CHAPTER III
FROM SITE TO LANDSCAPE:
MEGALITHS IN KASARAGOD
77
Kasaragod has had the dubious distinction of being a part of
erstwhile Tulunadu and Malabar, and yet did not merit serious
consideration in the archaeological map of either Kerala or South Canara.
Certainly, an important zone archaeologically the reasons for this lack of
research are hard to explain. This chapter embodies the data from the
region and begins by looking at the status of Kasaragod in the
archaeological map of Kerala, (Fig.3) in terms of excavated megalithic
sites, trying to discern the absence through a review of the existing
literature pertaining to the region. Moving into the evidences that have
been unearthed through explorations the first half looks at what sets
Kasaragod apart in terms of sites, patterns of distribution, size, frequency
and types of structures, together with the assemblages. Based on the
evidences provided from the sites, an attempt is made to understand the
interpretative reconstruction of megalithic life worlds by drawing on
landscape as a trope of analysis. An attempt is made to move away from
the standard approach of site led reports and writings, where hardly any
emphasis on landscape features let alone abstract components of the
landscape and symbolic space were attempted. Here landscape is not
merely considered as a geographic space in trying to address the key
question of why particular locations were chosen for the erection of
monuments. Drawing insights from the phenomenological approach in
philosophy an attempt is made to construe sets of meanings partially
discernible from the archaeological record but too important to be ignored.
THE REGION
Nestled between the Western Ghats and the Arabian Sea, Kasaragod
lies between 12002’ and 12
0 47’ North latitude and 74
0 52’ and 75
0 26’East
longitude, covering an area of 1992 sq. km. (Fig.3.1). Formerly a part of
Dakshina Kannada and integrated with Kannur district in 1957, the district
CHAPTER III
FROM SITE TO LANDSCAPE:
MEGALITHS IN KASARAGOD
77
Kasaragod has had the dubious distinction of being a part of
erstwhile Tulunadu and Malabar, and yet did not merit serious
consideration in the archaeological map of either Kerala or South Canara.
Certainly, an important zone archaeologically the reasons for this lack of
research are hard to explain. This chapter embodies the data from the
region and begins by looking at the status of Kasaragod in the
archaeological map of Kerala, (Fig.3) in terms of excavated megalithic
sites, trying to discern the absence through a review of the existing
literature pertaining to the region. Moving into the evidences that have
been unearthed through explorations the first half looks at what sets
Kasaragod apart in terms of sites, patterns of distribution, size, frequency
and types of structures, together with the assemblages. Based on the
evidences provided from the sites, an attempt is made to understand the
interpretative reconstruction of megalithic life worlds by drawing on
landscape as a trope of analysis. An attempt is made to move away from
the standard approach of site led reports and writings, where hardly any
emphasis on landscape features let alone abstract components of the
landscape and symbolic space were attempted. Here landscape is not
merely considered as a geographic space in trying to address the key
question of why particular locations were chosen for the erection of
monuments. Drawing insights from the phenomenological approach in
philosophy an attempt is made to construe sets of meanings partially
discernible from the archaeological record but too important to be ignored.
THE REGION
Nestled between the Western Ghats and the Arabian Sea, Kasaragod
lies between 12002’ and 12
0 47’ North latitude and 74
0 52’ and 75
0 26’East
longitude, covering an area of 1992 sq. km. (Fig.3.1). Formerly a part of
Dakshina Kannada and integrated with Kannur district in 1957, the district
78
lies in the Northern zone of Kerala, which is a long narrow strip with a
coastline of 293 kilometres. It is bounded by Kannur district in the south,
South Kanara and Kodugu districts of Karnataka state in the North and
East respectively, and Arabian Sea on the west .The district consists of 2
taluks viz. Kasaragod and Hosdurg (Kanhangad). The Western Ghats runs
parallel to the sea on the eastern side. The eastern belt covered by reserved
forests, is an undulating terrain
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Physiographically Kasaragod can be divided into three well-defined
natural divisions, viz.coastal plains, midland, and Eastern Highlands. The
eastern belt or highlands represents an undulating terrain with a series of
hills and valleys intersected by rivers and streams. Low red laterite hills
interspersed with green paddy, coconut, and areca nut gardens are visible.
Population density is high. The lowland is a narrow strip of land 10 meters
above sea level formed out of sand and alluvium deposits stretching from
the seashore up to 3 kilometres towards east. But at places like Bekal,
hillocks of 45-60 meters can be seen. The proximity to the sea and
availability of alluvium soil permits fishing and agriculture as the
predominant means of subsistence. The midland, which covers a
substantial part of the district, lies 10-300 meters above the sea level
leaning towards the east. Formed by red sandstone laterite and alluvial soil
deposited at riverbanks, this division has provided agriculture as a means
of subsistence. Further east and 300-1000 meters above the sea level
intersected with mountains and hills is the upland region. In extent, it is
comparatively less than the midland. Laterite capping in the midland is
fertile for cashew plantations. Wastelands are plenty in the area amidst the
plantations, which are graze lands for the cattle. The geographical area of
the district is 96130 hectares with coconut as the major crop followed by
cashew and areca nut.
79
RIVERS AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Nine rivers the Manjeshwar, Uppala, Shiriya, Kumbla, Mongral,
Karingote, Chandragiri, Payaswini, and Nileshwaram rivers water the
district. The Chandragiri River is one of the major rivers flowing through
Kerala in Kasaragod taluk. 65 miles long from its source with a catchment
of 482 square miles, the river has two tributaries- the Payaswini and the
Chandragiri. The longest tributary Payaswini has its origin in Coorg
district in Mysore in the Patti reserve forest at an altitude of +4500 MSL.
The other tributary Chandragiri Hole originates in Saampajenad of Coorg
district at a level of +4500MSL. The Chandragiri River enters the Kerala
State at Peraja 25 ½ miles west of Kasaragod. At Machipura, the
Chandragiri Hole coming from the south enters the Payaswini River. The
waters of the Chandragiri become tidal on its confluence with the
Payaswini. It flows north / south forming small islands, which are flooded
on its widening, and takes the u form winding around Kasaragod town
before entering the sea. The port of Kasaragod with long stretches of
backwaters is the result of the expanding of rivers.1
The Nileshwaram River has its origin in Kinnanur near the stream
called Kumbalapalli chal. Two other streams join the main stream 5 miles
further down, where extensive paddy fields and stagnant pools amidst these
fields are visible. The total length of the river from its origin to its mouth is
29 miles, the lower seven miles being tidal as a result of which a vast stretch
of water provides facility for navigation. To the south of the Nileshwaram
River lies the Karingote River, one of the major rivers flowing through
Hosdurg taluk. It is 40 miles long from its source, which is Padinalkad
Ghat, reserve forest of Coorg in Mysore State. It is perennial and even
during the dry months; there is a flow of about 3 feet depth of water at
1 A.Sreedhara Menon, Kerala District Gazetters:Kottayam Trivanduram: Government
Press,1975,pp6-9.
78
lies in the Northern zone of Kerala, which is a long narrow strip with a
coastline of 293 kilometres. It is bounded by Kannur district in the south,
South Kanara and Kodugu districts of Karnataka state in the North and
East respectively, and Arabian Sea on the west .The district consists of 2
taluks viz. Kasaragod and Hosdurg (Kanhangad). The Western Ghats runs
parallel to the sea on the eastern side. The eastern belt covered by reserved
forests, is an undulating terrain
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Physiographically Kasaragod can be divided into three well-defined
natural divisions, viz.coastal plains, midland, and Eastern Highlands. The
eastern belt or highlands represents an undulating terrain with a series of
hills and valleys intersected by rivers and streams. Low red laterite hills
interspersed with green paddy, coconut, and areca nut gardens are visible.
Population density is high. The lowland is a narrow strip of land 10 meters
above sea level formed out of sand and alluvium deposits stretching from
the seashore up to 3 kilometres towards east. But at places like Bekal,
hillocks of 45-60 meters can be seen. The proximity to the sea and
availability of alluvium soil permits fishing and agriculture as the
predominant means of subsistence. The midland, which covers a
substantial part of the district, lies 10-300 meters above the sea level
leaning towards the east. Formed by red sandstone laterite and alluvial soil
deposited at riverbanks, this division has provided agriculture as a means
of subsistence. Further east and 300-1000 meters above the sea level
intersected with mountains and hills is the upland region. In extent, it is
comparatively less than the midland. Laterite capping in the midland is
fertile for cashew plantations. Wastelands are plenty in the area amidst the
plantations, which are graze lands for the cattle. The geographical area of
the district is 96130 hectares with coconut as the major crop followed by
cashew and areca nut.
79
RIVERS AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Nine rivers the Manjeshwar, Uppala, Shiriya, Kumbla, Mongral,
Karingote, Chandragiri, Payaswini, and Nileshwaram rivers water the
district. The Chandragiri River is one of the major rivers flowing through
Kerala in Kasaragod taluk. 65 miles long from its source with a catchment
of 482 square miles, the river has two tributaries- the Payaswini and the
Chandragiri. The longest tributary Payaswini has its origin in Coorg
district in Mysore in the Patti reserve forest at an altitude of +4500 MSL.
The other tributary Chandragiri Hole originates in Saampajenad of Coorg
district at a level of +4500MSL. The Chandragiri River enters the Kerala
State at Peraja 25 ½ miles west of Kasaragod. At Machipura, the
Chandragiri Hole coming from the south enters the Payaswini River. The
waters of the Chandragiri become tidal on its confluence with the
Payaswini. It flows north / south forming small islands, which are flooded
on its widening, and takes the u form winding around Kasaragod town
before entering the sea. The port of Kasaragod with long stretches of
backwaters is the result of the expanding of rivers.1
The Nileshwaram River has its origin in Kinnanur near the stream
called Kumbalapalli chal. Two other streams join the main stream 5 miles
further down, where extensive paddy fields and stagnant pools amidst these
fields are visible. The total length of the river from its origin to its mouth is
29 miles, the lower seven miles being tidal as a result of which a vast stretch
of water provides facility for navigation. To the south of the Nileshwaram
River lies the Karingote River, one of the major rivers flowing through
Hosdurg taluk. It is 40 miles long from its source, which is Padinalkad
Ghat, reserve forest of Coorg in Mysore State. It is perennial and even
during the dry months; there is a flow of about 3 feet depth of water at
1 A.Sreedhara Menon, Kerala District Gazetters:Kottayam Trivanduram: Government
Press,1975,pp6-9.
80
Kakkadavu. The river flows through the steep slopes of the Western Ghats.
At Pulingom village joined by a stream, apart from two other main streams,
the Pulingom chal divides Taliparamba and Hosdurg taluks from Pulingom.
Joined by many streams from north and south the river flows through
Hosdurg for about 1 mile upstream of Kakkadu. It is named Ariyakaduva
Hole in Cheemeni and Kannindala villages. It flows due west reaching
Kilayyikote turning south 2 miles, further traversing westward until it is
joined by the Nileshwaram river coming from the north.2
BACKWATERS, LAKES AND TANKS
Kumbla, Kalanad Bekal, Chittari, and Kavvayi are the important
backwaters. The Bevenje water springhead at Changala village, 5 miles
from Kasaragod and the water spring at Thekkil village are the two minor
springheads in the district.
CLIMATE
The region experiences a tropical climate and the diversity of
physical features has given it a diverse climate. Humidity is high. The
Southwest monsoon starts towards the end of May or beginning of June
heralded by thunderstorms and remains till September until it fades out.
October brings in the Northeast monsoon. Rice, which forms the staple
food, is raised by means of rain alone and without the aid of artificial
irrigation. The climate is generally hot and humid with temperatures
varying between a maximum of 33.1° C and a minimum of 20.7° C. The
annual rainfall of Kasaragod is 3581 mm and during the Southwest
monsoon, it receives 2695 mm. The normal rainfall from the Northeast
monsoon is 569 mm.3
2 Ibid.,p.10.
3 Land Resources of Kerala State, Kerala State Land Use Board, Thiruvananthapuram August
1995,pp.59-60.
81
SOILS
Among the ten broad groups of soils identified based on
morphological features and physio-chemical properties, laterite soil-reddish
brown to yellowish red in colour is the most predominant type, supporting
a wide variety of crops such as cashew nut, coconut, tapioca, rubber, areca
nut and pepper. The laterites are good aquifers, well drained, low in plant
nutrients and organic matter. Cash crops are dominant compared to the
food crops and cashew plantations are ideal on laterite fields.
Hydrologically characterised as dark due to over development, ground
water appears the principal source of irrigation and most of the crops are
rain fed.4
FLORA AND FAUNA
The heavy rainfall stimulates essentially a forest district and the
slopes of the Western Ghats from north to south are cloaked with dense
forests of magnificent timber. The heavy forests to the North of Kasaragod
is seen further inland with the extensive plains having denser populations.
Even portions of the plains sometimes are covered with heavy forests and
jungles, varying from moderate forests to mere scrub. An exceptionally
huge area of wasteland cultivation is confined to the plains, close to the
coast and the bottoms of the innumerable valleys, which wind amongst
laterite hills and plateaus from the Ghats to the sea. Kumaki lands reported
by Buchanan5 in 1501 include many trees formerly being cleared to keep
the bushes down. To destroy vermin the grass is annually burnt. Kumari
cultivation is practised in Kasaragod, which includes shifting cultivation by
felling and burning a patch of forest and raising on the ground which has a
manure of ashes, a crop of rice or dry grains, mixed with cotton, castor,
4 K.Soman, Geology of Kerala. Bangalore: Geological Society of India, 1977.
5 J Stturrock, Madras District Manuals: South Canara. Vol.1.Madras Government Press,
1894,p.15.
80
Kakkadavu. The river flows through the steep slopes of the Western Ghats.
At Pulingom village joined by a stream, apart from two other main streams,
the Pulingom chal divides Taliparamba and Hosdurg taluks from Pulingom.
Joined by many streams from north and south the river flows through
Hosdurg for about 1 mile upstream of Kakkadu. It is named Ariyakaduva
Hole in Cheemeni and Kannindala villages. It flows due west reaching
Kilayyikote turning south 2 miles, further traversing westward until it is
joined by the Nileshwaram river coming from the north.2
BACKWATERS, LAKES AND TANKS
Kumbla, Kalanad Bekal, Chittari, and Kavvayi are the important
backwaters. The Bevenje water springhead at Changala village, 5 miles
from Kasaragod and the water spring at Thekkil village are the two minor
springheads in the district.
