund and Mahurjhari strongly suggestsstorage of food grains and agricultural economy(IAR 1982-83:61-62, Deo and Jamkhedkar 1982,Mohanty 2005b). Finding of agriculturalimplements such as iron hoes, sickles andploughshares strengthens the view on strongagricultural economy.

The study on faunal remains9 from theexcavated Megalithic sites provides evidenceof several species of domesticated and wildanimals (Table 2). Next to cattle, sheep/ goatswere the dominant domesticated animals (Deo1984, 1985). The importance of cattle is evidentfrom the large number of cattle bones at all thesettlement sites (Thomas 1992a). It is importantto note that besides cattle, sheep/goat bones aremainly recovered in maximum numbers fromhabitation deposits (Thomas 1992a). Theeconomy of the megalithic people may havebeen influenced by stockbreeding, but thiscannot be a sole criterion to suggest thatmegalithic people were pastoral nomads. Thelocation of sites close to fertile arable land withwater bodies and pasture land suggest that theyselected landscape suitable for agriculture aswell animals to graze. The recovery of wildanimal bones suggests that hunting also playedan important role in their diet and subsistenceeconomy.

In addition, for the fulfilment of other socialneeds in domestic, technical and cultural frontsefficient infrastructure of subsidiary economicactivities is essential. Other activities such assmithery, carpentry, pottery-making, lapidary,

basketry and stone cutting were part of theeconomic activities of Megalithic society whichwas supported by the primary mode of surplusproduction within the subsistence economy ofthe Megalithic people.

RITUAL FOOD OFFERINGS OF MEGALITHIC PEOPLE

ëOrganic Residue Analysisí is an approach ofëMolecular Biologyí that identifies ëmolecularmarkersí on pots. Residues of organic remains,especially cooked food, consumed or storedfood, absorb by the pores of non-slipped andnon-glazed pot, can be traced through ëOrganicReside Analysisí. Recently an attempt was madeby Ghosh10 to identify food residue on pot froma burial excavated at Mahurjhari by Mohanty. Thepot was recovered from the central pit placedclose to the skeleton. The analysis resulted inidentifying fatty acid, amino acid andcarbohydrates. The study was preliminary andmore work remained to identify sources of thesecomponents of lipids. However, the resultconfirms that cooked food was part of burialritual and offered in pots in burial.

RITUAL FEAST AND HORSE SACRIFICE

Feast was probably part of death ritual celebratedby the megalithic people. The custom is alsoseen prevalent among the present societies invarying degree of celebration. The scale ofaffordability of the feast depends upon the socio-economic status of the deceased or his/herfamily members. In archaeological context, it ishowever known that food item was offered inthe burial sometime recovered in pots, like onecopper bowl found filled with chapped animalbones, probably offered after cooking. Andrecent ëOrganic Reside analysisí of pot fromMahurjhari further supports that cooked foodwas offered. These evidences are however notin the direct support of feast prepared by the


364

megalithic people. Food in the form of wholegrains or cooked were offered in the burial.

Experiment on reconstruction of a burialfrom Vidarbha suggests that 70 to 80 individualswere required to construct a burial having 13.5mdiameter with a deposit of 80 to 85 cm. in twoand half to three days without any leisure(Mohanty and Walimbe 1996). Therefore,construction of burials is not solely effort madeby family members, but indeed is a communityeffort. Participation in construction by thecommunity members could be social normswithout any labour charge. If not by any labourcharge, a feast was probably prepared to honorthe labour force provided by communitymembers. Animal was probably scarified andfeast was prepared beside various other fooditems. Thomas suggests that horse was mostlikely sacrificed for feast. Horse bones wererecovered from excavated burials at Naikund,Takalghat, Khariwada and Bhagimohari(Thomas1992a, 1992b, 1993). Interestingly,only the non-consumable parts i.e. skull and hoofbones of horse were found (Thomas 1992b).Presence of only non-consumable part in burial,according to Thomas, after sacrificing the horseconsumable parts were eaten and non-consumable parts were buried in the grave. Thisis indeed an indication that feast was celebrated.In ethnographic parallel sacrificing buffaloamong Hill Soras of Odisha and Mithun (BosFrantalis) among tribes in Arunachal Pradesh forpreparation of feast in death ritual is a stillprevalent custom.

Horse was probably not an animal thateverybody could afford to sacrifice. Instead, bullor other such animal might have also sacrificedfor feast according to socio-economic standingin the community. Evidence of bull sacrifice isevent in a Naikund burial (Deo 1985).

MATERIAL CULTURE

The material cultural assemblage of megalithicpeople of peninsular India can be grouped intobroad categories such as ceramic, iron andcopper artifacts, beads of various raw materials,gold and silver ornaments, terracotta objects,objects of art and miscellaneous objects.

The megalithic pottery is mainly wheelmade. The striation marks on the pottery indicatethat both fast and slow wheel technique wasapplied to make pottery. However, handmadepottery is also available in considerable amount.In fact, the large storage jars were foundhandmade. At Takalghat majority of micaceousred ware jars and pots were found handmade(Deo 1970). Micaceous red ware is characteristicof Vidarbha megalithic culture. The fabric iscoarse with clay containing fine sand and flakesof mica. The mica flakes were used in largequantity that they shine on the surface of thepottery. The pottery has ill-fired core and seemsthat it was less durable pottery. They are foundfrom both burials and habitation. Mica used inthe pottery was quarried from the locallyavailable source in Vidarbha. Sometime blackpaintings in linear pattern are found on thesurface. The most common shape in micaceoustype is globular pots in varied sizes with funnel-shaped mouth. Besides this, other shapes likebowls, basins, dishes and storage jars with flaringmouth are also available. In the early phase ofmegalithic culture mica flakes used were big andquantity was more compared to the later phaseof the culture. The pottery continued to be inuse in the early historic period in Vidarbha.Another type of ceramic that has regionaldistribution is russet coated painted ware. It ismainly distributed in the western interior regionof peninsular India and Kerala.


365

The common pottery type of megalithicculture of peninsular India is black and red ware.The ceramic is represented by well-levigatedfine fabric. It is thin in section and highlyburnished. This is the most common type foundfrom burials and habitation deposit of megalithicculture. The shapes are mainly rimless bowls ofvarious size, dishes with convex side, globularpots with flared outer rim, ring stand, lids withor without conical top and animal figures, conicalvase of different length, etc. Other associatedceramics are black slipped and red slipped ware.The shapes represent mainly bowls, globularpots, dishes, ring stands, and lids. Red-slippedware is also represented by four legged jars.From Vidarbha, for example from Mahurjhari,black and red ware pottery is also found in whitepainting of parallel lines and criss cross pattern.