CLIMATE
The region experiences a tropical climate and the diversity of
physical features has given it a diverse climate. Humidity is high. The
Southwest monsoon starts towards the end of May or beginning of June
heralded by thunderstorms and remains till September until it fades out.
October brings in the Northeast monsoon. Rice, which forms the staple
food, is raised by means of rain alone and without the aid of artificial
irrigation. The climate is generally hot and humid with temperatures
varying between a maximum of 33.1° C and a minimum of 20.7° C. The
annual rainfall of Kasaragod is 3581 mm and during the Southwest
monsoon, it receives 2695 mm. The normal rainfall from the Northeast
monsoon is 569 mm.3
2 Ibid.,p.10.
3 Land Resources of Kerala State, Kerala State Land Use Board, Thiruvananthapuram August
1995,pp.59-60.
81
SOILS
Among the ten broad groups of soils identified based on
morphological features and physio-chemical properties, laterite soil-reddish
brown to yellowish red in colour is the most predominant type, supporting
a wide variety of crops such as cashew nut, coconut, tapioca, rubber, areca
nut and pepper. The laterites are good aquifers, well drained, low in plant
nutrients and organic matter. Cash crops are dominant compared to the
food crops and cashew plantations are ideal on laterite fields.
Hydrologically characterised as dark due to over development, ground
water appears the principal source of irrigation and most of the crops are
rain fed.4
FLORA AND FAUNA
The heavy rainfall stimulates essentially a forest district and the
slopes of the Western Ghats from north to south are cloaked with dense
forests of magnificent timber. The heavy forests to the North of Kasaragod
is seen further inland with the extensive plains having denser populations.
Even portions of the plains sometimes are covered with heavy forests and
jungles, varying from moderate forests to mere scrub. An exceptionally
huge area of wasteland cultivation is confined to the plains, close to the
coast and the bottoms of the innumerable valleys, which wind amongst
laterite hills and plateaus from the Ghats to the sea. Kumaki lands reported
by Buchanan5 in 1501 include many trees formerly being cleared to keep
the bushes down. To destroy vermin the grass is annually burnt. Kumari
cultivation is practised in Kasaragod, which includes shifting cultivation by
felling and burning a patch of forest and raising on the ground which has a
manure of ashes, a crop of rice or dry grains, mixed with cotton, castor,
4 K.Soman, Geology of Kerala. Bangalore: Geological Society of India, 1977.
5 J Stturrock, Madras District Manuals: South Canara. Vol.1.Madras Government Press,
1894,p.15.
82
oilseeds etc. Deciduous forests cover the district and teak is most
abundant. Inferior domestic stock with small stunted breed cattle showing
no remarkable specimens of their class makes the district dependent on the
annual cattle fair at Subramanyam for the supply of draught bullocks,
buffaloes and ghauts. Cattle are poor and stunted creatures with a damp
climate not favourable for animal life. Until the rainy season, pasture is
scanty. Horses, sheep, and donkeys are not bred.6
GEOLOGY
Geologically7 the crystalline rocks of the Achaean age occupy the
entire district. Along the coast, Tertiary and Recent sedimentary rocks are
seen. Hornblende gneiss and charnockites constitute the crystalline rocks
and are widely laterised and form good aquifer in the midland area. The
geological successions of the rock types are
RECENT unconsolidated formation (Alluvium, Sand, Clay and Silt)
---------------------------------------Unconformity---------------------------------
PLEISTOCENE Laterite
(Residual formation)
MIOCENE Sediments equivalent to Workalli
Beds of Southern Kerala
(Semi consolidated formation)
------------------------------------------Unconformity-------------------------------
6 J.Sturrock, Op.cit.,,p.44.
7 A.V.Sijin Kumar, “Mapping of Land Use System of Kasaragod city and Environs for Urban
Planning and Development, Kerala,” Unpublished M.Sc diss, Department of Geology,
Kannur University, 2003, pp.6-7.
83
ARCHAEAN Basic Intrusives
(Crystalline Rocks) Granites
Charnockites
Hornblende/ Biotite Gneiss and
Other associated crystalline
rocks.
PRE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
Antiquarians, Prehistorians and Archaeologists have failed to explore
Kasaragod regions archaeological potentialities, despite the fact that
archaeological research is nearly two centuries old in India. Surprisingly
when Babington’s discoveries in the first quarter of the 19th
century
unveiled to the world of Indian archaeology an interesting set of
archaeological relics on the west coast stimulating subsequent discoveries,
Kasaragod was projected in the early literature as devoid of any antiquarian
remains. This was despite the first discovery being made in Malabar not
too far from Kasaragod.
EARLY RESEARCH
Gleaning through the literature, which bears reference to the pre-
history of Kasaragod the failure to enhance knowledge on the pre-history,
is quite apparent whether it is the literature of South Canara or Malabar.
One wonders how such structures went unnoticed. J.Sturrock8 discusses
the archaeology of south Canara thus:
“The archaeology of south Canara has not yet been properly worked
out and the known architectural remains are not of any great antiquity. No
8 J.Sturrock, Op.cit., p.84.
82
oilseeds etc. Deciduous forests cover the district and teak is most
abundant. Inferior domestic stock with small stunted breed cattle showing
no remarkable specimens of their class makes the district dependent on the
annual cattle fair at Subramanyam for the supply of draught bullocks,
buffaloes and ghauts. Cattle are poor and stunted creatures with a damp
climate not favourable for animal life. Until the rainy season, pasture is
scanty. Horses, sheep, and donkeys are not bred.6
GEOLOGY
Geologically7 the crystalline rocks of the Achaean age occupy the
entire district. Along the coast, Tertiary and Recent sedimentary rocks are
seen. Hornblende gneiss and charnockites constitute the crystalline rocks
and are widely laterised and form good aquifer in the midland area. The
geological successions of the rock types are
RECENT unconsolidated formation (Alluvium, Sand, Clay and Silt)
---------------------------------------Unconformity---------------------------------
PLEISTOCENE Laterite
(Residual formation)
MIOCENE Sediments equivalent to Workalli
Beds of Southern Kerala
(Semi consolidated formation)
------------------------------------------Unconformity-------------------------------
6 J.Sturrock, Op.cit.,,p.44.
7 A.V.Sijin Kumar, “Mapping of Land Use System of Kasaragod city and Environs for Urban
Planning and Development, Kerala,” Unpublished M.Sc diss, Department of Geology,
Kannur University, 2003, pp.6-7.
83
ARCHAEAN Basic Intrusives
(Crystalline Rocks) Granites
Charnockites
Hornblende/ Biotite Gneiss and
Other associated crystalline
rocks.
PRE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
Antiquarians, Prehistorians and Archaeologists have failed to explore
Kasaragod regions archaeological potentialities, despite the fact that
archaeological research is nearly two centuries old in India. Surprisingly
when Babington’s discoveries in the first quarter of the 19th
century
unveiled to the world of Indian archaeology an interesting set of
archaeological relics on the west coast stimulating subsequent discoveries,
Kasaragod was projected in the early literature as devoid of any antiquarian
remains. This was despite the first discovery being made in Malabar not
too far from Kasaragod.
EARLY RESEARCH
Gleaning through the literature, which bears reference to the pre-
history of Kasaragod the failure to enhance knowledge on the pre-history,
is quite apparent whether it is the literature of South Canara or Malabar.
One wonders how such structures went unnoticed. J.Sturrock8 discusses
the archaeology of south Canara thus:
“The archaeology of south Canara has not yet been properly worked
out and the known architectural remains are not of any great antiquity. No
8 J.Sturrock, Op.cit., p.84.
84
discoveries have been made of any ancient cave or rock-cell sepulchres
similar to those found in Malabar and the early edifices of the Dravidian
inhabitants of the country were probably built in wood, as is done to the
present day throughout the Western coast as well as Burmah and other
places where somewhat similar climatic conditions led to the abundance of
wood being available.”
Stuart9 projected ancient Jain temples as the only interesting
structures of archaeological or architectural interest in South Canara. K.V
Ramesh10
while discussing on earliest man and Iron Age says “The dating
of the earliest man in South Canara will however have to stand the test of
thorough archaeological exploration which has not so far been conducted
in that region.”
Despite repeated emphasis on the lack of thorough archaeological
exploration no serious attempt to unravel Kasaragod’s pre historic past was
made, let alone contemplated. While the early literature of South Canara
failed to enhance knowledge of Kasaragod’s prehistoric relics, the later
literature of Malabar wasn’t very different when Kasaragod became a part
of it. The virtual absence of an initial horizon for prehistoric relics can be
gleaned from the literature on Malabar. Here it is worth quoting from The
Kerala District Gazetteers of Cannanore.11
“The Malabar and the Kasaragod-Hosdurg areas of the district offer
to some extent a study in contrast in regard to the prevalence of megaliths.
While many an ancient cave or rock cut sepulchre has been discovered
from the Malabar area of the district, no significant discovery of the kind
9 H A. Stuart, Op.cit., P.278.
10 K.V.Ramesh, A History of South Kanara- from the earliest Times to the fall of Vijayanagara.
Research Publication Series: 12. Dharward: Karnatak University, 1970, in the introduction,
xxiii. 11
A. Sreedhara menon, Op.cit.,p.61.
85
has been reported from the Kasaragod Hosdurg area which formed part of
erstwhile South Canara. The reason for this is perhaps that the South
Canara region is relatively modern from the point of view of human
habitation and also that the people of the area might have used a perishable
material like wood rather than stone for building purposes.”
The existence of megaliths in the district was for the first time noted
by George12
in his attempt undertaken to discover more sites through
intensive fieldwork, in trying to build up a sequence of cultures up to circa
1500 AD for the Archaeology of Kerala. His description of 71 explored
sites and the antiquities found from them, included references to sites in
Kasaragod. Among the explored sites in the Kasaragod Taluk, he refers to
Kukkamon 3 kilometres east of Kalikkadavu bearing six cist-circles
scattered in an area of about 800 metres made of granite with circle stones
of laterite.
“Half kilometre west of Kalikkadavu bus stop on somewhat laterite
plain is the site of Kalikkadavu. There are more than a dozen rock-cut
caves seen in an area of about 200 meters.”13
He also reports a large urn
burial 50 meters to the south on the right side of the Kalikadavu bus stop.
P.Ganapaya Bhat14
in his Prehistory of Tulunadu published in 1978
speaks thus
During the last one hundred years archaeological research has
established the existence of Stone Age man over most of the
Indian subcontinent, with the exception of coastal Karnataka
12
K.George, “Archaeology of Kerala upto 1500A.D.” Unpublished Ph.D. Diss.Baroda: M.S.
University, 1975. 13
Ibid.,p.152. 14
P.Ganapayya Bhat, “Pre-History of Coastal Karnataka,” The Quarterly Journal Of The Mythic Society. Vol.LXX. Nos. 1-2, 1979 January-June. Also an unpublished paper,
presented at a seminar in Udupi, 1994.
84
discoveries have been made of any ancient cave or rock-cell sepulchres
similar to those found in Malabar and the early edifices of the Dravidian
inhabitants of the country were probably built in wood, as is done to the
present day throughout the Western coast as well as Burmah and other
places where somewhat similar climatic conditions led to the abundance of
wood being available.”
Stuart9 projected ancient Jain temples as the only interesting
structures of archaeological or architectural interest in South Canara. K.V
Ramesh10
while discussing on earliest man and Iron Age says “The dating
of the earliest man in South Canara will however have to stand the test of
thorough archaeological exploration which has not so far been conducted
in that region.”
Despite repeated emphasis on the lack of thorough archaeological
exploration no serious attempt to unravel Kasaragod’s pre historic past was
made, let alone contemplated. While the early literature of South Canara
failed to enhance knowledge of Kasaragod’s prehistoric relics, the later
literature of Malabar wasn’t very different when Kasaragod became a part
of it. The virtual absence of an initial horizon for prehistoric relics can be
gleaned from the literature on Malabar. Here it is worth quoting from The
Kerala District Gazetteers of Cannanore.11
“The Malabar and the Kasaragod-Hosdurg areas of the district offer
to some extent a study in contrast in regard to the prevalence of megaliths.
While many an ancient cave or rock cut sepulchre has been discovered
from the Malabar area of the district, no significant discovery of the kind
9 H A. Stuart, Op.cit., P.278.
10 K.V.Ramesh, A History of South Kanara- from the earliest Times to the fall of Vijayanagara.
Research Publication Series: 12. Dharward: Karnatak University, 1970, in the introduction,
xxiii. 11
A. Sreedhara menon, Op.cit.,p.61.
85
has been reported from the Kasaragod Hosdurg area which formed part of
erstwhile South Canara. The reason for this is perhaps that the South
Canara region is relatively modern from the point of view of human
habitation and also that the people of the area might have used a perishable
material like wood rather than stone for building purposes.”
The existence of megaliths in the district was for the first time noted
by George12
in his attempt undertaken to discover more sites through
intensive fieldwork, in trying to build up a sequence of cultures up to circa
1500 AD for the Archaeology of Kerala. His description of 71 explored
sites and the antiquities found from them, included references to sites in
Kasaragod. Among the explored sites in the Kasaragod Taluk, he refers to
Kukkamon 3 kilometres east of Kalikkadavu bearing six cist-circles
scattered in an area of about 800 metres made of granite with circle stones
of laterite.
“Half kilometre west of Kalikkadavu bus stop on somewhat laterite
plain is the site of Kalikkadavu. There are more than a dozen rock-cut
caves seen in an area of about 200 meters.”13
He also reports a large urn
burial 50 meters to the south on the right side of the Kalikadavu bus stop.
P.Ganapaya Bhat14
in his Prehistory of Tulunadu published in 1978
speaks thus
During the last one hundred years archaeological research has
established the existence of Stone Age man over most of the
Indian subcontinent, with the exception of coastal Karnataka
12
K.George, “Archaeology of Kerala upto 1500A.D.” Unpublished Ph.D. Diss.Baroda: M.S.
University, 1975. 13
Ibid.,p.152. 14
P.Ganapayya Bhat, “Pre-History of Coastal Karnataka,” The Quarterly Journal Of The Mythic Society. Vol.LXX. Nos. 1-2, 1979 January-June. Also an unpublished paper,
presented at a seminar in Udupi, 1994.
86
region. It was believed that this region was largely bypassed
by the early man because of the non availability of suitable
raw material for the manufacture of tools and the relatively
inhospitable environment with dense, tropical monsoon
forests.15
He goes on to add that subsequent archaeological discoveries have
proved undoubtedly the extensive inhabitation of man in the Stone Age
period. He adds, “Geographically and climatically identical situation exists in
Tulunadu and in the regions of Konkan, Goa, and Kerala.” If we agree that
“Like environment evokes like “cultural response”, than we can justifiably
conclude that it is only due to the lack of systematic field explorations that the
remains of stone age man have not come to light in Tulunadu and not that they
are absent in this region.”16
He refers to the existence of Mesolithic cultural
remains revealed during explorations and to solitary stone axes.
On the megalithic culture he refers to large number of megalithic
sites in different parts of Tulunadu convincingly establishing “the existence
of the Iron Age Man in Tulunadu.” “All these are megalithic burial sites
and no traces of settlement of Iron Age man has hitherto come to light.”17
He goes on to classify the megaliths of Tulunadu into 3 main groups viz.
port holed chambers, urn burials and rock cut caves. Urn burial sites at
Puttur and Hiriyadka, Vaddarse in Udupi Taluk and Belur in Kundapur
Taluk are mentioned.
The third category of structures called Rock cut caves he believed
are no longer exclusive to Kerala region but have been discovered in as
many as 20 localities in Tulunadu and their distribution is seen as
15
Ibid.,p.87. 16
P.Ganapaya Bhat, “Prehistory of Tulunadu” an unpublished paper, presented at a seminar in
Udupi on 29/1/94. 17
P.Ganapayya Bhat, Op.cit., p.89.
87
spreading further north in the coastal Karnataka region as well. Sullia,
Karkala, Udupi and Kundapur Taluks bear the existence of such structures.
K.J.John reports the existence of a rock cut cave from Udipi but not
Kasaragod. Citing the discoveries made by individuals and institutions in
the appendix Ramachandran Nair18
mentions rock cut caves at Muttathodi
village, Manathody village in Kasaragod. Interestingly since George’s
discoveries and subsequent emphasis on the indiscriminate presence of
such relics in 1990’s the State Department of Archaeology claimed to have
excavated a rock cut cave at Pillicode has provided a fragmentary report
with no other information. It was Gurukkal and Varrier19
who very
emphatically outlined the immense potentialities and need for intensive
surveys, especially in Kasaragod and Alapuzha district to understand the
overall distribution of megaliths in Kerala.
Books on local history largely primordial in nature brought out by a
few panchayaths20
in the recent past have been more of compilation of
facts but have passing reference to the megalithic sites and nothing beyond
that. A survey and exploration in fact documentation, of the available
evidence becomes indispensable, especially when there is hardly any
strengthening textual evidence to reconstruct the history of Kerala
stretching from 1st millennium BC to the 1
st millennium AD
It is against this backdrop portraying a negative picture on the
archaeological remains on this area that the present researcher initiated a
systematic study of the megaliths in the district in 1999. Explorations have
18
Adoor K.K. Ramachandran Nair, Kerala State Gazetteers. Vol.2. Part 1.
Thiruvananthapuram: Government of Kerala, 1986, p.324. 19
R.Gurukkal and M.R.R. Varier, Op.cit.,Cultural History of …p.124. 20
C.Balan, (Ed.). Kasaragod Charthiravum Samuhavum. Kasaragod Panchayath. (In
Malayalam), 2001. V.Kuttiyan, Nerippu Madikayauda Anubava Charithram. Madikayi
Panchayath. (In Malayalam), 2004.
86
region. It was believed that this region was largely bypassed
by the early man because of the non availability of suitable
raw material for the manufacture of tools and the relatively
inhospitable environment with dense, tropical monsoon
forests.15
He goes on to add that subsequent archaeological discoveries have
proved undoubtedly the extensive inhabitation of man in the Stone Age
period. He adds, “Geographically and climatically identical situation exists in
Tulunadu and in the regions of Konkan, Goa, and Kerala.” If we agree that
“Like environment evokes like “cultural response”, than we can justifiably
conclude that it is only due to the lack of systematic field explorations that the
remains of stone age man have not come to light in Tulunadu and not that they
are absent in this region.”16
He refers to the existence of Mesolithic cultural
remains revealed during explorations and to solitary stone axes.
On the megalithic culture he refers to large number of megalithic
sites in different parts of Tulunadu convincingly establishing “the existence
of the Iron Age Man in Tulunadu.” “All these are megalithic burial sites
and no traces of settlement of Iron Age man has hitherto come to light.”17
He goes on to classify the megaliths of Tulunadu into 3 main groups viz.
port holed chambers, urn burials and rock cut caves. Urn burial sites at
Puttur and Hiriyadka, Vaddarse in Udupi Taluk and Belur in Kundapur
Taluk are mentioned.
The third category of structures called Rock cut caves he believed
are no longer exclusive to Kerala region but have been discovered in as
many as 20 localities in Tulunadu and their distribution is seen as
15
Ibid.,p.87. 16
P.Ganapaya Bhat, “Prehistory of Tulunadu” an unpublished paper, presented at a seminar in
Udupi on 29/1/94. 17
P.Ganapayya Bhat, Op.cit., p.89.
87
spreading further north in the coastal Karnataka region as well. Sullia,
Karkala, Udupi and Kundapur Taluks bear the existence of such structures.
K.J.John reports the existence of a rock cut cave from Udipi but not
Kasaragod. Citing the discoveries made by individuals and institutions in
the appendix Ramachandran Nair18
mentions rock cut caves at Muttathodi
village, Manathody village in Kasaragod. Interestingly since George’s
discoveries and subsequent emphasis on the indiscriminate presence of
such relics in 1990’s the State Department of Archaeology claimed to have
excavated a rock cut cave at Pillicode has provided a fragmentary report
with no other information. It was Gurukkal and Varrier19
who very
emphatically outlined the immense potentialities and need for intensive
surveys, especially in Kasaragod and Alapuzha district to understand the
overall distribution of megaliths in Kerala.
Books on local history largely primordial in nature brought out by a
few panchayaths20
in the recent past have been more of compilation of
facts but have passing reference to the megalithic sites and nothing beyond
that. A survey and exploration in fact documentation, of the available
evidence becomes indispensable, especially when there is hardly any
strengthening textual evidence to reconstruct the history of Kerala
stretching from 1st millennium BC to the 1
st millennium AD
It is against this backdrop portraying a negative picture on the
archaeological remains on this area that the present researcher initiated a
systematic study of the megaliths in the district in 1999. Explorations have
18
Adoor K.K. Ramachandran Nair, Kerala State Gazetteers. Vol.2. Part 1.
Thiruvananthapuram: Government of Kerala, 1986, p.324. 19
R.Gurukkal and M.R.R. Varier, Op.cit.,Cultural History of …p.124. 20
C.Balan, (Ed.). Kasaragod Charthiravum Samuhavum. Kasaragod Panchayath. (In
Malayalam), 2001. V.Kuttiyan, Nerippu Madikayauda Anubava Charithram. Madikayi
Panchayath. (In Malayalam), 2004.
88
brought to light more than 30 sites and the author begins with the
discoveries made.
MEGALITHS IN KASARAGOD: Explorations in Kasaragod (Fig.3.2),
have thrown up a curious mixture of monuments in terms of their location,
types, distribution frequency and size. The types discovered include Rock
cut caves, umbrella stones, hat stones, dolmenoid cist, urn burials and stone
circles. The Hosdurg Taluk comprising 26 villages has revealed as many as
25 sites while Kasaragod Taluk comprising 37 villages has 5 sites. The
focus of exploration has largely been in Hosdurg Taluk
Sites in the Karinthalam Village
The current researcher closely surveyed Karinthalam village in
Hosdurg taluk in which lies the site of Umichipoyil. Discoveries of sites in
and around Umichipoyil showed their occurrence at regular intervals
(Fig.3.3). The site of Umichipoyil was subject to an intensive exploration
and four rock cut caves were excavated. Karinthalam has 2391 hectares of
highlands and is characterised by an absence of lowlands and midlands.
The soil is deep gravely well-drained soil with a gentle slope.
NAME OF THE SITE : KUNDARAM
TYPE OF MONUMENT : ROCK CUT CAVE
VILLAGE : KINNANUR
PANCHAYATH : KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM
TALUK : HOSDURG
AREA ALSO BEARS THE NAME CHAYOTHADAKKAM
6 Kilometres away from Nileswaram and 1/2 kilometre away from
Chayoth Girls Higher Secondary School is the site of Kundaram.
Sandwiched between hillocks the site is on a sloping land. Visible to the
89
Southeast is Kayyur Cheemeni, which bears megaliths (Fig.3.4). To the
Northwest is Chervathur, which also has the presence of Rock- cut caves
and to the North is Madikayi, which again bears sites with megaliths. To
the West is Nileswaram and to the East are the large sites of Umichipoyil
with a huge cluster of Rock cut caves. Half a kilometre to the East is the
Tejaswini River (Fig.3.5), which separates Kayyur, Cheemeni and
Chayoth. The region consists of undulating land with or without scrub and
a bit of barren rocky stony waste sheet rock area. The site lies sandwiched
by laterite rocks uphill interspersed with sporadic vegetation and below by
green paddy fields overlooking the Tejaswini River.
ROCK CUT CAVE
Two rock cut caves separated by 154 meters bearing portholes
overlooking the river is visible (Fig.3.6). Cave1 has an eastern porthole
with a flight of steps leading to a series of doorways measuring 70cms,
60cms and 50cms respectively leading to a circular chamber inside with a
centrally running wedge 5cms in width (Fig.3.7) Here a consistency can be
seen in the measurement of the doorways. Cave2 also has a porthole
measuring 32 cms facing west and sealed with a capstone. The steps and
wedge running through the centre of the chamber visible in the first cave is
conspicuous by its absence. Nothing could be retrieved from either of the
caves as the locals had disturbed them. The capstone here is characteristic
of the Kasaragod megaliths and the porthole is in conformity with caves
having such capstones as it measures exactly 32cms in width. (Fig3.8 &
Fig.3.9)
88
brought to light more than 30 sites and the author begins with the
discoveries made.
MEGALITHS IN KASARAGOD: Explorations in Kasaragod (Fig.3.2),
have thrown up a curious mixture of monuments in terms of their location,
types, distribution frequency and size. The types discovered include Rock
cut caves, umbrella stones, hat stones, dolmenoid cist, urn burials and stone
circles. The Hosdurg Taluk comprising 26 villages has revealed as many as
25 sites while Kasaragod Taluk comprising 37 villages has 5 sites. The
focus of exploration has largely been in Hosdurg Taluk
Sites in the Karinthalam Village
The current researcher closely surveyed Karinthalam village in
Hosdurg taluk in which lies the site of Umichipoyil. Discoveries of sites in
and around Umichipoyil showed their occurrence at regular intervals
(Fig.3.3). The site of Umichipoyil was subject to an intensive exploration
and four rock cut caves were excavated. Karinthalam has 2391 hectares of
highlands and is characterised by an absence of lowlands and midlands.
The soil is deep gravely well-drained soil with a gentle slope.
NAME OF THE SITE : KUNDARAM
TYPE OF MONUMENT : ROCK CUT CAVE
VILLAGE : KINNANUR
PANCHAYATH : KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM
TALUK : HOSDURG
AREA ALSO BEARS THE NAME CHAYOTHADAKKAM
6 Kilometres away from Nileswaram and 1/2 kilometre away from
Chayoth Girls Higher Secondary School is the site of Kundaram.
Sandwiched between hillocks the site is on a sloping land. Visible to the
89
Southeast is Kayyur Cheemeni, which bears megaliths (Fig.3.4). To the
Northwest is Chervathur, which also has the presence of Rock- cut caves
and to the North is Madikayi, which again bears sites with megaliths. To
the West is Nileswaram and to the East are the large sites of Umichipoyil
with a huge cluster of Rock cut caves. Half a kilometre to the East is the
Tejaswini River (Fig.3.5), which separates Kayyur, Cheemeni and
Chayoth. The region consists of undulating land with or without scrub and
a bit of barren rocky stony waste sheet rock area. The site lies sandwiched
by laterite rocks uphill interspersed with sporadic vegetation and below by
green paddy fields overlooking the Tejaswini River.
ROCK CUT CAVE
Two rock cut caves separated by 154 meters bearing portholes
overlooking the river is visible (Fig.3.6). Cave1 has an eastern porthole
with a flight of steps leading to a series of doorways measuring 70cms,
60cms and 50cms respectively leading to a circular chamber inside with a
centrally running wedge 5cms in width (Fig.3.7) Here a consistency can be
seen in the measurement of the doorways. Cave2 also has a porthole
measuring 32 cms facing west and sealed with a capstone. The steps and
wedge running through the centre of the chamber visible in the first cave is
conspicuous by its absence. Nothing could be retrieved from either of the
caves as the locals had disturbed them. The capstone here is characteristic
of the Kasaragod megaliths and the porthole is in conformity with caves
having such capstones as it measures exactly 32cms in width. (Fig3.8 &
Fig.3.9)
90
NAME OF THE SITE: KATTIPIOYIL
12031’38” NORTH LATTITUDE AND 75
0 23’38’ EAST
LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: KINNANUR
PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/ KARINTHALAM
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
TALUK: HOSDURG
Rock cut cave
The region bears the name Nelliyadakkam. 21kilometers away from
Nileshwaram junction, on the Birikulam Parapa road lay the site of
Kattipoyil. 5kms away from the Birikulam Parapa road and 100meters to
the east of Kattipoyil post office lay the site. The area is steep sloping and
the land slopes towards the east. Sandwiched between sparse vegetation up
and green paddy fields below the area was a place of extensive slash and
burn cultivation.
A rock cut cave with a porthole measuring 46,64,86cms respectively
with a circular chamber inside was discovered but completely despoiled by
the locals (Fig.3.10). The rock cut cave faces and looks towards Umichipoyil.