The graffiti found on ceramic represents bothgeometrical and non-geometrical symbols (Lal1960). Graffiti representing Tamil Bramhi scriptsare common from Tamil Nadu and Kerala region(Rajan 1991b). They sometime represent wordsthat may be place name, personal name, nameof clan or potterís name (Rajan 1994). A recentlydiscovered Tamil Bramhi script on potsherds inmegalithic context has been dated to 500 BC

(Rajan n.d.1).

A large number of iron artifacts wererecovered from excavations at burials as wellas from the habitation. Occurrence of ironartefacts, especially in Vidarbha, is more inquantity in burials than recovered from habitationdeposit. The entire range of iron artifacts (Fig27) can be divided as agricultural tools, offensiveand defensive tools, specialized occupationrelated tools such as carpentry and leather work,household appliance, toiletry, horse bits, horseornaments, ornaments and miscellaneous. Thesecategories can further divided according totypology and morphological variations (see

Moorti 1994). It is worth mentioning that thesame type of tools, for example chisels, arefound in varied sizes and has morphologicalvariations. The variability in tool morphologyand size in site and intra-site level providesinsight on chronological development,commonality in production, distribution,functional variation and symbolism (Thakuria etal. n.d).

Morphological variability may also reflectfunctionality of the tools and nature of crafts.Chisels recovered from burials in Vidarbharepresent variability in types that can bedescribed as (i) straight cutting edge with flatbody, (ii) straight cutting edge with square body,(iii) spearhead type, (iv) convex and broadcutting edge, (v) square body with pointedcutting edge. The observations made withethnographic parallel shows that variation intype and size has different functions. The typeand size of the chisels as observed in traditionalcarpentry depends upon the nature of work tobe performed. The adzes which wereinterpreted as cobbler tools also vary in types,sizes and shapes. The main characteristics of thistool is that it has a convex or straight cutting edge,and convex or straight edge at other end, thebody is inverted biconical and sometime looklike an hourglass. There is no provision to haft ahandle at other end. It was assumed as a toolused for cutting leather holding the middleportion as grip. However, it looks impracticalfor two reasons. The holding at middle portionmay cause injury to hand as it is made of thinsheet of iron. Second, cutting leather needapplication of presser and holding in middle isdifficult to apply required pressure. The toolinstead can be interpreted as tool used forsplitting bamboo or bark. Bamboo screens werealready known from the early neolithic periodat Tekkalkota (Nagaraj rao et al. 1965).


366

Excavations at Bhagimohari and Mahurjharirevealed burnt clay lumps having impression ofmat. It seems that bamboo mats or screens wereused as walls and seems plastered by clay andthe craft must have developed during megalithicperiod.

The iron axe of various sizes recovered areof cross fastened with iron ring. Shaft hole axe,which is characteristic of early historic period,is perhaps rare in megalithic period. An irondagger with copper hilt found from Mahurjharishows advance knowledge of combining twometals together.

The copper and high tin bronze artefactsmainly represent household appliance and

ornaments. Horse ornaments made of copperare found from sites like Mahurjhari, Naikund,Raipur and Vyahad. At Porunthal a horse stirrupswas from one of the excavated burial. Theornaments of copper represent mainly banglesand finger rings. Noteworthy are lids withdecorative finials such as bird finials, bud finialsand domical bell tops (Fig 28). A globular potmade of copper is noteworthy recovery fromMahurjhari (Fig 29). Besides, copper bowls arefound from the many excavated burials inpeninsular India. A figure of tiger made ofcopper inlayed with carnelian and sapphire (Fig30) was found placed inside a cist at Kodumanal(Rajan 1993). Copper or bronze figures ofanimals like buffalo, goat, tiger, cock, elephant

Fig. 27. Iron tools from Megaliths of Vidarbha.


367

and antelope were found from inside urn burialsat Adichchannallur during the excavationconducted by Alexander Rea in 1902-03.

Gold and silver are mainly used forornaments like necklace, beads and earornaments, Mahurjhari, Takalghat, Naikund,Raipur, Kodumanal, Arippa, Tekkalkota andmany other sites produced ornaments of thesematerials.

Beads made of various materials likesemiprecious stones, shells, steatite andterracotta are found from excavated burials andhabitation sites. Shells and steatite beads are notfound from excavated burials in Vidarbha.Terracotta beads are also rare from burials inVidarbha. However, some other excavated sitesin South India have given evidence of shells andterracotta beads. At Thandikundi steatite beadsare found in large number from one theexcavated cist burials. Semiprecious stone beadsare mainly of carnelian, banded agate, jasper,quartz, lapis lazuli, amethyst, quartz and garnet.Lapis lazuli beads are found mainly in sites likeSanur (Beck 1930) and Kodumanal (Rajan 1994).Mahurjhari and Kodumanal probably were tworegional bead manufacturing center during theMegalithic period supported by thecircumstantial evidence (Rajan 1995, Mohanty1999, 2008). Etched beads of various patterns

like radial lines, zigzag lines, zonal bands andbands are found on beads of tablet, barrel andcylinder shaped beads (Thakuria 2010). Radiallines are found only on tablet shapes beads andare characteristic of south Indian megalithicetched beads. They were found in large numberfrom Maski (Thapar 1957), Kodumanal (Rajan1990, 1994) and Porunthal (Rajan 2009). Suchbeads are also found in Vidarbha but occurrenceis less in number. An ear stud made of glass wasfound in sarcophagus for child burial inDhamnalinga (IAR 2000-01:97-107)

Among the stone artefacts, a four-leggedquern along with muller from Borgaon (IAR) andpounder stones from Naikund and Mahurjhari(Deo and Jamkhedkar 1982) are noteworthy.Moreover, recent excavation at Mahurjharirevealed several rounded stone pieces ofvarious size and weight (Mohanty 2005). Thesestone pieces might have some significance inFig. 28. Copper bowl and lid with decorative finials.

Fig. 29. A Copper pot from Mahurjhari.


368

weight and measure which need to be studied.A burial from Naikund has revealed a stone axesimilar to south Indian neolithic tradition (Deoand Jamkedkar 1982).

Coins, mainly Roman coins, are found insome of the excavated megalithic burials fromTamil Nadu and Kerala (Das 1947, Rajan n.d.2).Finding of coins from megalithic burial haschronological significance of their continuationtill the early historic period and interaction oftrade.