150meters to the east is a small stream called the Karalam chal. On either side
of the chal occur green paddy fields called Karalam Vayil, which today has
given way to rubber plantations. The north looks towards Kadaladipara. The
cave yielded on clearing the most interesting find that of a set of copper
earrings with gold covering. They seem identical to the ones discovered at
Arippa (Kollam by Rajendran) (Fig.3.11).
91
NAME OF THE SITE: PULLANHIPARA
12030’74” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75
022’9” EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: KARINTHALAM
PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES IN A SMALL
CLUSTER.
The caves lie on the left side of the Birikulam Parapa road very
close to Kattipoyil. The caves were in a bad state of preservation and it was
impossible to ascertain the nature of the cave. However the capstone so
typical of the porthole of the Kasaragod rock cut cave was clearly visible
(Fig.3.12).
NAME OF THE SITE: MELKARLAM
VILLAGE: KINNANUR
PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
2 ½ kilometres away to the east of Kattipoyil on the Chembena
Kattipoyil road lies the site of Melkaralam which bears a rock cut cave
with an eastern porthole measuring 42cms. The entrance looks towards the
stream, which is a mere 200meters away, and the sound of water is audible
at the cave. To the north ½ kilometre away is the site of Meladakkam,
which bears rock, cut caves beyond which lies Umichipoyil. To the south is
the Kadaladipara and the area has been extensively one of slash and burn
cultivation.
90
NAME OF THE SITE: KATTIPIOYIL
12031’38” NORTH LATTITUDE AND 75
0 23’38’ EAST
LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: KINNANUR
PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/ KARINTHALAM
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
TALUK: HOSDURG
Rock cut cave
The region bears the name Nelliyadakkam. 21kilometers away from
Nileshwaram junction, on the Birikulam Parapa road lay the site of
Kattipoyil. 5kms away from the Birikulam Parapa road and 100meters to
the east of Kattipoyil post office lay the site. The area is steep sloping and
the land slopes towards the east. Sandwiched between sparse vegetation up
and green paddy fields below the area was a place of extensive slash and
burn cultivation.
A rock cut cave with a porthole measuring 46,64,86cms respectively
with a circular chamber inside was discovered but completely despoiled by
the locals (Fig.3.10). The rock cut cave faces and looks towards Umichipoyil.
150meters to the east is a small stream called the Karalam chal. On either side
of the chal occur green paddy fields called Karalam Vayil, which today has
given way to rubber plantations. The north looks towards Kadaladipara. The
cave yielded on clearing the most interesting find that of a set of copper
earrings with gold covering. They seem identical to the ones discovered at
Arippa (Kollam by Rajendran) (Fig.3.11).
91
NAME OF THE SITE: PULLANHIPARA
12030’74” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75
022’9” EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: KARINTHALAM
PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES IN A SMALL
CLUSTER.
The caves lie on the left side of the Birikulam Parapa road very
close to Kattipoyil. The caves were in a bad state of preservation and it was
impossible to ascertain the nature of the cave. However the capstone so
typical of the porthole of the Kasaragod rock cut cave was clearly visible
(Fig.3.12).
NAME OF THE SITE: MELKARLAM
VILLAGE: KINNANUR
PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
2 ½ kilometres away to the east of Kattipoyil on the Chembena
Kattipoyil road lies the site of Melkaralam which bears a rock cut cave
with an eastern porthole measuring 42cms. The entrance looks towards the
stream, which is a mere 200meters away, and the sound of water is audible
at the cave. To the north ½ kilometre away is the site of Meladakkam,
which bears rock, cut caves beyond which lies Umichipoyil. To the south is
the Kadaladipara and the area has been extensively one of slash and burn
cultivation.
92
NAME OF THE SITE: EDAYADUKKAM
12018’ 21” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75
012’25”EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: THAYANUR
PANCHAYATH: KODOM / BELUR
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES FOUND IN A SMALL
CLUSTER
To the east of Chayoth 5kilometers away lay the site sandwiched
between two hills up and green paddy fields below. Rock cut caves with
portholes measuring 42cms-oriented Southeast is visible. 100meters north
lays another cave with an eastern porthole. The caves are similar to the
ones at Umichipoyil and have a circular groove running on top. The
porthole is finely chiselled. 100meters away is a small stream, which joins
the Kuvati Chal. The cave was disturbed by the locals.
Important find: Neolithic Celt (Fig 3.13).
NAME OF THE SITE: THALALOPOYIL
12019’19”NORTH LATITUDE AND 75
018’47”EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: WEST ELERI
PANCHAYATH: WEST ELERI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF STRUCTURE: ROCK CUT CAVE, STONE
CIRCLE AND DELMENOID CIST OCCUR TOGETHER. (Fig.3.14).
The site lays 21kilometers away from Umichipoyil and to the
Southeast is Pattenganam a site, which has megalithic structures. The
region is known as Chennaddakkam from where 2kilometersms away is
93
Varakkad and further 3kms lays the site of Thalalopoyil. To the east of
Varakkad the Western Ghats and uplands are visible. Very close to the site
are the Kamadar stream and Varakkad Chal.
NAME OF THE SITE: PATTENGANAM
120 19’28” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75
0 20’46” EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: EAST ELERI
PANCHAYATH: EAST ELERI
TALUK: HOSDURG
A Rock cut cave completely disturbed by the locals was discovered.
Even the structure of the cave could not be ascertained. However the
pottery was retrieved. The legged jars seemed of a coarse variety in red
ware and seemed a shade different from the frequently encountered legged
jars (Fig3.15&3.16).
NAME OF THE SITE: PARAMBA
120 25’ 5” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75
0 21’ 26” EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: MALOTH
PANCHAYATH: BALAL
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF STRUCTURE: ROCK CUT CANE WITH A CENTRAL
PILLAR
The cave was noticed while quarrying for laterite. A miniature pot
was retrieved from the cave.
92
NAME OF THE SITE: EDAYADUKKAM
12018’ 21” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75
012’25”EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: THAYANUR
PANCHAYATH: KODOM / BELUR
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES FOUND IN A SMALL
CLUSTER
To the east of Chayoth 5kilometers away lay the site sandwiched
between two hills up and green paddy fields below. Rock cut caves with
portholes measuring 42cms-oriented Southeast is visible. 100meters north
lays another cave with an eastern porthole. The caves are similar to the
ones at Umichipoyil and have a circular groove running on top. The
porthole is finely chiselled. 100meters away is a small stream, which joins
the Kuvati Chal. The cave was disturbed by the locals.
Important find: Neolithic Celt (Fig 3.13).
NAME OF THE SITE: THALALOPOYIL
12019’19”NORTH LATITUDE AND 75
018’47”EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: WEST ELERI
PANCHAYATH: WEST ELERI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF STRUCTURE: ROCK CUT CAVE, STONE
CIRCLE AND DELMENOID CIST OCCUR TOGETHER. (Fig.3.14).
The site lays 21kilometers away from Umichipoyil and to the
Southeast is Pattenganam a site, which has megalithic structures. The
region is known as Chennaddakkam from where 2kilometersms away is
93
Varakkad and further 3kms lays the site of Thalalopoyil. To the east of
Varakkad the Western Ghats and uplands are visible. Very close to the site
are the Kamadar stream and Varakkad Chal.
NAME OF THE SITE: PATTENGANAM
120 19’28” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75
0 20’46” EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: EAST ELERI
PANCHAYATH: EAST ELERI
TALUK: HOSDURG
A Rock cut cave completely disturbed by the locals was discovered.
Even the structure of the cave could not be ascertained. However the
pottery was retrieved. The legged jars seemed of a coarse variety in red
ware and seemed a shade different from the frequently encountered legged
jars (Fig3.15&3.16).
NAME OF THE SITE: PARAMBA
120 25’ 5” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75
0 21’ 26” EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: MALOTH
PANCHAYATH: BALAL
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF STRUCTURE: ROCK CUT CANE WITH A CENTRAL
PILLAR
The cave was noticed while quarrying for laterite. A miniature pot
was retrieved from the cave.
94
NAME OF THE SITE: CHEMBENA/PERALAM
VILLAGE: PARAPA
PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM PANCHAYATH
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
6 Kilometers away from the Kattipoyil post office and further east
lay the Melancheri/Chembena road from where further east a small cut
road 2-½ kilometres away takes one to the site of Chembena. A rock cut
cave (Fig. 3.17), which was partially opened was subject to a salvage
excavation by the author to retrieve the remains. A brief description is
provided regarding the nature of pottery and iron unearthed.
Northeast portion of the chamber revealed a lid in black ware, bowl
in red ware, big red pots, and small pot in black and red ware in an inverted
position with iron underneath. To the south eastern wall of the chamber
was placed a big red ware pot, iron implement, black bowl with a red bowl
inside beneath which was iron. A Big bowl in and black and red ware and a
small bowl with black ware inside, big bowl with a small black and red
ware pot by the side, lipped bowl in red ware with charcoal and a small pot
inside, double lipped bowl in red ware, Small black and red ware pot with
small black and red ware bowl inside in an inverted position and a big bowl
in black and red ware with a small bowl in black and red ware inside and
ring stand in black ware were seen. From the western side came iron
implements [three in number], bowls in black and red ware in an inverted
pot and a small red pot. From the southern side came small bowls and pots
in red ware and also a big pot in red ware. The northern portion had a black
bowl. Interesting here again among the pottery is the presence of Neolithic
95
shapes in dull red ware, which is consistent in the Karinthalam region.
(Fig. 3.18).
NAME OF THE SITE: KUDOL/ PERALAM
VILLAGE: PARAPA
PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/ KARINTHALAM
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES IN A CLUSTER
To the South of Birikulam is the Melancheri-Parapa road and to the
East 2 ½ kilometres away is the Kudol Mayanganam road where towards
the north 1 ½ kilometres away is the site with rock cut caves. One of the
caves, which were partially disturbed by the locals, was subject to a
salvage excavation by the current researcher. The locals spoke of the
discovery of an urn burial a few meters away nothing of which remains.
Going by their description a chain of beads seems to have been placed in
the urn. The northern and southern area of the site converges at a point
called Thatta. To the West is Kudol and to the east is Peralam and where
the two converge is called thatta. A mere km away on either side is the
Kudol and Peralam chal running close to the Mayanganam chal which is a
stream of the Kumblapalli chal on the left side of which occurs the huge
site of Umichipoyil. A half-opened rock cut cave, which was subject to a
salvage excavation, had some interesting finds. Right at the entrance in the
east, at the passage in a deposit of mud of 55cms lay a Neolithic Celt
(Fig.3.19). The cave had a central pillar (Fig.3.20) without the top opening
and a large quantity of rim portions of pottery (Fig.3.21) mostly in red
ware and black ware. At the end of the chamber were a few black and red
ware fragments of pottery together with iron (Fig.3.22). This is the only
cave, which has yielded two carnelian beads circular and cylindrical
(Fig.3.23).
94
NAME OF THE SITE: CHEMBENA/PERALAM
VILLAGE: PARAPA
PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM PANCHAYATH
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
6 Kilometers away from the Kattipoyil post office and further east
lay the Melancheri/Chembena road from where further east a small cut
road 2-½ kilometres away takes one to the site of Chembena. A rock cut
cave (Fig. 3.17), which was partially opened was subject to a salvage
excavation by the author to retrieve the remains. A brief description is
provided regarding the nature of pottery and iron unearthed.
Northeast portion of the chamber revealed a lid in black ware, bowl
in red ware, big red pots, and small pot in black and red ware in an inverted
position with iron underneath. To the south eastern wall of the chamber
was placed a big red ware pot, iron implement, black bowl with a red bowl
inside beneath which was iron. A Big bowl in and black and red ware and a
small bowl with black ware inside, big bowl with a small black and red
ware pot by the side, lipped bowl in red ware with charcoal and a small pot
inside, double lipped bowl in red ware, Small black and red ware pot with
small black and red ware bowl inside in an inverted position and a big bowl
in black and red ware with a small bowl in black and red ware inside and
ring stand in black ware were seen. From the western side came iron
implements [three in number], bowls in black and red ware in an inverted
pot and a small red pot. From the southern side came small bowls and pots
in red ware and also a big pot in red ware. The northern portion had a black
bowl. Interesting here again among the pottery is the presence of Neolithic
95
shapes in dull red ware, which is consistent in the Karinthalam region.
(Fig. 3.18).
NAME OF THE SITE: KUDOL/ PERALAM
VILLAGE: PARAPA
PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/ KARINTHALAM
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES IN A CLUSTER
To the South of Birikulam is the Melancheri-Parapa road and to the
East 2 ½ kilometres away is the Kudol Mayanganam road where towards
the north 1 ½ kilometres away is the site with rock cut caves. One of the
caves, which were partially disturbed by the locals, was subject to a
salvage excavation by the current researcher. The locals spoke of the
discovery of an urn burial a few meters away nothing of which remains.
Going by their description a chain of beads seems to have been placed in
the urn. The northern and southern area of the site converges at a point
called Thatta. To the West is Kudol and to the east is Peralam and where
the two converge is called thatta. A mere km away on either side is the
Kudol and Peralam chal running close to the Mayanganam chal which is a
stream of the Kumblapalli chal on the left side of which occurs the huge
site of Umichipoyil. A half-opened rock cut cave, which was subject to a
salvage excavation, had some interesting finds. Right at the entrance in the
east, at the passage in a deposit of mud of 55cms lay a Neolithic Celt
(Fig.3.19). The cave had a central pillar (Fig.3.20) without the top opening
and a large quantity of rim portions of pottery (Fig.3.21) mostly in red
ware and black ware. At the end of the chamber were a few black and red
ware fragments of pottery together with iron (Fig.3.22). This is the only
cave, which has yielded two carnelian beads circular and cylindrical
(Fig.3.23).
96
SITES IN MADIKAYI VILLAGE
To the East of Umichipoyil on the left bank of the Nileshwaram
River is the village of Madikayai, which has yielded six sites with rock-cut
caves. Madikayi has 5163 hectares of midlands with an absence of high
lands and low lands. The soil is deep well drained gravely clay soils with
moderate surface gravelliness and iron stone layer at 100 to 150 cm on
gently sloping midland laterites with moderate erosion associated with
laterite outcrops.
NAME OF THE SITE: THEKKE BANGALAM
12017’11”NORTH LATITUDE & 75
09’11”EAST LONGITUDE.
VILLAGE: MADIKAI
PANCHAYATH: MADIKAI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVR WITH A CENTRAL
PILLAR AND A TOP OPENING.
NAME OF THE SITE: MELAPECHERI
12018’45” NORTH LATITUDE & 75
011’5” EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: MADIKAYI
PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
NAME OF THE SITE: KALICHAMPODI
12018’30” NORTH LATITUDE & 75
07’42” EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: MADIKAYI
PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI
TALUK: HOSDURG
97
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
NAME OF THE SITE: UMICHIPOYIL
VILLAGE: MADIKAYI
PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
NAME OF THE SITE: KANHIRAPOYIL
VILLAGE: MADIKAYI
PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE.
NAME OF THE SITE: KOLANGAT
VILLAGE: MADIKAYI
PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
To the south of Madikayi on the Right Bank of the Nileshwaram
river lays sites in the villages of Pillicode and Cheemeni.
NAME OF THE SITE: PALLIPARA
VILLAGE: CHEEMENI
PANCHAYATH: KAYYUR/ CHEEMENI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: TOPIKKALL-S
The area surrounding the site bears the name channaadakkam.
Topikkal-s occurs and seems a prototype of the capstone of the rock cut
96
SITES IN MADIKAYI VILLAGE
To the East of Umichipoyil on the left bank of the Nileshwaram
River is the village of Madikayai, which has yielded six sites with rock-cut
caves. Madikayi has 5163 hectares of midlands with an absence of high
lands and low lands. The soil is deep well drained gravely clay soils with
moderate surface gravelliness and iron stone layer at 100 to 150 cm on
gently sloping midland laterites with moderate erosion associated with
laterite outcrops.
NAME OF THE SITE: THEKKE BANGALAM
12017’11”NORTH LATITUDE & 75
09’11”EAST LONGITUDE.
VILLAGE: MADIKAI
PANCHAYATH: MADIKAI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVR WITH A CENTRAL
PILLAR AND A TOP OPENING.
NAME OF THE SITE: MELAPECHERI
12018’45” NORTH LATITUDE & 75
011’5” EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: MADIKAYI
PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
NAME OF THE SITE: KALICHAMPODI
12018’30” NORTH LATITUDE & 75
07’42” EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: MADIKAYI
PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI
TALUK: HOSDURG
97
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
NAME OF THE SITE: UMICHIPOYIL
VILLAGE: MADIKAYI
PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
NAME OF THE SITE: KANHIRAPOYIL
VILLAGE: MADIKAYI
PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE.
NAME OF THE SITE: KOLANGAT
VILLAGE: MADIKAYI
PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE
To the south of Madikayi on the Right Bank of the Nileshwaram
river lays sites in the villages of Pillicode and Cheemeni.
NAME OF THE SITE: PALLIPARA
VILLAGE: CHEEMENI
PANCHAYATH: KAYYUR/ CHEEMENI
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: TOPIKKALL-S
The area surrounding the site bears the name channaadakkam.
Topikkal-s occurs and seems a prototype of the capstone of the rock cut
98
cave (Fig.3.24). Further south of Cheemeni occurs the huge site of
Pillicode, which bears a cluster of rock, cut caves excavated by the state
department of archaeology and mentioned by George (1975).
NAME OF THE SITE: PILICODE
12014’ NORTH LATITUDE & 75
08’ EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: PILICODE
PANCHAYATH: PILICODE
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: CLUSTER OF ROCK CUT CAVES IN
CLOSE PROXIMITY.
SITES IN THE KASARAGOD TALUK
Kasaragod taluk has yielded sites where Kotakkal-s predominates
unlike the Hosdurg taluk. Interestingly the Kotakkal-s is seen sometimes
with a cluster of rock cut caves. The site of Varikulam, which like
Umichipoyil has yielded a large cluster of monuments, was subject to an
intensive exploration by the current researcher together with the
surrounding regions.
NAME OF THE SITE: VADAKKEKARA/VARIKULAM
12030’&12
025’ NORTH LATITUDE & 75
010’ EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: KOLATHUR
PANCHAYATH: BADEKA
TALUK: KASARAGOD
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES AND KOTAKKAL-S
Nestled between the Chandragiri and the Payaswini Rivers,
Varikulam lays on the Right Bank of the Payaswini a tributary of the
chandragiri. Chandragiri is one of the major rivers flowing through
99
Kasaragod taluk. 5Kilometers to the east of Poinachi junction is
Paraladdakam from where 1 ½ kilometre away is Vadekkekara and the site
of Varikulam bearing a cluster of Kodaikallus and rock cut caves
(Fig.3.25). Situated on a slope it is sandwiched between sparse vegetation
up and green paddy fields below. Overlooking to the east are hills known
as Ramanadakkam, to the west Mananadakkam where two rock cut caves
can be seen. To the south is Paraladakkam beyond, which is
Periyataadakkam with Kodaikallus and rock cut caves. To the North is
Kanakeadakkam. Merely 1 ½ km away is the monbam chal, which joins
the Chandragiri River.
A cluster of four-rock cut caves in close proximity to a bigger cluster
of umbrella stones sets this site apart from the others discovered. The entire
area has 392 hectares of which 83 hectares are barren rocky stony waste
sheet rock area and 309 hectares of undulating upland with or without
scrub.
Kotakkal-s occurs in rows and seems to be linearly aligned with the
alignment visible unto Peryiatadakkam, which has too has a small cluster
of Kotakkal-s. Occurring in four rows at contours of 129, 130, 131, 132
(Fig.3.25a), respectively and separating them by a distance of 75-80 meters
to the Northeast can be seen four rock cut caves brought to light as a result
of quarrying. The capstone characteristic of the megaliths in Kasaragod can
be seen here (Fig.3.26). The rock cut caves occur at contours of 136, 137
and 138. A centrally located Kotakkal surrounded by upright blocks of
laterite forms the focal point (Fig.3.27), with monuments on either side in a
linear progression (Fig.3.28). To the east at a distance of 40 meters away
from the cluster occurs a solitary Kotakkal (Fig.3.29). Two types of
Kotakkal can be discerned with type 1 characterised by encircling upright
98
cave (Fig.3.24). Further south of Cheemeni occurs the huge site of
Pillicode, which bears a cluster of rock, cut caves excavated by the state
department of archaeology and mentioned by George (1975).
NAME OF THE SITE: PILICODE
12014’ NORTH LATITUDE & 75
08’ EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: PILICODE
PANCHAYATH: PILICODE
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: CLUSTER OF ROCK CUT CAVES IN
CLOSE PROXIMITY.
SITES IN THE KASARAGOD TALUK
Kasaragod taluk has yielded sites where Kotakkal-s predominates
unlike the Hosdurg taluk. Interestingly the Kotakkal-s is seen sometimes
with a cluster of rock cut caves. The site of Varikulam, which like
Umichipoyil has yielded a large cluster of monuments, was subject to an
intensive exploration by the current researcher together with the
surrounding regions.
NAME OF THE SITE: VADAKKEKARA/VARIKULAM
12030’&12
025’ NORTH LATITUDE & 75
010’ EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: KOLATHUR
PANCHAYATH: BADEKA
TALUK: KASARAGOD
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES AND KOTAKKAL-S
Nestled between the Chandragiri and the Payaswini Rivers,
Varikulam lays on the Right Bank of the Payaswini a tributary of the
chandragiri. Chandragiri is one of the major rivers flowing through
99
Kasaragod taluk. 5Kilometers to the east of Poinachi junction is
Paraladdakam from where 1 ½ kilometre away is Vadekkekara and the site
of Varikulam bearing a cluster of Kodaikallus and rock cut caves
(Fig.3.25). Situated on a slope it is sandwiched between sparse vegetation
up and green paddy fields below. Overlooking to the east are hills known
as Ramanadakkam, to the west Mananadakkam where two rock cut caves
can be seen. To the south is Paraladakkam beyond, which is
Periyataadakkam with Kodaikallus and rock cut caves. To the North is
Kanakeadakkam. Merely 1 ½ km away is the monbam chal, which joins
the Chandragiri River.
A cluster of four-rock cut caves in close proximity to a bigger cluster
of umbrella stones sets this site apart from the others discovered. The entire
area has 392 hectares of which 83 hectares are barren rocky stony waste
sheet rock area and 309 hectares of undulating upland with or without
scrub.
Kotakkal-s occurs in rows and seems to be linearly aligned with the
alignment visible unto Peryiatadakkam, which has too has a small cluster
of Kotakkal-s. Occurring in four rows at contours of 129, 130, 131, 132
(Fig.3.25a), respectively and separating them by a distance of 75-80 meters
to the Northeast can be seen four rock cut caves brought to light as a result
of quarrying. The capstone characteristic of the megaliths in Kasaragod can
be seen here (Fig.3.26). The rock cut caves occur at contours of 136, 137
and 138. A centrally located Kotakkal surrounded by upright blocks of
laterite forms the focal point (Fig.3.27), with monuments on either side in a
linear progression (Fig.3.28). To the east at a distance of 40 meters away
from the cluster occurs a solitary Kotakkal (Fig.3.29). Two types of
Kotakkal can be discerned with type 1 characterised by encircling upright
100
blocks of laterite. A section of both types revealed a kind of precision,
which is simply amazing.
TYPE1 (Fig.3.30).
The umbrella on top measures 210 to 280 cms and the whole
structure has a height of 50-70cms. Each of the supporting laterite stone
measures 30-40cms, 50-90cms and the gap between them is 100-120cms.
TYPE II (Fig3.31).
The umbrella measures 210 to 280 cms, supporting stones 40-
30cms, 50-90cms and distance between the stones 100-120cms. The height
of the structure is 50-70cms. Separated by less than 1.22metres, 3.56metres
and 3.84 meters these are oriented along the East/West and North /South
axis. To the west of the site 1 kilometre away is the site of Manadakkam
which bears two rock cut caves one of which bears the capstone (Fig.3.32),
unique to Kasaragod with the porthole measuring exactly 32cms.
NAME OF THE SITE: PARALADAKKAM
12025’57” NORTH LATITUDE & 75
04’36” EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: KOLATHUR
PANCHAYATH: BEDAKA
TALUK: KASARAGOD
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES AND KOTAKKAL
NAME OF THE SITE: PANAYAL/ MUNIKAL
(PERIYATADAKKAM)
PANCHAYATH: PALLIKERE
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: KOTAKKAL
101
Within Kolathur village (Fig.3.33), again Kotakkal-s occurs at regular
frequency, as can be see at Varikulam and Paraladakkam.
What sets Kasaragod apart?
Spread out in the lowlands, midlands and uplands Kasaragod which
remained a completely neglected area until recently has revealed certain
elements unique in terms of distribution, frequency, size, interior and
exterior components. The Rock cut cave is predominant followed by the
Kodaikallus (Fig.3.34). They occur in large clusters and small clusters.
Certain commonly occurring components (Fig.3.35) can be seen in most of
the sites, which bears these structures. The porthole is a commonly
occurring component together with the circular groove running on top of
the cave and the wedge running through the centre of the inner chamber.
The typical bench and stool so characteristic of the rock cut caves is
conspicuous by its absence Every pocket in which the rock cut caves occur
has a cave with a porthole measuring 32cms and this unique cap stone. An
internally running wedge can sometimes be seen dividing the central
chamber. In the clusters one or two are marked by a circular groove
running through the top of the cave. Hooks lining the walls of the chamber
can be seen.
If one was to draw a parallel with the Thrissur rock cut caves which
has always formed the basis of discussion on rock cut caves in terms of
architectural grandiose the ones in Kasaragod seem different not only in
terms of internal and external components but also internment’s. The
presence of the channel spouted vessel in red ware and Neolithic
chalcolithic shapes (Fig. 3.36, 3.36 a), among the pottery together with
Neolithic Celts is what sets Kasaragod apart.
I
SECTION M
PLAN
Figure. 3.31 Details of Umbrella Stone Type - 2
100
blocks of laterite. A section of both types revealed a kind of precision,
which is simply amazing.
TYPE1 (Fig.3.30).
The umbrella on top measures 210 to 280 cms and the whole
structure has a height of 50-70cms. Each of the supporting laterite stone
measures 30-40cms, 50-90cms and the gap between them is 100-120cms.
TYPE II (Fig3.31).
The umbrella measures 210 to 280 cms, supporting stones 40-
30cms, 50-90cms and distance between the stones 100-120cms. The height
of the structure is 50-70cms. Separated by less than 1.22metres, 3.56metres
and 3.84 meters these are oriented along the East/West and North /South
axis. To the west of the site 1 kilometre away is the site of Manadakkam
which bears two rock cut caves one of which bears the capstone (Fig.3.32),
unique to Kasaragod with the porthole measuring exactly 32cms.
NAME OF THE SITE: PARALADAKKAM
12025’57” NORTH LATITUDE & 75
04’36” EAST LONGITUDE
VILLAGE: KOLATHUR
PANCHAYATH: BEDAKA
TALUK: KASARAGOD
TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES AND KOTAKKAL
NAME OF THE SITE: PANAYAL/ MUNIKAL
(PERIYATADAKKAM)
PANCHAYATH: PALLIKERE
TALUK: HOSDURG
TYPE OF MONUMENT: KOTAKKAL
101
Within Kolathur village (Fig.3.33), again Kotakkal-s occurs at regular
frequency, as can be see at Varikulam and Paraladakkam.
What sets Kasaragod apart?
Spread out in the lowlands, midlands and uplands Kasaragod which
remained a completely neglected area until recently has revealed certain
elements unique in terms of distribution, frequency, size, interior and
exterior components. The Rock cut cave is predominant followed by the
Kodaikallus (Fig.3.34). They occur in large clusters and small clusters.
Certain commonly occurring components (Fig.3.35) can be seen in most of
the sites, which bears these structures. The porthole is a commonly
occurring component together with the circular groove running on top of
the cave and the wedge running through the centre of the inner chamber.
The typical bench and stool so characteristic of the rock cut caves is
conspicuous by its absence Every pocket in which the rock cut caves occur
has a cave with a porthole measuring 32cms and this unique cap stone. An
internally running wedge can sometimes be seen dividing the central
chamber. In the clusters one or two are marked by a circular groove
running through the top of the cave. Hooks lining the walls of the chamber
can be seen.