SYMBOLIC OR RITUALISTIC OBJECTS

A tripod made by three copper rods conicallyon a circular base is peculiar and rare item foundfrom the excavation during the recent excavationat Mahurjhari (Fig 31). On the all three rods,figures of dear, bird and fish were fixed onrespectively on the base, middle and on theconical top. The three animals on the tripodrepresent three animals as on ground the dear,on air the bird and on water the fish. This itemmust have had some religious and ideologicalconnotation of life or death as accepted bymegalithic people. According to Mohanty,findings of such item from burial may havesignificance on their belief system of travellingthe ëdeadí through three different worlds(Mohanty 2005a).

Eye beads recovered from one of theexcavated burials in Mahurjhari may havesymbolic value. Eye beads are generallybelieved to be used for protection against theevil power (Maloney 1976, Sinha 2006). Therewere three banded agate beads having thepattern of eye were found placed near thehuman skeleton at Mahurjhari (Mohanty 2003-04). These eye beads perhaps indicate the beliefof megalithic people against evil spirits.

Fig. 30. A figure of tiger made of copper inlayed withcornelian and sapphire from Kodumanal.

Fig. 31. Copper tripod from Mahurjhari.


369

MEGALITHIC METALLURGY

The knowledge of iron smelting and processingof iron was indigenous to the Megalithic peopleof peninsular India. The discovery of Ironsmelting furnace along with tuyres, slag, cinderand iron ore from Naikund (Gogte 1982a,1982b), Kodumanal (Rajan 1994, 1993) Banahali(IAR 1984-85:44) and Khuntitoli (Swamy 1996)provides significant evidence on technique ofiron smelting and processing applied bymegalithic people10. There are several sites inpeninsular India from where evidence of ironprocessing was identified and several other sitesare found located in ore rich area (Moorti 1994).The trace element analysis carried out on irontools from Khapa, Mahurjhari, Gangapur andBorgaon show that the iron objects from thesemegalithic sites have a strong resemblance tothe iron from Naikund (Gogte et al. 1985). Ithas been postulated from the result of theanalysis that Naikund supplied iron or iron toolsto the other megalithic sites within Vidarbha.Recent analysis on Naikund and Bhagimohariiron tools shows that the process of steeling ironwas known to megalithic people by aboutbeginning of first millennium in Vidarbha. Theycould change the properties of wrought iron bysubsequent heating in charcoal for a prolongedtime. Steel obtained by such method washardened by heating and quenching (Joshi et al.2008). Megalithic people also achieved theproduction of high- tin beta bronze by hammeringunder temperature of 586-798’ c followed byquenching (Srinivasan 2006).

COMMONALITY IN ARTIFACTS PRODUCTION ANDUSE: CONCEPT OF ëORGANIZED SOCIETYí

In a recent attempt, three tool categoriesóchisel, adz and axófrom five excavatedMegalithic sites, namely Mahurjhari, Naikund,Raipur, Khariwada and Bhagimohari were

analyzed using ëPrincipal Component Analysisíand ëMultivariate Statistical Analysisí (Thakuriaet al. n.d). The aim was to identifystandardization in morphology and dimension,homogeneity and deviation, uniformity infunction and individuality. The result of analysisindicated homogeneity in morphology anddimension of tool categories within all five sites.Such similarity could only happen when thereis congruent functional ideology commonlyperceived in site and intra-site level.Commonality in social behavior and congruentfunctional ideology was possible in a regionallevel with better social organization and betterco-ordination in regional level. However, incertain case deviation from standard pattern wasobserved, like the large axes which are notfunctionally suitable. This may not have anyfunctional utility, but ceremonial symbolism.

PALAEODEMOGRAPHY

In the early stage study of megalithic skeletalremains mainly focused on establishing ëracialíor ëethnicí identity of megalithic people whereinferences were made on the basis ofphenotypic variations, primary metric features,of physical characterizations as dolichocephalior brachycephalic (for detail see Kennedy 1975,2000, Kennedy and Levisky 1984). However,some of the recent studies gone beyond suchtraditional study and provide insight intomortality and fertility rates, estimation ofpopulation size and density and pathologicalaspects.

Evidence of skeletal remains from Vidarbhaand Kodumonal indicates that the optimum lifeexpectancy of Megalithic people was 30 to 35years (Mohanty and Walimbe 1993, Mushrif-Tripathy 2009). Infant of age between 14 and28 months and sub-adult 5 to 9 years were alsopresent in the skeletal series. Interestingly


370

skeleton of old-adult category is missing.Absences of old-adult skeleton can behypothetically explained based on ritualistic act.The bones having fire exposure and cut marksrecovered from Kaniyathirtharn (Walimbe et al.1991), Raipur and Khariwada (Walimbe 1988)indicates exposure of the dead body to fire,perhaps evidence of cremation. Moreover, suchbones recovered from secondary burials werefragmentary in nature and do not representwhole skeleton. It could be that old-adults werecremated and whatever bones remained underburnt were collected for elaborate ritualisticburial ceremony. Thus, it can be suggested thatold-adults are represented only in form ofsecondary burial with cremated bones.However, it is certain that both the custom, i.e.cremation and burying were practiced bymegalithic people. Criteria for selectingcremation or burying the dead was probablybased on age, sex and nature of the death as hasbeen observed from the ethnographic study onmortuary variability in Vidarbha (Mohanty andWalimbe 1993, 1996, Geetali 1999, Thukral2005).

There is no marked symptom of pathologieson megalithic skeletal so far identified. Majornon-specific infections and nutritionaldeficiencies observed include periostitis,porotic hyperostosis and anemia. The onlyinfectious pathology identified is maxillarysinusitis from Kodumanal skeletal series. This issuspected to be occupational related pathology.As Kodumanal was iron smelting and processingcenter, maxillary sinusitis might have beencaused by inhaling smoke produced during thesmelting process. Another evidence ofoccupation hazard found is bilaterallyasymmetrical clavicles. This could happen onlybecause of repetitive movement of certain bodyparts. As evident from the artefactual remains,

crafts and activates of different nature, besidethe crafts on iron and bronze, like carpentry,ploughing, bamboo and basketry craft, oilcrushing, stone cutting and carrying, horse ridingwere practiced by megalithic people. All thesemight have caused traumatic injuries, stressfeatures and bone remoulding. Old age- relatedosteoarthritis and vertebral osteophytosis areidentified on Kodumanal skeletons (Mushrif-Tripathy et al. 2011).