If one was to draw a parallel with the Thrissur rock cut caves which
has always formed the basis of discussion on rock cut caves in terms of
architectural grandiose the ones in Kasaragod seem different not only in
terms of internal and external components but also internment’s. The
presence of the channel spouted vessel in red ware and Neolithic
chalcolithic shapes (Fig. 3.36, 3.36 a), among the pottery together with
Neolithic Celts is what sets Kasaragod apart.
L'.
- 1 1 -
J
' . - -: ,n ;: ~ ' 4 - ' c ' ,.I
. 'p : i y --v Figure 4.46 Cups in Red Ware
102
KOTAKKAL-S
They occur in clusters big and small with subtle variations within the
cluster. Compared to the Kotakkal-s in the Thrissur region the ones in
Kasaragod are distinctly different. Two types can be discerned and like the
rock cut caves of the region at least one in each of the pockets in which
they occur have a circular block of upright stones encircling them. This is
unique in the region.
TOPIKKAL-S
Topikkal-s occurs not in isolation but in a group and can seem a
prototype of the capstone (Fig. 3.37, 3.37 a). Larger in size than the
capstone it has a knob at the bottom and is not encountered elsewhere.
FROM SITE TO LANDSCAPE
The sites described cannot be seen merely as sites with monumental
constructions but everywhere they respond to the landscape and it is the
landscape, which affords it much of its grandeur. Landscape as a trope of
analysis is conspicuous by it absence as is evident when one probes into
texts that three phases of megalithic scholarship on Kerala has bequeathed.
Monumental constructions centred on death-oriented cults inserted in the
landscape also meant an insertion of the geography of the megalithic
world. But the sites reigned supreme relegating the landscape in which they
existed to the background little realising that people create their landscapes
and have different concepts of landscape, from which comes perspective
and context.
The present researcher moves from site to landscape focusing on the
recently identified megalithic sites of Kasaragod district. It begins by
looking at how the existing literature on megaliths of Kerala has described
the sites. The monuments were located insensitive to the landscape that it
103
constituted or the man who made the landscape through his wilful
interventions or otherwise. The need for expanding one’s interpretative
gaze beyond the sites, to an entity, which falls under the rubric of
landscape archaeology, is emphasised. Taking the sites described above the
argument revolves round the need for doing way with an approach that is
site led rather the need for looking at the areas between the sites as the
setting rather than entity itself.
THE EARLY ENCOUNTERS
To Longhurst 21
as he describes it, meant “The tomb here described
is situated on private land to the left of the road from Malaparamba to
Chevayoor…” Here the monument alone is described with no mention of
even the topography. The second generation of archaeologists, quaternaries
place emphasis but again in a small measure on physiographical features.
Aiyappan, B.K.Thapar, and Y.D.Sharma’s treatment of the location of
monuments can be discerned from their writings. To Aiyappan:
the site of these ancient tombs is a hillock of laterite to the
West of the Feroke Railway station known locally as
Chennaparambu. The hillock is now quite bare though some
seventy years ago it was covered with dense growth of
shrubs. The eastern edge of the site has been levelled down
for the railway line and in the course of the works; dozens of
earthenware urns of the pyriform type burned in hollows in
the rock were brought out. The place therefore must have
been an important crematorium once. 22
21
A.H. Longhurst, “Rock –cut Tomb… Op.cit.,p.159 22
A. Aiyappan, “Rock-cut Cave… Op.cit., p.229
102
KOTAKKAL-S
They occur in clusters big and small with subtle variations within the
cluster. Compared to the Kotakkal-s in the Thrissur region the ones in
Kasaragod are distinctly different. Two types can be discerned and like the
rock cut caves of the region at least one in each of the pockets in which
they occur have a circular block of upright stones encircling them. This is
unique in the region.
TOPIKKAL-S
Topikkal-s occurs not in isolation but in a group and can seem a
prototype of the capstone (Fig. 3.37, 3.37 a). Larger in size than the
capstone it has a knob at the bottom and is not encountered elsewhere.
FROM SITE TO LANDSCAPE
The sites described cannot be seen merely as sites with monumental
constructions but everywhere they respond to the landscape and it is the
landscape, which affords it much of its grandeur. Landscape as a trope of
analysis is conspicuous by it absence as is evident when one probes into
texts that three phases of megalithic scholarship on Kerala has bequeathed.
Monumental constructions centred on death-oriented cults inserted in the
landscape also meant an insertion of the geography of the megalithic
world. But the sites reigned supreme relegating the landscape in which they
existed to the background little realising that people create their landscapes
and have different concepts of landscape, from which comes perspective
and context.
The present researcher moves from site to landscape focusing on the
recently identified megalithic sites of Kasaragod district. It begins by
looking at how the existing literature on megaliths of Kerala has described
the sites. The monuments were located insensitive to the landscape that it
103
constituted or the man who made the landscape through his wilful
interventions or otherwise. The need for expanding one’s interpretative
gaze beyond the sites, to an entity, which falls under the rubric of
landscape archaeology, is emphasised. Taking the sites described above the
argument revolves round the need for doing way with an approach that is
site led rather the need for looking at the areas between the sites as the
setting rather than entity itself.
THE EARLY ENCOUNTERS
To Longhurst 21
as he describes it, meant “The tomb here described
is situated on private land to the left of the road from Malaparamba to
Chevayoor…” Here the monument alone is described with no mention of
even the topography. The second generation of archaeologists, quaternaries
place emphasis but again in a small measure on physiographical features.
Aiyappan, B.K.Thapar, and Y.D.Sharma’s treatment of the location of
monuments can be discerned from their writings. To Aiyappan:
the site of these ancient tombs is a hillock of laterite to the
West of the Feroke Railway station known locally as
Chennaparambu. The hillock is now quite bare though some
seventy years ago it was covered with dense growth of
shrubs. The eastern edge of the site has been levelled down
for the railway line and in the course of the works; dozens of
earthenware urns of the pyriform type burned in hollows in
the rock were brought out. The place therefore must have
been an important crematorium once. 22
21
A.H. Longhurst, “Rock –cut Tomb… Op.cit.,p.159 22
A. Aiyappan, “Rock-cut Cave… Op.cit., p.229
104
To B.K.Thapar
the site only 50 feet above sea level lies on the low
sloping laterite formation which passes by imperceptible
gradation into sandy-clay or gravel. Until recently the site had
been extensively deposited for building material. It had long
served as an easy quarry for the local roads. 23
To Y.D Sharma
of the three broad physiographical divisions of Kerala –
the alluvial sea board, the plains with extensive laterite
outcrops and the uplands composed of granitic gneiss and
charnokite- the lateritic region of Cochin contains a good
number of these caves situated on high grounds locally
known as parambas.24
To Krishna Iyer25
In Kerala megaliths are found on the Cardamom hills,
the Anjanad valley, Parambikulam, Nelliampathi, Pallapalli
forest and on an extensive scale west of the Edakkal caves in
Waynad. They are found larger in size on higher elevations
than at lower levels where they exhibit deterioration in size.
What can be discerned in these writings is that it was more of a site
led understanding where physiographical elements like the nature of the
soil, proximity to township, and location on high grounds were
underlined. Their interpretative gaze did not move beyond the site nor
did they incorporate into their thinking space and landscape as settlement
23
Y.D.Sharma, “Rock-cut Caves… Op.cit., p.3. 24
Ibid.,p.94. 25
L.A.Krishna Iyer, Kerala Megaliths and …0p.cit.,in the preface.
105
archaeology. Landscape archaeology had yet to gain currency into
archaeological thinking and writing. Archaeological thinking about the
nature of the landscape has changed significantly perceiving the nature of
its role in archaeological inquiry. If one was to look at Leshnik’s work26
he says
A significant aspect of Pandukal geography is that the burials
do not necessarily conform to the land-use patterns inherent
to agriculture. Unquestionably these are cemeteries in or near
cultivable tracts but in numerous instances they appear in
forested hill ranges, in remote valleys or in isolated
wastelands without knowledge of the micro-environment an
assessment of the likely ecological relationships has little
meaning. Yet it is particularly instructive to note that in
several instances where the investigator specifically sought to
locate a former habitation associated with a Pandukal
cemetery, the efforts were in vain.
To Leshnik land, its physiographical features were considered as
evidence for settlement and subsistence, which too often has been the task
of landscape archaeology and prehistoric landscapes. Leshnik’s interest
was primarily at establishing pastoral nomadism of the megalithic builders
forcing him to construe the space he problematized as one left unmediated
by human interventions, as any attempt to find out the habitation of these
people will be entropy.
26
L.S.Leshnik and G.D.Sontheimer, Nomads and Pastoralists… Op.cit., p.58.
104
To B.K.Thapar
the site only 50 feet above sea level lies on the low
sloping laterite formation which passes by imperceptible
gradation into sandy-clay or gravel. Until recently the site had
been extensively deposited for building material. It had long
served as an easy quarry for the local roads. 23
To Y.D Sharma
of the three broad physiographical divisions of Kerala –
the alluvial sea board, the plains with extensive laterite
outcrops and the uplands composed of granitic gneiss and
charnokite- the lateritic region of Cochin contains a good
number of these caves situated on high grounds locally
known as parambas.24
To Krishna Iyer25
In Kerala megaliths are found on the Cardamom hills,
the Anjanad valley, Parambikulam, Nelliampathi, Pallapalli
forest and on an extensive scale west of the Edakkal caves in
Waynad. They are found larger in size on higher elevations
than at lower levels where they exhibit deterioration in size.
What can be discerned in these writings is that it was more of a site
led understanding where physiographical elements like the nature of the
soil, proximity to township, and location on high grounds were
underlined. Their interpretative gaze did not move beyond the site nor
did they incorporate into their thinking space and landscape as settlement
23
Y.D.Sharma, “Rock-cut Caves… Op.cit., p.3. 24
Ibid.,p.94. 25
L.A.Krishna Iyer, Kerala Megaliths and …0p.cit.,in the preface.
105
archaeology. Landscape archaeology had yet to gain currency into
archaeological thinking and writing. Archaeological thinking about the
nature of the landscape has changed significantly perceiving the nature of
its role in archaeological inquiry. If one was to look at Leshnik’s work26
he says
A significant aspect of Pandukal geography is that the burials
do not necessarily conform to the land-use patterns inherent
to agriculture. Unquestionably these are cemeteries in or near
cultivable tracts but in numerous instances they appear in
forested hill ranges, in remote valleys or in isolated
wastelands without knowledge of the micro-environment an
assessment of the likely ecological relationships has little
meaning. Yet it is particularly instructive to note that in
several instances where the investigator specifically sought to
locate a former habitation associated with a Pandukal
cemetery, the efforts were in vain.
To Leshnik land, its physiographical features were considered as
evidence for settlement and subsistence, which too often has been the task
of landscape archaeology and prehistoric landscapes. Leshnik’s interest
was primarily at establishing pastoral nomadism of the megalithic builders
forcing him to construe the space he problematized as one left unmediated
by human interventions, as any attempt to find out the habitation of these
people will be entropy.
26
L.S.Leshnik and G.D.Sontheimer, Nomads and Pastoralists… Op.cit., p.58.
106
U.S.Moori27
uses location instead of site.
Locational pattern studies as is well-known use features and
sites as their data basis. The basic assumption here is that
locational patterning of archaeological features that
represented ancient buildings, cemeteries and ceremonial
places could be analysed in order to reconstruct the past
decisions regarding the use of environment, allocation of
resources, social relationships and the like. The term
‘locational pattern’ is used here in a broad sense, which
means the physical location of the site across the landscape,
and it tries to explore the relationship of living arrangement to
geographical features such as topography, soils, vegetation
types etc. Since it essentially forms a part of the settlement
system, I do not intend to make micro level analysis of the
sites, as normally the term location analysis is understood but
would like to consider it at macro scale that too in relation to
physiographic zones.
But in recent researches on megaliths especially pertaining to
geographical determinants, landscape as a trope of analysis does not arise;
the unit of analysis is the site. Jenne Peter’s28
analysis of megalithic sites
of Kerala gives emphasis “on the geographical factors, such as distance
from the site to the material sources, its position in the physiographic zones
and inter site interaction.” “Granite and laterite monuments coexist in many
multiple monument sites. The nature of terrain like slopes, and the nature
and availability of raw material seem to have determined the typology of
monuments.” Here sites gained currency over the landscape.
27
U.S.Moorthi, Megalithic Culture of …Op.cit.,p.8. 28
P.Jenee, “Dimensions of Megalithic…Op.cit., p.126.
107
Historians too have been grappling with the landscape, which
remains an enigma to them. Rather than providing an in-depth analysis of
the available landscape, they limit their description of the landscape to the
existing texts, excavation reports and towing the oft-repeated
commonsensical notion that nature and landscape are limiting factors. To
quote Gurukkal and Varier29
the natural agencies that determine the formation of
archaeological sites in Kerala that has a quiet ecological set
up from other dry regions of Peninsular India have to be taken
into consideration. The high amount of rainfall and the
resultant fluvial activities, together with steep gradient of the
landscape do not allow the formation of the characteristic
mound like features in Kerala… the thickly vegetated Kerala
offers a number of organic media which would have played a
substantial part in their material culture. This factor also
contributed to the flimsy and poorly visible nature of the
habitation remains.
A brief perusal of the existing literature shows that the term
landscape did not figure in any of the writings but always reports were site
led with hardly any emphasis on the material record of landscape features
let alone abstract components of the landscape and symbolic space.
Landscape is not merely a geographic space that nature bequeathed rather it
is considered as a cultural product in the sense that it “refers to the
integration of natural and human phenomena on a portion of the earth’s
surface…” And landscape as systems of settings are intimately related to
human life, and are primarily for living and working in rather than for just
29
R.Gurukkal and M.R.R.Varier, Op.cit.,p.130.
106
U.S.Moori27
uses location instead of site.
Locational pattern studies as is well-known use features and
sites as their data basis. The basic assumption here is that
locational patterning of archaeological features that
represented ancient buildings, cemeteries and ceremonial
places could be analysed in order to reconstruct the past
decisions regarding the use of environment, allocation of
resources, social relationships and the like. The term
‘locational pattern’ is used here in a broad sense, which
means the physical location of the site across the landscape,
and it tries to explore the relationship of living arrangement to
geographical features such as topography, soils, vegetation
types etc. Since it essentially forms a part of the settlement
system, I do not intend to make micro level analysis of the
sites, as normally the term location analysis is understood but
would like to consider it at macro scale that too in relation to
physiographic zones.
But in recent researches on megaliths especially pertaining to
geographical determinants, landscape as a trope of analysis does not arise;
the unit of analysis is the site. Jenne Peter’s28
analysis of megalithic sites
of Kerala gives emphasis “on the geographical factors, such as distance
from the site to the material sources, its position in the physiographic zones
and inter site interaction.” “Granite and laterite monuments coexist in many
multiple monument sites. The nature of terrain like slopes, and the nature
and availability of raw material seem to have determined the typology of
monuments.” Here sites gained currency over the landscape.
27
U.S.Moorthi, Megalithic Culture of …Op.cit.,p.8. 28
P.Jenee, “Dimensions of Megalithic…Op.cit., p.126.
107
Historians too have been grappling with the landscape, which
remains an enigma to them. Rather than providing an in-depth analysis of
the available landscape, they limit their description of the landscape to the
existing texts, excavation reports and towing the oft-repeated
commonsensical notion that nature and landscape are limiting factors. To
quote Gurukkal and Varier29
the natural agencies that determine the formation of
archaeological sites in Kerala that has a quiet ecological set
up from other dry regions of Peninsular India have to be taken
into consideration. The high amount of rainfall and the
resultant fluvial activities, together with steep gradient of the
landscape do not allow the formation of the characteristic
mound like features in Kerala… the thickly vegetated Kerala
offers a number of organic media which would have played a
substantial part in their material culture. This factor also
contributed to the flimsy and poorly visible nature of the
habitation remains.
A brief perusal of the existing literature shows that the term
landscape did not figure in any of the writings but always reports were site
led with hardly any emphasis on the material record of landscape features
let alone abstract components of the landscape and symbolic space.
Landscape is not merely a geographic space that nature bequeathed rather it
is considered as a cultural product in the sense that it “refers to the
integration of natural and human phenomena on a portion of the earth’s
surface…” And landscape as systems of settings are intimately related to
human life, and are primarily for living and working in rather than for just
29
R.Gurukkal and M.R.R.Varier, Op.cit.,p.130.
108
looking at. They are always “symbolic”. i.e. they always have meaning-
which is another way of saying they are cultural.”30
There are a variety of ways in which archaeological evidence might
be useful for exploring the possible significance of landscape and of
relationships between monuments and their surroundings, which are
suggestive of an importance of the landscape or aspects of it. The entire
surface on which people moved and lived and within which they
congregated is the landscape, which is the backdrop against which
archaeological remains are plotted. This backdrop is no longer seen as a
passive backdrop but rather a forcible, active far more complex entity in
relation to human lives. Landscapes world-wide are a construct of human
beings something that is perceived, experienced and contextualized by
people beside providing resources, refuge and risks that impel and impact
on human actions and situations. Ever since the interpretative gaze of the
archaeologist has moved from sites to the areas between the sites seen as a
setting rather than the entity itself, the focus has also shifted from
landscape not being seen as a static unit. Be it a “subjective, locally
situated perspective as something that not only shapes but is shaped by
human experience”31
or as experience, that focuses on monuments rather
than on more ephemeral traces of human activity.32
As an actively
inhabited space and particularly as the arena for ritual or ceremonial
activity33
or as a stage constructed in the mind to convey meaning to those
who inhabit it,34
landscape is seen as a surface that was given meaning.
People acted upon the world within the context of the various demands and
30
Rapopoort, Antiquity of man landscape archaeology.htm, 1992. 31
B.Bender, (ed.), Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, Oxford: Berg, 1993. 32
As cited in A. Bernard Knapp and Wendy Ashmore “Archaeological Landscapes:
Constructed, Conceptualised, Ideational,” in Wendy Ashmore and Bernard Knapp,
Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspective, Blackwell, 1999,p.4. 33
Ibid., p.4. 34 Ibid., p.6.
109
obligations, which acted upon them and such actions, took place with a
certain tempo and at certain locales a culturally meaningful resource.
Landscape is neither exclusively natural nor totally cultural; it is
mediation between the two, an integral part of Bourdieu’s habitus,35
the
routine social practices within which people experience the world around
them. Beyond habitus however, people actively order, transform, identify
with and memorialise landscape by dwelling within it. The environment
manifests itself as landscape only when people create and experience space
as a complex of places. People’s sense of place and their engagement with
the world around them are invariably dependent on their own social,
cultural and historical situations.
PHENOMENOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Space was seen as an abstract container for human activities within
the perspectives of New Geography and New Archaeology. Here space was
seen as something that could be objectively measured- nothingness, simple
surface for action lacking depth. Space existed in and for itself external to
and indifferent to human affairs.36
In its purity and simplicity this
perspective provided scope for objectively plotting on maps and on a
quantitative scale study of artefacts, sites, populations and flows of
information and exchange across regions and landscapes. New geography
provided the ground for a mathematical spatial archaeology as seen in
Hodder and Orton 1976,37
and Clarke.38
Chorley and Haggett’s39
model in
Geography, Harvey’s Explanation in Geography40
both formed the basis
35 Ibid., p.8. 36
C.Tilley, A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments, Oxford, Berg,
1994. 37
I. Hodder, and C. Orton, Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 38
D.Clarke, (ed), Spatial Archaeology, London: Academic Press, 1977. 39
R.Chorley and P.Haggett, (Eds), Models in Geography, London: Methuen, 1967. 40
D.Harvey, Explaination in Geography, London: Arnold, 1969
108
looking at. They are always “symbolic”. i.e. they always have meaning-
which is another way of saying they are cultural.”30
There are a variety of ways in which archaeological evidence might
be useful for exploring the possible significance of landscape and of
relationships between monuments and their surroundings, which are
suggestive of an importance of the landscape or aspects of it. The entire
surface on which people moved and lived and within which they
congregated is the landscape, which is the backdrop against which
archaeological remains are plotted. This backdrop is no longer seen as a
passive backdrop but rather a forcible, active far more complex entity in
relation to human lives. Landscapes world-wide are a construct of human
beings something that is perceived, experienced and contextualized by
people beside providing resources, refuge and risks that impel and impact
on human actions and situations. Ever since the interpretative gaze of the
archaeologist has moved from sites to the areas between the sites seen as a
setting rather than the entity itself, the focus has also shifted from
landscape not being seen as a static unit. Be it a “subjective, locally
situated perspective as something that not only shapes but is shaped by
human experience”31
or as experience, that focuses on monuments rather
than on more ephemeral traces of human activity.32
As an actively
inhabited space and particularly as the arena for ritual or ceremonial
activity33
or as a stage constructed in the mind to convey meaning to those
who inhabit it,34
landscape is seen as a surface that was given meaning.
People acted upon the world within the context of the various demands and
30
Rapopoort, Antiquity of man landscape archaeology.htm, 1992. 31
B.Bender, (ed.), Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, Oxford: Berg, 1993. 32
As cited in A. Bernard Knapp and Wendy Ashmore “Archaeological Landscapes:
Constructed, Conceptualised, Ideational,” in Wendy Ashmore and Bernard Knapp,
Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspective, Blackwell, 1999,p.4. 33
Ibid., p.4. 34 Ibid., p.6.
109
obligations, which acted upon them and such actions, took place with a
certain tempo and at certain locales a culturally meaningful resource.
Landscape is neither exclusively natural nor totally cultural; it is
mediation between the two, an integral part of Bourdieu’s habitus,35
the
routine social practices within which people experience the world around
them. Beyond habitus however, people actively order, transform, identify
with and memorialise landscape by dwelling within it. The environment
manifests itself as landscape only when people create and experience space
as a complex of places. People’s sense of place and their engagement with
the world around them are invariably dependent on their own social,
cultural and historical situations.
PHENOMENOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Space was seen as an abstract container for human activities within
the perspectives of New Geography and New Archaeology. Here space was
seen as something that could be objectively measured- nothingness, simple
surface for action lacking depth. Space existed in and for itself external to
and indifferent to human affairs.36
In its purity and simplicity this
perspective provided scope for objectively plotting on maps and on a
quantitative scale study of artefacts, sites, populations and flows of
information and exchange across regions and landscapes. New geography
provided the ground for a mathematical spatial archaeology as seen in
Hodder and Orton 1976,37
and Clarke.38
Chorley and Haggett’s39
model in
Geography, Harvey’s Explanation in Geography40
both formed the basis
35 Ibid., p.8. 36
C.Tilley, A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments, Oxford, Berg,
1994. 37
I. Hodder, and C. Orton, Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 38
D.Clarke, (ed), Spatial Archaeology, London: Academic Press, 1977. 39
R.Chorley and P.Haggett, (Eds), Models in Geography, London: Methuen, 1967. 40
D.Harvey, Explaination in Geography, London: Arnold, 1969
110
for Clarke’s models in Geography. Archaeological research meant
incorporating new Geography’s spatial methodology to archaeological
evidences. Renfrew41
spoke of texts of geographers, as providing source
books for future generation of archaeologists.
The alternative view began with regarding space, as a medium of
action not divorced from events and activities that occur within it. “Space
has no substantial essence in itself, but only has a relational significance,
created through relations between people and places.”42
Who and how it is
experienced is what is space. The phenomenological approach is about the
relationship between Being and Being in the world. Heidegger and
Merleau Ponty from different phenomenological perspectives have
underlined the ontological characteristics of the relationship between
inhabited space and social being in the world. To Heidegger43
‘Spaces
receive their essential being from locations and not “space”. A
mathematical space to him is not humanised but of measurement with no
places or locations. Dwelling in Heideggerian terms meant staying with
things that couldn’t be separated: the earth, the sky and the constellations,
the divinities, birth and death. Merleau Ponty44
argues for the body
providing the fundamental mediation point between thought and the world.
“The world and the subject reflect and flow into each through the body that
provides the living bond with the world.”
The relationship between space and place has been theorized within
the phenomenological school of geographical research from a particular
perspective, where places are seen as constituting space with centres for
41
C.Renfrew, Review of “Locational Analysis in Human Geography” by P.Haggett, Antiquity, 43:74-5,1969.
42 C. Tilley, op.cit.,p.11.
43 M.Heidegger, ‘Building dwelling thinking’ in M.Heidegger, Basic Writings, (ed. D.Krell),
London: Routledge, 1972.p.332. 44
M.Merleau Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, London: Routledge, 1962.
111
human meaning. There can be no spaces without places where following
forms of space can be identified- somatic space, perpetual space, existential
space and cognitive space. Somatic space takes as its starting point the
upright human body looking out on the world differentiable in terms of
front/back; left/right; vertical/horizontal; top/bottom; within reach/ beyond
reach; within/ beyond hearing; within sight/beyond sight; here/there
polarities as seen in the works of Relph;45
Taun.46
Perpetual space is
grounded in individual perception of distances and directions, natural
objects and cultural creations. It is always relative and qualitative. It is
linked to existential space, which is mobile rather than passive,
experienced and created through life activity. A sacred, symbolic and
mythic space is replete with social meanings wrapped around buildings,
objects and features of the local topography, providing reference points and
planes of emotional orientation for human attachment and involvement.
Architectural space is a deliberate attempt to make tangible, visible and
sensible space creating an inside and outside and makes sense in relation to
pragmatic, perpetual and existential space. It is this space, which is being
analysed and discussed. Cognitive space provides the basis for reflection
with regard to understanding others.
Neolithic populations made little impact on the land and the implied
knowledge of agriculture in however primitive form, domestication of
animals, making pottery- singly or collectively implied that man lived at a
fixed place. No longer a hunter moving from place to place in small
groups, agriculture, was the core element, which led to a settled form of
life. There was no idea of a fixed space as the idea of space was not a
particular place but anywhere. It is a settled form of life, which brings in
the idea of a fixed place or permanent space. The illusion of staying in a
45
E.Relph, Place and Placelessness. London: Pion, 1976. 46
Y.F.Taun, Space and Place. The Perspective of Experience. London: Arnold, 1977.
110
for Clarke’s models in Geography. Archaeological research meant
incorporating new Geography’s spatial methodology to archaeological
evidences. Renfrew41
spoke of texts of geographers, as providing source
books for future generation of archaeologists.
The alternative view began with regarding space, as a medium of
action not divorced from events and activities that occur within it. “Space
has no substantial essence in itself, but only has a relational significance,
created through relations between people and places.”42
Who and how it is
experienced is what is space. The phenomenological approach is about the
relationship between Being and Being in the world. Heidegger and
Merleau Ponty from different phenomenological perspectives have
underlined the ontological characteristics of the relationship between
inhabited space and social being in the world. To Heidegger43
‘Spaces
receive their essential being from locations and not “space”. A
mathematical space to him is not humanised but of measurement with no
places or locations. Dwelling in Heideggerian terms meant staying with
things that couldn’t be separated: the earth, the sky and the constellations,
the divinities, birth and death. Merleau Ponty44
argues for the body
providing the fundamental mediation point between thought and the world.
“The world and the subject reflect and flow into each through the body that
provides the living bond with the world.”
The relationship between space and place has been theorized within
the phenomenological school of geographical research from a particular
perspective, where places are seen as constituting space with centres for
41
C.Renfrew, Review of “Locational Analysis in Human Geography” by P.Haggett, Antiquity, 43:74-5,1969.
42 C. Tilley, op.cit.,p.11.
43 M.Heidegger, ‘Building dwelling thinking’ in M.Heidegger, Basic Writings, (ed. D.Krell),
London: Routledge, 1972.p.332. 44
M.Merleau Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, London: Routledge, 1962.
111
human meaning. There can be no spaces without places where following
forms of space can be identified- somatic space, perpetual space, existential
space and cognitive space. Somatic space takes as its starting point the
upright human body looking out on the world differentiable in terms of
front/back; left/right; vertical/horizontal; top/bottom; within reach/ beyond
reach; within/ beyond hearing; within sight/beyond sight; here/there
polarities as seen in the works of Relph;45
Taun.46
Perpetual space is
grounded in individual perception of distances and directions, natural
objects and cultural creations. It is always relative and qualitative. It is
linked to existential space, which is mobile rather than passive,
experienced and created through life activity. A sacred, symbolic and
mythic space is replete with social meanings wrapped around buildings,
objects and features of the local topography, providing reference points and
planes of emotional orientation for human attachment and involvement.