Mohanty and Walimbe estimated populationdensity based on mainly life expectancy andspace occupied by individuals (Mohanty andWalimbe 1996). They suggest that a settlementof 5 hectares was presumable occupied byapproximately 400 to 500 individuals, if 75 to100 individuals are assumed per hectare. Theyfurther suggest that if life expectancy isconsidered to 30-35 years and if the site wasoccupied by 10 to 15 generations for 400 to 500years, there will be approximately 4000 to 5000deaths. This estimation provides threepostulations. First, considering the number ofdeaths counted discovered burials in proportionare meager. There may be other mode ofdisposal of the dead. This hypothesis has beenproved recently by discovery of pit burialswithout any lithic appendage outside peripheryof cairn type burials in Vidarbha. Second, burialsmight have been reopened for later insertion ofdeath occurred in same family or clan. Thereare some excavated burials in Vidarbha, wherefragmentary skeleton remains are found eitherclose to central pit (as in Meg..28, Mahurjhari)or in the inner periphery of the cairn (as in Meg10, both primary but one was later insertion).This indicates that same burial was used for morethan one generation. Third, paucity of settlementagainst large number of burial may not be a valididea. In fact, there should be more number ofburials, if considered the assumption of ë4000


371

to 5000í deaths in the occupation history of onesettlement.

KNOWLEDGE OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH CARE

An adult skull from S. Pappinayakkanpatti showsdeep injury penetrating the soft tissue of thebrain caused by sharp metal tool such as swordor axe (Walimbe and Selvakumar 1998).Walimbe based on the lamella bone formationsuggested that victim did not die immediatelybut survived for some period of time, anywherebetween fifteen days to three months andhealing was in progress at the time of death(Walimbe n.d). Survival of the victim with suchdeep injuries, where infection was potential,was possible with the help of medication,perhaps herbal medication. Living in ecologyrich in biotic resources, and exploiting bothplants and animals for food, they might have gotacquainted with healing properties of certainplants either by accidental way or byexperimenting with minor injuries. Minor injurieslike cut or scratch of skin no doubt occurredwhile carrying and fixing huge stone forconstruction of burial monuments and craftrelated works. Such injuries might have beentreated instantly by herbs they were acquaintedwith, and thus probably gained the knowledgeof healing properties of certain plants and herbs.Pestles recovered from excavations might haveused in grinding herbs. Application of ìMolecularBiologyî may help find out traces of medicinalherbs on skeletal remains or in the soil wheredeceased was buried.

SOCIAL DIMENSION OF MEGALITHIC PEOPLE

Understanding of social dimension of megalithicpeople of peninsular India has been attemptedby scholars in various ways. Among many,Moortiís work is much analytical andinterpretive. These studies considered artefacts

from excavated burials as main tool, besidesfrom other criteria such as burial dimension, sexand age, for estimation of social dimension ofburial in individual level and Megalithic societyas whole. These studies are, no doubt,imperative to the understanding of socialorganization postulated as ìrank or status (Deo1985:93)î and ìranked society (Moorti 1986,1994)íí. These generalizations on Megalithicsociety are based on data that do not representmegalithic society in whole. The situation canbe best explained from the examples fromVidarbha.

Spatial distribution of Megalithic burials inVidarbha indicates that the burials vary in size,nature and volume of filling (Mohanty 1993-94,Mohanty and Walimbe 1996)Based on recentevidence megalithic burials of Vidarbha can beclassified in basic three categories.

Category I: class of people who buried theirdead in cairn type burial with having peripheralboulders and varied nature of filling. Offeredburial goods varied in nature and types.

Category II: class of people who buried theirdeath in cairn type burial without havingperipheral boulders. Not much informationabout burial goods is available.

Category III: class of people who buried theirdeath in simple pit outside the cairn burials.Offering of burial good is negligible.

All previous analytical work on socialdimension of Vidarbha Megalithic culture wasbased on ëCategory Ií burials and therefore doesnot represent a holistic picture of megalithicsociety, but present a social hierarchy within aselected group of burials.

Another difficulty is in estimation of ësocialpersonaí based on artefact categories. Artefactsrecovered from burials were taken as main tool


372

for interpreting or identifying social persona ofa burial. Artifacts were classified according toBinfordís technomic, socio-technomic andideotechnomic category (Deo 1985, Moorti1986). Each category again sub-dividedaccording to functionality and utility. Then,frequency of occurrence of sub-categories wascounted for estimation of social persona of eachburial. The method, however, does not seemsto be imperative to count social persona inindividual level. There are two difficulties. First,no burial in Vidarbha yielded only a singletechnomic or socio-technomic sub-category ofartifacts. They are in varied sub-categories andin varied degree. Hence, it is difficult to attributethe burial to any single occupational group.Instead, this reflects a multi-dimensionaloccupational status. Second, along with thedeceasedís belongings, offerings to thedeceased may have been made by his family orhis relatives (Oí Shea 1996:10). In this case,offerings depend upon the choice andcapability, economical affluence and social

status of the family members and relatives. Onthe other hand, it reflects that offerings made tothe deceased were from the people whobelonged to varied social status and wereengaged in different kinds of occupation. In suchcase, social persona of the deceased inindividual level remains a mystery, but reflectscollective ësocial personaí and collectiveëeconomic statusí. This probably reflects thatthere was no rigidity in social and economichierarchy based on occupational status. Burialgoods probably were collective efforts byfamily, relatives or community members.Hence, the deceased lose his ësocial personaíenjoyed in his life time and gain a ëcollectivesocial personaí after his death. Same is the casein analyzing the mortuary data for the estimationof megalithic society of south India. Themegalithic tradition gradually declined due tovarious reasons. Some of the ritual andconceptual processes probably got manifestedin the later erection and construction of Virgalsor memorial stones in this region.

NOTES

1. Recently Darsana (Darsana 2006) pointed out thatBabington did not excavate Bangala MottaParambu which is actually a miss quote by manyscholars. Babington, indeed excavated a site callChattaparamba. Chattaparamba is located on alaterite hillock about 4 km east of Feroke in Calicutdistrict, on the bank of river Chaliyam. BangalaMotta Parambu was excavated by Logan in 1887.

2. Pearse is generally quoted as first excavator ofmegalithic burials in Vidarbha at Kamptee close toNagpur city. Pearse excavated at Kamptee in1867. Few months before in the same year of1867, Carnac also excavated burials in Junapani,but report was published in 1879, whereas Pearsepublished his report in 1869. Therefore, Pereaseísreport was the first published report on excavationof megalithic burials in Vidarbha and quoted by

scholar as first excavation in Vidarbha. Pearse wasindeed third person to excavate after Hislop andCarnac.

3. Reverend Stephen Hislop was born in 1817. Hearrived Nagpur in 1845 as Scottish missionary. Healso devoted time for anthropological andgeological studies of Nagpur. ëRemarks on theGeology of Nagpurí and ëThe Geology of theNagpur Stateí are two remarkable articles publishedby him. He also collected data on language andculture of Gonds which, after the death of Hislop,Sir Richard Temple edited and published underthe title Papers Relating to the Aboriginal Tribesof the Central Provinces, Left in MSS by the LateReverend Stephen Hislop, Missionary of the FreeChurch of Scotland at Nagpur.


373

4. Rev. Robert Hunter mentioned Hislopís discoveryof megalithic circle at Tahalghat: ìin December1847, as Mr. Hislop, with his colleague, was passingthe village of Takalghat, twenty miles north ofNagpur, he observed a circle of large unhewn stone.Further examination revealed, that there were nofewer than ninety such circles, some single, otherdouble-all clase together, and speading over anarea of about four miles (Hunter 1864:160)î. Hunteralso mentioned that Hislop excavated a circle atTakalghat with the permission of ëNagpoor Rajaíand revealed iron tools and human skeletalremains.

5. Anthropomorphic figures of various sizes are foundfrom Katapur, Malur, Mungapet, Kaperlaguru,Kollur, Domada, Dongatogu, Tottigutta andMidimalla,Galabhagudem, Aihole, Hire Benkal,Mottur, Udaiyanattam, Uttnur. See Moorti 1994 andRajan 1997 for bibliography.

6. The site was discovered by Mr. Virag Sontake, StateDepartment of Archaeology and Museum,Maharashtra. There are more than 300 burialslocated in four localities at the site. Two adjoininghabitation mounds were also located on the samebank of a nala during the 2010-11 exploration.Excavation was carried out at habitation depositand burials to ascertain cultural relation betweentwo. No burial goods were recovered except somefragmentary bone placed in bowl towards theperiphery of northwest corner. Three more sitesat Sili, Satana and Gangla located 5 to 8 km far fromMalli were also discovered.

7. Chandankeda is located in Chandrapur district ofVidarbha. It is a fortified site excavated in 2009 byNagpur University and State Department ofArchaeology and Museum, Maharashtra. The sitewas dug by modern brick manufacturingindustry at several places for soil. The early IronAge cultural deposit at the site can be easily beidentified in the exposed section of ditch made bybrick industry and material scattered in thedisturbed areas.

8. For detail see Vishnu-Mittre 1957, 1966, 1968,1971, 1989, Swamy 1972, Seshadri 1960, Kajale1982, 1984, 1989a, 1989b, 1991, 1994, 1997 andMoorti 1994.

9. For detail see Thomas 1974, 1984, 1992a andThomas and Joglekar 1994, Deshpande-Mukherjee et al. 2010.

10. Dr. Somnath Ghosh was pioneer to conductOrganic Residue Analysis on ancient pottery inIndia. In fact, his analysis on Mahurjhari pot incollaboration with Prof. R. K. Mohanty is first effortof its kind in India. The unfortunate death ofDr. Ghosh is a serious setback in the growth of thediscipline in its beginning itself. The report onMahurjhari analysis was submitted to Prof. Mohantyjust before his death. The report has been preparedfor publication on the effort of Prof. R. K. Mohantyand Mrs. Suparna Ghosh.

11. See detail see Possehl 1988, 1994, Moorti 1994,Mohanty and Selvakumar 2002, Rajan n.d.1.

REFERENCES

Agrawal, D.P. 1982. The Archaeology of India, London:Curzon Press.

Allchin, B. and F.R. Allchin. 1983. The Rise of Civilizationin India and Pakistan, New Delhi: Select BookService Syndicate.

Allchin, F.R. 1956. The Stone Alignments of SouthernHyderabad. Man 56: 133-56.

óñ. 1960. Piklihal Excavations. Hyderabad: AndhraPradesh Archaeological Series No. 5.

Babington, J. 1823. Descriptions of the Pandoo Cooliesin Malabar. Transactions of the Literary Societyof Bombay 3: 324-30.

Banerjee, N.R. 1956. The Megalithic Problem ofChingleput in the Light of Recent Exploration.Ancient India 12: 21-34.

Banerjee, N.R. and K.V. Soundara Rajan. 1959. Sanur1950-52: A Megalithic Site in District Chingleput.Ancient India 15: 4-42.


374

Begley, V 1965. The Iron Age of South India. Ph.D.Dissertation. Pennsylvania: PennsylvaniaUniversity.

Bidie, 1887. Prehistoric Graves Near Pallavaram, Journalof the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain andIreland 30: 693-95.

Caranc, R. 1879. Prehistoric Remains in Central India.Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 48:1-16.

Darsana, S. 2006. Antiquarian Research on the Megalithsof Kerala. Adharam 1 : 37-44.

Das, G.N. 1957. The Funerary Monuments of the Nilgiris.Bulletin of Deccan College Research Institute 18:140-58.

Deglurkar, G.B and G. Lad 1992. Megalithic Raipur(1985-90). Deccan College, Pune.

Deo, S.B. 1969. Megalithic Culture in Maharashtra.Seminar Papers on the Problem of Megaliths inIndia (Ed. A.K Narain), pp. 22-30. Varansi: Memoirsof the Department of Ancient Indian History,Culture and Archaeology 3.

óñ. 1970. Excavations at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69). Nagpur: Nagpur University.

óñ. 1973. Mahurjhari Excavations (1970-72).Nagpur: Nagpur University.

óñ. 1984. Megalithic Problems of the Deccan. InBridget Allchin (ed.), South Asian Archaeology:1981. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.221-24.

óñ. 1985. The Megaliths: Their Culture, Ecology,Economy and Technology. In S.B. Deo and K.Paddayya (eds.), Recent Advances in IndianArchaeology. Pune: Deccan College, pp. 89-99.

Deo, S. B. and A.P. Jajnkhedkar. 1982. Excavations atNaikund (1978-80). Bombay: Department ofArchaeology and Museums.

Deshpande-Mukherjee, A.P.K. Thomas, R.K. Mohanty.2010. Faunal Remains from the Iron Age and EarlyHistorical Settlement at Mahurjhari. Man andEnvironment 35(1): 87-102.

Dhavalikar, M.K., H.D. Sankalia and Z.D. Ansari. 1988.Excavations at Inamgaon Vol.-I, Part I and II.Pune: Deccan College.

Dikshit, M.G. 1968: Excavations at Kaundinyapur.Bombay: Government of Maharashtra.