Architectural space is a deliberate attempt to make tangible, visible and
sensible space creating an inside and outside and makes sense in relation to
pragmatic, perpetual and existential space. It is this space, which is being
analysed and discussed. Cognitive space provides the basis for reflection
with regard to understanding others.
Neolithic populations made little impact on the land and the implied
knowledge of agriculture in however primitive form, domestication of
animals, making pottery- singly or collectively implied that man lived at a
fixed place. No longer a hunter moving from place to place in small
groups, agriculture, was the core element, which led to a settled form of
life. There was no idea of a fixed space as the idea of space was not a
particular place but anywhere. It is a settled form of life, which brings in
the idea of a fixed place or permanent space. The illusion of staying in a
45
E.Relph, Place and Placelessness. London: Pion, 1976. 46
Y.F.Taun, Space and Place. The Perspective of Experience. London: Arnold, 1977.
112
single place forever inducing a profound effect on the way people saw their
presence in the world was a change brought about by the introduction of
agriculture involving little arable cultivation with emphasis on animal
husbandry. Existence became fused with place. Neolithic mortuary rituals
however left nothing in the way of archaeologically identifiable
monuments. The dead were buried within the settlement very often right in
the houses or courtyard or just in the periphery of the house.
In the Neolithic ancestral connections between living populations
and the past were embodied in being in the landscape and made relatively
little impact on the land but in the megalithic the relationship between
populations and the landscape took a different form. Through the
construction of monuments ancestral powers became double where through
the medium of architectural morphology, natural landscapes in which these
structures are found reflect transformations in the land. Architectural space
is made visible, tangible and sensible. Ancestral powers were being
projected and were always in a way being visibly brought into human
consciousness. It was a means of making permanent, fixing and anchoring
to perceive the connection between people and land for the first time.
During the Neolithic small and unstructured groups moved through the
landscape. A dramatic change is visible where permanent structures and
forms of monuments altered day-to-day rhythms of social life as they now
became bound up with permanent place- bound dwellings rather than
seasonal movement across wide tracts of land.
The building of monuments also imposes itself on human
consciousness in three ways47
. It creates an entirely new sense of place-
enhancing the significance of particular locations. Places then enter the
47
R. Bradley, Altering the Earth, The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Edinburgh Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 1993.
113
consciousness of people who live and work around them until the
landscape as a whole is changed. Their extraordinary longevity brings in
another kind of consciousness distinctive, related to monuments. A
sense of time is inculcated involving subtle perceptions of place,
creations and the use of these structures, something, which never gets
reversed. More sedentary ways of life come into play as these
monuments and places worked together in directing and stimulating the
experiences of prehistoric people reflecting the significance of
monuments being created at particular places.
THE CASE OF THE MEGALITHS IN KASARAGOD
The evidences from the explored and excavated megalithic sites in
Kasaragod provide traces of the survival of the Neolithic in the megalithic.
Umichipoyil is being taken up separately in the subsequent two chapters
but the regions in and around Umichipoyil have yielded typical Neolithic
assemblages from the megaliths, which were indicative of a transition from
the Neolithic to the megalithic. The transition was also indicative of
transformations apparent in the landscape through the medium of
architectural morphology. The transition from the Neolithic to the
megalithic saw a new sense of time, place and social identity through the
insertion of monumental constructions in the landscape. Monumental
constructions in relation to the landscape became specific settings allowing
experience of the ancestral past and their relationship to the outside world.
By undertaking a journey to the site ancestral powers could be understood
and the “monuments deployed and captured on ancestral history.”48
The evidence at hand provided by monuments numbering more than
50 are indicative of the significance of particular places, reaffirming
connections between places and the transformations evident in the land
48
C. Tilley, Op.cit., pp. 203-208.
112
single place forever inducing a profound effect on the way people saw their
presence in the world was a change brought about by the introduction of
agriculture involving little arable cultivation with emphasis on animal
husbandry. Existence became fused with place. Neolithic mortuary rituals
however left nothing in the way of archaeologically identifiable
monuments. The dead were buried within the settlement very often right in
the houses or courtyard or just in the periphery of the house.
In the Neolithic ancestral connections between living populations
and the past were embodied in being in the landscape and made relatively
little impact on the land but in the megalithic the relationship between
populations and the landscape took a different form. Through the
construction of monuments ancestral powers became double where through
the medium of architectural morphology, natural landscapes in which these
structures are found reflect transformations in the land. Architectural space
is made visible, tangible and sensible. Ancestral powers were being
projected and were always in a way being visibly brought into human
consciousness. It was a means of making permanent, fixing and anchoring
to perceive the connection between people and land for the first time.
During the Neolithic small and unstructured groups moved through the
landscape. A dramatic change is visible where permanent structures and
forms of monuments altered day-to-day rhythms of social life as they now
became bound up with permanent place- bound dwellings rather than
seasonal movement across wide tracts of land.
The building of monuments also imposes itself on human
consciousness in three ways47
. It creates an entirely new sense of place-
enhancing the significance of particular locations. Places then enter the
47
R. Bradley, Altering the Earth, The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Edinburgh Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 1993.
113
consciousness of people who live and work around them until the
landscape as a whole is changed. Their extraordinary longevity brings in
another kind of consciousness distinctive, related to monuments. A
sense of time is inculcated involving subtle perceptions of place,
creations and the use of these structures, something, which never gets
reversed. More sedentary ways of life come into play as these
monuments and places worked together in directing and stimulating the
experiences of prehistoric people reflecting the significance of
monuments being created at particular places.
THE CASE OF THE MEGALITHS IN KASARAGOD
The evidences from the explored and excavated megalithic sites in
Kasaragod provide traces of the survival of the Neolithic in the megalithic.
Umichipoyil is being taken up separately in the subsequent two chapters
but the regions in and around Umichipoyil have yielded typical Neolithic
assemblages from the megaliths, which were indicative of a transition from
the Neolithic to the megalithic. The transition was also indicative of
transformations apparent in the landscape through the medium of
architectural morphology. The transition from the Neolithic to the
megalithic saw a new sense of time, place and social identity through the
insertion of monumental constructions in the landscape. Monumental
constructions in relation to the landscape became specific settings allowing
experience of the ancestral past and their relationship to the outside world.
By undertaking a journey to the site ancestral powers could be understood
and the “monuments deployed and captured on ancestral history.”48
The evidence at hand provided by monuments numbering more than
50 are indicative of the significance of particular places, reaffirming
connections between places and the transformations evident in the land
48
C. Tilley, Op.cit., pp. 203-208.
114
which bears survivals of the Neolithic. However no traces of a Neolithic
place being transformed into a megalithic space is evident as seen in the
neighbouring regions of Karnataka where the most intriguing element in
the Neolithic of the Southern Deccan is the ashmounds. Several sites have
evidences for cattle dung accumulated and heaped up that were
episodically burnt.49
There are sites in South Karnataka, where ash mounds
are lacking and sites occur on riverbanks. These could represent a separate
cultural tradition where ash mounds associated with ritual activities were
absent. It is quite possible but difficult to conclusively say unless extensive
settlement studies are carried out that the ashmound tradition did not exist
in Kerala. There is also an absence of rock art sites, which again can only
be conclusively proved after exhaustive studies in the region.
Transformations are evident in the monumental constructions, which was
in a way establishing ancestral powers in the landscape through monument
building, enhancing its symbolic potency and power. Without places there
can be no spaces. From places come spaces and here architectural space is
seen as creating and bounding space, an inside and outside. These
monuments and their construction in relation to the landscape can be seen
in terms of commonly occurring components, internal and external
components in relation to dominant features in the surrounding landscape-
rivers, rock outcrops, oriented capstones, intervisibility and linear
alignments.
Looking at the evidence at hand provided by the burial monuments
in more than 25 sites show that while the architectural morphology
emphasises difference, their location in relation to topographic features of
the landscape seem to be highly structured and repetitive. The relationship
49
Ravi Korisettar, P.C.Venkatasubbaiah and Doran Q.Fuller “Brahmagiri and Beyond: The
Archaeology of the Southern Neolithic” in Prehistory Archaeology of South Asia S.Settar and
Ravi Korisettar {Ed], Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Vol I, ICHR, 2002.
115
to a water source especially a small stream is evident at all the sites and in
majority of the cases the monuments look towards the stream which is
never more than a km away (as indicated earlier in fig.3.6). While in some
cases standing by the monument it was possible to see the stream in most
cases it is invisible highlighting landscape features, which were important.
The monuments might have been located to be intervisible with each other.
Despite the closeness of the location, intervisibility is restricted in one or
two directions with the land rising up immediately beyond which maybe in
the midpoint of a slope with the rock out crops or the land surface rising
above it. Standing near the monument (Fig.3.38) one could see the hills in
all four cardinal directions each of them again having similar monuments
where the emphasis was not on maximum visibility of the monument but
rather meant to be seen or approached from various directions.
Another notable feature is the area (Fig.3.39) surrounding these
structures, which in most cases is a plain ground, a barren rocky stony
waste sheet rock area with very little scrub or no scrub overlooking green
paddy fields below. (Fig.3.40). The monuments were chosen in close
relation to these. Here the rock out crops helps make the monuments
visible and invisible. Built of the same rock outcrop these monuments are
only visible when one actually is very close to it. It is not the monuments,
which are visible, but the natural outcrops, which are prominent features of
the landscape, which help to locate these monuments in space. The
dominant focal points are these outcrops keying the monuments into the
landscape at a distance indicating where to look for or expect to find a
monument both marking out the monument location and hiding them from
the eye. They were deliberately chosen to be located at places on
undulating terrain close to streams with extensive views across hills and
paddy fields where other megalithic sites are found. While within big
clusters one centrally located monument is surrounded by a small cluster
114
which bears survivals of the Neolithic. However no traces of a Neolithic
place being transformed into a megalithic space is evident as seen in the
neighbouring regions of Karnataka where the most intriguing element in
the Neolithic of the Southern Deccan is the ashmounds. Several sites have
evidences for cattle dung accumulated and heaped up that were
episodically burnt.49
There are sites in South Karnataka, where ash mounds
are lacking and sites occur on riverbanks. These could represent a separate
cultural tradition where ash mounds associated with ritual activities were
absent. It is quite possible but difficult to conclusively say unless extensive
settlement studies are carried out that the ashmound tradition did not exist
in Kerala. There is also an absence of rock art sites, which again can only
be conclusively proved after exhaustive studies in the region.
Transformations are evident in the monumental constructions, which was
in a way establishing ancestral powers in the landscape through monument
building, enhancing its symbolic potency and power. Without places there
can be no spaces. From places come spaces and here architectural space is
seen as creating and bounding space, an inside and outside. These
monuments and their construction in relation to the landscape can be seen
in terms of commonly occurring components, internal and external
components in relation to dominant features in the surrounding landscape-
rivers, rock outcrops, oriented capstones, intervisibility and linear
alignments.
Looking at the evidence at hand provided by the burial monuments
in more than 25 sites show that while the architectural morphology
emphasises difference, their location in relation to topographic features of
the landscape seem to be highly structured and repetitive. The relationship
49
Ravi Korisettar, P.C.Venkatasubbaiah and Doran Q.Fuller “Brahmagiri and Beyond: The
Archaeology of the Southern Neolithic” in Prehistory Archaeology of South Asia S.Settar and
Ravi Korisettar {Ed], Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Vol I, ICHR, 2002.
115
to a water source especially a small stream is evident at all the sites and in
majority of the cases the monuments look towards the stream which is
never more than a km away (as indicated earlier in fig.3.6). While in some
cases standing by the monument it was possible to see the stream in most
cases it is invisible highlighting landscape features, which were important.
The monuments might have been located to be intervisible with each other.
Despite the closeness of the location, intervisibility is restricted in one or
two directions with the land rising up immediately beyond which maybe in
the midpoint of a slope with the rock out crops or the land surface rising
above it. Standing near the monument (Fig.3.38) one could see the hills in
all four cardinal directions each of them again having similar monuments
where the emphasis was not on maximum visibility of the monument but
rather meant to be seen or approached from various directions.
Another notable feature is the area (Fig.3.39) surrounding these
structures, which in most cases is a plain ground, a barren rocky stony
waste sheet rock area with very little scrub or no scrub overlooking green
paddy fields below. (Fig.3.40). The monuments were chosen in close
relation to these. Here the rock out crops helps make the monuments
visible and invisible. Built of the same rock outcrop these monuments are
only visible when one actually is very close to it. It is not the monuments,
which are visible, but the natural outcrops, which are prominent features of
the landscape, which help to locate these monuments in space. The
dominant focal points are these outcrops keying the monuments into the
landscape at a distance indicating where to look for or expect to find a
monument both marking out the monument location and hiding them from
the eye. They were deliberately chosen to be located at places on
undulating terrain close to streams with extensive views across hills and
paddy fields where other megalithic sites are found. While within big
clusters one centrally located monument is surrounded by a small cluster
116
with one isolated monument away as seen in both Umichipoyil and
Varikulam, in other places they seem to occur in pairs or in small clusters
of three and all occur on opposite sides of major rivers.
ORIENTATION AND DIRECTIONAL SETTINGS
The Kotakkal (as described earlier in fig.3.25a) display great regularity
and are linearly aligned all the eight at Varikulam including the first nearest
neighbour at Periyatadakkam being represented between two poles North
South and East West. They were not placed at random but based on principles
of precise directional setting. They display great regularity in their spacing
related to landscape components. This is true of the rock cut caves where the
porthole a common component together with the entrance to the cave
emphasised their orientation in all four cardinal directions towards the sun.
Their orientation, linear alignments, entrances, passages and chambers was in
a sense freezing perspective through the architectural lens of the monuments
themselves establishing control over “topographic perspective and
individual’s possibilities for interpreting the world.”50
The transformation evident in the land through these burial
structures which bears survivals of the Neolithic was indicative of the
significance of reaffirming connections between places and the land
establishing ancestral powers in the landscape through monument building,
enhancing its symbolic power and potency. Umichipoyil an explored and
excavated site that bears survivals of the Neolithic reflects a refashioned
landscape through the imposition of the constructed monument. The next
two chapters embody the empirical reality from Umichipoyil.
50
C.Tilley, Op.cit.,p.72.