Dikshit, K.N. 1969. The Origin and Distribution ofMegaliths in India. In A.K Narain (ed.), SeminarPapers on the Problem of Megaliths in India.Varansi: Memoirs of the Department of AncientIndian History, Culture and Archaeology 3, pp. 1-11.

Geetali, Anuja. 1999. Megalithic Practices Among theMadia Gonds of Bhamaragarh, DistrictGodchiroli, Maharashtra. Unpublished M.A.Dissertation, Pune: Deccan College.

Gogte, V. D. 1982a. Megalithic Iron Smelting at Naikund(Part I): Discovered by Three-Probe ResistivitySurvey. In S.B. Deo and A.P. Jamkhedkar (eds.)Excavations at Naikund 1978-80. Bombay:Department of Archaeology and Museums, pp. 52-55.

Gogte, V.D. 1982b. Megalithic Iron Smelting at Naikund(Part II): Efficiency of Iron Smelting by ChemicalAnalysis. In S.B. Deo and A.P. Jamkhedkar (eds.),Excavations at Naikund 1978-80. Bombay:Department of Archaeology and Museums, pp. 56-59.

Gogte, Y.D., Y.N. Bhoraskar and P.S. Lahoti. 1984. 14Me V. Neutron Activation Analysis of MegalithicIron Objects. Bulletin of the Deccan CollegeResearch Institute 43: 49-52.

Gupta, S.P. 1972. Disposal of the Dead and the PhysicalTypes in Ancient India. Delhi: Oriental Publishers.

Gururaja Rao, B.K. 1972. Megalithic Culture in SouthIndia. Mysore: University of Mysore.

Gurumurty, S. 2008. Tamizhaga Akalavya - Nedungur,Tamil Nadu State, Department of Archaeology,Chennai.

Hunter, G.A.P. 1933. The Antiquities of Mahurjiri. In Y.M.Deshpande (ed.), Saradasrama Varshika.Yeotmal: Maharashtra, pp.- 30-35

Hunter, Rev. Robert. 1864. Obituary. AmericanPhilosophy Journal (New Series) XIX (I): 169-70.

IAR: Indian Archaeology-A Review, ArchaeologicalSurvey of India, New Delhi.


375

Joglekar, P.P. and P.K. Thomas. 1998. Faunal Remainsfrom Tharsa. Puratattva 28: 121-25.

Joshi, S.V., P.P. Deshpande, R.K. Mohanty, N.B. Dhokeyand M.A. More. 2008. Metallographic Investigationsof Iron Objects Found in the Megalithic Burials inVidarbha Region of Maharashtra. Puratattva 38:244-50.

óñ. 1974. Ancient Grains from India. Bulletin of theDeccan College Research Institute.

Karnataka, Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduateand Research Institute 48-9: 123-28.

óñ. 1982. First Record of Ancient Grains at Naikund. InS.B. Deo and A.P. Jamkhedkar, Excavations atNaikund (1978-80). Bombay-Pune: Departmentof Archaeology and Museums, Deccan College, pp.60-63.

óñ. 1984. New Light on Agricultural Economy duringthe First Millennium BC-Palaeobotanical Study ofPlant Remains from Excavations at Veerapuram,District Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. In T.V.G. Sastri,M. Kasturi Bai and J. Vara Prasada Rao (eds.),Veerapuram-Type Site for Cultural Study in theKrishna Valley. Appendix B, Hyderabad: BirlaArchaeological and Cultural Research Institute, pp.l- 15.

óñ. 1989a. Archaeobotanical Investigation onMegalithic Bhagimohari and its Significance forAncient Indian Agricultural System. Man andEnvironment 13: 87-100.

óñ. 1989b. Ancient Grains from Excavations at Hallur(1976 Season), District Dharwar.

óñ. 1991. Current Status of Indian Palaeoethnobotany:Introduced and Indigenous Food Plants with aDiscussion on the Historical and EvolutionaryDevelopment of Indian Agriculture and AgriculturalSystem. In Jane Renfrew (ed.), New Light on EarlyFarming: Recent Developments inPalaeoethnobotany. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press, pp. 155-89.

óñ. 1994. Plant Remains from Kodumanal Excavations.Avanam 4: 132-34.

óñ. 1997. Evidence of Rice (Oryza sativa Linn.) fromKoppa, Megalithic Site in Karnataka. Man andEnvironment 22(1): 97-102.

óñ. 1974. Ancient Grains from India. Bulletin of theDeccan College Research Institute

Karnataka, Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduateand Research Institute 48-9: 123-28.

Kellelu, I. 2006. Personal Communication

Kennedy, K.A.R. 1975. The Physical Anthropology ofthe Megalithic Builders of South India and SriLanka. Canberra: Australian National University.

óñ. 2000. God-Apes and Fossil Men:Paleoanthropology of South Asia. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.

Kennedy, K.A.R. and J. Levisky. 1984. The Element ofracial Biology in Indian Megalithism: A MultivariateAnalysis Approach, Homo 35(3-4):161-73.

Krishnaswami, V.D. 1949. Megalithic Types of SouthIndia, Ancient India 5: 35-45.

Lal, B.B. 1960. From the Megalithic to the Harappa:Tracing Back the Graffiti on the Pottery. AncientIndia 16: 4-24.

Leshnik, L.S. 1967. Archaeological Interpretation ofBurials in the Light of the Central IndianEthnography, Zeitschriftfiir Ethnologie 92 (1): 23-32.

óñ. 1974. South Indian ëMegalithicí Burials: thePandukal Complex. Wiesbaden: Franz SteinerVerlag GmbhH.

Logan, W. 1887. Malabar Manual. Vol. 1.

Lukacs, J.R., M. Schulz, and B.E. Hemphill. 1989. DentalPathology and Dietary Patterns in Iron AgeNorthern Pakistan. In K. Frifelt and P. Sorenson(eds.) South Asian Archaeology 1985. London:Curzon Press, pp. 475-96.

Meshram, P.S. and Ismail Kellelu. 2009. Excavation atVyahad in district Nagpur, Maharashtra. Puratattva39: 215-19.

Mohanty, R.K. 1994. Surface Survey at Bhagimohari,unpublished report.

óñ. 1993-4. Vidarbha Megaliths: A New Perspectivefor Field Investigations. Bharati 20(1-2): 59-69.

óñ. 2001.Major G.G. Pearseís Megalithic Excavationat Wurregaon in 1867: The EarliestArchaeological Excavation in Maharashtra. In


376

Twenty-Ninth Annual Conference of the IndianSociety for Quaternary Studies held at the M.S.University of Baroda, 22nd-24th November 2001.

óñ. 2002. A Preliminary Report of the Excavations atMahurjhari and Explorations in Vidarbha. DeccanCollege Annual Report, pp: 45-47.

óñ. 2003. A preliminary Report on the Excavations atMahurjhari, 2001-02: A Megalithic and Early HistoricSite in Vidarbha, Maharashtra. Pratnatattva Vol. 9:41-48.

óñ. 2005a. Some Important Observation of Excavationat Mahurjhari. Man and Environment 30(1) 106-07.

óñ. 2005b. Excavations at Mahurjhari and Explorationin Vidarbha, Maharashtra, Annual Report of DeccanCollege Post Graduate and Research Institute,2004-05, pp. 76-77.

Mohanty, R.K. and S.R. Walimbe 1993. A DemographicApproach to the Vidarbha Megalithic Culture. Manand Environment 18(2): 93-103.

óñ. 1996: An Investigation into the Mortuary Practicesof Vidarbha Megalithic Cultures. In C. Margabandhuand K.S. Ramachandran (eds.), Spectrum of IndianCulture. New Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, pp.136-49.

Mohanty, R.K. and V. Selvakumar. 2002. TheArchaeology of Megaliths in India: 1947-97. InS.Settar and Ravi Korisettar (eds.) IndianArchaeology in Retrospect-Prehistory:Archaeology of South Asia. Vol 1: 313-51. NewDelhi: ICHR and Manohar.

Moorti, U. S. 1986: Socio-Economic Aspects of MegalithicVidarbha. Puratattva 15: 56-7.

óñ. 1994. Megalithic Culture of South India: Socio-Economic Perspectives. Varanasi: Ganga KaveriPublishing House.

Mushrif-Tripathy, V., K. Rajam, S.R. Walimbe. 2011.Megalithic Builders of South India: Archaeo-Anthropological Investigations on Human SkeletalRemains from Kodumanal, New Delhi: AryanBooks International.

Mulheran, J. 1868. Cromlechs of Central India,Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 116-18.

Nagaraja Rao, M.S. 1971. Protohistoric Cultures of theTungabhadra Valley: A Report on HallurExcavations. Dharwar: Published by the Author.

Narasimhaiah, B. 1980. Neolithic and MegalithicCultures of Tamil Nadu. New Delhi: SundeepPrakashan.

óñ. 1980. Neolithic and Megalithic Cultures of TamilNadu. New Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan.

Nath, A. 1992. Adam-An index to Vidarbha Archaeology.In B.U. Nayak and N.C. Ghosh (eds.), New Trendsin Indian Art and Archaeology S.R. Raoís 70thBirthday Felicitation volume. Adity Prakashan,New Delhi, pp. 69-79.

óñ. 2002. Excavation at Panchkheri: A MegalithicHabitation Site. Puratattva 32: 81-88.

Oí Shea, J.M. 1996. Villagers of the Maros: A Portrait ofan Early Bronze Age Society. New York: PlenumPress.

Paddayya, K. 1997. Colonel Colin Mackenzie and SouthIndian Megaliths, Deccan college Annual Report,pp. 38 -44

Pearse, G. 1869. Notes on the Excavation of a StoneCircle Near Kamptee: Central Province of India,Ethnography Society of London 4:428-29.

Possehl, G.L. 1988. Radiocarbon Dates from South Asia.Man and Environment XII: 169-96.

óñ. 1994. Scientific Dates for South AsianArchaeology, Pennsylvania: The UniversityMuseum, University of Pennsylvania.

Rajan, K. 1986. Megalithic Culture in Coimbatore Region.Ph. D. Dissertation. Mysore: University of Mysore.

óñ. 1990. New Light on the Megalithic Culture of theKongu Region, Tamil Nadu. Man andEnvironment 15 (1): 93-102.

óñ. 1991a. Archaeology of Dharmapuri District, TamilNadu. Man and Environment 16(1):37-52.

óñ. 1991b. New Light on Graffiti Marks. Journal ofMarine Archaeology 2: 47-54.

óñ. 1993. Megalithic Culture in North Arcot Region.Purattatva 22: 35-47.

óñ. 1994. Archaeology of Tamilnadu (KonguCountry). Delhi: Book India Publishing.


377

óñ. 1995. Traditional Bead Making Industry in TamilNadu, A report submitted to the Nehru Trust, NewDelhi.

óñ. 1997. Archaeological Gazetteer of Tamil Nadu.Manoo Pathippakam, Thanjavur.

óñ. 2004. Excavations at Mayiladumparai, Tamil Nadu.Man and Environment 29(2):74-89.

óñ. 2005. Excavations at Thandikudi, Tamil Nadu. Manand Environment 30(2):49-65.

óñ. 2009. A Note on Porunthal Excavations. Avanam,Journal of Tamil Nadu Archaeological Society.20: 109-15.

óñ. (n.d.1 in press) Iron Age Megalithic Monuments ofTamil Nadu. In R.K. Mohanty and K.K. Basa (eds.),Megalithic Traditions in Ethnography andArchaeology in India, IGRMS: Bhopal.

óñ. (n.d.2 in press) Transformation from Iron Age(Megalithic) to Early Historic Culture ñ Some Issues.In R.K. Mohanty and K.K. Basa (eds.), Megalithictraditions in Ethnography and Archaeology inIndia. IGRMS: Bhopal.

Rajan, K., N. Athiyaman, M. Rajesh and M. Saranya. 2005.Excavations at Thandikundi, Tamil Nadu. Man andEnvironment 32(2): 49-65.

Ramachandran, K.S. 1962. Some Aspects of the Economyof the Megalithic Builders. Indian HistoricalQuarterly 38 (1): 60-4.

óñ. 1980. Archaeology of South India-Tamil Nadu.New Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan.

Rao, K.P. 1988. The Deccan Megaliths. New Delhi:Sundeep Prakashan.

Rea, A. 1902-3. Prehistoric Antiquities in Tinnevelly.Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey ofIndia for the Year 1902-03: 111-40.

óñ. 1908-09. Perumbair. Annual Report of theArchaeological Survey of India, pp. 92-97.

Richards, F.J. 1924. Notes on some Iron Age Graves atOdugattur, North Arcot District, South India.Journal of Royal Anthorop0logical Institute ofGreat Britain and Ireland 54: 157-65.

Sali, S.A. 1986. Dimabadd 1976-79. New Delhi:Archaeological Survey of India.

Sankalia, H.D., S.B. Deo, Z.D. Ansari and S. Ehrhardt.1960. From History to Prehistory at Nevasa(1954-56). Poona: Deccan College.

Sarkar, S.N. 1969. Megalithic Culture in Andhra Pradesh.In A.K Narain (eds.), Seminar Papers on theProblem of Megaliths in India. Varansi: Memoirsof the Department of Ancient Indian History,Culture and Archaeology 3, pp. 25-35.

Seshadri. 1960. Report on the Jadigenahalli MegalithicExcavations For the Year 1957. Mysore:Directorate of Archaeology, Government ofMysore.

Singh, P. 1968-9. Megalithic Remains in the Aravallis.Puratattva 2: 46-48.

Soundara Rajan, K.V. 1982. Community Movements inPrehistoric IndiaóAn Archaeological Perspective.Journal of the Oriental Institute XII(I): 74-75.

Srinivasan, K.R. and N.R. Banerjee. 1953. Survey of SouthIndian Megaliths. Ancient India 9: 103-15.

Srinivasan, S. 2006. Megalithic High-Tin Bronzes:Archaeometallurgical and EthnoarchaeologicalInvestigations Manufacturing Technology andMusical and Artistic Significance. Man andEnvironment 31(2): 1-8.

Sundara, A. 1975. The Early Chamber Tombs of SouthIndia: A Study of the Iron Age MegalithicMonuments of North Karnataka. New Delhi:University Publishers.

óñ. 1979. Typology-of Megaliths in South India. In D.P.Agarwal and D.K Chakrabarti (eds.), Essays inIndian Protohistory. New Delhi: B.R. PublishingCorporation, pp. 331-40.

Swamy, B.G.L. 1972. Plant Remians from the Burials ofAdichanallur. Paper Presented in the Symposiumon Human Ecology and Geomorphology ofPeninsular India, September 1972. Madras.

Swamy, L.N. 1996. Ancient Smelting and ForgingFurnaces. In K.V. Ramesh, V. Shivananda, M.Sampath and L.N. Swamy (eds.), Gauravam:Recent Researches in Indology. New Delhi:Harman Publishing House, pp. 109-22.

Thapar, B.K. 1952. Porkalam 1948: Excavation of AMegalithic Urn Burial. Ancient India 8: 3-16.


378

óñ. 1957. Maski 1954: A Chalcolithic Site in the TaptiValley. Ancient India 20: 5-167.

Thakuria, T. 2010. Society and Economy during EarlyIron Age and Early Historic period in Deccanwith Special Reference to Beads (1000 BC to AD

500), Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Deccan CollegePRGI, Pune

Thakuria, T., R. K. Mohanty and P.P. Joglaker (n.d. inpress) Craft Specialization and Socio-EconomicBehavior of the Megalithic People of Vidarbha. InR.K. Mohanty and K. K. Basa (eds.), Megalithictraditions in Ethnography and Archaeology inIndia. IGRMS: Bhopal.

Thkural, G 2005: Socio-economic aspects of MortuaryPractices among Korkus of Melghat,Maharashtra, Unpublished M. A. Dissertation.Deccan College, Pune.

Thomas, P.K. 1989. Utilization of Domestic Animals inPre- and Protohistoric India. In J. Clutton- Brock(ed.), The Walking Larder: Patterns ofDomestication, Pastoralism and Predation.London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 108-12.

óñ. 1992a. Faunal Background of the Iron Age Culturein Maharashtra. Man and Environment XVII(2):75-9.

óñ. 1993. Faunal Remains from the MegalithicHabitation Site at Baghimohari, Maharashtra. Manand Environment XVIII (1): 105-18.

óñ. 1993b. Subsistence and Burial Practices Based onAnimal Remains at Khairwada. Bulletin of DeccanCollege Post Graduate amd Research Insistute53: 379-95.

óñ. 1974. Zoological Evidence from Prehistoric Indiawith Special Reference to Domestication-AReview. Bulletin of the Deccan College ResearchInstitute 34: 195-210.

óñ. 1984. Faunal Assemblage of Veerapuram. In T.V.G.Sastri, M. Kasturi Bai and Vara Prasada Rao (eds.),Veerapuram a Type Site for Cultural Study inthe Krishna Valley. Hyderabad: Birla Archaeologicaland Cultural Research Institute, pp. i-xi.

óñ. 1984. Faunal Assemblage of Veerapuram, inVeerapuram a Type Site for Cultural Study in

the Krishna Valley (Eds. T.VG. Sastri, M. KasturiBai and Vara Prasada Rao), pp. i-xi, Hyderabad:Birla Archaeological and Cultural ResearchInstitute.

Thomas, P.K. and P.P. Joglekar 1994. Holocene FaunalStudies in India. Man and Environment XIX (1-2): 179-204.

Vishnu-Mittre. 1957. Pollen Analysis. Ancient India 13:129-33.

óñ. 1966. Kaundinyapura Plant Economy in Prehistoricand Historic Times. Palaeobotanist 15: 152-6.

óñ. 1968. Kaundinyapura Plant Economy in Prehistoricand Historic Times. In M.G. Dikshit Excavationsat Kaundinyapur. Bombay: Director of Archivesand Archaeology, Maharashtra State, pp. 140-7.

óñ. 1971. Ancient Plant Economy at Hallur. In M S.Nagaraja Rao, Protohistoric Cutures of theTungabliadra ValleyóA Report on HallurExcavations. Dharwad: Published by the Author,pp. 125-33.

óñ. 1989. Forty Years of Archaeobotanical Researchin South Asia. Mall and Environment XIV (1): 1-16.

Walimbe, S.R. 1988. Recent Human Skeletal Evidencefrom Megalithic Vidarbha. Puratattva 18: 61-71.

óñ. (n.d. in press). Palaeodemography of the MegalithBuilders of South India. In R.K. Mohanty and K.K.Basa (eds.), Megalithic Traditions in Ethnographyand Archaeology in India. IGRMS: Bhopal.

Walimbe, S.R. and V. Selvakumar. 1998. AnthropologicalInvestigations on an Iron Age Adult Male Skeletonfrom S. Pappinayakkanpatti, Madurai district, TamilNadu. Journal of Human Evolution 9(1): 19-34.

Walimbe, S.R., P.B. Gambhir and P.E.Venkatasubbaiah1991. A Note on Megalithic Human SkeletalRemains from Kanyathirtham, Cuddapah District.Mall and Environment 16 (1): 99-102.

Wheeler, R.E.M. 1948. Brahmagiri and Chandravalli1947: Megalithic and Other Cultures in theChitladurg District, Mysore State. Ancient India 4:181-308.

[RKM & TT]

Early Iron Age Megalithic Culture of Peninsular and South India

Documents